BicyclesI'm sure the motocycle shops are happy. E-bikes have been encroaching on the market since you get a lot of the benefits without having to deal with all the gear and certifications.
exactly what I predicted. car lobbies choking out ebikes by covering them in red tape and fees.
But yet the same Driver's license applies for a Honda Fit, F-250, and a Porsche.
These e-bike riders are like motorcyclists; all over the road and barely following driving rules.
They should require a license and, after a certain speed, should require insurance.
So you didnt even glance at the article, eh?
A dump from the article:
When New Jersey passed one of the country’s most restrictive e-bike laws earlier this year, plenty of riders, advocates, and bike shops warned that it would have consequences. Now, just a few weeks after the law officially took effect, those predictions appear to have come true.
Bike shops across the state are reporting declines in e-bike sales ranging from 20% to an astonishing 90%, with many saying customers are simply deciding that owning an e-bike in New Jersey is no longer worth the hassle.
The law, which took effect on July 19, requires every e-bike in the state to be registered, from the slowest Class 1 pedal-assist models all the way through faster Class 3 bikes. Riders under 17 without a driver’s license must pass an MVC licensing test to obtain a special e-bike license, while Class 2 throttle-equipped e-bikes and Class 3 models also require insurance, similar to owning a car.
The result has been widespread confusion. Some customers reportedly believe e-bikes have simply been banned outright. Others tell dealers they’ll just buy online and ignore the requirements. And many are choosing not to buy an e-bike at all.
The impact on local businesses has been severe. One New Jersey dealer said sales plunged 90%, another reported a 63% decline, while others described losing between 20% and 60% of their e-bike business. Several shops have already laid off employees, closed rental operations, downsized, or warned they may not survive through the end of the year.
Perhaps most troubling are the unintended consequences for the very people e-bikes help the most. Dealers who specialize in mobility-focused transportation say disabled customers are returning newly purchased e-bikes or abandoning plans to buy them altogether because they fear they won’t qualify for licensing or insurance requirements. One retailer described customers losing transportation to work or school because of the new rules.
What’s particularly frustrating is that many of these problems were predictable. The law treats a low-speed 15-20 mph (25-32 km/h) throttle-equipped Class 2 e-bike much more like a motorcycle than like a bicycle, despite its similar performance to a standard Class 1 pedal-assist bike. Bike shops and advocacy groups have instead urged lawmakers to exempt low-speed e-bikes under 20 mph (32 km/h) from licensing, registration, and insurance requirements while focusing regulation on higher-speed, higher-powered machines that more closely resemble electric mopeds.
It’s hard to argue with that logic. If the goal was to improve safety, discouraging people from riding bicycles and pushing them back into cars seems like an odd way to do so, especially when cars are the very things supposedly making e-bikes “unsafe”.
Cars arent the thing making E-Bikes unsafe. Rider behavior is the thing making E-Bikes unsafe.
I live in a town in an area that has more bike infrastructure than almost anywhere in the country. You could literally commute 40 miles each way (or more) on trails that hardly cross any roadways at all. I love bikes and think Ebikes are awesome. But when people who choose to use them decide to be idiots they are legitimately dangerous. They deserve to be treated like something different from a normal bike because they literally are.
On the trails, ebike riders in my area are often smoking pedestrians because they ride well over the posted speed limit, pass at full speed, and don’t announce themselves when passing. In one case, a woman was hit by an ebiker who then left her lying there and took off. Ebikes are not regular weight bikes. Getting hit by that rider caused her spinal damage and lasting issues, and she has no way of going after the person because they fled and everything happened on a trail. The county sheriffs wouldnt even investigate because they say the trails are the responsibility of the local transportation authority. Although realistically they would never catch them anyways
On the roads in town, the biggest danger are young kids and tourons that dont understand that if you bike on a street you are required to bike in the same way you would drive a car. They think “im on a bike, so stop signs, right of ways, and speed limits dont apply to me”. This has resulted in many young kids getting borderline killed when they get hit by cars because of things that are their own fault. Numerous times I have had kids (that cant possibly be more than 8-10 years old) blow stop signs and fly out in front of my car at 30mph. The only saving grace is that I was going the actual speed limit of 15, because if I had been going double it, like them, it would have been over with.
