Do that for all bikes. If they run a stop sign or light, prison.
What age do you suggest bicycle riders have to be? I think registering pedal bikes is absurd and limits many people. You already can get tickets on a bicycle for anything from running stop signs to speeding to DUI. I do think e bikes with a throttle should be registered like scooters because people riding them are getting folded up BAD because they treat the safety like that of a bicycle but then do motorcycle speeds on them and it leads to pretty serious injury. But I think any bike that’s pedal only or only pedal assist (read: NO throttle) has no reason to be registered.
I don’t agree with any of idea of registering a bike but what did people expect? Slap a motor on a bike and the cops are going to target you. Hell, no motor and they still will.
Edit: you can be mad about it if you want but I’m just letting you know thats exactly what they’ve always done to moped riders and now they’re coming for electric motors. Same shit different year.
Oh no… Can’t have people travelling around without flock cameras being able to establish travel patterns…
As more people turn to e bikes for commutes or errands, government needs to be able to track and Id you.
/s but still its probably true
I’m gonna play devil’s advocate here a little bit. If you can drive a “bicycle” the same as a scooter (30 mph motorized vehicle) why would you not regulate the same? Scooters have to be registered and I think these 30mph ebikes with a throttle are pretty much the same thing. Should have reg and insurance if your doing 30 and operating on the roadways as a motorized vehicle. Otherwise why did I register any of my motorcycles? Why register a car? Read about ebike injuries. Their more akin to motorcycle crashes than bicycle accidents. Also can cause damage to other motor vehicles and injure pedestrians just as much as a scooter would.
I would support something that gets other cyclists to stop breaking the law. Running stop signs and red lights is dangerous for no fucking reason. I’m not sure if this is the right way though.
Maybe we should give them license plates and ban the flock cameras. Two birds, one stone.
Studies show that treating stop signs as yield signs and lights as stop signs saves cyclist lives. See the Idaho stop.
What makes cars safe to be around is not necessary for cyclist safety to themselves or others.
Stop signs and stop lights only exist to prevent cars from killing people, they aren’t necessary for bicycles going under 25mph.
ive seen cyclist almost run over people, by going extremely fast, and they warn pedestrians at all, or they make a obnoxious loud noise that is equally dangerous when it also involves cars.
The convenient surveillance doesn’t exactly discourage the government from supporting/driving car-centric communities.
[Analog] cyclist here. I’m of the opinion if it has a throttle, it needs some sort of registration and maybe even minimal insurance.
Class I (in the US), you don’t need anyone’s permission to ride. Just like a regular bicycle.
Class III, you need some sort of registration/license. Might as well be a motorcycle.Class II is where we can have some discussion and disagreement.
Maybe I am mistaken on e bike ratings but can’t you have a class 3 without a throttle? And isn’t the definition of a class 2 that it does have a throttle?
I think you’ll find the definitions of what constitutes each class is fairly moot when there’s no-one enforcing the differences. You’re right, not all class IIIs have throttles, but the ones that are causing the most problems definitely do.
You don’t have that correct. Not your fault, the system is very confusing.
Class III can’t have throttles by definition. They have a max speed of 28mph.
Class II have throttles but a top speed of 20mph.
Class I have no throttles and a top speed of 20mph.
You are thinking of unclassified bikes (electric dirtbikes, mopeds, and motorcycles).
Fair enough, thanks for the correction. At least from my revisiting of the classifications, class III seem to allow (but not require) throttles in most places, but– to your point– not allowed in California.
My incorrectness proves a larger point, I think, that the unclassified bikes are often grouped into “e-bikes” and those at least need to be regulated. That we don’t allow class III e-bikes on multi-use trails muddy the water between III and unclassified, at least to me.
Let’s work on gun registration, then I’ll be open to it.
Not sure where you are in the world, but where I am guns are most certainly registered.
Give you ONE guess 🤣🤣🤣
Your country already seems sensible, so I’d probably be ok with registration.
Somewhere in the American South? If so, I can see how you have such a pessimistic view of the US. My view from California is also pessimistic, but maybe not quite as much as if I were from, say, Florida or Texas.
Getting back to the original point, I’m not thrilled with the idea of any bike registration. But do have to agree with the idea of something being done about the dangerous class IIIs.
