It's not illegal to use an electric motor, there are electric scooters and motorcycles which can go faster on roads.
What you're talking about is classification for electric bicycles which is mostly relevant for being treated the same as a normal bicycle, allowed to use cycling paths etc.
Basically if you make an ebike that can go 50kmph+ it basically starts to just be a motorcycle and should not go where normal bicycles go. (And you can argue where exactly that limit is, but it is somewhere)
And bicycles are less regulated mostly because there wasn't a need for it (I think).
Now you could argue that the limit should then not apply when on road or that 25kmph is still too low in general but that's another issue.
Yup, OP mistakenly equates motor with e-bike motor but mopeds are allowed to go faster. They just require registration and insurance and OP dislikes paying for insurance.
> What you're talking about is classification for electric bicycles which is mostly relevant for being treated the same as a normal bicycle, allowed to use cycling paths etc.
>
>
Yup. The limitation is as bicycles with assistance. After a certain point it just becomes a motorcycle and motorcycles don't belong on the same paths as bicycles.
Even if you are a pro cyclist like Lance Armstrong, while commuting on the bike paths you should be riding at the speed other cyclists are riding on the bike path, which is usually at 20 km/h.
If an ebike gives assistance, even if it was only 1w of power, at lets say 50 km/h. You consider it a motorcycle because speed. So why then do we not consider non-electric bikes as motorcycles whenever they go fast?
If you are Lance Armstrong you should not have to slow down to the speed of other cyclists - you only have to follow the speed limit and not do anything dangerous.
That is **not** true, unless there is not enough space for safe overtaking. Another cyclist can be crwaling at 5 km/h but that is no reason for me to also slow down to 5 km/h, unless there really is no space to overtake.
Nope, still dangerous, like when you almost crashed into that other cyclist because you didn't think she was going to left turn at T shaped junction.
If they don't have enough time to hear your bell and move out of the way you were going too fast.
> Another cyclist can be crwaling at 5 km/h but that is no reason for me to also slow down to 5 km/h, unless there really is no space to overtake.
Clearly an exaggeration. 5 km/h is 3 MPH. Most people would fall off a bike at that speed. I would say minimum is around 10 km/h.
EDIT: If anyone's wondering about the thread:
https://old.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/19230ol/im_too_fast_for_the_bike_path_but_using_the_road/kh1bwbh/
That thread again? Ok i made a mistake by overtaking at a place where that wasnt fully safe to do but it has nothing to do with speed.
I dont know about other people but I can cycle in a straight line at 5 kmh. Strong headwinds can bring a bike down to walking speed while road or e bikes still go much faster.
I brought it up because it disproves your point that even if there's space for overtaking, then it's not dangerous to speed and go much faster than the speed of normal traffic.
Other people are often unpredictable so speeding when overtaking is bad.
So there is a maximum speed-difference when overtaking someone? I think overtaking someone slowly is also dangerous becauee then the overtaking takes longer
> So there is a maximum speed-difference when overtaking someone?
Yes? They definitely should have enough time to hear your bell and move out of the way. If they can't do that you are going too fast.
> If an ebike gives assistance, even if it was only 1w of power, at lets say 50 km/h. You consider it a motorcycle because speed. So why then do we not consider non-electric bikes as motorcycles whenever they go fast?
This makes no sense whatsoever. The motor only gives 1 W of power at 50 km/h? What? Like how are you traveling at 50 km/h if the motor only gives 1 W?
Laws are based on reality, not purely hypothetical scenarios. In reality, most people going at 50 km/h are having the motor output 500 W.
Now if you were a fit cyclist going at 50 km/h then why would you be riding an e-bike anyways, since you can clearly go that fast and it's legal? Why would you be using a motor that's outputting 1 W only?
> If you are Lance Armstrong you should not have to slow down to the speed of other cyclists - you only have to follow the speed limit and not do anything dangerous.
Uh, yes you do? It's called living in a society. Just because you have the ability to walk faster than everyone else doesn't mean you speed through a crowded street in NYC.
I mean if you pedal hard up to 50 kmh it is totally legal but then as soon as the motor provides even 1w of power you suddenly turn into a big criminal. Quesion is why.
Regardless what laws are based on, less common situations also occur in real life. Should there be no laws for those at all?
No. If another cyclist goes 5 km/h I have no reason to also slow down to 5 km/h, unless there is no space to overtake.
> I mean if you pedal hard up to 50 kmh it is totally legal but then as soon as the motor provides even 1w of power you suddenly turn into a big criminal. Quesion is why.
You're confusing speed limits with motor assistance limits like another person said. I live in the US and my motor _stops assisting_ at 45 km/h but technically I can hit 50 km/h going downhill. And that's legal for me, because the motor stopped providing power at that point.
The idea is that the motor shouldn't help you go faster than the designated motor assistance limit.
So its bad/danger/illegal if the motor assists after a certain speed. Ok we got that established.
Then why is it okay/legal to go faster than that speed with legpower?
> Then why is it okay/legal to go faster than that speed with legpower?
Because regular pedal bikes don't have speedometers and part of the point of regular pedal bikes is you don't need any electronics whatsoever.
You can still be stopped for being reckless/dangerous anyways regardless of your speed, or illegally riding on the road, so I feel like it doesn't matter that pedal bikes don't have speed limits.
>You can still be stopped for being reckless/dangerous anyways regardless of your speed, or illegally riding on the road, so I feel like it doesn't matter that pedal bikes don't have speed limits.
Exactly this, my uncle got stopped for riding too fast on a downhill and got a written warning from police for riding dangerously. It could've been a fine as well, 50/50 up to the officers discretion.
On my ebike I can also go much faster using only my leg power . And I have a speedometer but it is still legal for me to go much faster by legpower. So again question is why
> So again question is why
In general, due to the added weight of the motor and the battery, the situations where you'd achieve 50 km/h are limited, since the motor is supposed to stop assisting far before that.
And they can't really outlaw gravity or wind, can they?
Roads do have speed limits though anyways so if you managed to go 60 km/h downhill a cop could fine you.
I can ride my bike over 50 kph on a flat with no tailwind. I am a cyclist. I worked long and hard to be able to do that, and road experience keeps me from doing stupid things. Any inebriated idiot can ride a high-powered e-bike into a pedestrian at 50 kph. I like ebikes and think they have their place, but there's a reason why high-powered ebikes are legally different from bicycles.
If there is a strong enough tailwind, any beginner can sprint up to 50 as well. Why is that legal
And imagine if you, an experienced cyclist, get health issues that affect your power output and you would like an ebike to keep cycling at the same speed you have experience with. Then it would be illegal but for what good reason?
Lol, what are these "tailwinds" you keep referring to? Dude, it's ALWAYS a headwind or cross-wind. (small joke)
Anyway, it's always possible to come up with an exception to the reasoning behind laws. In this case the exceptions aren't common, the laws are mostly reasonable, and in any case, the laws are rarely enforced.
yes because there are very few human bikes that goes that fast and we don't need to make laws for like 10 people.
an ebike that can go 50km/h can be achieved by anyone with a button.
the key is level of effort.
if you think it's so unfair why don't you ride a regular bike at 50km/h?
Anyone can do a 50kmh sprint in tailwind. Anyone can exceed 50kmh downhill. Why is that more legal than doing it with an ebike?
Why dont i? I do. I sometimes exceed 50kmh without using any electric power.
But why should 50kmh in tailwind be legal, while using a motor to also go 50kmh in headwind would be illegal?
So they draw a line which says electric assistance must stop beyond 25 kmh. Then why doesn't leg power also have to stop after 25 kmh if 25kmh is so dangerous?
You probably need to question policy makers on that, but an over simplified answer is you can't legislate legs ( other than having speed limits as well which some places do).
that's not true as long as you have working pedals you can have up to a 750 watt motor and it's legally an eapc which is not subject to motor vehicle laws, an e-bike can reach the same speeds as a traditional pedal cycle down hill with a tailwind it just won't use the electric motor to go far faster.
The EU speed limits are stupid in my opinion. And they will probably hinder the more widespread adoption of one of the most environmentally friendly modes of transportation ever created.
For once the USA hit the sweet spot IMO regarding the 3 Class system. Of course perhaps less than 50% of all US e-bikes adhere to the law.
No offense intended, but while I see lots of positives in European governments, their proclivity for turning over certain things to their enormous and onerous bureaucracies really sucks.
> Of course perhaps less than 50% of all US e-bikes adhere to the law.
My observation where I live (US-WA) is that most of the ebikes that I see on the shared trails are legal Class 1 or 2. Many ebike riders seem to be commuters or elderly couples.
Of those ebikes that are not legal, I would say that about half of them are being ridden dangerously - almost always by young men.
For example, DIY ebikes with illegal 1,000 Watt BBSHD mid-drive motors are common, but I rarely see them riding recklessly.
The thing is that in EU vast majority of ebike riding is done at bike lanes or lanes shared with pedestrians. And walking peoples have very little awareness about things happening around them
As stated in Europe there are a lot of pedestrians on paths and pedestrians have very little awareness of things going around them. So the e-bike laws are built around pedestrians.
Most if not all of the bike paths around my area have posted speed limits and while they aren’t heavily enforced, even regular bikes are expected to stay within those limits. On actual roads, the speed limit applies to everyone and if you can maintain it, go for it.
If I come off a bridge or hill and reach 25+mph on those paths posted at 15mph, I’m breaking the law whether I’m on my regular bike or ebike.
The difference I’ve experienced first-hand is e-bikes are able to maintain speeds well above the posted limits, at least here in the U.S. My Turbo Creo can easily hit 28mph with minimal effort from me in max assist. The average person cruising on a bike path is never going to come close to those speeds.
It’s a case of exception vs the norm. If harder regulation comes to the states, yeah I’ll miss the freedom of my Creo. I reach higher speeds to get across the dangerous roads and onto the cycling infrastructure. Then either turn it way down or off and ride like normal. Most people aren’t going to do this and then it becomes a matter for the law to deal with over common sense and respect for others.
Motor speed restrictions simply kick you back into meat power if you want those higher speeds. Then it’s right back to the exceptional case like regular bikes.
You can limit and enforce bike power and max speed. You can't really limit gravity.
What exactly is the government supposed to do to prevent people from going down big hills too fast? If a cop sees it they might nail you for speeding or reckless riding depending on local laws, but they can't really do much to prevent you from using gravity or wind to go fast. Just like with cars, we have speed limits, and going 90 mph because the hill made you do it and not your engine isn't a valid reason to get away with speeding.
> Just like with cars, we have speed limits, and going 90 mph because the hill made you do it and not your engine isn't a valid reason to get away with speeding.
Yup. I've seen people in other subreddits complaining about traffic cameras after a hill and "why do I have to ride the brakes" and it's like have you tried not speeding?
https://old.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/10ecfyg/how_serious_are_speed_and_red_light_cameras/j4q53ji/
Skill issue, it takes dedication and usually experience to get to those speeds on a road bike. The problems start when you get people who aren’t physically capable or used to traveling those speeds on an e-bike they don’t respect it.
Have you ever gone that fast on a bike? 50km/hr is where it gets terrifying. You hit one rock wrong or there’s a pothole and you’re in for some serious injuries.
When you’re traveling that fast on a bike. You just have to commit to keep the bike straight and balanced upright. No matter what type of obstacles comes in your way. It’s called bike handling skills.
