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 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.
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.
Some of these comments read like FBI boot licker plants
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.
[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.
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.
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).
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.
Lemmy when offline driver monitoring to prevent dui and falling asleep, texting: 🤬🤬
Lemmy when requiring license and registration just to ride a bicycle: 🤭
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.
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.
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.
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.
huh? I never wear a helmet outside of escooters but I’m not going to argue that no helmet is safer than helmet
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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).
Tough. Go back to a regular bike. Around here the cops have been making them follow the driving laws for a few years. There are no state laws but other ways to get them to not be a danger.
Exactly. America could use the exercise.
I would be getting zero exercise in my commute if it wasn’t for an ebike
You can commute on a bicycle… true story.
There are about 9 very steep hills in the way. I would show up to my very professional job absolutely soaked to the nines heaving and hoing. Not happening.
An e bikes gives me some exercise yet I’m not absolutely dead when I get to work.
Cause its stupid. Regulate the bikes so they perform like regular bikes and forget about it.
People don’t buy ebikes to go fast, they buy them to make hills easier.
This is a weird take.
Some people are definitely buying ebikes to go fast.
And a kind of stupid take. If the bike can go up hills easy it can go fast easy. The limits are all in software and there’s abundant evidence that software limits are easily circumvented.
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
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?
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
That’s nothing a cheap EEPROM reader from China cannot solve…
25 mph here