I live in the northeast and my state does not require firearms to be registered, and you only need to be 16 to purchase a firearm. My state is in the top 3 for least school shootings and among the lowest per capita gun deaths. Culture makes a big difference!
East, but not south. I’m fully against any sort of internet ID until we can at least talk about gun registration. I’m all for guns, I’ve owned a few, pistol, rifles, etc, currently only own 2, but if we can’t talk about limiting who can get a firearm, then they can fuck off about ID bullshit.
Figured you’d be in a more developed country by the way your comment read.
It’s certainly not Norway or Finland, but I like to think California is at least on the right side of “developed.” However, CAs push for age verification is most certainly misguided (at best) or downright wrong.
Some of these comments read like FBI boot licker plants
Either the general Lemmy IQ has dropped quite a bit or we are infested with bots. Neither is good.
Too many.
“I want the government to limit my property for the state’s benefit” is such a lib take. Oh and before anyone says its for “public safety” you’re chugging state propaganda. If it was for public safety then they would get rid of right hand turns on red but we’re not here to talk about that.
get rid of right hand turns on red
I’ve been driving in California for 30 years, and have never once considered right on reds a safety issue. At intersections where visibility is limited, they do prevent the turn on red.
I, like you, am uncomfortable with the license plate as a solution to the “something faster than an e-bike” problem. I don’t think that’s the solution. But it is a problem, and we should explore all possible solutions.
Miss me with your 30 years of driving bullshit https://apnews.com/article/red-light-turn-pedestrian-bicyclist-deaths-7f5bdee9c7b3f4cbf005f1844f486123
Miss me
What are you, twelve? You can find some isolated stories about tragic accidents (never mind the fact that the offender here did not stop at the red light, which is the crux of the issue.)
Yes, in my 30 years and hundreds of thousands of miles of driving in a state in which it is legal everywhere, I can conclusively say it’s no less safe than the rest of cars vs pedestrians- which is to say not as safe as it should be, but the solution isn’t in banning right-on-reds. Updates to the traffic code in Illinois (the state in which you cite the accident) go on not to ban right-on-reds, but to enforce a full and complete stop before the intersection and yielding to any pedestrians. Safety precautions that, frankly, should’ve been in place before and, from my seat, how it’s enforced in California.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red
"A 1981 US Department of Transportation study determined that the frequency of motor vehicle collisions with bicyclists and pedestrians when the vehicle was turning right increased significantly after the adoption of “Western RTOR”. According to that study “Estimates of the magnitude of the increases ranged from 43% to 107% for pedestrian accidents and 72% to 123% for bicyclist accidents.” These RTOR accidents were between 1% and 3% of all pedestrian and bicycle accidents in the locations that were studied.[94]
A 1984 study found that where RTOR was allowed “all right-turning crashes increase by about 23%, pedestrian crashes by about 60%, and bicyclist crashes by about 100%.”[95] A 1993 study also concluded that RTOR increased crashes for pedestrians and cyclists, by 44% and 59% respectively.[96]
For the 1982–1992 period, a National Highway Safety Commission report estimated that total fatal crashes in the U.S. involving vehicles making a right turn on red, were between 0 and 84, and probably toward the lower end of the range.[97]
A February 2002 study published in the ITE Journal concluded that “Prohibiting right turn on red would require drivers to turn on green. This would most likely increase the number of collisions by right turning vehicles.”[2][98]
A 2009 study by The New York City Department of Transportation of injuries before and after right turn on red was allowed at specific intersections concluded that the change had not affected accident rates.[99]"
“Please regulate our ebikes while we don’t have free healthcare” That’s you, that’s what you sound like.
I am 12 and your anecdotal evidence is childish now fuck off dumb ass lib.
A February 2002 study published in the ITE Journal concluded that “Prohibiting right turn on red would require drivers to turn on green. This would most likely increase the number of collisions by right turning vehicles.”[2][98]
A 2009 study by The New York City Department of Transportation of injuries before and after right turn on red was allowed at specific intersections concluded that the change had not affected accident rates.[99]"
I’m not sure the last two agree with your point there.
“Please regulate our ebikes while we don’t have free healthcare” That’s you, that’s what you sound like.
But then why not also deregulate cars and motorcycles? Why do electric motorcycles deserve to be unregulated while regular motorcycles are regulated?
