A dump from the article:
When New Jersey passed one of the country’s most restrictive e-bike laws earlier this year, plenty of riders, advocates, and bike shops warned that it would have consequences. Now, just a few weeks after the law officially took effect, those predictions appear to have come true.
Bike shops across the state are reporting declines in e-bike sales ranging from 20% to an astonishing 90%, with many saying customers are simply deciding that owning an e-bike in New Jersey is no longer worth the hassle.
The law, which took effect on July 19, requires every e-bike in the state to be registered, from the slowest Class 1 pedal-assist models all the way through faster Class 3 bikes. Riders under 17 without a driver’s license must pass an MVC licensing test to obtain a special e-bike license, while Class 2 throttle-equipped e-bikes and Class 3 models also require insurance, similar to owning a car.
The result has been widespread confusion. Some customers reportedly believe e-bikes have simply been banned outright. Others tell dealers they’ll just buy online and ignore the requirements. And many are choosing not to buy an e-bike at all.
The impact on local businesses has been severe. One New Jersey dealer said sales plunged 90%, another reported a 63% decline, while others described losing between 20% and 60% of their e-bike business. Several shops have already laid off employees, closed rental operations, downsized, or warned they may not survive through the end of the year.
Perhaps most troubling are the unintended consequences for the very people e-bikes help the most. Dealers who specialize in mobility-focused transportation say disabled customers are returning newly purchased e-bikes or abandoning plans to buy them altogether because they fear they won’t qualify for licensing or insurance requirements. One retailer described customers losing transportation to work or school because of the new rules.
What’s particularly frustrating is that many of these problems were predictable. The law treats a low-speed 15-20 mph (25-32 km/h) throttle-equipped Class 2 e-bike much more like a motorcycle than like a bicycle, despite its similar performance to a standard Class 1 pedal-assist bike. Bike shops and advocacy groups have instead urged lawmakers to exempt low-speed e-bikes under 20 mph (32 km/h) from licensing, registration, and insurance requirements while focusing regulation on higher-speed, higher-powered machines that more closely resemble electric mopeds.
It’s hard to argue with that logic. If the goal was to improve safety, discouraging people from riding bicycles and pushing them back into cars seems like an odd way to do so, especially when cars are the very things supposedly making e-bikes “unsafe”.
yes but a few car industry execs and lobbyists got huge bonuses for their hard work on the new regulations, so there’s that!
Tbf, 15-20mph on a throttle equipped bicycle is a motorcycle and is not safe for other isers of the sidewalk.
It is a motorcycle or a moped and it is also not safe to be riding at that speed at a sidewalk among pedestrias but what’s also true is that anyone can reach those speeds on a traditional bicycle and the outcome of a crash is just as severe.
but what’s also true is that anyone can reach those speeds on a traditional bicycle and the outcome of a crash is just as severe.
Except reaching those speeds on a traditional bicycle requires significantly more effort, and is really only possible for adults that are somewhat active. I doubt there’s any 10yo that can reach 30mph on a traditional bike on flat ground
I doubt there’s any 10yo that can reach 30mph on a traditional bike on flat ground
The comment I replied to said 15 to 20mph. That’s a pretty standard cruising speed for a healthy adult.
On a road bike a 10 can easily hit 20-30mph
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about if you’re seriously suggesting a 10yo could actually hit 30mph. Get tf out of here
On a road bike? Just about any 10 year old on a slight decline.
I doubt there’s any 10yo that can reach 30mph on a traditional bike on flat ground
Learn to fucking read.
Are bicycles normally allowed on sidewalks? I’ve always lived where they have to ride in bike lanes or on bike paths.
In most regions, bicycles are not legal on sidewalks.
But guess where people ride them!
(It’s on the sidewalk)
It really depends. IMO you should ride wherever is safest for everyone. I would say more people use scooters on the sidewalk than bikes. And the 15-20mph is dangerous claims don’t hold up when you can literally go 1mph or walk it if the sidewalks have pedestrians. Going 20mph on a sidewalk with people around is dangerous. Going 20mph on a sidewalk that is empty when the road has shit or no bike lanes is most likely much safer for everyone.
So then it should be fine for my Vespa to ride on the sidewalk when no one is around .
Vespa is about 3-5 times the weight of an e scooter and I assume yours runs in gasoline, so not really a fair comparison but if going under 20mph on the sidewalk is what you consider the safest course of action in a specific circumstance then I’m not sure anybody would fault you for it. Or just get yourself an e-scooter if you use your Vespa for very short trips. The convenience of being able to ride in safer locations where you’re not having to be hyper vigilant of not only your own actions but also those of cars that might very quickly end your life because someone was texting is pretty nice.
I ride a motorcycle too (not even on the sidewalk) and can tell you for a fact that e scooters are night and day safer transportation under normal use cases.
Generally no. In my state that’s illegal, though everyone looks the other way if it’s just kuds on regular bikes. I doubt that’ll continue to be true if kids start blowing past a 30mph though
Here in QLD, Australia we beat you to this stupidity by a little. We, like Europe (and pretty much everywhere that’s not US) has 25kph pedaling requirements. ‘The Youf’ were getting around on OP unregistered e-motorcycles (by existing laws, with no import protections) so our tough on crime right wing gov decided to step in, instead of, you know, enforcing the existing law and stop importing inappropriate devices.
You now need a license (learners or better), to travel at 12kph on shared paths (most of the bikeways) instead of just slowing down to pass pedestrians like a civilized person. The bike also needs to be European standard (protect the hard to repair incumbents) or face an unspecified certification procedure starting in Feb?.
I’m currently analogue (built a midmount 250W like a decade ago before all this but ditched it because I wasn’t getting enough exercise) but looking to make a Bafang or similar so I can actually repair it and ditch a car. The whole shitshow is a mess.