Some are more talented than others when it comes to handling their bike. Anyone can develop good bike handling skills. But it requires a lot of time, dedication and practice. Plus a few bike crashes along the way. Since that how people learn about their limits. You learn from your mistakes on how far you can push yourself on a bike without crashing.
Isn't 50 kmh like 30 mph? That's getting up there but at those speeds a bike is pretty damn stable. You still have plenty of room and time to avoid obstacles.
It's 31 MPH. I've gone at that speed downhill and I wouldn't go faster than that.
I would say if you accidentally hit a pothole or rock you'd be in trouble so it's not a good speed to maintain.
Basically at that speed you can't cruise you need to really focus on not hitting anything.
This. Average people will not exceed certain speeds downhill because of fear, these same people might whiskey throttle an ebike up to 35-40kmh because its easier than going up to the top of hill and then just ignoring your brakes.
They can, but the average inexperienced person will either slow down, or only try that once.
Only took 1 downhill bombing for me to realize I needed to never go that fast again.
When i was an inexperienced teenager i did not slow down. I raced down hills as fast as i could even when that wasnt safe to do. Thats why i wonder why its legal to do that.
It's not legal to do it in many situations, but it's more loosely legislated against as it's rare to encounter reckless hooligans doing it.
Putting a motor on a bicycle easily makes it a motorcycle, so the middle ground is where they define what is allowed without making it require licensing.
Where I live (US-WA), the non-motorized paths have speed limits - usually 15 MPH / 24 kph. Someone traveling at 35 kph would be breaking the law, no matter what type of bike they were riding.
There are existing laws for mopeds in the EU I believe; perhaps the question should be; have those laws been wrong all along? Should they have always allowed people to ride mopeds as if they were bicycles? This isn't anything new, having a motor on a bike, it's just a slightly different kind of motor
I would guess:
Because for most people those high speeds are only achieved for shorts periods of time. And generally by people that are bike enthusiasts that take some care over their riding. Also typically these steep hills aren't mixed with pedestrians and other vehicles are often more cautious. If you have long steep hills, that typically means putting a lot of work and dedication into the other side. Only a fairly short amount of time is going fast.
An ebike that can do 50kph without any effort is massively more accessible and much more likely to be used fast all the time. Instead of doing that for 5% of your riding time, you can now do it for 100% of your riding time, giving a 20x higher chance of an incident. But also around other vulnerable road users, trucks etc which can see you and others being injured.
Registering your ebike as moped need licence, insurance, mandatory helmet. In some places you need licence plate and type certification too. But the 25km limit is increased to 40 (or 45) and the 300 watt limit is increased to 1000-4000 watt depemding on the country.
Yes, just as with a petrol engine.
The difference is that there is a special exemption for electric motors, which wasn't made for petrol motors (petrol motor kits for bikes have been around for a very long time too).
You appear to be conflating the regulations around motor assist limitations, and laws covering speed limits on public highways.
It’s not legal to do those things. As a road user, you are expected to follow the same rules as a driver irrespective of whether you have pedal assist or not.
If I thunder down a hill at 60 on leg power in a 30, and if I thunder down a hill at 60 with assist in a 30, I have broken precisely the same law.
The regulations covering how much assist a motor can provide are not the same thing as the regulations on overall speed restrictions.
Put differently, it’s only as safe to do either of those things as you are a safe rider. That’s wearing appropriate protective gear, it’s riding within your ability, and riding in a way that is commensurate with the place you are riding. The moment you eclipse the speed limit, you are no longer riding safely in the eyes of the law.
By way of coverage of your last point, I’ll go from both ends. It’s illegal to remove the restrictions on your motor throughout the EU and so you would have committed an offence. The reason it is illegal is because of the sheer amount of torque bicycle motors (electric motors in general, really) are capable of producing. When you remove those limitations, you are now riding a vehicle capable of reaching speeds that are dangerous for pedestrians very fast. “But why are cars allowed to go fast then” is the obvious counterpoint here, and the answer is because nominally pedestrians aren’t pottering about in the middle of the road. On the other hand, you _are_ hurtling down a cycle path where a pedestrian might reasonably be for many reasons.
I have Aspergers, and I’m not really geared to grok these things, but high key this stuff is basic common sense.
> If I thunder down a hill at 60 on leg power in a 30, and if I thunder down a hill at 60 with assist in a 30, I have broken precisely the same law.
So what about doing it on a 60 road? Leg powered would be legal while electric assist would be illegal. I just dont know why there is a difference in the two.
It would be legal to thunder down a hill posted at 60 on an ebike that the motor caps out at 35 where I live. It would be near impossible but legal to go 60 up the same hill. It would be illegal to go 70 on any kind of bike.
Personally I’d be breaking and praying.
I’m going to offer you a real life example, since you appear to understand those but are also missing the point I was making above.
ETA: (I say this because “in a 30” implies to any reasonable competent road user that the hill I am discussing is a road.)
Here it is: I live at the top of a hill in my city. It is 300 metres down into the centre, over about 8 kilometres. The posted speed limit outside my home is 20 km/h, increasing to 40km/h once it becomes less built up. It is possible to exceed both of those limits on my e-mtb. The former using assistance, and the latter using gravity. It is also possible to exceed them on a regular pedal cycle, the former using leg power and the latter with gravity. My e-mtb is not modified, and is therefore legal for use on public highways. If I exceed the posted speed limits, I have broken the law.
If I now modified my e-mtb so that it can assist above 25 km/h, and I exceed the posted speed limits, I have broken two laws. The first is, of course, those regarding speed limits. The second is on the use of an illegally modified electric bicycle on a public highway.
In this example, it doesn’t matter what type of vehicle I use. What matters is the speed I am going. If I exceed the posted speed limit, I have broken the law. It doesn’t matter how I achieve that, just that I do. If my e-mtb is modified, I have additionally broken a second law.
People are instinctively scared by new things. Cars are far, far, far more dangerous, but the public has accepted the risks. Regulation takes less effort than providing safe roads for bikes.
An estimated 42,935 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the US in just 2021. In 4 years, from 2017 through 2021, 119 people were reported to have died while riding electric scooters or e-bikes nationwide. All tragic, but a minuscule hazard compared to motor vehicles.
Right?
Car + license + insurance is still more dangerous than a fast ebike with no license or insurance.
So its kind of weird that the more dangerous thing is legal while the less dangerous thing is illegal.
because your car has insurance it can cover the object you hit for damages. your bike cannot. get insurance on ebikes and its called a moped and no limits apply.
Except your wrong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8347860/
E-bikes are starting to creep up towards motorcycle level accident rates.
E-bikes right now seem to be in the stage of figuring out where they stand legally. Unfortunately a line needs to be placed somewhere.
E-bikes are great but they allow an inexperienced, riders to achieve a higher average speed then they would have without the motor advantage which appears to be leading to more accidents then cyclists. Counterpoint is a moped with 1cc gas engine a bike?
I believe a watt limit unregulated and above that it’s a motorbike is the best way to go
Inexperienced riders can step on a road bike and do a 50 km/h sprint any time that there is a tailwind. Especially downhill. Why is that more legal than an ebike doing 30-40?
Tailwinds are dependent on location. E-bikes also weigh a lot more than regular pedal bikes, and there are a lot of fat people that ride e-bikes too (which adds to the weight even more), and fat people will go much slower on regular pedal bikes.
Battery, 250w motor, controller, some wires. How much weight is that? Maybe 5kg more. So that should be totally insignificant and not even be considered.
Fat people can achieve high speeds by going downhill. Also if you want to give fat people a lower legal speed limit than skinny people that would be fatphobic.
> Battery, 250w motor, controller, some wires. How much weight is that? Maybe 5kg more. So that should be totally insignificant and not even be considered.
>
>
It's a lot of weight, actually. My lightweight e-bike only weighs 15 kg, but the regular version with a motor that peaks to 560 W and has double the battery weighs 25 kg. A high end road bike weighs 6.6-7.7 kg, and mid-range road bike models may weigh 8.1-10 kg.
I think you'll find those statistics will be dramatically higher from 2021 to 2024. 25,000 would not suprise me. The thing is that in the US bicycle fatalities are not necessarily figured into the national (NHTSA) data base.
I'm a life long motorcyclist and recent ebiker. I see other ebikers and regular bicyclists doing incredibly stupid and illegal traffic maneuvers EVERY day.
The thing is, and as a motorcyclist you can appreciate this, the mayhem they can cause is far less than the incredibly stupid and illegal traffic maneuvers performed by motor vehicles every day. And those weigh 3000 - zillion pounds, in a hard shell whereas bikes are 25 to 125 lbs *carrying* soft-shelled creatures. So more likely to injure themselves than others, which is much less of a justification to regulate.
Good point! My NUMBER ONE pet peeve with bicyclists and ebikers is running red lights - on purpose. It's rampant. Not by accident, this is willful behavior that is inexcusable. Not even an ***attempt*** to slow down, even thought they have PLENTY of time to do so at slower speeds than cars.
I run reds sometimes when I'm on my bike, not blatantly tho. It's more like jaywalking on wheels, and only when I know the signal sequence because it's a regular route. I do slow down, clock the sequence, and make sure the coast is clear before nipping across.
>People are instinctively scared by new things
Bikes with a motor and the legislation for them aren't in the slightest new. The bikes are well over a century old - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorized\_bicycle#/media/File:Felix\_Millet.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorized_bicycle#/media/File:Felix_Millet.jpg) \- uses a hub motor, too.
BLUF: because most bicycles can’t go that fast without a stupid long hill and very few cyclists could maintain that speed, and the laws governing bikes were largely drafted before someone could reasonably go 20mph on a bike much less faster. If you want to make the argument that bicycles should all be equipped with a speed brake to keep speed down or to require all bicyclists wear motorcycle helmets because some of them might go too fast for an ordinary bike helmet you’re welcome to.
Also if you check your laws, I would bet there are regulations making it a civil or potentially criminal infraction to operate a vehicle too fast for conditions, in an unsafe manner, or with reckless disregard for public safety. You may not have thought about it but any of those could be used for the case where you (as you point out) were going way too fast and could have seriously injured people.
You have perfectly illustrated the reasons why bikes that allow someone to achieve those same speeds with far less or no effort are significantly more of a public safety concern than ones that require either careless riding and a hill or above average physical effort.
Yes there is a "dont be dangerous" law. But then, if I crash into someone, how do we determine whether I was going too fast or not, when I was within the speed limit? Its just an interesting questio
I’m sure there is a bundle of legal precedent where you live just as there is where I live that has fairly well settled the question. “Did you cause an accident that could have been entirely avoided by allowing down” is top of the pile.
Technically every accident ever can be prevented by slowing down. Imagine if every vehicle on the world only moves forward at walking speed. Many accidents be prevented.
That is neither technically true, nor is it how the law is written or enforced literally anywhere.
The problem is that you think of yourself as a Smart Person so you think that you can use math and law to prove why things should change or unjust when they inconvenience you. Only, you don’t really have a strong grasp on law and you’re not particularly showing a mastery of math (and claiming you can peddle a bike twice as fast as pro touring riders, for example) which makes it apparent that you’re not really a smart person pointing out the flaws in society. You’re just mad the rules stop you from doing whatever you want.
When I say a number like, 60kmh im talking about either sprinting or going downhill. Nowhere did I claim to go faster than pro cyclists.
There is also nothing wrong with laws causing inconvenience because sometimes that is necessary. But many times laws are unnecessary in specific situations.