We could use RTOR where I live. It would likely improve pedestrian safety because pedestrians don’t cross with red. Pedestrian red and car red are synced. Lack of RTOR means cars have to make right turns when pedestrians are crossing.
Nothing like being called childish from someone not in control of their emotions.
Oh, and I don’t want e-bikes regulated. I want e-motos defined correctly.
Too many people in here are perfectly fine with all movement outside of their home being ID’d, documented and monitored. A plate on a bike does absolutely nothing to make the road safer. It just normalizes the “safety” of constant surveillance by your benevolent overlords.
Put normal regulations on e bike performance and build bike safe infrastructure. “It would be too dangerous to chase them”… get on your own bike you fat lazy pig.
The number of children I see zooming around the neighborhood without helmets and not even stopping at stop signs (I legit almost hit one kid one time who blew through a stop sign in front of me), is pretty horrifying. Their parents have basically given them all small motorcycles and let them go free with no supervision. It just seems so unsafe.
Some vehicles that people call “ebikes” should absolutely be registered and plated. You should not be able to take a motorized vehicle on a bike path and zoom through at 50+ MPH. The surron kiddies are going to ruin alternative transportation for everyone. Sure, surrons aren’t ebikes (and something like a super 76 which has pedals really should be regulated as part of its own category like emoped or something), but regulators are going to want to put everything in nice neat categories and ban everything else.
Genuinely nobody follows stop signs. I think it’s like 20% actually come to a stop?
With bicycles, it’s safer to treat stop signs as a yield signs since coming to a full stop means you’ll cross the intersection much more slowly than if you keep some speed.
The issue here is that we have no way to verify from your text whether you almost hit them because of their lack of responsibility, or if you weren’t paying enough attention.
As someone with extensive experience with bike commuting on a regular bike, I have had multiple near death experiences while obeying all traffic laws properly and using multiple light sources. Even with my new 10 minute walking commute, the simple act of crossing the street safely when the street lights tell me to cross, has proved to be asking too much with multiple near hits in only a few months.
Humans are not remotely responsible enough to drive.
Lol I was paying perfect attention. Only reason the kid was ok was that I was far enough back to slam on my breaks (and was going the speed limit). I doubt he even realized how risky the move he pulled was.
In all fairness, I’ve also nearly been hit by asshole pickup trucks blowing the same stop sign. Guess it might just be that intersection that makes people think it’s optional.
Helmets are bad for safety because (1) car drivers act more dangerous around cyclists wearing helmets and (2) they discourage people from riding bikes whereas the primary safety factor of cycling, by far, is the number of people cycling.
Helmets are pretty important for safety. I don’t really have strong opinions on whether helmets should be required or not, just because if you go flying without a helmet and die it only kills you, but… yeah, we’ve gotten hit by cars (on our dinky 15mph escooter) and the helmet probably saved our life.
That also applies even if you don’t get hit by a car and just, say, get your wheel stuck in a train track rail or something and go down. (We’ve had that happen, too, on a bike.)
– Frost
huh? I never wear a helmet outside of escooters but I’m not going to argue that no helmet is safer than helmet
I should have been clearer sorry. Wearing a helmet is obviously better in a crash; but, both personally and societally, not wearing one decreases the chances of getting in a crash in the first place.
Not just children, but adults too! They’re more likely to have a helmet on, but stop a stop sign? Nah, they don’t have to stop, they are immune to traffic laws!
Stop signs and traffic lights only exist to stop cars from killing people, bicycles do not need stop signs.
It is safer for bicyclists to run stop signs than it is to come to a complete stop. Also who the fuck in 2026 actually stops at a stop sign? Nobody does.
Kids having independence is a good thing. They are probably the first in their family to be independent from cars and so their parents don’t teach them cycling etiquette.
Yes independence is a good thing. If they were riding normal bikes, I’d have few issues with them. However, the way things currently are, I see a decent number of dead or disabled children in the future.
Hell, I’ve had kids riding down the opposite lane of traffic riding wheelies and swerving around. Absolutely no accountability.
Not seems, is.
People are fucking stupid.
