A place to share our love of all things with two wheels and pedals. This is an inclusive, non-judgemental community. All types of cyclists are accepted here; whether you're a commuter, a roadie, a MTB enthusiast, a fixie freak, a crusty xbiking hoarder, in the middle of an epic across-the-world bicycle tour, or any other type of cyclist!
Community Rules
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
No porn.
No ads / spamming.
Ride bikes
Other cycling-related communities
I’m surprised there’s no pushback here about this. Cars are by far the most dangerous vehicles on the road, far more so that e-bikes. As such, anything that makes it harder for people to use alternatives is going to make our roads less safe.
Once we’ve solved the car problem, I would support this, but we’re comically far from that in California.
theres a push for e-bike registration, insurance and liscensing where I live, but theres an important distinction between e-assist bicycles and this other type that you dont even pedal and can do 35-40kmph. e-assist wont need to be registered etc, where as these borderline electric motorcycles will
I agree with that but the article made no such distinction. If it’s a blanket law I will oppose it. Most e-bikes aren’t really much more dangerous than ordinary bicycles.
agreed- not to others anyway. I have a regular road bike and an e-assist and the sheer speed of the e-assist makes it waaaay scarier than my cannondale hybrid. I wear a helmet when I'm riding my e-bike and typically dont bother when I'm on the normal bicycle. the damage I could do by t-boning a car on either one is about the same (maybe a scratch of the paint and a dent in a panel)
You should wear a helmet in both cases... Flipping over at 10mph can splatter your noggin too
Depends on what kind of bike is in question. There's a difference between pedal assisted ebikes and electric motorbikes. I feel like it's more than appropriate to require a licence and insurance for a bike that goes over 20mph and doesn't need pedaling.
So I've been riding both for over a decade. And this kind of cracks me up for several reasons. 1. I can in fact travel faster on my road bike then my electric bike. The components add more weight. 2. There is already a law limiting the top speed of the assist system to 20/25 mph. So to think you have these cruising at 40mph is crazy. And for reference, I have hit this speed and it's terrifying on most bikes. 3. Studies have shown that imposing restrictions like this simple decrease participation which in turn adds to sedimentary behavior which is a lot worse for you in the end. 4. This reminds me of the same nonsense as a representative that tried to create a seat belt law for motorcycles...
All good information.
I laughed at
sedimentary behavior
I too try not to settle down at the bottom of lakes and rivers...
That sir, is a fair critique. Sedentary :(
We need a metamorphic society.
Gneiss points overall.
The state identification requirement is going to be abused as fuck by the police.
In the EU you don't need a license as long as the assistance shuts off when you go faster than 25 km/h, you can still pedal faster than that of course but it'll be without the motor assistance. If you need a license even for bikes like that then it seems a bit silly
30 km/hr in Canada. Which I think they copied from California.
20mph (~30km/h) in my state, 28mph (~45km/h) if it has a speedometer. If it assists above that, you need it to be registered (license plate) and have a motorcycle license.
I think that's fair. That basically restricts you to driving on side streets with cars, or on the side of the road on higher speed roads. Most shops only sell the 20mph bikes, so it's really a non-issue.
The trouble is that they are very easy to hack and and just remove that safety figure. In the UK non-assist ebikes must be registered and a motorbike license is required. I would say over 50% of the ebikes I see are illegal, along with all the illegal scooters. I can derestrict my ebike in a matter of seconds because it's just a setting in the app.
If I gotta pay for license and registration, I expect those funds to be put towards bike infrastructure.
I feel like this would be better handled in PE class. Just teach kids to ride bikes and the laws surrounding bikes on the road.
I think there are some really good points made here against it. I also am leaning toward that opinion. I would like to see something done though. Perhaps if you do not have a license, you can apply for a special license specifically for the e-bike. With the class/written test focused very heavily on saftey.
I see so many kids on these, no helmets, not even pausing at stop signs, zooming behind all the parked cars that could start reversing before they even see or hear them (because electric). I know when I was younger and did not have a license I had a much less innate understanding of the different dangers of cars as a pedestrian. Simple things that seem obvious now, like always pay attention in parking lots, hesitate if you see a car with break lights on, make eye contact with a right-turn driver before crossing the street .. etc. I'd support this type of thing was a big focus of the test. A little basic road rules so that they aren't behaving "unpredictability " to cars.
