this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
126 points (99.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

15727 readers
639 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
toaster@slrpnk.net
grue@lemmy.world
Toaster1@lemmy.world
126
California Wants to Put License Plates on E-Bikes and Slow Them Down. Cyclists Are Not Happy About It (guessingheadlights.com)
submitted 1 week ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
70 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] vathecka@lemmy.radio 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Whole lot of ford lobbyists here ig. bikes shouldnt be regulated. Period. I gurantee the next strategy of the car lobby is to just regulate alternatives into the ground. Oh you want a cheap vehicle to get around? That will be 1000 dollars registration, insurance, inspection, fees, and 80 hours of waiting in lines and making phone calls (we're only open on tuesday 9am to 11 am btw). No thank you, keep cycling free.

[–] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Meh, Bikes up to 25km/h don't require anything here. Anything faster needs a license plate and has stricter rules (like having to wear a helmet, needing a driving license, ...)

I don't mind drawing the line somewhere. Up to a certain point the speeds just become much more dangerous for everyone possibly involved.

[–] save_the_humans@leminal.space 1 points 6 days ago

I just don't see anything wrong with the current regulation on class 1 and 2 ebikes. Casual cyclists on an analog bike can already achieve speeds of 20 mph, at least for a short time. In fact, those speeds are often essential in certain situations in car centric towns/cities. As someone that used to commute by bike in the city, at times I'd have felt safer if I could have gone a little faster.

[–] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Class 1 isn't getting licenses.

Class 3 isn't slowed down.

Great headline, I wonder why people are confused about if the e-bike they buy is illegal or not.

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 40 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think that e-bikes should be speed-limited when operating under power. They're motor vehicles, even if the motor is electric and the vehicle is a bike frame.

Anything going above 20mph has no business being in a bike lane.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I've got good news for you. That's already the case. E bikes already have a class system: I, II, and III. Class I is only allowed 20mph with pedal assest. Class II is allowed 20mph with pedal assist or a throttle. Class III is allowed 20mph with throttle and 28mph with pedal assist. Typically in America only up to Class II is allowed on bike paths. Anything beyond those capabilities is treated like a dirt bike/motorcycle; it's only supposed to ridden off road or plated to ride on the road.

The problem is this is dang near impossible to enforce. How many police are on the bike paths? How many people know these regulations?

[–] seat6@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 week ago

yeah; I think the current system is overall pretty reasonable. the issue is really enforcement

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And other countries don't use that class system either. UK to ride as an ebike needs to be 15mph pedal assist only and motor can't be over 250w. Anything else would be considered a motorcycle and require registration and insurance, also can't use bike lanes.

Not sure if there are many electric bikes with pedals that are sold as motorcycles.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

That's really low speed. That feels like over reach, but that's from my American perspective I suppose.

[–] Zagorath@quokk.au 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It's likely a very slight underestimate. The EN-15194 standard comes out of the EU but has basically become the international standard definition of "safe, legal, ebike". It requires the motor to cut out at 25 km/h and have no more than 250 W.

It's about the speed that someone pottering about on a Dutch style bike is probably going, though it's quite slow for a road bike. The 250 W limit is the bigger problem. It's fine in the Netherlands, but for people in hillier countries it makes e-cargo bikes rather inaccessible.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] i078@europe.pub 6 points 1 week ago

I’m used to them being limited to 25 kph (~15.5 mph) the high speed ones are considered mopeds with all their rules

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Since E-bikes are a substitute for far more dangerous vehicles (cars), it only makes sense to address this once the danger of cars has been adequately addressed. Which we are light years away from in CA.

Putting more burdens on cyclists will just make more people drive. And driving is so so so much more dangerous than even the worst e-bike, this this very clearly makes people less safe.

[–] buffaloseven@piefed.ca 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Except e-bikes operate in many places that cars do not. Cars being an issue isn't an excuse for anarchy everywhere else. I've seen plenty of people on e-bikes driving 30+ km/h down a public pathway in a park; you won't see a car anywhere within 300 feet of this but it's a clear danger to those in the area.

And I'd hardly call a speed limit for a bike a "burden," and e-bikes have operated in a nebulous zone as mentioned above, they are motor vehicles.

Even if you had to get a plate and follow a speed limit, there are still a million reasons why people should get out of cars and onto bikes (e- or otherwise) to move themselves around.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Cars being an issue isn’t an excuse for anarchy everywhere else.

This doesn't really address the logic of what you're responding to though, and it clearly is a justification. If people are deterred from using ebikes for transportation and therefore use cars instead, then the resulting harm is whatever difference there is between injuries/deaths caused by an ebike and injury/death caused by a car over the same time period, it hardly matters for that where they are using them.

And I’d hardly call a speed limit for a bike a “burden,”

Whatever you call it, if there is an effect where a registration requirement results in more driving than otherwise, that has to be taken into account.

[–] Town@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago

I'd be more for California physically limiting the speed of every vehicle sold in the state to 70 mph.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

I thought you're gonna say 50kmph easily with a twist of a throttle but alas, it's only 30kmph, which can be achieved easily for a period of time by an average cyclist on a roadbike.

But i do agree ebike that can do more than 30kmph with a throttle are a danger to the pedestrians, it's already a moped, which is something people doesn't seems to realise.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

My city just installed 15mph speed limits. I welcome regulation and citations for speeding e-bikes at 25-30mph. It's for safety.

Funny how there's vocal outcry when "rules for thee, not for me" breaks down.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 week ago

I can cycle without a motor faster than 15mph, when cycling you don't even know your speed.

Here they just go by if you are going faster than is safe for the conditions, it isn't a specific speed but doing 25 in a busy street with pedestrians is probably considered dangerous. Would be illegal and almost certainly unenforced. Then again, cars speeding is rarely enforced either.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

E-bike as a category is too wide and varied for this to be worthwhile.

[–] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Read the article, please.

Class 1 e-bikes stay without license.

Class 2 and 3 get licenses,

Class 1 and 2 are slowed down to 16 mph (25kmh), currently 20 mph (32 kmh)

Class 1 is analogous to EU pedelecs - you need to pedal for assist. Class 2 has a throttle instead. Class 3 is for higher speeds and children are not allowed to drive them.

What further category do you want?

[–] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

As mentioned in another thread on the topic, the proposed rules essentially bring the e-bike rules in California in line with the rules in Europe.

I don't think energy should be wasted being against this

[–] vathecka@lemmy.radio -3 points 6 days ago

Just because europe is overregulated doesnt mean its good for other places to be.

[–] girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 15 points 1 week ago (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Fafa@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Not only that. Pedestrian space is becoming more and more part of delivery services that use ebikes. I'm all for evs, but It starts to feel like an erosion of walkways.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Dirtbikes have been regulated my whole life. How are these any different?

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Part of the issue is that the category of "ebike" is quite large. It really needs to be split into multiple subcategories for regulation.

For bikes intended to mix with pedestrians, you definitely need to limit speed and weight. Europe's 250W, 25kph rules seem reasonable for this.

The problem most places have is the grey area between ebike and moped, particularly for cargo bikes. They are fast/heavy enough to be a risk to pedestrians, but not enough to be classed as motorbikes. They need some restrictions/licencing to keep pedestrian areas safe, but not so much that they get lumped in with cars.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›