I wasn’t expecting to say this, but New Jersey, I feel your pain.
exactly what I predicted. car lobbies choking out ebikes by covering them in red tape and fees.
Well at least the rich people helped each other, that’s the most important Portland party. This is America, after all, and without capitalism and graft they might have to get by as millionaires or even merely middle class.
So as usual, a few idiots ruining everything for the rest of us? Combined with knee jerk legislators, i mean.
Funny how those idiots don’t seem to have ruined automobiles.
Well, the same can be said for cars, so let’s not go there.
In countries where e-bikes are widely adopted like The Netherlands, e-bikes are responsible for a significant increase in cycling related injuries and fatalities.
So legislation is definitely needed to protect e-cyclists, regular cyclists and pedestrians.
They’re just boomers who fall alone and get more severe injuries. The dutch can’t even put on a helmet, that’s how much they value their head.
If cars have seatbelts, bikes have helmets. It’s not complex.
No need to make bikes pay insurance and vehicle tax. Have identification plates to be easily subject to traffic fines… Oh wait…
So, that’s legislation then.
And it’s not just the people falling off e-bikes but also regular cyclists pedestrians getting hit by e-bikes. Helmets won’t fix that.
pedestrains should also wear helmets of course. At least some should
Obviously, so should people sitting on the couch or eating dinner
Its mostly head injuries. These are between just a rider and the road, and the small number of fatalities were from geriatric riders that should have been in a wheel chair. The solution is to just wear a helmet… And since its not harming anyone aside from the rider themself, that should be a personal choice. No need to increase the barrier to entry with license, registration, and insurance. Its like people are just trying to find ways to make money off the increase in popularity of e bikes.
Its mostly head injuries.
Not really:
81,000 emergency visits, around 55,000 involved serious injuries, ranging from broken bones and concussions to skull fractures.
14,400 cases of head or brain injuries
fatalities were from geriatric riders that should have been in a wheel chair.
Also a no, a minority was in their 70s or older.
281 cyclist fatalities
118 of those victims were in their seventies or older
And if you need a wheelchair you can’t even physically get on an e-bike.
The solution is to just wear a helmet.
Only for some of the injuries. See above.
its not harming anyone aside from the rider themself, that should be a personal choice.
Most people will not wear a helmet if there is no legislation. We also take plenty of other measures to protect people, like seat belts in cars, banning smoking and drinking below a certain age. Also, society bears the cost. And it’s harming other people in the ER people whose diagnosis and treatment is being delayed because the ED and surgery are working a trauma case. And where do you find it’s only people vs the road? There are also plenty of young people and kids who buy illegal unregistered e-bikes with fat tires that look like a bike, but are more akin to an e-motor. Those often hit and cause serious damage to other cyclists and pedestrians.
No need to increase the barrier to entry with license, registration, and insurance.
Then how would you suggest filtering out the
geriatric riders that should have been in a wheel chair.
?
Legislation doesn’t protect anyone at all. It’s just a feel good solution. You can look exactly at cars and see laws don’t protect anyone.
Sorry, but that is just absolute nonsense. Just look at the vehicle deaths per number of vehicles or miles driven. What else do you think this drastic reduction in deaths comes from?
Small hint: it’s not because car manufacturers love people so much.
Seat belt laws alone have prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Anti lock brakes had an equal or stronger effect. The safest crash result is the crash you avoid.
Obviously there are many incremental safety features that all had an effect.
But the point is, we wouldn’t have had the majority of them if it wasn’t for legislation.
You missed my point. You can still operate a car without putting a seatbelt on. You can even “trick” the sensor by putting the belt on first or a dummy latch. It doesn’t solve the person chosing to not wear one.
Insurance doesn’t stop crime or deaths l. A license or plate is only good for identification, it wont protect the rider. Having “stiff OVI” laws wont stop a person from driving intoxicated.
You can even look at OVI trends and see it’s been fairly consistant with only slightly declining trend. However drug based OVI started increasing slightly due to legilization.
Your chart is misleading. It doesn’t take into consideration of early vehicles that didn’t have seatbelts at all or lack of safety devices (airbags, crumble zones, fibreglass bodies instead of steel). Manufacturers today are required to include all those safety devices for sale.
They could, but most people don’t. That’s why legislation works.
There is also nothing misleading about the graph.
Seatbelts = legislation.
Airbags = legislation.
Why do you think car manufacturers installed an unpopular piece of equipment at extra costs in the first place? Not from the goodness of their hearts.
But yet the same Driver’s license applies for a Honda Fit, F-250, and a Porsche.
I’m sure the motocycle shops are happy. E-bikes have been encroaching on the market since you get a lot of the benefits without having to deal with all the gear and certifications.
A bit heavyhanded to need registration even for low-speed (<25kph) pedal assist models. For faster ones however, their driving characteristics are more like mopeds & motorbikes anyway and it makes sense to have such requirements.
The whole problem is how e-bikes are defined. Because 25kph restricted, pedal assist models are the only ones that are e-bicycles in my mind. Anything that can go faster or does not need pedalling is an e-motorbike/moped/scooter and those should be regulated.
Yep, exactly. Iirc the criteria used where I live are engine wattage (max 250W), top assist speed (25kph) and whether pedaling is required (though no-pedal was allowed up to 20kph).
Anything beyond that becomes classified as a motor vehicle, and the only motor vehicles allowed on bike/ped paths are mopeds with a top speed of 25kph.
20mph pedal assist is pretty nice, but I would change my view if I needed insurance
These e-bike riders are like motorcyclists; all over the road and barely following driving rules.
They should require a license and, after a certain speed, should require insurance.
So you didnt even glance at the article, eh?
I did; I forgot I was in an offshoot of FuckCars
It was intended to cause.harm, that’s the point