I have nothing against Ebikes, but this is the exact type of improper usage that these laws are trying to prevent. Both for the safety of the riders and for everyone else. 8 year olds or anyone else shouldnt be able to ride a class 2 or 3 if they are incapable of understanding road rules and how to not potentially kill someone else or themselves. Honestly class 1 shouldn’t be exempt either because it is not hard to get a class 1 to fly well over its flat ground speed, and on any bike (electric or standard) it generally feels like you are going slower than you actually are.
There is definitely argument to be made about what is the best way to go about it, but the framing of this article that we should just keep everything unregulated as if ebikes are a normal schwin is some major BS
Maybe people should stop walking on BIKE paths then? you dont expect to be safe walking in the middle of the street do you? people on their lambo feeties need to gtfo the way for cyclists if they are in their space. Are you one of those people who stand around in the bike lane acting like its part of the sidewalk?
They are not dedicated bike paths. They are shared use paths for pedestrians and unmotorized vehicles. Bikers dont get to bitch about pedestrians using their rights on a path but also bitch about drivers not wanting to share roadways with bikes. Absolute whiners
Tbf, 15-20mph on a throttle equipped bicycle is a motorcycle and is not safe for other isers of the sidewalk.
Are bicycles normally allowed on sidewalks? I've always lived where they have to ride in bike lanes or on bike paths.
Generally no. In my state that's illegal, though everyone looks the other way if it's just kuds on regular bikes. I doubt that'll continue to be true if kids start blowing past a 30mph though
In most regions, bicycles are not legal on sidewalks.
But guess where people ride them!
(It’s on the sidewalk)
It really depends. IMO you should ride wherever is safest for everyone. I would say more people use scooters on the sidewalk than bikes. And the 15-20mph is dangerous claims don’t hold up when you can literally go 1mph or walk it if the sidewalks have pedestrians. Going 20mph on a sidewalk with people around is dangerous. Going 20mph on a sidewalk that is empty when the road has shit or no bike lanes is most likely much safer for everyone.
It is a motorcycle or a moped and it is also not safe to be riding at that speed at a sidewalk among pedestrias but what's also true is that anyone can reach those speeds on a traditional bicycle and the outcome of a crash is just as severe.
but what's also true is that anyone can reach those speeds on a traditional bicycle and the outcome of a crash is just as severe.
Except reaching those speeds on a traditional bicycle requires significantly more effort, and is really only possible for adults that are somewhat active. I doubt there's any 10yo that can reach 30mph on a traditional bike on flat ground
I doubt there’s any 10yo that can reach 30mph on a traditional bike on flat ground
The comment I replied to said 15 to 20mph. That's a pretty standard cruising speed for a healthy adult.
On a road bike a 10 can easily hit 20-30mph
yes but a few car industry execs and lobbyists got huge bonuses for their hard work on the new regulations, so there’s that!
Here in QLD, Australia we beat you to this stupidity by a little. We, like Europe (and pretty much everywhere that's not US) has 25kph pedaling requirements. 'The Youf' were getting around on OP unregistered e-motorcycles (by existing laws, with no import protections) so our tough on crime right wing gov decided to step in, instead of, you know, enforcing the existing law and stop importing inappropriate devices.
You now need a license (learners or better), to travel at 12kph on shared paths (most of the bikeways) instead of just slowing down to pass pedestrians like a civilized person. The bike also needs to be European standard (protect the hard to repair incumbents) or face an unspecified certification procedure starting in Feb?.
I'm currently analogue (built a midmount 250W like a decade ago before all this but ditched it because I wasn't getting enough exercise) but looking to make a Bafang or similar so I can actually repair it and ditch a car. The whole shitshow is a mess.
