Difference between mopeds and motorcycles under 50cc?

[Nathan_A_RF]

Noticed recently on some restriction signs that "no mopeds" is included sometimes and sometimes not, in addition to "no motorcycles under 50 cc". Aren't mopeds covered under the definition of motorcycles under 50 cc or is there something that means they are different and thus included on some of these restriction signs? The examples with both are in Scotland and Wales whereas the others are all in England; maybe that has something to do with it?

Examples of with:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.28925 ... ?entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.98871 ... ?entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.97839 ... ?entry=ttu

Examples without:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.10650 ... ?entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.10522 ... ?entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33314 ... ?entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.37803 ... ?entry=ttu

This one possibly covers both at least, as it just says "no vehicles under 50 cc":
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.33409 ... ?entry=ttu

[KeithW]

Legally a moped is a motorcycle with pedals for auxiliary use AND is limited to 28 mph. Its quite common but illegal to remove the speed limiter. They are allowed to be used from the age of 16 and may also be used by riders with only a car license and there is no requirement to have taken the CBT training.

When I got my first bike in 1968 you could ride it with just a provisional license , there was no compulsory basic training but as I recall you were limited to 250 cc . That made sense when bikes like a BSA Bantam would be flat out at around 55 mph but by then a Honda 250 was capable of cruising at over 70 mph. As I recall there was no requirement to wear a crash helmet but I always did. If you had a sidecar then that the bike could have a much larger engine which was nuts as they were harder to ride. As I recall the only legal requirements were L plates and insurance. Mind you the test was pretty basic then. I had to ride around the block a couple of times with the instructor watching and when signalled by him/her do an emergency stop without going over the handlebars or falling off !

[ellandback]

I don't know if this is the intention, but if as Keith suggests (I wouldn't know) mopeds are regarded in this context as a subset of "motorcycles", then reading the words as written on the signs, the first set of examples appear to prohibit ALL mopeds (including mopeds over 50cc if such a thing exists, I wouldn't know that either!), whereas the others only prohibit them if they are under 50cc.

[solocle]

Noticed recently on some restriction signs that "no mopeds" is included sometimes and sometimes not, in addition to "no motorcycles under 50 cc". Aren't mopeds covered under the definition of motorcycles under 50 cc or is there something that means they are different and thus included on some of these restriction signs? The examples with both are in Scotland and Wales whereas the others are all in England; maybe that has something to do with it?

Examples of with:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.28925 ... ?entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.98871 ... ?entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.97839 ... ?entry=ttu

Examples without:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.10650 ... ?entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.10522 ... ?entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.33314 ... ?entry=ttu
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.37803 ... ?entry=ttu

This one possibly covers both at least, as it just says "no vehicles under 50 cc":
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.33409 ... ?entry=ttu

Here's a permissive one:

[FosseWay]

^^ Motorcyclists under 50 cc? Are we talking Borrowers here or what?

[nowster]

^^ Motorcyclists under 50 cc? Are we talking Borrowers here or what?

At least you could have them in hand luggage.

[Vierwielen]

Legally a moped is a motorcycle with pedals for auxiliary use AND is limited to 28 mph. Its quite common but illegal to remove the speed limiter. They are allowed to be used from the age of 16 and may also be used by riders with only a car license and there is no requirement to have taken the CBT training.

This sounds like an EU harmonisation regulation. The first time that I went to the Netherlands (1972) (sorry second time - the first time was when I was 2 months old), I noticed that a number of bicycles (see here) had a motor mounted on the rear carrier. My uncle explained that legally they were "bicycles with an auxillary motor" and did not require a licence. The full current definition as be found in Wikipedia.

[FosseWay]

Yes, what Keith describes sounds like what are informally referred to as "EU mopeds" in Sweden. They are limited to 45 km/h, which I guess is the same as the 28 mph Keith quotes.

What isn't harmonised, however, is what you're allowed to do with such mopeds. The UK, very sensibly IMO, treats them as motor vehicles, on account of their having an engine. This means they can't use cycle paths unless signage explicitly says they can, as in solocle's example above. In Sweden, they're allowed on cycle paths and they are a menace. For a start, they stink and make a racket, two features of cycling on the road that it's nice to get away from on dedicated cycle paths. But also, while some cyclists will reach or exceed 45 km/h some of the time in certain specific places, mopeds tend to be driven flat out at the limiter and everyone else can go hang.

You don't seem to get studded tyres for them though, which means in the last couple of weeks they've magically vanished