What is a moped?

A question for those that know(JP?).

I have seen a number of definitions of what a modern moped is but haven't
found the law wording. The direct.gov.uk site uses a definition I've seen on
a number of official sites and is thus:

A moped is a motorcycle that has the following features:

a.. maximum design speed not exceeding 50 kilometres per hour (km/h)
(about 31 miles per hour (mph)
b.. an engine capacity no greater than 50 cc
c.. it can be moved by pedals, if the moped was first used before 1
September 1977
Is this really true or is there more to it? If it is true it would suggest a
de-restricted moped is *still* a moped because it has a "design speed not
exceeding 50km/h" (the fact that it can now do more clearly does not affect
what it was designed to do).

Comments from those that know please (with references if possible) rather
than all the usual opinions that have bugger all to do with the facts.

 

When I did my CBT, there were three moped riders and myself (on a 125).
Before going out on the road, the instructor asked them how fast they
could go - they all said 35-45 mph. The one I was paired with, on an old
two stroke, manual, trailie style 50cc bike certainly managed 45 mph but
it was very wheezy getting up a big hill. It didn't look like it had any
aftermarket accessories to increase power (though it might have lost a
bit of weight - due to bits falling off).

 

Most mopeds do more than 30mph. Frankly it is recklessly dangerous to
venture onto the road on a bike that can only do 30mph and I can see why so
many people de-restrict them. However, this doesn't answer the question!

 

No, it's the thing on the end of a map 'andle.

 

o

Just as I hit send, as always.

 

Nope, sorry, it doesn't. But as the instructor was happy to do the CBT
and give the moped CBT certificates to those on bikes that can go 45
mph, it does suggest that indeed there is "more to it".

 

Unfortunately I think the 'more to it' in this case is simply common sense
rather than any issue of law.

 

It suggests to me that the instructor was bending the rules a tad.

 

It's probably rubbish, but I always assumed a moped had to have the
engine as part of its unsprung weight. Or maybe that's just a scooter.
Or maybe its neither. Wibble.

Oops. Sorry!

 

It's common, indeed normal, among scooters, yes, but hardly a defining
factor. Most 'real' mopeds have frame-mounted engines.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

In uk.rec.motorcycles, Andrew998 amazed us all with this pearl of
wisdom:

It's like a fat burd, innit.

 

I think I've found it and it is indeed the definition I've given above.

ref:

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and The Road
Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 (C&U and RVLR) Section 3.1.

Moped - a motorcycle weighing less than 250kg and with a maximum design
speed not greater than 30mph. If the engine is an internal combustion engine
its capacity must not exceed 50cm3. Propelling pedals are not required.

I wonder if this would allow for a defence if a 16 year old was prosecuted
for riding a motorbike.

 

What makes a scooter a scooter then? Just the step-through frame?

 

Well I don't think there's a legal definition, but I guess the running
board allowing your feet to sit together is pretty much the universal
common denominator.

That, and the fact that they're all shite, of course.
--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

What I find confusing is that this:-

http://www.uk.gilera.com/_vti_g2_ve...ountry=GB&language=EN&mod=VGP-DNA&vers=DNAKAT

Is referred to by Gilera as a scooter rather than a bike, but the only
things I can see that would make it not a bike is the fact that the
engine is unsprung, and they're usually ridden by 16yo chavs.

Aye, true enough.

 

If a Honda C50 counts, then yes, otherwise no. A mate had a C50 at
school and we used to ride it round the gravel carpark of the local
leisure centre, and build ramps and stuff. Great laugh, it was.

 

That's about it, yes. The good old sports 'peds (Fizzies[1], AP50s[2],
et al) could do 50mph or so, but they were actually equipped with pedals
which locked into postion as footrests.

After 1 September 1977, the rstricted moped law came into force and has
been effectively unchanged since.

This means that if you have a pre-1/9/77 bike that has fixed footrests
(like a Suzuki A50), it's classified as a motorcycle, not a moped.

If you take the pedals off the pre-1/9/77 bike and replace them with
footpegs, it becomes a motorcycle, although in actual fact, I can't see
anybody prosecuting!

Tuning a post-1/9/77 moped to do more than about 35mph is illegal - it
turns it into a motorcycle, although - again - I can't see many people
getting nicked. It's like tuned 125s.


[1] Purple ones were faster
[2] Red, it was......

 

message
Snip history

I know all the history thanks.

But this is my point. The way the reg is worded seems to suggest that it
isn't illegal to tune them to do more than 30mph. The wording is 'with a
maximum design speed not greater than 30mph.'. Even if it is tuned to do
more the fact remains that its design speed is 30mph. This is poorly worded
legislation and our legsslative systems works on what the law says rather
than what was intended.

 

No, it's not that it's poorly worded, it's your interpretation.
Nothing about it says 'design speed at manufacture' or similar.
Clearly if you've tuned it, it's with a design of more than 30kph in
mind, so the 'design speed' is no longer what it was.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

*Ding*