The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition weighed in with a pointed response, arguing that the state should be making it easier, not harder, to own and use e-bikes. Their senior organizer echoed the sentiment shared by many riders: the real confusion and danger comes from people not being able to tell the difference between a legal e-bike and an electric moped, not from the bikes themselves.
Brett Thurber, co-owner of a San Francisco e-bike shop, raised a practical industry concern about AB 1557. Restricting California’s speed limits below what manufacturers currently build for the U.S. market could push companies to skip California customers entirely, shrinking the supply available to local shops and consumers.
Licensing bikes will only hurt people that can’t get a license. The issue is infrastructure and enforcement, neither of which are helped solely by adding licensing.
Pedelecs that stop providing power at 25 km/h are still not going to be licensed under the proposed rules - in line with EU rules on the matter.
E-bikes with a throttle are really just stealth motorcycles, and it’s reasonable to treat them as such.
I have an ebike with a throttle, I only use the throttle to break inertia for the first 2 seconds and then I only peddle. It is nothing like a motorcycle. I would immediately stop using an ebike if it was treated as one. I ride safely, never exceeding 20 mph on flats and slow way down for pedestrians while getting passed by mamil’s going 30 mph in unsafe conditions. I use bike infrastructure entirely, 50% of which is separated from traffic and ride 1500 miles a year commuting. There is no reason for me to be punished because some dirtbag on an e-dirtbike is being described as an ebike.
With a pedelec, you would get the power boost when pushing on the pedals, and you could turn it off if you’re not into the assist. With regards to speed, it only assists up to 25 km/h, after that it’s all leg power adding additional speed.
Fundamentally, if you ride the way you do, then there’s basically no limitations under pedelec rules, so you should really welcome them - they only limit people using their throttle-supplied bikes in a less safe manner.
I’m 9 miles from work. My goal is to have an easy ride were I show up without sweating. I put assist on medium and keep the ride easy. Using the throttle to break inertia at every stop is absolutely a part of that, as is being able to go at a fast enough pace were I’m not peddling for the better part of an hour. We are not Europe, we are far more spread out in the usa. The consequence of regulation will be people like me returning to a far more dangerous form of transportation. To me that’s not progress: trying to lessen danger by increasing danger astronomically.
Outside of Surrons and other e-dirtbikes, the hysteria over ebikes is mostly car propaganda. Do anything to paint all forms of alternative transportation as dangerous, and get people back into cars (the most dangerous of all). As long as cars are the most viable form of transportation, any additional regulation on class I, II, or III ebikes will only result in decreased usage, and increased driving (which is far far more dangerous). Furthermore, you are also glossing over the fact that people already own these ebikes, and replacing them is not cheap. To me this is not seeing the forrest for the trees.
In an ideal world were we had sensible zoning and transportation infrastructure I might agree with you. But in the sad reality we have, regulations on basic ebikes will make things far far worse.
People on pedelecs typically do not break a sweat, unless they are exceeding the assisted speed, since so little effort is needed to be put in, in order to get 250w of help.
Breaking inertia on a pedelec, despite them not having a throttle, is very easy, since the 250w of assistance. Also, wouldn’t you be closer to half an hour than an hour if you’re frequently riding at 20 mph?
I thought this kind of thing was only repeated by anti-transit/anti-cycling infrastructure people, but here we are. I’m not sure what makes you think a 9 mile commute would be an impossibility in Europe - that’s the distance I used to commute back where I lived before, and I live in Europe.
If you’re insisting that you’re going to switch to a car if you can’t have a throttle on your ebike, that’s your decision to make.
Not just a throttle but at least 20 mph allowable. Realistically the more time it takes out of my day the less likely I am to do it. I used myself as an illustration, the point wasn’t about me, its to point out that regulations that cause people to walk away from biking make us all less safe. Your supporting regulation on ideological grounds while ignoring the likelihood of negative real world outcomes. If your goal is to make society safer, this accomplishes the opposite.
Just because you don’t murder people doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws against it.
What an obnoxious comparison, I bike exactly because I would rather not kill or be killed with a car.
It’s an analogy. A basic literary tool to show you that your premise is flawed. I’m not literally calling you a murderer, I’m showing you how laws function as a basic concept for governing groups of people.