I’ve put 4000 miles on my e-bike in the past 2 years. Even though I follow traffic laws, I’ve seen far too much fuckery by other e-bike riders. I’m seeing children riding e-bikes and scooters, without helmets, doing crazy shit in the middle of the road almost cause accidents. I have narrowly avoided hitting such children on 3 separate occasions. I see plenty of adults on these things also not following traffic laws and riding these things on busy sidewalks.
I really do not want e-bikes to be regulated like cars. Being forced to register and carry insurance makes an inexpensive thing expensive. That being said, there are tons of dumb assholes out there that will ruin it for the rest of us.
Registering is fine, a lot of people voluntarily register their expensive bikes with local police that have those programs anyway.
Insurance is weirder. Cars require as much insurance as they do because they weigh multiple tons and can kill people and destroy infrastructure. A powered bike can do a lot of damage, especially if it rams someone, but it has an order of magnitude less destructive potential than a car. Especially for a limited powered bike insurance “should” be significantly cheaper.
The difference is honestly closer to two orders of magnitude.
E = 1/2mv^2
1/2 * 1000kg * 50 km/h * 50 km/h * 0.2778 mh/skm * 0.2778 mh/skm = 96 kJ
1/2 * 100kg * 25 km/h * 25 km/h * 0.2778 mh/skm * 0.2778 mh/skm = 2 kJ
It’s more nuanced than just “regulation bad and I want my freedom.” With the war in Iran destroying the world’s energy economy, people will be forced to use cheaper modes of transportation. And when there aren’t any buses/trains, E-bikes are a good solution. The problem will be that too many people will be pushed into it and some people are just retarded. There will be reckless people and there will be those that can barely operate the vehicle. I think it’s worth considering some form of regulations knowing that they’re may be an E-bike boom in the coming years (or maybe even months).
Now limit car speed next? They seem to be the biggest menace on the roads in California. E-motos are not e-bikes and e-bikes shouldn’t be lumped into legislation.
Yes.
But even if they didn’t limit cars. That’s no excuse for not limiting e-bikes.
You don’t need to prove that you know the traffic laws to ride an ebike. You do to ride a car.
You do not need a license that can be revoked to ride an ebike. So if you speed in a car you could just get your license removed, not the case for ebikes.
The thing is, cops can still cite bikers for breaking traffic laws they don’t know. So why aren’t the cops enforcing existing traffic laws on e-bikes? In my town I see kids without helmets drive past cop cars and the cops don’t even take a second look.
I really wish California revoked licenses for stuff like that. On paper they do but really speeding is rampant and not enforced. We should be stepping up patrols to enforce laws we have on the books before making more.
Aren’t car speeds already limited everywhere?
e-bikes and e-scooters where I come from are limited to 25 km/h because you don’t really need a license for those. Vehicles that require a license (and thus plenty of training) are allowed to go faster. If your e-bike is limited to 25, you’re still allowed to cycle faster than that on your own. In fact, cycling speed isn’t limited at all, other than near pedestrians or in designated walkable areas. E-motos have the same speed limits as cars and motorcycles, because they require a motorcycle license and are generally classified as motorcycles.
The idea is that kids with no formal traffic training and potentially not much experience shouldn’t be able to shoot up to 50 km/h in 2 seconds using an electric motor. Achieving speed with your own muscles takes more time and effort, requires a straight enough road, etc.
They are not limiting car speed on the car itself. Which is what they are proposing, a governor on the e-bike that prevents you from going faster.
Yes, on vehicles that require no training or license and have no license plate and usually go pretty fast on pedestrian walkways. The faster ones will get license plates (but no training or license requirement).
California is spot on and if the e-bike is able to travel above 25 km/h it should be illegal to ride in the bicycle lane. Why the hell are kids riding an e-bike when they should be building endurance and muscles.
I’d say stick a 30mph limit as a cutoff for needing to be licensed, with anything above that to just be considered a scooter (the 49cc kind that need licensed but aren’t allowed on freeways) and anything faster than that a motorcycle, and be done with it.
There already is. Class III e bikes end at 28mph. Beyond that they’re supposed to be plated.
I’d call this a problem that already has its solution in place, then. I’d bet the bigger issue is just people with faster bikes not following the law.
30mph is FAST, A 49cc moped is going to be able to hit a top speed of 30 miles per hour.
I’d say a speed limit for no licensing/registration/insurance should be 15mph. Thats about the speed an average cyclist would be able to go without electronic assists.