Most importantly I want helmets actually being enforced. Normalized.
A little basic road rules so that they aren’t behaving "unpredictability " to cars.
The moment you start adding these rules for "safety", the quicker car drivers will find themselves exempt of guilt if they get involved in an accident that could be avoided if the driver was paying more attention.
Most importantly I want helmets actually being enforced. Normalized.
Take a look at the Netherlands, see how many people use helmets.
The more barriers you require from people to use a particular mode of transportation, the less people will use it. We need to increase the amount of requirements to drive cars, less from cyclists. "Enforcing helmets" is counterproductive.
I mean, we do in Australia - though to be fair, I've seen more of a drop off in use after the rental scooters came to town; but almost everyone I see on their own bike is wearing a helmet.
Guess we have to protect ourselves in the face of such little bike infrastructure
That's because of the model. Bike sharing is spontaneous, unplanned. People who are planning on riding a bike will bring their own bike and helmet.
But to require a helmet to use a bike rental service means planning ahead and bringing a helmet. If a person was planning ahead they would use their own bike.
Helmets, bells, hand signals are BS attempts at making cycling safe. It blames the victims in the event of an accident. If you get badly injured by an SUV it's because you didn't have a helmet and didn't tell the driver you were stopping. It's not their fault
I guess enforcing helmets and a saftey course is counter productive if you value the increase of people using bikes. I understand, this is something you're passionate about and it's better for the environment and overall health of the community.
What I value more is not having children with lifelong brain damage. Adults can go ahead and make their own bad decisions. I don't agree that accessibility should be prioritized over saftey of children that have no road experience and underdeveloped risk assessment.
I value more is not having children with lifelong brain damage
First, you were talking about enforcing helmets as something that should apply to everyone, now you are talking about kids. Meaning, you just moved the goal posts.
Second, and to go back to the point, if you are concerned about children's safety we need to have (a) proper bicycling infrastructure and (b) less and smaller cars. In the US, I'd venture there are more kids dying because they are being run over by those ridiculous trucks than because of bike accidents.
Third, at least here in Germany the law is quite simple: kids until age 12 must ride on the sidewalk. That basically (a) forces them to go slow due to pedestrians and (b) avoids the whole issue of having to deal with traffic. Helmets are not mandatory, but absolutely normal.
This is a great idea. I live in a small town in California and there are always tweens going 40 miles per hour on their ebikes, usually with no protective gear and at least one passenger. They're a menace both to pedestrians and to themselves.
These kind of bastards is what gives us fellow ebike enjoyers a bad rep. Now I'm not saying "we aren't all like that", however, isn't it the whole point? Like I mean there are enough of these menaces to warrant some sort of prohibition. But then isn't it also a kind of diversion from the main topic of corrupt city planning and availability of proper bike lanes? I mean sure go ahead and blame it on the end user, not the provider.
In the UK, in the cities, most of the ebikes I see are illegal and are ridden by said bastards. I would happily get a licence for an ebike to reduce the number of dickheads giving me a bad name. I would prefer that the bikes have to be registered with a government ID so that the owner can be traced and that there are repercussions for breaking the law.
I’m fine with ebike enjoyers. Just like car enjoyers, though, they have a certain degree of danger which could (and should) be mitigated with licensure. I don’t see the downside to ensuring competence on what ultimately are dangerous vehicles.
Just last week we had a teenager flying down the sidewalk on one of these. He lost control, wiped out and was fucked up. Last I heard, his prognosis wasn't great. I'd be ok with a license of some sort.
I'm interested to understand how you this a license would.habe prevented this incident? I'm not criticizing you at all, I just think nothing would have been different in that scenario - fast and furious wanna best wrap themselves around telegraph poles all the time and the mostly all had licenses.
It was a kid driving with zero experience whatsoever. I don't know if he got the e-bike version of the death wobbles or what, but if he'd been required to at least take classes and get his license, he might have been able to save himself. Not to mention he was a kid and too fucking young to be driving one of those things as far as I'm concerned. I'd hope a license would have an age limit.
License would've helped them know the rules of the road.
I'm from India, we don't have that many ebikes but we do have a ton of teo-wheeler options. All of them need license and some insurance that covers liability etc.