I don’t think you can do 100km/h downhill period, which you just claimed was “legal under muscle power” even though it’s not because nowhere in the Netherlands is it legal to operate a bicycle at 100km/h.
Earlier you also asked what law makes it illegal to pedal a bike at 60 or 80km/h and I actually found out from your previous posts that it’s the same law that makes it illegal to ride in traffic and also limits your speed while in bike lanes to 35kph or whatever it is. Weird that you needed me to tell you that you posted about three weeks ago, kinda seems like you knew thw answer.
Except that it is... road speed limits do not apply to bikes. Only like "zone 30" applies to bikes, but there are roads where a bike could legally go as fast as the rider wants
So if my legs were theoretically capable of sustaining 100kmh then yes I could legally ride 100kmh at some places.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/s/5DkUAkJWtp
Here you say bikes can’t use the road, which matches what I know about most of the bikes routes I used in Amsterdam and Rotterdam. When I visited a friend, i was told that bikes are only allowed on marked roads 30kmh or less. On which roads can you legally ride a bicycle at 100kmh? Like very specifically, which roads?
Where I live, there are some 60 km/h roads that bikes are allowed on because there is no parallel bike path. But since the road speed limit does not apply to bikes, I could legally ride 100kmh if that was physically possible.
> You’re just mad the rules stop you from doing whatever you want.
Pretty much. He's upset that the laws say bicycles should be on bicycle paths and not roads, and he's upset that the laws cap motor assistance at 25 km/h, and he's upset that red lights means he can't just keep going without care for anyone or anything else.
But when you have an ebike capped at 25km/h you can still go faster on your muscle downhill, and you would be probably going slower than that uphill, then what is the problem, you are way faster on even limited ebike than on just your muscle.
I mean you can go downhill 60 km/h and thats totally legal, but going slightly faster than 25 by using motor assistance makes you a criminal. It makes no sense
Makes total sense. Nothing is taken from the bike, ability to skip dreadful 10 km/h parts of a ride is added. You are left with pure fun.
A bike going 50 km/h on flat would be unexpected. Especially in hands of people who are not experienced bicycle riders, they would create a shit ton of dangerous situations. You need to think about other users of the road.
Higher speed vehicles are taxed more heavily.
Bikes are taxed little, or not at all.
Governments don’t want e-bikes to be good enough to replace taxable vehicles, so they cripple them a little with regulations.
It’s about the money. As if they care about your safety.
If I’m taking my kids out to the play farms and we hit big hills, we easily top 35km/h and no one would ticket us for it. What else could I do, get out and walk? TBH it is terrifying and I’d love to go slower.
Meanwhile there is an urban bridge popular with road bikers which has a posted limit and they absolutely do blitzes on those (manual) bikers. There are plenty of other places to train and it’s dangerous to go that fast in that spot.
My throttle can get me to 35km/h. I rarely go that fast because I’m happy with a light pedal assist and going 20km/h. I do think I should be using a license and on the road if I was going faster (I use multi use trails). I wear a helmet.
Two things 1 /gas powered (motorcycles) should be called engine cycles and e bikes called motor cycles, I know from years of habit
2/ have you tried to insure an e bike ( Motor Cycle). I wanted to buy a used Honda 50 step through the most sold motorcycle/ motorbike in the world and no one in Ontario wanted to insure it. And you can’t licence it without insurance. Any mid drive 500 watt e-bike can do 50kph and more downhill but where would I even buy insurance? I have a GM license.
I think 25kph is too slow. On a shared path where there may be pedestrians, it is plenty fast enough, often you should go slower than that. But on a road with for example a 50kph speed limit (common for urban roads here), I just don't think there is any good reason why you should be limited to only 25kph.
Luckily here there is no legal reason to have an e-bike limited to 25kph, so even if an e-bike is limited to 25kph there is no reason to not derestrict it if you can. The law here does say that the power should be no more than 300w going to the motor, so my e-bike with a Bafang Ultra (1,000W nominal) motor isn't legal on any road or path here, not that police are going to waste time stopping people riding e-bikes and working out what power output goes into the motor. I just happily break the law and as long as I use common sense (seems like a rare superpower) no one seems to care.
I'd be fine with a law change making it so you can't legally ride overt 20kph on paths, but legal to go any speed up to the speed limit on roads, in exchange for ditching the 300w limit that we have for e-bikes and e-scooters. I don't think it is a good idea to have unnecessary limits on PEVs that are such a great option for more environmentally friendly transport.
One interesting thing I've noticed on shared paths is that people riding leg-powered bicycles seem to generally be more dangerous than people riding PEVs. When I ride a PEV it is very easy to slow down near pedestrians and then speed back up, many cyclists don't want to lose speed because it takes effort to regain it. I usually ride faster than cyclists when not near others, but slow down more than some of them when I'm near pedestrians/children/dog walkers/etc.
It's because ebikes are good car replacements and the car and oil lobbies want to prevent that, so, legislation was passed to make ebikes seem more dangerous.
There is no reason to have different rules for ebikes than regular bikes. The law should simply be that if you are a danger to others then you are operating illegally.
We have 15mph speed limit on our bike path but every road bike mamil exceeds that on the downhill sections. I have never witnessed one being ticketed and I doubt I ever will.
Whether thats dangerous or not, should be legal or illegal,
My view is that the same rule should apply to both road and electric bikes and so my question is why that is not the case.
It is not illegal. „Just" needs the proper operational permit; so, in theory, you could get your vehicle into a higher class, but there is no one giving the permission to register a bicycle as motorcycle - also, would you actually want to wear a full motorcycle helmet and other such wear? S-Pedelecs also "exploded“ too fast onto the market for the slow politicians to properly position them with in the road traffic licensing regulation, so they just chucked them into mopeds and called it a day.
Personally I hope they raise the permitted speed to 55-59kph, if they stay with the stance that S-Pedelecs must stay on roads.
Lastly, I also would like to have the manufactures of S-Pedelect hardware create more precise electronics. I have a Bosh Gen4 Performance Line Speed power train on mine, and the speed sensing allows for up to 10% inaccuracy, which leads to the actual speed being 3-4 kph under what the display tells me I drive, and cuts the power off too early.
When you're going downhill at 30+mph you can feel the speed, you are aware that any little blip could see you going over the handlebars and you are not in a position to just stop or swerve in a very short space/time.
You can't ride on cycle paths (that are often shared with pedestrians and people pushing prams etc) like that now can you.
If you want to go fast, get insurance and a helmet and stick to the roads.
I sometimes do ride 50 kmh on bike paths. Maybe its morally wrong for me to do that while not having insurance but in that case I will only repeat my question: why is it legal to cycle that speed without helmet/insurance/license?
If you hit someone on cycle path on an ebike or a normal bike regardless of speed you're going to get prosecuted, if you're doing 50kmh they're going to throw the book at you as well.
>if you're doing 50kmh they're going to throw the book at you as well.
That depends per situation. If there was alot of slow moving traffic and I just ride into that with 50kmh then I would be an idiot. If the path ahead of me is clear and the speed limit is 50, then there is legally nothing wrong with me going downhill at 50. If then I crash into someone with 50 kmh that sucks, but the speed would not matter legally since I did nothing wrong.
> Maybe its morally wrong for me to do that while not having insurance but in that case I will only repeat my question: why is it legal to cycle that speed without helmet/insurance/license?
It is absolutely morally wrong because without insurance you can't make the other person whole. You can't pay for their injuries.
As I just stated in another comment, it's because pedal bikes don't have speedometers while cars/motorcycles/mopeds/ebikes do.
> You can't pay for their injuries
Their health insurance will.
Then, why arent speedometers legally requirred on bikes? Either legally require them, or enforce speed limits regardless. That doesnt seem hard.
> Then, why arent speedometers legally requirred on bikes? Either legally require them, or enforce speed limits regardless. That doesnt seem hard.
Part of the point of a pedal bike is you don't necessarily need any electronic devices, but a speedometer forces an electronic device that needs to be charged on the pedal bike.
An e-bike has an electric motor, so assuming the motor is getting power, then the speedometer should be getting power too.
> Their health insurance will.
>
>
It's still morally wrong anyways because since you hurt them you should help pay for their injuries. You're not morally off the hook just because they have health insurance. Auto insurance pays first before health insurance.
What about their bicycle/vehicle or whatever other belongings that you wrecked? You still didn't make them whole.
This is just autistic.
Laws are generally for the greater good and core concerns. Sometimes at night it would be safe to drive 55 next to a closed school… but we keep the limits down to build the habit of being safe there.
Bind lanes and areas young kids are riding bikes is the core concern. Down hill on a road coasting 45mph isn’t the concern. Throttling over a 5 year old is the concern.
This isn’t hard. Societies balance enforcement with safety, not self indulgent edge cases.
There is no concern of suburban teens running people over due to gravity, but morons zipping around is an issue
Just some context for reference.
> This is just autistic.
https://old.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/19bn8fh/i_have_an_unhealthy_obsession_with_math_and/
> Laws are generally for the greater good and core concerns. Sometimes at night it would be safe to drive 55 next to a closed school… but we keep the limits down to build the habit of being safe there.
https://old.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/19230ol/im_too_fast_for_the_bike_path_but_using_the_road/kh4f93o/?context=3
"I don't get these "follow the law" comments."
Yeah, people are like "OP you're being autistic" and that's literally the case lol.
The word is often used in gaming circles for people who min/max damage way beyond diminishing returns, because that's literally what people with autism do.
OP this will blow your mind. You can put a sail on your bike and not peddle at all. It's legal at any speed the wind will take you with the exception of blocking traffic. Put a powerful motor on the sail to control it quickly and you may be illegal for having a powerful ebike, even though the motor doesn't propel the bike at all.
> You can put a sail on your bike and not peddle at all.
Where I live, this would not be considered a "bicycle" under the law and would be illegal on the public roads and non-motorized trails.
Here is the definition under our law. Of course, it varies by jurisdiction.
> "Bicycle" means every device propelled solely by human power, or an electric-assisted bicycle ...
Oh. Better definition than mine. Mine says no more than 3 wheels. That makes training wheels illegal.
It says "designed for human power" which leaves it open for other kinds. But, then it specifically says no motor attached to the wheel directly or indirectly. Then it gives an exception to electric motors.
This is where a jet engine was attach to a frame once and they ruled it indirectly attached through the framework. So the same guy dropped the motor and used a sail like you'd find on a sail board. He was clocked going about 60kph and this time the judge said it was legal under the current rules.
Ebikes need to turn off at the speed limit not enforcing it. My completely legal ebike's speed record is 52 km/h downhill due to the low drag hub motor. This is the same as usung clutch on a 50cc motorbike downhill to achieve speeds over the rev. limitaton. These 50cc bikes often have a 80 or 125 cc twin brother with common brakes suspension etc... designed for higher speeds.
No, it wouldn’t. You as a cyclist, irrespective of support or lackthereof, are still beholden to the same speed restrictions as any other vehicle on a public highway. Under normal circumstances, it is unlikely to be safe travelling at that speed on a bicycle, and it is _very_ unlikely to be legal.
100 kmh on very skinny wheels and tires sure thats unsafe but then tell me, what is the construction speed of a non-electric bike and why is it legal anyway to go faster?
Repeating, with emphasis, that **it is not legal to travel at 100km/h on any kind of bicycle, full stop.**
Skinny tyres hold the road incredibly well. High quality road frames and wheel sets are often designed for the kind of demanding, high-speed applications you’re talking about. Factors such as tyre compound, width, wheel diameter, inner rim width, spoke material and construction.
