This is incredibly obvious to any person who isn't trying to defend their decision to purchase an illegal moped disguised as an e bike.
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
80 points (98.8% liked)
Bicycling
2813 readers
16 users here now
A community for those who enjoy bicycling for any reason— utility, recreation, sport, or whatever!
Post your questions, experiences, knowledge, pictures, news, links, and (civil) rants.
Rules (to be added on an as-needed basis)
- Comments and posts should be respectful and productive.
- No ads or commercial spam, including linking to your own monetized content.
- Linked content should be as unburdened by ads and trackers as possible.
Welcome!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
NO SHIT! And stop making e-bikes so overly complicated that they basically become motorcycles with less power.
The e-scooter industry had the same issues. They went from perfectly fine 250w motors, to 500w, to 5000w+. Like, wtf are you doing? These things are barely legal in most places, and you want to kill the industry before it even takes off!
And stop making e-bikes so overly complicated that they basically become motorcycles with less power.
Reputable bike brands still make the same ebikes they started building years ago. They're reliable, the brand batteries last decades and the bikes can be repaired by normal bike shops.
I've been seeing more with integrated batteries,multiple extra parts to maintain (suspension on everything!), some use cargo racks that aren't even designed to fit panniers, handlebars that you can't mount standard accessories on, mandatory (?) app pairing, etc.
Keeping them simple and repairable (AT HOME) should be a priority.
Aww, but where's the money in that?
If you don't buy your ebike from a startup there's a decent chance it's from a reputable bike manufacturer
Nice how the article takes one bullet point from the entire article and makes it look like the whole thing is the EU's fault.
Yeah companies don't like any regulation. If it were as they dream we would still live in asbestos-poisoned buildings and have electric appliances that for lack of safety regularly kill small children.
What does this industry wants? Bikes where granny can go with 50 km/h on a bike path without a helmet?
Just so long as she doesn't put it in her will. We want new generations buying new eBikes... no hand me downs.
The whole industry is worried, but it's not about one company. With motors like these, we are moving further and further away from bicycles, and as an industry, we risk e-bikes being regulated by the EU. So far, e-bikes have been treated the same as bicycles in the EU. And we as the ZIV want to protect this status. To achieve this, we need to clarify the gray areas in regulation that define what is and what is not a bicycle. And two values are important here: performance and the ratio between rider power and motor power.
In this respect, DJI achieves values with the Avinox motor with 1000 watts and 800 percent muscle gain that did not exist before.
As I said, it's not just about one specific brand. It's about everyone pushing the performance values upwards. And the EU could look at this and ask: What are you actually doing here with your Newton meter power assistance factor race? Unlike the e-bike, the S-pedelec with a cut-off speed of 45 km/h is considered a moped in the L1 class and is subject to type approval. The type approval defines the assistance factor 4 for the S-pedelec.
And now the e-bike manufacturers are launching e-bikes that do not require type approval with a factor of 8 on the market.
Note that there is some confusing terminology: "eBike" as a common (but wrong) term means a bicycle with assistance electric power which is limited to 25 km/h in speed. The proper term for this is "Pedelec". In difference to this, "S-Pedelec" means a light motorcycle which in Germany can go with up to 45 km/h, needs insurance, license plate, strict technical certification, helmet - and cannot, of course, use bicycle paths and cycle lanes.
And I forgot to say, all these safety regulations are written in blood.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Yeah it probably does need regulation. Pedelecs only. No throttle control*, limit to 500 watts**, no motor assist after 20 mph/32 km/hr. Anything above that has no pedals and is classified as ~~moped~~ scooter or electric motorbike and put onto the road. Draw a clear distinction between pedelecs (commonly called ebikes) and everything else.
(*Exemptions for medical reasons, so they can still use bike paths. Not sure how that'd be manufactured for small number. **Maybe more for hauling bikes.)
I thought the general rule in most of Europe is already pretty strict with 250 Watts (500 for cargo bikes) / 25hm/h (15.5mph) and no throttle. Anything above is a speed pedelec and requires license plate, permit, insurance, helmet, and no access to bike infrastructures.
I'm not familiar with EU but some quick googling says that's correct. Personally I would ban speed pedelecs, you just know people are going to abuse them and take them on bike paths. I say make a clear distinction between ebikes/pedelecs and scooters. Cops trying to enforce "does that go this speed or that speed" is a mess (for the user too).
But then what is Bosch talking about here?
Good question I don't know exactly. But places like NYC keep talking about banning ebikes entirely because of yahoos being dumb. Think along those lines.
Well I'm not saying just registration. I think there needs to be a gap between pedelec and scooter. Nothing inbetween that people can mistakenly think they can use on bike paths because it looks like a bike.
I'm kind of looking at ebikes for my ~10 mile commute to work, which uses no bike paths. 20 mph would be okay, but faster would be nice. Part of the route is on a country road, the rest is on the shoulder of a 50 mph highway (which is pretty wide and very popular for cycling already).
I understand the bike path concern, but in my use case, there isn't much reason to be limited to 20 mph.
I work for a bike shop, though, so I might be limited to brands they sell. :)
Plenty of people ride bikes on these roads with no assist. You can definitely get a moped though. Nobody is stopping you from doing that. You just can't also ride a moped on a bike path, and that's for a good reason.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I ride my bicycle (not ebike) on the roads I was referring to all the time. But I also now need to commute to work on those roads, and those roads are not so busy with bicycles that an ebike - at practically any speed - would be a problem.