30 is not hard on a bike, dont need an ebike to do that
I can do 30+ on a road bike, and you can get a 49cc scooter to 40. The ones that cap at 30 are big or have limiters put on them. 30 is pretty fast, but not crazy fast. My little brother has a tricked out Onewheel that he races. It does 40mph. Now that’s crazy fast.
You’re sustaining 30 for over an hour on a road bike solely by pedaling? I didn’t know we had olympians in the comments
You are misreading that he said he could keep it up for an hour
True, I did exaggerate. But the reality is sustained motorized speed is entirely different from a cyclist’s burst speed, which is exactly why they shouldn’t be regulated the same way.
I’d argue the opposite.
Lol. No, but do you think it’s safer to pedal your ass off at thirty, or casually doing it on an e bike where you can look around and see everything else?
Just as an inspiration: in Germany the cut-off is 25 km/h (I’ll leave doing the math to you). I think that’s almost reasonable. Personally I’d favor 30 km/h, because that’s a common speed limit for residential areas over here and that would allow them to better flow with traffic.
That’s only 15 mph and it pretty damned terrible, really. That’s slower than my cruising speed on my road bike and only half as fast as my burst speed when trying to go really quick. 40kmh would be about 25mph and that seems like an acceptable speed to have without being too unsafe to me.
Ah, an important fact I forgot to mention this rule applies to bikes with pedalling assistance, so pedelecs, strictly speaking. Real E-bikes, that can use their motor by flicking a switch always require a license plate. That’s the silly part of the law her, imho. I just added this fact after having written the rest.
If you’re doing more than 15 mph as a long-term cruising speed and 30 mph burst, I have to assume, you’re a fairly fit and healthy person. And of course it wouldn’t feel unsafe for you to do the same speeds with an E-bike. But what you have to consider is, that these bikes are also very popular with people who are not fit enough to reach those speeds unassisted and maybe haven’t even ridden a bike for a long time. When I see some of our elderly citizens using them, I’m pretty happy they aren’t allowed to go that much faster, since they are also not restricted to use roads and often share the way with pedestrians.
What you also have to put into consideration is, that this limit doesn’t mean, that you cannot go faster, it’s just that the assistance shuts of at ~15 mph and everything on top, you have to pedal in yourself. Which is a bit more exhausting, due to the overall heavier bike, but something I regularly do, even though I ride a pretty shoddy 10 year-old bike with less than ideal mechanics.
The overall experience of riding a bike like that is pretty damn great still and not at all as terrible, as you make it sound. You can go your regular cruising speed on flat parts, no restriction for downhill, but you get an extra lift for uphill sections, and what’s the biggest plus for me is the extra acceleration - and ease thereof - when you have to stop at cross-sections and traffic-lights.
It’s all depended on the surrounding traffic and environment a bit, so I’m not saying a carbon copy of that rule would be ideal for the US for example. But even though I’d wish for 3 mph more, it works pretty well around here. And don’t forget that you can simply get a bike with a license plate for anythig beyond those rules.
You make some good points. What is of special annoyance in the US is that bikes are NOT allowed where pedestrians walk. Bikes are required to be in bike lanes (don’t exist in most areas) or on the road with vehicles. The city I work in for instance, has quite a few sidewalks for people, but bikes aren’t allowed on them. They just have to be in streets with other cars.
Reading what the law actually says, these seem to be sensible changes, bringing the rules in line with European standards.
Yeah, works pretty well over here.
It’s about expected speed and who you’re sharing a path with.
If I’m a cyclist, I don’t want to share a cycle lane with some idiot doing 40mph on a Temu deathtrap. By all means have those as an alternative to cars and petrol motorbikes (because cheap transport is still transport), but you’ll need regulations, registration plates, and mandatory safety equipment, and they need to share the road with other vehicles.
deleted by creator
It’s more about liability, if someone is riding around on an unregistered ebike and cause some sort of incident then they (or they’re parents, since IMO it’s a lot of kids who are ripping around on these) are the liable party
Then I would say it doesn’t matter because they’re not riding like a bell-end. The system will have done it’s job.
Does it matter if the coo knows or not? If they do something stupid and get stopped, the cop will realize and fine them for not being registered.
You can also drive around in a car without a license and a cop would never know unless you drove stupidly and they pulled you over.