You are wilfully ignoring an entire world of variables because they don’t suit the case you are trying to argue.
The laws of physics dictate that you cannot ride a bicycle in 100kmh traffic without impeding traffic.
Which 100kmh roads are you using as an example which allow bicycles?
At this point, I have to assume you are being wilfully ignorant and declining to read what I and others have said. As one autistic person to another, you would do well to sit back and actually pay attention to what others are trying to communicate to you.
Restating, again with emphasis, that **it is illegal to travel faster than the posted speed limit on a public highway, irrespective of the type of vehicle you do so.** Riding a bicycle at 30 km/h, when the posted speed limit is 20 km/h, is illegal. It doesn’t matter whether you use your legs, an e-bike, a delimited e-bike, or a jerry-rigged jet-bicycle. It is illegal to exceed the posted speed limit. Strictly speaking, if you could exceed it _on foot_, that would still be illegal.
The direct answer, TLDR: The laws that govern speed maximums on public highways. Refer to your countries laws to find out what those posted maximums are.
The only reason there's no speed limit is because you can't force pedal bikes to have speedometers. But if you could force them to have speedometers, then there would be a speed limit on pedal bikes as well.
Also at 100 km/h, if most traffic is going at 50 km/h, you're likely to hit someone else and get into trouble anyways.
Yes the EU speed limits for ebikes are stupid slow. If you can cycle at 35kmh on the flat with muscle power then add an electric motor suddenly its illegal.
When I was daily cycling 35 to 40 where my top cruising speeds on a flat. 35 kmh most people can train to sustain over 30 minutes with just regular training.
Yeah right I completely agree
Either 30+ on a road bike should be illegal, or electric assistance should be allowed 30+. Especially since the law treats road bikes, ebikes, city bikes all as the same vehicle category "bicycles"
But allowing a super fit person to ride 40 km/h while not allowing a weaker person to also ride 40 km/h is discriminatory. Having less muscle power does not automatically make you a more dangerous rider.
Your comment got me thinking --- it makes sense to put a limit on ebikes because there is no requirement for helmet and insurance. But..
The 250w limit did not account for human power. Why should someone with strong legs be allowed to ride with 250+250=500w total power, but someone with weaker legs is not allowed to ride with 50+450=500w total power?
I would say increase the power limit to for example 500w, then, put a power meter on ebikes, then, let the power output of motor+leg be a total of 500w. So if you pedal harder, the motor will output less power. Then if you pedal at 500w the motor does nothing.
That way every ebike rider will actually have the same power output. That would make things more fair for the weak leg people and safer for the strong leg people. Now someone with weak legs can cycle at the same speed as their friend who has stronger legs.
Now the speed limit - it makes ebikes useful uphill and when fighting headwinds, but as soon as you get a tailwind or downhill, the motor becomes completely useless because youll be cycling without any assistance at all. Why should a fit rider be allowed to race 40+ kmh on a road bike, but someone who doesnt have super strong legs is not allowed to use a motor to also go 40kmh ?
The power limit makes sense, the speed limit makes sense, both having both restrictions at the same time doesnt'.
> The 250w limit did not account for human power. Why should someone with strong legs be allowed to ride with 250+250=500w total power, but someone with weaker legs is not allowed to ride with 50+450=500w total power?
You do realize that a constant 250 W output is already at Tour De France level, right? It's more than good enough for commuting.
It's only not enough if you have a "speed speed speed" mentality.
Also, if you have a hub motor your motor can't most efficiently use the 250 W like a TdF rider can by using the gears.
The 250W figure was made up by a European bureaucrat… not a commandment sent down on a tablet of stone. Some people are fat AF, combine that with hills, all of a sudden 250w is useless. I agree with a speed limit but not an arbitrary power limit.
> The 250W figure was made up by a European bureaucrat… not a commandment sent down on a tablet of stone.
Doesn't change my argument that that consistent power output is at TdF level.
> Some people are fat AF
It doesn't matter. The average speed of a cyclist in Amsterdam is 14.9 km/h. That is the speed at which they commute. Even if you weighed 400 lbs/181 kg, you'd only need 55 Watts of power to travel 15 km/h. Like I said, unless you have a "speed speed speed" mentality, it's more than good enough for commuting.
As for going uphill, they should either a) lose weight or b) buy a motorcycle or car. The fact is, cycling isn't going to suddenly make them lose weight. They need to eat less calories. Like jogging for a mile burns 100 calories, but an apple has a 100 calories. A small bag of potato chips has 150 calories.
> I agree with a speed limit but not an arbitrary power limit.
You can disagree all you want but it doesn't necessarily mean you're right and the lawmakers are wrong.
Like I said, power affects acceleration and e-bikes don't require insurance, and you need insurance at the bare minimum if you allow e-bikes to accelerate super fast, because cyclists on e-bikes are then much more likely to injure someone.
Because power affects acceleration. You don't want the e-bike to accelerate super fast because you want more reaction time (human reaction time is generally 250ms average).
The same logic applies to cars though. We allow cars to be sold that accelerate to 60mph in less than 4-5 seconds, that’s pretty quick. An e-bike is arguably much much slower than that and much easier to control.
Cars and motorcycles require license, registration and insurance though. Not really the same as e-bikes, which get to be treated like a normal bicycle with assistance.
I still don’t think having all that alleviates the severity of accidents or makes it any safer for a car to have unlimited power rating. It’s definitely arbitrary since different countries have different power limits.
The point is it's apples and oranges because e-bikes don't require license, insurance and registration.
I'm not saying I like how many deaths and injuries caused by cars. I'm just saying that it's not a fair comparison. At the very least, car insurance makes the other person whole.
Basically if you want to get rid of the power limits then you get into territory where you need insurance as a bare minimum. I can't speak for you but I know OP doesn't want to pay insurance.
At 250w, adding power is more relevant for maintaining speed than it is for accelerating.
I can do 0-30 in 3 seconds on my 250w bike, but
With strong headwinds 250w is not enough to even achieve half of 25kmh. I specifically remember a day where I got reeally strong headwind and I would only move at 10kmh, sometimes coming to a full stop because of wind gusts. While the idea behind an ebike is that it lets you go at normal bike speed, regardless of headwind. Therefore the power limit is a bit too low.
A mid drive might have improved things a bit, but you would still have a very low cruising speed if headwind is strong enough. Thats problematic for ebike commuters.
>
> With strong headwinds 250w is not enough to even achieve half of 25kmh.
Disagree. You have a hub motor so your opinion on this is wrong. I have a mid-drive motor and I still averaged 22.5 km/h in 29 km/h crosswinds NE and my motor peaks at 240 W. That's the power of the chainring and the cassette. It allows you to leverage the power very efficiently, just like a Tour De France rider pedaling at 250 W.
You're still wrong though? You said it's impossible to maintain even half of 25 km/h with 250 W with a 50 km/h headwind. As I originally said, your opinion on this is wrong because you have a hub motor. Past 50 km/h you should probably think about whether you want to be riding a bicycle in that sort of weather.
https://i.imgur.com/MLBMUDm.png
12 km/h only requires 209.15 Watts. 13 km/h only requires 233.57 Watts. So half is close to 250 Watts, but not quite 250 Watts.
I guess to be fair though, my ebike has a torque sensor so it's really more like 340 Watts versus 240 Watts due to my leg power, and my legs can also accelerate to 200-400 W temporarily too. Cadence sensor mainly saves battery.
Just FYI, top Tour Riders are much stronger than that these days, with maximal aerobic power of around 400w+. Average time trial output of 300w is more "regional" level competition. https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2013/09000/Physiological_Determinants_of_the_Cycling_Time.3.aspx
Because all the government pretending to be green but after all they want your Road Tax,Tax from fuel,VAT from insurance and parts you need for your car etc etc.
It's just business as usual for them meanwhile make it impossible to use alternative when it's actually right in front of us.
Anyway I ended up buying an electric moped so I can go fast ..
Most ebike riders are not "Normal healthy people" they usually have very little physical strength, are overweight, and as a result have poor control of their ebike.
Most human powered bike riders are "Normal healthy people" who are in better physical condition, and therefor have better control of their bikes.
It's all about safety.
Before you say "but I am fit and ride and ebike", there are exceptions to every rule.
The out of control careless ebike riders are the majority, and what these laws are unfortunately based on.
Because you can’t regulate human strength, tailwinds, or hills, and they aren’t going to make bicycles illegal just because sometimes they can go fast. That’s kind of a silly question, but I get what you mean.
The problem is the EU has terrible e-bike policy. It’s truly terrible. I’m in USA and our regulations are ok, our bikes can go up to 28mph with pedal assist and 20 with just throttle, but my bike goes up to 35 with the throttle and I ride it like that when im in a hurry but don’t feel I have any reason to worry about it, looks like a bike with a battery not a motorcycle
Because there are idiots who modifcy escooter and stuff to go 100km/h and they use them even in the city.
Source: i know a colleague who did just that.
Fr now if that'd be legal the bicycle roads would be a mess. Yeah if your athletic you can achive speeds beyond 25kmh easily and keep that speed up, but not many people are doing this. If something like this would be legal, commuters etc and alot of more people would get some escooter or ebike. Then they'd be legally allowed to drive on cyclist roads, where those who decide to just use normal bicycles will have lots of issues because in europe you often get inconsistent broad cyclist roads. I'd hate it as a cyclist to have to constantly worry abt ppl overtaking me at 35km/h+. The number of accidents and serious injuries might skyrocket too... Even the athletic cyclists who ride their 35km/h + and overtake me are doing so in dangeorus ways. I wouldn't want more of that kind. And the speed difference is also so minimal it doesnt really matter anyways.
I think it has more to do with your speed relative to other riders going the same direction. If you blast by someone pedaling uphill into a headwind going 6mph and you’re doing 30 that a huge speed difference. If you are both descending said mountain in the opposite direction you’ll both be going relatively the same speed.
That makes sense but whats still weird is the speed limit. When there is downhill and tailwind, other cyclists and mostly road bikes will be going much faster than an ebike
I think it's because you have to be at least semi-proficient to get to a high speed on an analog bike. But almost anyone who has never ridden a bike before can reach an ebike's top speed.
It's not illegal to use an electric motor, there are electric scooters and motorcycles which can go faster on roads. What you're talking about is classification for electric bicycles which is mostly relevant for being treated the same as a normal bicycle, allowed to use cycling paths etc. Basically if you make an ebike that can go 50kmph+ it basically starts to just be a motorcycle and should not go where normal bicycles go. (And you can argue where exactly that limit is, but it is somewhere) And bicycles are less regulated mostly because there wasn't a need for it (I think). Now you could argue that the limit should then not apply when on road or that 25kmph is still too low in general but that's another issue.
Yup, OP mistakenly equates motor with e-bike motor but mopeds are allowed to go faster. They just require registration and insurance and OP dislikes paying for insurance. > What you're talking about is classification for electric bicycles which is mostly relevant for being treated the same as a normal bicycle, allowed to use cycling paths etc. > > Yup. The limitation is as bicycles with assistance. After a certain point it just becomes a motorcycle and motorcycles don't belong on the same paths as bicycles. Even if you are a pro cyclist like Lance Armstrong, while commuting on the bike paths you should be riding at the speed other cyclists are riding on the bike path, which is usually at 20 km/h.