The place where I lived in India also had mandatory helmet law as well, which were all enforced by the traffic police.
Doubt it, 80% of drivers in my city can't even bother to use a turn signal. Laws don't always lead to people following them.
Pedestrians also take to the streets without having been tested or licensed for traveling on them. Should we license pedestrians too?
It's pretty logical when you consider them to be motorized vehicles - which they are. Basically the same as motor scooters (mopeds).
A basic knowledge of motorized vehicle use and plates road laws should be the bare minimum...
But they're not.
Most scooters can go 35+ mph, usually 45+, and they're not allowed on multi-use paths, sidewalks, or anywhere cars aren't allowed to go. There's also no way to pedal most of them.
Ebikes, on the other hand, can only go 20mph, 28mph if it has a speedometer, they are allowed on multi-use paths, and they are banned from many highways. Further, they generally have a very limited range, like 10-20 miles if you don't pedal at all.
I see absolutely no reason to treat them like cars. We should instead see the increased demand for ebikes as a good time to invest in cycling infrastructure. That means more multi-purpose paths, bicycle lanes, and bicycle parking at popular destinations. In other words, encourage safe adoption of bicycles instead of normalizing bicycle/car interaction. Ideally, bicycles are kept separate from cars as much as possible, and that would be reflected in the laws.
A 10 mph is trivial as far as rider safety in traffic, especially on public streets, where both are applicable.
So no, not like cars, like slightly slower more vehicles. As long as it's being pedaled, it's a motor vehicle in-use, subject to the same speed limits and safety gear requirements as a motorcycle/scooter.
Normalizing interaction is fine, encouraged even. But it has to be within a framework of traffic laws that can be enforced. And 10-20 miles is irrelevant to rider safety since most traffic accidents are within a mile of home in/on a motorized vehicle.
Traffic laws don't exist to protect the driver, they exist to protect other roads users from the driver. For example, helmets are optional in my area for bicyclists and motorcyclists alike, though they're both really good ideas. The main one that stands out is the seatbelt law, but pretty much every other driving law exists to protect other road users.
The potential impact of me riding a bicycle unsafely on other road users is extremely minimal. If I hit a car, I'm unlikely to do much more than dent a panel or crack a window. If I hit a pedestrian, they'll certainly be injured, but the risk of serious injury or death is extremely low. So it makes a ton of sense for riding a bicycle to be governed by laws, but it doesn't make sense to subject everyone to obtaining proof of knowledge about how to ride a bicycle safely. The risk to other road users just isn't high enough to warrant such a burden on the public.
And traffic laws absolutely do apply. I can be ticketed for riding too fast, taking up too much of the road, not having proper safety equipment, or failing to signal a lane change/turn. We also have age restrictions (16yo or older to operate a class 3 ebike, 14yo to operate any ebike without parental supervision, 8yo to operate ebike with supervision). But I am not required to pass a safety knowledge test or carry a driving license. Why? Because a bicycle just isn't a realistic danger to other road users, and most bicyclists avoid interaction with other road users most of the time anyway.
10-20 miles is irrelevant
My point here is that it's not a realistic transportation option for most people, so car/bicycle interaction is pretty rare. Most people ride bicycles on separate bike paths at parks, or on low speed, residential roads where road users should be expecting pedestrians anyway. Bicycles do occasionally share the road with cars, but usually in places where appropriate infrastructure exists (bike lanes, signage, etc).
So motor vehicle traffic just doesn't interact much with bicycle/ebike traffic, and when they do, it's in an area where they would expect pedestrian traffic anyway, such as in the downtown part of a city, residential areas, or parks.
If people were regularly traveling long distances, I could see a need for more formalized training since they'd interact with motor vehicles far more often. But most of the time when that happens, it's because appropriate cycling infrastructure exists (e.g. a separate path that joins larger cities).
So no, I don't see a point in requiring a driving license to ride a bike. That's just ridiculous and would only serve to discourage bike use. The only requirement I could reasonably understand is carrying proper identification to assist in writing tickets (not required in my area, but you are required to provide an accurate name, address, and age to officers), but only if officers write tickets so frequently that it becomes an issue. I usually carry mine anyway because if I'm riding long distances, I'll want my wallet, which has my state issued identification (in my case, a driving license).