E-bikes are already capped at 25km/h here. Aren’t they elsewhere?
That’s nothing a cheap EEPROM reader from China cannot solve…
In the US e-bikes that can reach 60 mph — which is 96.5 km/h — without peddling are starting to become common, especially with children. They are motorcycles.
Those aren’t e-bikes by any legal definition, they just look like e-bikes because they have some technically functional pedals.
E-bikes are categorized into three primary groups based on factors such as motor power, availability of pedal and/or throttle assist and maximum speeds. Familiarizing yourself with the e-bike class allows you to anticipate its performance characteristics. Depending on the class, certain areas may permit riding a Class 1 e-bike while prohibiting the use of a Class 3 e-bike for instance. These regulations vary across states with many states having their own e-bike classifications or lack thereof. California, for example, has legislation specifying three e-bike classes. There are generally accepted definitions for e-bike classes, and we provide an overview of these standard classifications below.
Class 1
A Class 1 e-bike, also known as a pedelec, relies on pedaling to propel forward. It features pedal assist but lacks throttle assist, limiting its speed to a maximum of 20 miles per hour. In most cases, Class 1 e-bikes are permitted in the same areas as traditional bicycles such as bike paths and bike lanes. However, the specific regulations governing their usage depend on local government ordinances.
Class 2
Class 2 e-bikes offer both pedal assist and throttle assist, allowing them to move forward even without pedaling. Generally, Class 2 e-bikes are not designed to exceed 20 mph. Many jurisdictions allow the use of Class 2 e-bikes on conventional bike paths and lanes.
Class 3
Class 3 e-bikes are slightly faster, reaching speeds of up to 28 mph. They often come equipped with a speedometer, which may be required in certain states like California. Class 3 e-bikes are typically permitted on roads and designated bike-only shoulder lanes. However, due to their higher power output, they are generally not allowed on standard bike lanes, paths or trails.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/carbapps/ebikeincentives/e-bike-basics/index.html
25 mph here
I think it makes sense for those bikes that can do 30mph+ and aren’t even meant to be ridden as bicycles despite having pedals. They usually look like a motorcycle and can accommodate two riders. Having bicycle pedals shouldn’t be a loophole for bypassing drivers licensing requirements and traffic laws. These things are usually ridden by 10-15 year olds who don’t yet have formal training. I saw a kid cause an accident buzzing through a 4-way stop. I’ve also heard of them colliding with pedestrians at high speeds on sidewalks. E-bikes are a good thing overall, but it’s the Wild West right now and some e-bikes can go way too fast for something that isn’t regulated.
I agree with all of your points. However, in California, ebikes are already regulated:
https://riding5.com/blogs/news/california-ebike-laws-class-1-2-3
The only “wild west” thing happening is that some people are riding illegal, (they’re already illegal. We don’t need new laws) unregistered electric motorcycles. The 30+ mph “ebikes” you refer to: those are motorcycles.
What makes it the Wild West is there is no good way to enforce anything at the moment, so any existing regulations are ineffective to the point where the current environment is de facto unregulated
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, the East Bay legislator behind the license plate bill, says law enforcement in her district has been raising concerns for some time. Officers told her they are seeing dangerous speeds from electric bikes but have no practical way to issue citations without putting themselves or others at risk. A license plate changes that equation.
She also pointed out that the rise of e-bikes among younger riders has made it harder to know at a glance whether a child is legally riding an age-appropriate e-bike, operating an illegally modified one, or cruising around on an electric moped that is not supposed to be on public roads at all.
How do you know which one is illegal? It’s the one that’s going too fast.
Ebikes are an excellent, relatively inexpensive solution to several problems. They’re going to try to regulate them until they become impractical.
I’ve got a skateboard and unicycle myself, I think all these things are great, but you’ve highlighted the big problems that exist today. It’s the kids that have no sense, whip by people walking, being ignorant to traffic rules, etc.
I watched 2 kids on a gravel path whip by on escooters past a 5 year old swaying back and forth on a pedal bike as he was obviously trying to learn. That could have gotten bad.
It’s really a shame. Ebikes are amazing and have the potential to really bring bicycling to the masses. But these jackasses riding motocross rock hoppers down the sidewalk are going to ruin it for everybody.