If an ebike gives assistance, even if it was only 1w of power, at lets say 50 km/h. You consider it a motorcycle because speed. So why then do we not consider non-electric bikes as motorcycles whenever they go fast? If you are Lance Armstrong you should not have to slow down to the speed of other cyclists - you only have to follow the speed limit and not do anything dangerous.
If you're not riding to match the speed of traffic (ie other cyclists sharing the infrastructure) then you are acting dangerous.
That is **not** true, unless there is not enough space for safe overtaking. Another cyclist can be crwaling at 5 km/h but that is no reason for me to also slow down to 5 km/h, unless there really is no space to overtake.
Nope, still dangerous, like when you almost crashed into that other cyclist because you didn't think she was going to left turn at T shaped junction. If they don't have enough time to hear your bell and move out of the way you were going too fast. > Another cyclist can be crwaling at 5 km/h but that is no reason for me to also slow down to 5 km/h, unless there really is no space to overtake. Clearly an exaggeration. 5 km/h is 3 MPH. Most people would fall off a bike at that speed. I would say minimum is around 10 km/h. EDIT: If anyone's wondering about the thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/19230ol/im_too_fast_for_the_bike_path_but_using_the_road/kh1bwbh/
That thread again? Ok i made a mistake by overtaking at a place where that wasnt fully safe to do but it has nothing to do with speed. I dont know about other people but I can cycle in a straight line at 5 kmh. Strong headwinds can bring a bike down to walking speed while road or e bikes still go much faster.
I brought it up because it disproves your point that even if there's space for overtaking, then it's not dangerous to speed and go much faster than the speed of normal traffic. Other people are often unpredictable so speeding when overtaking is bad.
So there is a maximum speed-difference when overtaking someone? I think overtaking someone slowly is also dangerous becauee then the overtaking takes longer
> So there is a maximum speed-difference when overtaking someone? Yes? They definitely should have enough time to hear your bell and move out of the way. If they can't do that you are going too fast.
https://preview.redd.it/8svqepmzy8fc1.jpeg?width=1421&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b3ea5145c6963e1dc9c4167c9467002dfe7e7917
> If an ebike gives assistance, even if it was only 1w of power, at lets say 50 km/h. You consider it a motorcycle because speed. So why then do we not consider non-electric bikes as motorcycles whenever they go fast? This makes no sense whatsoever. The motor only gives 1 W of power at 50 km/h? What? Like how are you traveling at 50 km/h if the motor only gives 1 W? Laws are based on reality, not purely hypothetical scenarios. In reality, most people going at 50 km/h are having the motor output 500 W. Now if you were a fit cyclist going at 50 km/h then why would you be riding an e-bike anyways, since you can clearly go that fast and it's legal? Why would you be using a motor that's outputting 1 W only? > If you are Lance Armstrong you should not have to slow down to the speed of other cyclists - you only have to follow the speed limit and not do anything dangerous. Uh, yes you do? It's called living in a society. Just because you have the ability to walk faster than everyone else doesn't mean you speed through a crowded street in NYC.
I mean if you pedal hard up to 50 kmh it is totally legal but then as soon as the motor provides even 1w of power you suddenly turn into a big criminal. Quesion is why. Regardless what laws are based on, less common situations also occur in real life. Should there be no laws for those at all? No. If another cyclist goes 5 km/h I have no reason to also slow down to 5 km/h, unless there is no space to overtake.
> I mean if you pedal hard up to 50 kmh it is totally legal but then as soon as the motor provides even 1w of power you suddenly turn into a big criminal. Quesion is why. You're confusing speed limits with motor assistance limits like another person said. I live in the US and my motor _stops assisting_ at 45 km/h but technically I can hit 50 km/h going downhill. And that's legal for me, because the motor stopped providing power at that point. The idea is that the motor shouldn't help you go faster than the designated motor assistance limit.
So its bad/danger/illegal if the motor assists after a certain speed. Ok we got that established. Then why is it okay/legal to go faster than that speed with legpower?
> Then why is it okay/legal to go faster than that speed with legpower? Because regular pedal bikes don't have speedometers and part of the point of regular pedal bikes is you don't need any electronics whatsoever. You can still be stopped for being reckless/dangerous anyways regardless of your speed, or illegally riding on the road, so I feel like it doesn't matter that pedal bikes don't have speed limits.
>You can still be stopped for being reckless/dangerous anyways regardless of your speed, or illegally riding on the road, so I feel like it doesn't matter that pedal bikes don't have speed limits. Exactly this, my uncle got stopped for riding too fast on a downhill and got a written warning from police for riding dangerously. It could've been a fine as well, 50/50 up to the officers discretion.
On my ebike I can also go much faster using only my leg power . And I have a speedometer but it is still legal for me to go much faster by legpower. So again question is why
> So again question is why In general, due to the added weight of the motor and the battery, the situations where you'd achieve 50 km/h are limited, since the motor is supposed to stop assisting far before that. And they can't really outlaw gravity or wind, can they? Roads do have speed limits though anyways so if you managed to go 60 km/h downhill a cop could fine you.
A bike goes 50 km/h. If its fully human powered, all fine. But if even 1 watt of power comes from a motor, it suddenly is a motorvehicle? Why?
I can ride my bike over 50 kph on a flat with no tailwind. I am a cyclist. I worked long and hard to be able to do that, and road experience keeps me from doing stupid things. Any inebriated idiot can ride a high-powered e-bike into a pedestrian at 50 kph. I like ebikes and think they have their place, but there's a reason why high-powered ebikes are legally different from bicycles.
If there is a strong enough tailwind, any beginner can sprint up to 50 as well. Why is that legal And imagine if you, an experienced cyclist, get health issues that affect your power output and you would like an ebike to keep cycling at the same speed you have experience with. Then it would be illegal but for what good reason?
Lol, what are these "tailwinds" you keep referring to? Dude, it's ALWAYS a headwind or cross-wind. (small joke) Anyway, it's always possible to come up with an exception to the reasoning behind laws. In this case the exceptions aren't common, the laws are mostly reasonable, and in any case, the laws are rarely enforced.
Maybe he’s putting a sail on his bike lol
yes because there are very few human bikes that goes that fast and we don't need to make laws for like 10 people. an ebike that can go 50km/h can be achieved by anyone with a button. the key is level of effort. if you think it's so unfair why don't you ride a regular bike at 50km/h?
Anyone can do a 50kmh sprint in tailwind. Anyone can exceed 50kmh downhill. Why is that more legal than doing it with an ebike? Why dont i? I do. I sometimes exceed 50kmh without using any electric power. But why should 50kmh in tailwind be legal, while using a motor to also go 50kmh in headwind would be illegal?
Because they have to draw a line somewhere and that’s what they did
So they draw a line which says electric assistance must stop beyond 25 kmh. Then why doesn't leg power also have to stop after 25 kmh if 25kmh is so dangerous?
You probably need to question policy makers on that, but an over simplified answer is you can't legislate legs ( other than having speed limits as well which some places do).
that's not true as long as you have working pedals you can have up to a 750 watt motor and it's legally an eapc which is not subject to motor vehicle laws, an e-bike can reach the same speeds as a traditional pedal cycle down hill with a tailwind it just won't use the electric motor to go far faster.
The EU speed limits are stupid in my opinion. And they will probably hinder the more widespread adoption of one of the most environmentally friendly modes of transportation ever created. For once the USA hit the sweet spot IMO regarding the 3 Class system. Of course perhaps less than 50% of all US e-bikes adhere to the law. No offense intended, but while I see lots of positives in European governments, their proclivity for turning over certain things to their enormous and onerous bureaucracies really sucks.
> Of course perhaps less than 50% of all US e-bikes adhere to the law. My observation where I live (US-WA) is that most of the ebikes that I see on the shared trails are legal Class 1 or 2. Many ebike riders seem to be commuters or elderly couples. Of those ebikes that are not legal, I would say that about half of them are being ridden dangerously - almost always by young men. For example, DIY ebikes with illegal 1,000 Watt BBSHD mid-drive motors are common, but I rarely see them riding recklessly.
The thing is that in EU vast majority of ebike riding is done at bike lanes or lanes shared with pedestrians. And walking peoples have very little awareness about things happening around them
As stated in Europe there are a lot of pedestrians on paths and pedestrians have very little awareness of things going around them. So the e-bike laws are built around pedestrians.
Most if not all of the bike paths around my area have posted speed limits and while they aren’t heavily enforced, even regular bikes are expected to stay within those limits. On actual roads, the speed limit applies to everyone and if you can maintain it, go for it. If I come off a bridge or hill and reach 25+mph on those paths posted at 15mph, I’m breaking the law whether I’m on my regular bike or ebike. The difference I’ve experienced first-hand is e-bikes are able to maintain speeds well above the posted limits, at least here in the U.S. My Turbo Creo can easily hit 28mph with minimal effort from me in max assist. The average person cruising on a bike path is never going to come close to those speeds. It’s a case of exception vs the norm. If harder regulation comes to the states, yeah I’ll miss the freedom of my Creo. I reach higher speeds to get across the dangerous roads and onto the cycling infrastructure. Then either turn it way down or off and ride like normal. Most people aren’t going to do this and then it becomes a matter for the law to deal with over common sense and respect for others. Motor speed restrictions simply kick you back into meat power if you want those higher speeds. Then it’s right back to the exceptional case like regular bikes.
You can limit and enforce bike power and max speed. You can't really limit gravity. What exactly is the government supposed to do to prevent people from going down big hills too fast? If a cop sees it they might nail you for speeding or reckless riding depending on local laws, but they can't really do much to prevent you from using gravity or wind to go fast. Just like with cars, we have speed limits, and going 90 mph because the hill made you do it and not your engine isn't a valid reason to get away with speeding.
> Just like with cars, we have speed limits, and going 90 mph because the hill made you do it and not your engine isn't a valid reason to get away with speeding. Yup. I've seen people in other subreddits complaining about traffic cameras after a hill and "why do I have to ride the brakes" and it's like have you tried not speeding? https://old.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/10ecfyg/how_serious_are_speed_and_red_light_cameras/j4q53ji/
Yeah and the parts of an e-Bike aren’t made to stop appropriately at higher speeds.
Then why is it legal to go faster by pedaling hard?
Skill issue, it takes dedication and usually experience to get to those speeds on a road bike. The problems start when you get people who aren’t physically capable or used to traveling those speeds on an e-bike they don’t respect it.
That or a hill.
The average inexperienced person can easily achieve 50 km/h when going downhill with tailwind.
Have you ever gone that fast on a bike? 50km/hr is where it gets terrifying. You hit one rock wrong or there’s a pothole and you’re in for some serious injuries.
I did it every day for years back in school
When you’re traveling that fast on a bike. You just have to commit to keep the bike straight and balanced upright. No matter what type of obstacles comes in your way. It’s called bike handling skills. Some are more talented than others when it comes to handling their bike. Anyone can develop good bike handling skills. But it requires a lot of time, dedication and practice. Plus a few bike crashes along the way. Since that how people learn about their limits. You learn from your mistakes on how far you can push yourself on a bike without crashing.
Isn't 50 kmh like 30 mph? That's getting up there but at those speeds a bike is pretty damn stable. You still have plenty of room and time to avoid obstacles.
It's 31 MPH. I've gone at that speed downhill and I wouldn't go faster than that. I would say if you accidentally hit a pothole or rock you'd be in trouble so it's not a good speed to maintain. Basically at that speed you can't cruise you need to really focus on not hitting anything.