From what others have said, it sounds like that's an extreme outlier situation, and I should just use my car.
@limelight79 @socsa No, you should have safe options for riding an ebike for your commute.
... I do. I can ride on this quiet country road and on the wide shoulder of the other road. But a 20 mph ebike means a 30 minute commute, and there are no showers at work.
@limelight79 @someguy3 Fixing the bike infrastructure so an ebike is suitable instead of a motor bike would help you a lot.
@limelight79 @someguy3 Just because other infrastructure sucks doesn't mean other laws should suck, we should fix the infrastructure.
When I first rode one I thought it should go up to 30 mph 48 km/h, but on reflection that's just too fast for mingling with pedestrians. Infrastructure is still going to have lots of shared paths and lots of interaction with pedestrians, so I think it should be limited to 20 mph. And you just know people will be idiots with them anyway. You see this problem with cars, they go fast and people are idiots so we have to separate them out. The advantage of bikes is that they mingle and can go everywhere, we want to keep that for for pedelecs/ebikes.
Your travel time with 20 mph can be pretty decent when you start grade separating major intersections to take out the wait time at lights, and you don't need signalized intersections everywhere like with cars (if you can get a road off the major roads). Plus when you start exceeding 20 you're really getting into self injury if you just wipe out.
@someguy3 The better infrastructure I was meaning it better options that don't mingle with cars, so the slower speeds are fine.
And any trip that isn't fast enough at 20mph should involve a train ;)
If there's no speed limit then it shouldn't belong in the bike lane - it's more akin to an electric motorcycle.
load more comments
(5 replies)
What you want is apparently a light motorcycle or moped or vespa-like motorized scooter. You do not really power it by muscles, you need a really heavy and powerful battery, it will be much more expensive, you need a helmet, you need a license plate, you can't service it yourself, you really ought to wear heavy protective gear if you don't want to lose much of your skin in an accident or fall, you can't ride it in the winter because it is too cold, you need to use the road because you need far better overview at crossings. All these restrictions are written in blood.
Oh and on a 10 mile commute your speed advantage will be minimal in most cases.
The amazing thing about bicycles is that they hit a unique sweet spot of parameters and design constraints which simply is not accessible for motor vehicles. Mopeds have evolved multiple times from the (wrong) idea that you can have a fast bicycle by adding a motor, without changing fundamentally what it is.
The bicycle industry is kind of insane price wise. You can buy one of those electric NIU scooters for 2100-2500€. That will go 45km/h. Your pedelec will cost more.
You might just be in the market for a moped.
The license requirement of a vehicle is for the safety of everyone on the road, and a 20+mph vehicle is inherently dangerous no matter the shape and should be subject to regulation.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
Did high-powered cars lead to more regulations? Why are such cars allowed in cities?
Power is irrelevant. Pedestrian crash severity = speed² × shape impacting human head.
Road-specific speed limits and weight limits have always been enough.
Fuck especially the laws that give 2- and 3-wheelers easier treatment than 4-wheelers:
https://xfwnofqagsnmdxuf.quora.com/Lawfare-against-tiny-cars-velomobiles
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/05/20/podbike-shuts-down-norwegian-e-velomobile-startup-files-for-bankruptcy/
Power is irrelevant. Pedestrian crash severity = speed² × shape impacting human head
This reasoning is solely done in a vacuum.
You're forgetting the human factor of "people buy fast vehicles because they want to go fast".
The data shows that more powerful cars are involved in more accidents.
All that data shows is that BMW drivers are idiots, whether they drive high or low powered ones.
Are you not seeing a positive correlation between horsepower and % having had accidents, including BMWs? Are we looking at the same table?
The chart is divided strangely. Why is it by each manufacturer individually? Why do some manufacturers have a much higher percentage of accidents even though they don't make high power cars? Why are some manufacturers percentage of accidents in their high power cars lower than other manufacturers low power cars? This looks like a chart that was specifically structured to prove a point the researcher started from.
Why is it by each manufacturer individually?
To show that this is a correlation seen across manufacturers. You provided an excellent example of why this is necessary when you singled out BMW drivers, when the data showed this correlation across all manufacturers.
Why do some manufacturers have a much higher percentage of accidents even though they don't make high power cars?
Potentially because they're less safe, or they draw riskier drivers?
Why are some manufacturers percentage of accidents in their high power cars lower than other manufacturers low power cars?
See above.
You'll probably need other slices of the data to reason about those questions. However what we see here is there is a positive correlation across all manufacturers between horsepower and accidents.
This looks like a chart that was specifically structured to prove a point the researcher started from.
I imagine this data was analyzed with answering "do higher horsepower cars have more accidents" in mind, so the presentation of the data will naturally have answering that question in a comprehensive manner in mind. Please remember that you're not seeing a table with all of their data - you're seeing a particular subset that they believe is relevant to the question at hand.
So....at the end of the day, do you agree that the data shows there's a positive correlation between increased horsepower and percentage of cars having reported accidents?
And what do we have to do with cars? Completely separate infrastructure, signalized traffic control, speed enforcement, insurance, registry, safety inspections, etc. We don't want that world for pedelecs.
Power is irrelevant. Pedestrian crash severity = speed² × shape impacting human head
And in bikes, power and if existant, motorization is what determines speed.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›