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

Fuck Cars

15699 readers
804 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
125
California Wants to Put License Plates on E-Bikes and Slow Them Down. Cyclists Are Not Happy About It (guessingheadlights.com)
submitted 3 days 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 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 1 day 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 1 day 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 5 points 1 day 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.

[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day 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?

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 40 points 3 days 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 3 days ago (10 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 2 days ago

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

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 2 days ago

I've clocked 40 mph coming down a mountain with just gravity and my leg power.

But that's why bike lanes don't make sense. We need space for passing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 8 points 2 days 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 1 day ago

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

[–] girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days 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 2 days ago (1 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.

[–] MonkRome@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 7 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ghen@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Just because you don't murder people doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws against it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 27 points 3 days ago (5 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Fafa@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days 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)
[–] cynar@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days 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.

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

You mean like into 3 classes of e-bikes? Like California already does? With these rules specifically applying to some of these classes and not to others, as it says in the article?

Like what do you want more? These rules would make Class 1 exactly like in the EU pedelecs (with more wattage).

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

Take that fake Fred!

load more comments
view more: next ›