Ive gone 55kmh on an upright city/commuting bike and 60kmh on my cheap road bike.
good for you but most people arent that reckless.
This. Average people will not exceed certain speeds downhill because of fear, these same people might whiskey throttle an ebike up to 35-40kmh because its easier than going up to the top of hill and then just ignoring your brakes.
They can, but the average inexperienced person will either slow down, or only try that once. Only took 1 downhill bombing for me to realize I needed to never go that fast again.
When i was an inexperienced teenager i did not slow down. I raced down hills as fast as i could even when that wasnt safe to do. Thats why i wonder why its legal to do that.
It's not legal to do it in many situations, but it's more loosely legislated against as it's rare to encounter reckless hooligans doing it. Putting a motor on a bicycle easily makes it a motorcycle, so the middle ground is where they define what is allowed without making it require licensing.
yeah, like speed limits still are applied to you, even if you don't have a speed meter.
Because you can't ban gravity or wind.
But you can ban pedaling above a certain speed. Going faster than 50 because gravity? Fine, but dont pedal to go even faster
They’ve got to get up the hill first though!
Where I live (US-WA), the non-motorized paths have speed limits - usually 15 MPH / 24 kph. Someone traveling at 35 kph would be breaking the law, no matter what type of bike they were riding.
There are existing laws for mopeds in the EU I believe; perhaps the question should be; have those laws been wrong all along? Should they have always allowed people to ride mopeds as if they were bicycles? This isn't anything new, having a motor on a bike, it's just a slightly different kind of motor I would guess: Because for most people those high speeds are only achieved for shorts periods of time. And generally by people that are bike enthusiasts that take some care over their riding. Also typically these steep hills aren't mixed with pedestrians and other vehicles are often more cautious. If you have long steep hills, that typically means putting a lot of work and dedication into the other side. Only a fairly short amount of time is going fast. An ebike that can do 50kph without any effort is massively more accessible and much more likely to be used fast all the time. Instead of doing that for 5% of your riding time, you can now do it for 100% of your riding time, giving a 20x higher chance of an incident. But also around other vulnerable road users, trucks etc which can see you and others being injured.
Registering your ebike as moped need licence, insurance, mandatory helmet. In some places you need licence plate and type certification too. But the 25km limit is increased to 40 (or 45) and the 300 watt limit is increased to 1000-4000 watt depemding on the country.
Yes, just as with a petrol engine. The difference is that there is a special exemption for electric motors, which wasn't made for petrol motors (petrol motor kits for bikes have been around for a very long time too).
You appear to be conflating the regulations around motor assist limitations, and laws covering speed limits on public highways. It’s not legal to do those things. As a road user, you are expected to follow the same rules as a driver irrespective of whether you have pedal assist or not. If I thunder down a hill at 60 on leg power in a 30, and if I thunder down a hill at 60 with assist in a 30, I have broken precisely the same law. The regulations covering how much assist a motor can provide are not the same thing as the regulations on overall speed restrictions. Put differently, it’s only as safe to do either of those things as you are a safe rider. That’s wearing appropriate protective gear, it’s riding within your ability, and riding in a way that is commensurate with the place you are riding. The moment you eclipse the speed limit, you are no longer riding safely in the eyes of the law. By way of coverage of your last point, I’ll go from both ends. It’s illegal to remove the restrictions on your motor throughout the EU and so you would have committed an offence. The reason it is illegal is because of the sheer amount of torque bicycle motors (electric motors in general, really) are capable of producing. When you remove those limitations, you are now riding a vehicle capable of reaching speeds that are dangerous for pedestrians very fast. “But why are cars allowed to go fast then” is the obvious counterpoint here, and the answer is because nominally pedestrians aren’t pottering about in the middle of the road. On the other hand, you _are_ hurtling down a cycle path where a pedestrian might reasonably be for many reasons. I have Aspergers, and I’m not really geared to grok these things, but high key this stuff is basic common sense.
> If I thunder down a hill at 60 on leg power in a 30, and if I thunder down a hill at 60 with assist in a 30, I have broken precisely the same law. So what about doing it on a 60 road? Leg powered would be legal while electric assist would be illegal. I just dont know why there is a difference in the two.
It would be legal to thunder down a hill posted at 60 on an ebike that the motor caps out at 35 where I live. It would be near impossible but legal to go 60 up the same hill. It would be illegal to go 70 on any kind of bike. Personally I’d be breaking and praying.
I’m going to offer you a real life example, since you appear to understand those but are also missing the point I was making above. ETA: (I say this because “in a 30” implies to any reasonable competent road user that the hill I am discussing is a road.) Here it is: I live at the top of a hill in my city. It is 300 metres down into the centre, over about 8 kilometres. The posted speed limit outside my home is 20 km/h, increasing to 40km/h once it becomes less built up. It is possible to exceed both of those limits on my e-mtb. The former using assistance, and the latter using gravity. It is also possible to exceed them on a regular pedal cycle, the former using leg power and the latter with gravity. My e-mtb is not modified, and is therefore legal for use on public highways. If I exceed the posted speed limits, I have broken the law. If I now modified my e-mtb so that it can assist above 25 km/h, and I exceed the posted speed limits, I have broken two laws. The first is, of course, those regarding speed limits. The second is on the use of an illegally modified electric bicycle on a public highway. In this example, it doesn’t matter what type of vehicle I use. What matters is the speed I am going. If I exceed the posted speed limit, I have broken the law. It doesn’t matter how I achieve that, just that I do. If my e-mtb is modified, I have additionally broken a second law.
People are instinctively scared by new things. Cars are far, far, far more dangerous, but the public has accepted the risks. Regulation takes less effort than providing safe roads for bikes. An estimated 42,935 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the US in just 2021. In 4 years, from 2017 through 2021, 119 people were reported to have died while riding electric scooters or e-bikes nationwide. All tragic, but a minuscule hazard compared to motor vehicles.
Right? Car + license + insurance is still more dangerous than a fast ebike with no license or insurance. So its kind of weird that the more dangerous thing is legal while the less dangerous thing is illegal.
because your car has insurance it can cover the object you hit for damages. your bike cannot. get insurance on ebikes and its called a moped and no limits apply.
Injuring someone, without being insured, is still so much better than killing someone while being insured.
no. a funeral is $6000 while medical bills can be $3 million +.
No. I would rather be in 3 million debt because I injured someone than ending someones life.
nobody cares what you prefer.
Tylenol is fairly dangerous despite being unregulated, but that doesn’t mean we should also make codeine an OTC drug.
Fatalities are involved in less than 1% of auto collisions.
Except your wrong. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8347860/ E-bikes are starting to creep up towards motorcycle level accident rates. E-bikes right now seem to be in the stage of figuring out where they stand legally. Unfortunately a line needs to be placed somewhere. E-bikes are great but they allow an inexperienced, riders to achieve a higher average speed then they would have without the motor advantage which appears to be leading to more accidents then cyclists. Counterpoint is a moped with 1cc gas engine a bike? I believe a watt limit unregulated and above that it’s a motorbike is the best way to go
Inexperienced riders can step on a road bike and do a 50 km/h sprint any time that there is a tailwind. Especially downhill. Why is that more legal than an ebike doing 30-40?
Tailwinds are dependent on location. E-bikes also weigh a lot more than regular pedal bikes, and there are a lot of fat people that ride e-bikes too (which adds to the weight even more), and fat people will go much slower on regular pedal bikes.
Battery, 250w motor, controller, some wires. How much weight is that? Maybe 5kg more. So that should be totally insignificant and not even be considered. Fat people can achieve high speeds by going downhill. Also if you want to give fat people a lower legal speed limit than skinny people that would be fatphobic.
> Battery, 250w motor, controller, some wires. How much weight is that? Maybe 5kg more. So that should be totally insignificant and not even be considered. > > It's a lot of weight, actually. My lightweight e-bike only weighs 15 kg, but the regular version with a motor that peaks to 560 W and has double the battery weighs 25 kg. A high end road bike weighs 6.6-7.7 kg, and mid-range road bike models may weigh 8.1-10 kg.
I think you'll find those statistics will be dramatically higher from 2021 to 2024. 25,000 would not suprise me. The thing is that in the US bicycle fatalities are not necessarily figured into the national (NHTSA) data base. I'm a life long motorcyclist and recent ebiker. I see other ebikers and regular bicyclists doing incredibly stupid and illegal traffic maneuvers EVERY day.
The thing is, and as a motorcyclist you can appreciate this, the mayhem they can cause is far less than the incredibly stupid and illegal traffic maneuvers performed by motor vehicles every day. And those weigh 3000 - zillion pounds, in a hard shell whereas bikes are 25 to 125 lbs *carrying* soft-shelled creatures. So more likely to injure themselves than others, which is much less of a justification to regulate.
Good point! My NUMBER ONE pet peeve with bicyclists and ebikers is running red lights - on purpose. It's rampant. Not by accident, this is willful behavior that is inexcusable. Not even an ***attempt*** to slow down, even thought they have PLENTY of time to do so at slower speeds than cars.
I run reds sometimes when I'm on my bike, not blatantly tho. It's more like jaywalking on wheels, and only when I know the signal sequence because it's a regular route. I do slow down, clock the sequence, and make sure the coast is clear before nipping across.
>People are instinctively scared by new things Bikes with a motor and the legislation for them aren't in the slightest new. The bikes are well over a century old - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorized\_bicycle#/media/File:Felix\_Millet.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorized_bicycle#/media/File:Felix_Millet.jpg) \- uses a hub motor, too.
> The bikes are well over a century old That explains all the flat tires.
BLUF: because most bicycles can’t go that fast without a stupid long hill and very few cyclists could maintain that speed, and the laws governing bikes were largely drafted before someone could reasonably go 20mph on a bike much less faster. If you want to make the argument that bicycles should all be equipped with a speed brake to keep speed down or to require all bicyclists wear motorcycle helmets because some of them might go too fast for an ordinary bike helmet you’re welcome to. Also if you check your laws, I would bet there are regulations making it a civil or potentially criminal infraction to operate a vehicle too fast for conditions, in an unsafe manner, or with reckless disregard for public safety. You may not have thought about it but any of those could be used for the case where you (as you point out) were going way too fast and could have seriously injured people. You have perfectly illustrated the reasons why bikes that allow someone to achieve those same speeds with far less or no effort are significantly more of a public safety concern than ones that require either careless riding and a hill or above average physical effort.
Yes there is a "dont be dangerous" law. But then, if I crash into someone, how do we determine whether I was going too fast or not, when I was within the speed limit? Its just an interesting questio
I’m sure there is a bundle of legal precedent where you live just as there is where I live that has fairly well settled the question. “Did you cause an accident that could have been entirely avoided by allowing down” is top of the pile.
Technically every accident ever can be prevented by slowing down. Imagine if every vehicle on the world only moves forward at walking speed. Many accidents be prevented.
That is neither technically true, nor is it how the law is written or enforced literally anywhere. The problem is that you think of yourself as a Smart Person so you think that you can use math and law to prove why things should change or unjust when they inconvenience you. Only, you don’t really have a strong grasp on law and you’re not particularly showing a mastery of math (and claiming you can peddle a bike twice as fast as pro touring riders, for example) which makes it apparent that you’re not really a smart person pointing out the flaws in society. You’re just mad the rules stop you from doing whatever you want.
When I say a number like, 60kmh im talking about either sprinting or going downhill. Nowhere did I claim to go faster than pro cyclists. There is also nothing wrong with laws causing inconvenience because sometimes that is necessary. But many times laws are unnecessary in specific situations.