I wasn't expecting to say this, but New Jersey, I feel your pain.
A bit heavyhanded to need registration even for low-speed (<25kph) pedal assist models. For faster ones however, their driving characteristics are more like mopeds & motorbikes anyway and it makes sense to have such requirements.
The whole problem is how e-bikes are defined. Because 25kph restricted, pedal assist models are the only ones that are e-bicycles in my mind. Anything that can go faster or does not need pedalling is an e-motorbike/moped/scooter and those should be regulated.
Yep, exactly. Iirc the criteria used where I live are engine wattage (max 250W), top assist speed (25kph) and whether pedaling is required (though no-pedal was allowed up to 20kph).
Anything beyond that becomes classified as a motor vehicle, and the only motor vehicles allowed on bike/ped paths are mopeds with a top speed of 25kph.
20mph pedal assist is pretty nice, but I would change my view if I needed insurance
So as usual, a few idiots ruining everything for the rest of us? Combined with knee jerk legislators, i mean.
Funny how those idiots don’t seem to have ruined automobiles.
Well, the same can be said for cars, so let’s not go there.
In countries where e-bikes are widely adopted like The Netherlands, e-bikes are responsible for a significant increase in cycling related injuries and fatalities.
So legislation is definitely needed to protect e-cyclists, regular cyclists and pedestrians.
Its mostly head injuries. These are between just a rider and the road, and the small number of fatalities were from geriatric riders that should have been in a wheel chair. The solution is to just wear a helmet.. And since its not harming anyone aside from the rider themself, that should be a personal choice. No need to increase the barrier to entry with license, registration, and insurance. Its like people are just trying to find ways to make money off the increase in popularity of e bikes.
They're just boomers who fall alone and get more severe injuries. The dutch can't even put on a helmet, that's how much they value their head.
If cars have seatbelts, bikes have helmets. It's not complex.
No need to make bikes pay insurance and vehicle tax. Have identification plates to be easily subject to traffic fines... Oh wait...
So, that’s legislation then.
And it’s not just the people falling off e-bikes but also regular cyclists pedestrians getting hit by e-bikes. Helmets won’t fix that.
pedestrains should also wear helmets of course. At least some should
Obviously, so should people sitting on the couch or eating dinner
Legislation doesn't protect anyone at all. It's just a feel good solution. You can look exactly at cars and see laws don't protect anyone.
Sorry, but that is just absolute nonsense. Just look at the vehicle deaths per number of vehicles or miles driven. What else do you think this drastic reduction in deaths comes from?
Small hint: it’s not because car manufacturers love people so much.
Seat belt laws alone have prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Anti lock brakes had an equal or stronger effect. The safest crash result is the crash you avoid.
Obviously there are many incremental safety features that all had an effect.
But the point is, we wouldn’t have had the majority of them if it wasn’t for legislation.
You missed my point. You can still operate a car without putting a seatbelt on. You can even "trick" the sensor by putting the belt on first or a dummy latch. It doesn't solve the person chosing to not wear one.
Insurance doesn't stop crime or deaths l. A license or plate is only good for identification, it wont protect the rider. Having "stiff OVI" laws wont stop a person from driving intoxicated.
You can even look at OVI trends and see it's been fairly consistant with only slightly declining trend. However drug based OVI started increasing slightly due to legilization.
Your chart is misleading. It doesn't take into consideration of early vehicles that didn't have seatbelts at all or lack of safety devices (airbags, crumble zones, fibreglass bodies instead of steel). Manufacturers today are required to include all those safety devices for sale.
They could, but most people don’t. That’s why legislation works.
There is also nothing misleading about the graph.
Seatbelts = legislation.
Airbags = legislation.
Why do you think car manufacturers installed an unpopular piece of equipment at extra costs in the first place? Not from the goodness of their hearts.
It was intended to cause.harm, that's the point