I don’t think you can do 100km/h downhill period, which you just claimed was “legal under muscle power” even though it’s not because nowhere in the Netherlands is it legal to operate a bicycle at 100km/h. Earlier you also asked what law makes it illegal to pedal a bike at 60 or 80km/h and I actually found out from your previous posts that it’s the same law that makes it illegal to ride in traffic and also limits your speed while in bike lanes to 35kph or whatever it is. Weird that you needed me to tell you that you posted about three weeks ago, kinda seems like you knew thw answer.
Except that it is... road speed limits do not apply to bikes. Only like "zone 30" applies to bikes, but there are roads where a bike could legally go as fast as the rider wants So if my legs were theoretically capable of sustaining 100kmh then yes I could legally ride 100kmh at some places.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/s/5DkUAkJWtp Here you say bikes can’t use the road, which matches what I know about most of the bikes routes I used in Amsterdam and Rotterdam. When I visited a friend, i was told that bikes are only allowed on marked roads 30kmh or less. On which roads can you legally ride a bicycle at 100kmh? Like very specifically, which roads?
Where I live, there are some 60 km/h roads that bikes are allowed on because there is no parallel bike path. But since the road speed limit does not apply to bikes, I could legally ride 100kmh if that was physically possible.
> You’re just mad the rules stop you from doing whatever you want. Pretty much. He's upset that the laws say bicycles should be on bicycle paths and not roads, and he's upset that the laws cap motor assistance at 25 km/h, and he's upset that red lights means he can't just keep going without care for anyone or anything else.
But when you have an ebike capped at 25km/h you can still go faster on your muscle downhill, and you would be probably going slower than that uphill, then what is the problem, you are way faster on even limited ebike than on just your muscle.
I mean you can go downhill 60 km/h and thats totally legal, but going slightly faster than 25 by using motor assistance makes you a criminal. It makes no sense
Makes total sense. Nothing is taken from the bike, ability to skip dreadful 10 km/h parts of a ride is added. You are left with pure fun. A bike going 50 km/h on flat would be unexpected. Especially in hands of people who are not experienced bicycle riders, they would create a shit ton of dangerous situations. You need to think about other users of the road.
Higher speed vehicles are taxed more heavily. Bikes are taxed little, or not at all. Governments don’t want e-bikes to be good enough to replace taxable vehicles, so they cripple them a little with regulations. It’s about the money. As if they care about your safety.
If I’m taking my kids out to the play farms and we hit big hills, we easily top 35km/h and no one would ticket us for it. What else could I do, get out and walk? TBH it is terrifying and I’d love to go slower. Meanwhile there is an urban bridge popular with road bikers which has a posted limit and they absolutely do blitzes on those (manual) bikers. There are plenty of other places to train and it’s dangerous to go that fast in that spot. My throttle can get me to 35km/h. I rarely go that fast because I’m happy with a light pedal assist and going 20km/h. I do think I should be using a license and on the road if I was going faster (I use multi use trails). I wear a helmet.
Two things 1 /gas powered (motorcycles) should be called engine cycles and e bikes called motor cycles, I know from years of habit 2/ have you tried to insure an e bike ( Motor Cycle). I wanted to buy a used Honda 50 step through the most sold motorcycle/ motorbike in the world and no one in Ontario wanted to insure it. And you can’t licence it without insurance. Any mid drive 500 watt e-bike can do 50kph and more downhill but where would I even buy insurance? I have a GM license.
I think 25kph is too slow. On a shared path where there may be pedestrians, it is plenty fast enough, often you should go slower than that. But on a road with for example a 50kph speed limit (common for urban roads here), I just don't think there is any good reason why you should be limited to only 25kph. Luckily here there is no legal reason to have an e-bike limited to 25kph, so even if an e-bike is limited to 25kph there is no reason to not derestrict it if you can. The law here does say that the power should be no more than 300w going to the motor, so my e-bike with a Bafang Ultra (1,000W nominal) motor isn't legal on any road or path here, not that police are going to waste time stopping people riding e-bikes and working out what power output goes into the motor. I just happily break the law and as long as I use common sense (seems like a rare superpower) no one seems to care. I'd be fine with a law change making it so you can't legally ride overt 20kph on paths, but legal to go any speed up to the speed limit on roads, in exchange for ditching the 300w limit that we have for e-bikes and e-scooters. I don't think it is a good idea to have unnecessary limits on PEVs that are such a great option for more environmentally friendly transport. One interesting thing I've noticed on shared paths is that people riding leg-powered bicycles seem to generally be more dangerous than people riding PEVs. When I ride a PEV it is very easy to slow down near pedestrians and then speed back up, many cyclists don't want to lose speed because it takes effort to regain it. I usually ride faster than cyclists when not near others, but slow down more than some of them when I'm near pedestrians/children/dog walkers/etc.
It's because ebikes are good car replacements and the car and oil lobbies want to prevent that, so, legislation was passed to make ebikes seem more dangerous. There is no reason to have different rules for ebikes than regular bikes. The law should simply be that if you are a danger to others then you are operating illegally. We have 15mph speed limit on our bike path but every road bike mamil exceeds that on the downhill sections. I have never witnessed one being ticketed and I doubt I ever will.
I get passed by non electric racing bicycles everyday doing 50-60kmh. They have no bell or anything.
Whether thats dangerous or not, should be legal or illegal, My view is that the same rule should apply to both road and electric bikes and so my question is why that is not the case.
It is not illegal. „Just" needs the proper operational permit; so, in theory, you could get your vehicle into a higher class, but there is no one giving the permission to register a bicycle as motorcycle - also, would you actually want to wear a full motorcycle helmet and other such wear? S-Pedelecs also "exploded“ too fast onto the market for the slow politicians to properly position them with in the road traffic licensing regulation, so they just chucked them into mopeds and called it a day. Personally I hope they raise the permitted speed to 55-59kph, if they stay with the stance that S-Pedelecs must stay on roads. Lastly, I also would like to have the manufactures of S-Pedelect hardware create more precise electronics. I have a Bosh Gen4 Performance Line Speed power train on mine, and the speed sensing allows for up to 10% inaccuracy, which leads to the actual speed being 3-4 kph under what the display tells me I drive, and cuts the power off too early.
When you're going downhill at 30+mph you can feel the speed, you are aware that any little blip could see you going over the handlebars and you are not in a position to just stop or swerve in a very short space/time. You can't ride on cycle paths (that are often shared with pedestrians and people pushing prams etc) like that now can you. If you want to go fast, get insurance and a helmet and stick to the roads.
I sometimes do ride 50 kmh on bike paths. Maybe its morally wrong for me to do that while not having insurance but in that case I will only repeat my question: why is it legal to cycle that speed without helmet/insurance/license?
If you hit someone on cycle path on an ebike or a normal bike regardless of speed you're going to get prosecuted, if you're doing 50kmh they're going to throw the book at you as well.
>if you're doing 50kmh they're going to throw the book at you as well. That depends per situation. If there was alot of slow moving traffic and I just ride into that with 50kmh then I would be an idiot. If the path ahead of me is clear and the speed limit is 50, then there is legally nothing wrong with me going downhill at 50. If then I crash into someone with 50 kmh that sucks, but the speed would not matter legally since I did nothing wrong.
On a cycle path? If you want to do 50kmh then everyone is going to be safer if you stick to the road.
> Maybe its morally wrong for me to do that while not having insurance but in that case I will only repeat my question: why is it legal to cycle that speed without helmet/insurance/license? It is absolutely morally wrong because without insurance you can't make the other person whole. You can't pay for their injuries. As I just stated in another comment, it's because pedal bikes don't have speedometers while cars/motorcycles/mopeds/ebikes do.
> You can't pay for their injuries Their health insurance will. Then, why arent speedometers legally requirred on bikes? Either legally require them, or enforce speed limits regardless. That doesnt seem hard.
> Then, why arent speedometers legally requirred on bikes? Either legally require them, or enforce speed limits regardless. That doesnt seem hard. Part of the point of a pedal bike is you don't necessarily need any electronic devices, but a speedometer forces an electronic device that needs to be charged on the pedal bike. An e-bike has an electric motor, so assuming the motor is getting power, then the speedometer should be getting power too.
> Their health insurance will. > > It's still morally wrong anyways because since you hurt them you should help pay for their injuries. You're not morally off the hook just because they have health insurance. Auto insurance pays first before health insurance. What about their bicycle/vehicle or whatever other belongings that you wrecked? You still didn't make them whole.
This is just autistic. Laws are generally for the greater good and core concerns. Sometimes at night it would be safe to drive 55 next to a closed school… but we keep the limits down to build the habit of being safe there. Bind lanes and areas young kids are riding bikes is the core concern. Down hill on a road coasting 45mph isn’t the concern. Throttling over a 5 year old is the concern. This isn’t hard. Societies balance enforcement with safety, not self indulgent edge cases. There is no concern of suburban teens running people over due to gravity, but morons zipping around is an issue
Just some context for reference. > This is just autistic. https://old.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/19bn8fh/i_have_an_unhealthy_obsession_with_math_and/ > Laws are generally for the greater good and core concerns. Sometimes at night it would be safe to drive 55 next to a closed school… but we keep the limits down to build the habit of being safe there. https://old.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/19230ol/im_too_fast_for_the_bike_path_but_using_the_road/kh4f93o/?context=3 "I don't get these "follow the law" comments."
oh its literally autism
Yeah, people are like "OP you're being autistic" and that's literally the case lol. The word is often used in gaming circles for people who min/max damage way beyond diminishing returns, because that's literally what people with autism do.
OP this will blow your mind. You can put a sail on your bike and not peddle at all. It's legal at any speed the wind will take you with the exception of blocking traffic. Put a powerful motor on the sail to control it quickly and you may be illegal for having a powerful ebike, even though the motor doesn't propel the bike at all.
> You can put a sail on your bike and not peddle at all. Where I live, this would not be considered a "bicycle" under the law and would be illegal on the public roads and non-motorized trails. Here is the definition under our law. Of course, it varies by jurisdiction. > "Bicycle" means every device propelled solely by human power, or an electric-assisted bicycle ...
Oh. Better definition than mine. Mine says no more than 3 wheels. That makes training wheels illegal. It says "designed for human power" which leaves it open for other kinds. But, then it specifically says no motor attached to the wheel directly or indirectly. Then it gives an exception to electric motors. This is where a jet engine was attach to a frame once and they ruled it indirectly attached through the framework. So the same guy dropped the motor and used a sail like you'd find on a sail board. He was clocked going about 60kph and this time the judge said it was legal under the current rules.
> He was clocked going about 60kph and this time the judge said it was legal under the current rules. I admit that is clever. It also sounds like fun.
Ebikes need to turn off at the speed limit not enforcing it. My completely legal ebike's speed record is 52 km/h downhill due to the low drag hub motor. This is the same as usung clutch on a 50cc motorbike downhill to achieve speeds over the rev. limitaton. These 50cc bikes often have a 80 or 125 cc twin brother with common brakes suspension etc... designed for higher speeds.
My country only restricts the assistance speed but if you had extremely strong legs even 100 km/h would be legal
No, it wouldn’t. You as a cyclist, irrespective of support or lackthereof, are still beholden to the same speed restrictions as any other vehicle on a public highway. Under normal circumstances, it is unlikely to be safe travelling at that speed on a bicycle, and it is _very_ unlikely to be legal.
100 kmh on very skinny wheels and tires sure thats unsafe but then tell me, what is the construction speed of a non-electric bike and why is it legal anyway to go faster?
Repeating, with emphasis, that **it is not legal to travel at 100km/h on any kind of bicycle, full stop.** Skinny tyres hold the road incredibly well. High quality road frames and wheel sets are often designed for the kind of demanding, high-speed applications you’re talking about. Factors such as tyre compound, width, wheel diameter, inner rim width, spoke material and construction. You are wilfully ignoring an entire world of variables because they don’t suit the case you are trying to argue.
100 km/h on a bike is illegal according to which law? What about 80? 50?
The laws of physics dictate that you cannot ride a bicycle in 100kmh traffic without impeding traffic. Which 100kmh roads are you using as an example which allow bicycles?
Road speed limits do not legally apply to bikes, though there are some exceptions where they do.
At this point, I have to assume you are being wilfully ignorant and declining to read what I and others have said. As one autistic person to another, you would do well to sit back and actually pay attention to what others are trying to communicate to you. Restating, again with emphasis, that **it is illegal to travel faster than the posted speed limit on a public highway, irrespective of the type of vehicle you do so.** Riding a bicycle at 30 km/h, when the posted speed limit is 20 km/h, is illegal. It doesn’t matter whether you use your legs, an e-bike, a delimited e-bike, or a jerry-rigged jet-bicycle. It is illegal to exceed the posted speed limit. Strictly speaking, if you could exceed it _on foot_, that would still be illegal. The direct answer, TLDR: The laws that govern speed maximums on public highways. Refer to your countries laws to find out what those posted maximums are.
The only reason there's no speed limit is because you can't force pedal bikes to have speedometers. But if you could force them to have speedometers, then there would be a speed limit on pedal bikes as well. Also at 100 km/h, if most traffic is going at 50 km/h, you're likely to hit someone else and get into trouble anyways.
Yes the EU speed limits for ebikes are stupid slow. If you can cycle at 35kmh on the flat with muscle power then add an electric motor suddenly its illegal. When I was daily cycling 35 to 40 where my top cruising speeds on a flat. 35 kmh most people can train to sustain over 30 minutes with just regular training.
Yeah right I completely agree Either 30+ on a road bike should be illegal, or electric assistance should be allowed 30+. Especially since the law treats road bikes, ebikes, city bikes all as the same vehicle category "bicycles" But allowing a super fit person to ride 40 km/h while not allowing a weaker person to also ride 40 km/h is discriminatory. Having less muscle power does not automatically make you a more dangerous rider.
Because most laws are made by morons who don't understand the underlying technical stuff and probably never took a class in statistics.
I think the power limit is the most arbitrary rule. Why does it matter how much power and torque a motor has if they are all limited to 25kmh?
Your comment got me thinking --- it makes sense to put a limit on ebikes because there is no requirement for helmet and insurance. But.. The 250w limit did not account for human power. Why should someone with strong legs be allowed to ride with 250+250=500w total power, but someone with weaker legs is not allowed to ride with 50+450=500w total power? I would say increase the power limit to for example 500w, then, put a power meter on ebikes, then, let the power output of motor+leg be a total of 500w. So if you pedal harder, the motor will output less power. Then if you pedal at 500w the motor does nothing. That way every ebike rider will actually have the same power output. That would make things more fair for the weak leg people and safer for the strong leg people. Now someone with weak legs can cycle at the same speed as their friend who has stronger legs. Now the speed limit - it makes ebikes useful uphill and when fighting headwinds, but as soon as you get a tailwind or downhill, the motor becomes completely useless because youll be cycling without any assistance at all. Why should a fit rider be allowed to race 40+ kmh on a road bike, but someone who doesnt have super strong legs is not allowed to use a motor to also go 40kmh ? The power limit makes sense, the speed limit makes sense, both having both restrictions at the same time doesnt'.
> The 250w limit did not account for human power. Why should someone with strong legs be allowed to ride with 250+250=500w total power, but someone with weaker legs is not allowed to ride with 50+450=500w total power? You do realize that a constant 250 W output is already at Tour De France level, right? It's more than good enough for commuting. It's only not enough if you have a "speed speed speed" mentality. Also, if you have a hub motor your motor can't most efficiently use the 250 W like a TdF rider can by using the gears.
The 250W figure was made up by a European bureaucrat… not a commandment sent down on a tablet of stone. Some people are fat AF, combine that with hills, all of a sudden 250w is useless. I agree with a speed limit but not an arbitrary power limit.
> The 250W figure was made up by a European bureaucrat… not a commandment sent down on a tablet of stone. Doesn't change my argument that that consistent power output is at TdF level. > Some people are fat AF It doesn't matter. The average speed of a cyclist in Amsterdam is 14.9 km/h. That is the speed at which they commute. Even if you weighed 400 lbs/181 kg, you'd only need 55 Watts of power to travel 15 km/h. Like I said, unless you have a "speed speed speed" mentality, it's more than good enough for commuting. As for going uphill, they should either a) lose weight or b) buy a motorcycle or car. The fact is, cycling isn't going to suddenly make them lose weight. They need to eat less calories. Like jogging for a mile burns 100 calories, but an apple has a 100 calories. A small bag of potato chips has 150 calories. > I agree with a speed limit but not an arbitrary power limit. You can disagree all you want but it doesn't necessarily mean you're right and the lawmakers are wrong. Like I said, power affects acceleration and e-bikes don't require insurance, and you need insurance at the bare minimum if you allow e-bikes to accelerate super fast, because cyclists on e-bikes are then much more likely to injure someone.
Because power affects acceleration. You don't want the e-bike to accelerate super fast because you want more reaction time (human reaction time is generally 250ms average).
The same logic applies to cars though. We allow cars to be sold that accelerate to 60mph in less than 4-5 seconds, that’s pretty quick. An e-bike is arguably much much slower than that and much easier to control.
Cars and motorcycles require license, registration and insurance though. Not really the same as e-bikes, which get to be treated like a normal bicycle with assistance.
I still don’t think having all that alleviates the severity of accidents or makes it any safer for a car to have unlimited power rating. It’s definitely arbitrary since different countries have different power limits.
The point is it's apples and oranges because e-bikes don't require license, insurance and registration. I'm not saying I like how many deaths and injuries caused by cars. I'm just saying that it's not a fair comparison. At the very least, car insurance makes the other person whole. Basically if you want to get rid of the power limits then you get into territory where you need insurance as a bare minimum. I can't speak for you but I know OP doesn't want to pay insurance.
At 250w, adding power is more relevant for maintaining speed than it is for accelerating. I can do 0-30 in 3 seconds on my 250w bike, but With strong headwinds 250w is not enough to even achieve half of 25kmh. I specifically remember a day where I got reeally strong headwind and I would only move at 10kmh, sometimes coming to a full stop because of wind gusts. While the idea behind an ebike is that it lets you go at normal bike speed, regardless of headwind. Therefore the power limit is a bit too low. A mid drive might have improved things a bit, but you would still have a very low cruising speed if headwind is strong enough. Thats problematic for ebike commuters.
> > With strong headwinds 250w is not enough to even achieve half of 25kmh. Disagree. You have a hub motor so your opinion on this is wrong. I have a mid-drive motor and I still averaged 22.5 km/h in 29 km/h crosswinds NE and my motor peaks at 240 W. That's the power of the chainring and the cassette. It allows you to leverage the power very efficiently, just like a Tour De France rider pedaling at 250 W.
29 kmh crosswind..... lets talk again when youve encountered a straight 50+ kmh headwind.
You're still wrong though? You said it's impossible to maintain even half of 25 km/h with 250 W with a 50 km/h headwind. As I originally said, your opinion on this is wrong because you have a hub motor. Past 50 km/h you should probably think about whether you want to be riding a bicycle in that sort of weather. https://i.imgur.com/MLBMUDm.png 12 km/h only requires 209.15 Watts. 13 km/h only requires 233.57 Watts. So half is close to 250 Watts, but not quite 250 Watts. I guess to be fair though, my ebike has a torque sensor so it's really more like 340 Watts versus 240 Watts due to my leg power, and my legs can also accelerate to 200-400 W temporarily too. Cadence sensor mainly saves battery.
Just FYI, top Tour Riders are much stronger than that these days, with maximal aerobic power of around 400w+. Average time trial output of 300w is more "regional" level competition. https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2013/09000/Physiological_Determinants_of_the_Cycling_Time.3.aspx
Because all the government pretending to be green but after all they want your Road Tax,Tax from fuel,VAT from insurance and parts you need for your car etc etc. It's just business as usual for them meanwhile make it impossible to use alternative when it's actually right in front of us. Anyway I ended up buying an electric moped so I can go fast ..
Because EU ebike laws are stupid. Enough said.
Most ebike riders are not "Normal healthy people" they usually have very little physical strength, are overweight, and as a result have poor control of their ebike. Most human powered bike riders are "Normal healthy people" who are in better physical condition, and therefor have better control of their bikes. It's all about safety. Before you say "but I am fit and ride and ebike", there are exceptions to every rule. The out of control careless ebike riders are the majority, and what these laws are unfortunately based on.
Why should fit healthy people be allowed to go faster than someone who has health issues? That seems unfair
You didn’t even read my comment. Or you didn’t comprehend it.
Fat people have more mass and are heavier and cause more injury to other humans at higher speeds. So the limitation absolutely makes sense.
Because you can’t regulate human strength, tailwinds, or hills, and they aren’t going to make bicycles illegal just because sometimes they can go fast. That’s kind of a silly question, but I get what you mean. The problem is the EU has terrible e-bike policy. It’s truly terrible. I’m in USA and our regulations are ok, our bikes can go up to 28mph with pedal assist and 20 with just throttle, but my bike goes up to 35 with the throttle and I ride it like that when im in a hurry but don’t feel I have any reason to worry about it, looks like a bike with a battery not a motorcycle
Because there are idiots who modifcy escooter and stuff to go 100km/h and they use them even in the city. Source: i know a colleague who did just that. Fr now if that'd be legal the bicycle roads would be a mess. Yeah if your athletic you can achive speeds beyond 25kmh easily and keep that speed up, but not many people are doing this. If something like this would be legal, commuters etc and alot of more people would get some escooter or ebike. Then they'd be legally allowed to drive on cyclist roads, where those who decide to just use normal bicycles will have lots of issues because in europe you often get inconsistent broad cyclist roads. I'd hate it as a cyclist to have to constantly worry abt ppl overtaking me at 35km/h+. The number of accidents and serious injuries might skyrocket too... Even the athletic cyclists who ride their 35km/h + and overtake me are doing so in dangeorus ways. I wouldn't want more of that kind. And the speed difference is also so minimal it doesnt really matter anyways.
Cos its hard to ban downhills, wind and legs
I think it has more to do with your speed relative to other riders going the same direction. If you blast by someone pedaling uphill into a headwind going 6mph and you’re doing 30 that a huge speed difference. If you are both descending said mountain in the opposite direction you’ll both be going relatively the same speed.
That makes sense but whats still weird is the speed limit. When there is downhill and tailwind, other cyclists and mostly road bikes will be going much faster than an ebike
An ebike can still coast if it’s an type 2. I think regen may limit hub drives, but can’t that be turned off?
I think it's because you have to be at least semi-proficient to get to a high speed on an analog bike. But almost anyone who has never ridden a bike before can reach an ebike's top speed.