Sorry for my lack of clarity. My first sentence there wasn't meant to say you are supporting it, but rather that you are making the same mistake as people who do.

Many people see them as harmless, riders fail to wear helmets, drivers think of them as fast pedestrians. Not all of course, but enough that the issue is worth looking at.

Believe me, I know. You are 100% correct in this. On my rides to and from work today, I saw a fair few illegal electric motorbikes on bike paths and shared paths, and an even larger number of people not wearing helmets.

Interestingly, the two groups rarely overlap. The motorbike riders for the most part are wearing motorbike helmets or dirtbiking helmets.

It is a problem and we do need to do something about it. But "do something" and "do anything" are not the same. This is like trying to solve antisemitism by silencing criticism of Israel. Or fixing the problem with gambling advertising by...*checks notes* banning children from social media. We need changes that are actually geared towards fixing this problem. Some of the new police powers in this Bill are good. The federal import changes that came in at the end of last year are good. Hopefully police are going to be doing more to enforce the already-existing laws and using those new powers against actual dangerous motorbike riders on busy shared paths, and not on Joe with a modified ebike that he uses to go 30 km/h instead of 25 when no pedestrians are around.

While you may not be interested in eScooters, the law covers them all, and so did my comment

Fair enough, as long as we're all clear about which bits we're talking about agreeing with vs not. It's an important problem, and one that has been deliberately created by the drafters of the Bill. They are constantly conflating ebikes with PMDs. The explanatory notes start out by telling us about 6000 hospital presentations from PMDs, and then immediately move on to describe the 12 fatalities from all e-mobility devices. They know the difference, but they don't want the public to be clear about it. Because that makes it easier to restrict everything.

“Children under the age of 16 are permitted to ride Ford Falcons”. There - solved

There are at least three different interlocking issues here that I myself have conflated. Sorry about that.

Children under 16, adults who cannot get a licence, and people (adults and children) who need special adaptive bikes.

Some children under 16, including one anecdote that was shared at last Wednesday's protest, can ride completely normal ebikes, but because of disability can't ride regular bikes for an appreciable amount of time. I think that story is told in the video this post is a link to.

There are a variety of conditions that make driving too dangerous, without making cycling a problem. Epilepsy and middle-grade vision impairment were mentioned. There are conditions which make obtaining a licence, independent of the safety of actually operating a vehicle. Severe ADHD or anxiety or other conditions which impair a person's ability to take the written road rules test, for example. Obtaining special exemptions might be possible when obtaining a licence for the purpose of driving a car, but should not be necessary for cycling, because cycling should be accessible, and exemption-based policy is inherently not accessible. Finance-related reasons are another issue with licencing for bikes.

So you've got some people who need an ebike regardless of type, and would under an exception-based system need a personal exemption.. And you've got others who need specific adaptive bikes and would need to buy specific specially-approved bikes. Either one is problematic enough.

But more to the point, all of this is talking about it in the frame that they want you to. We're already presuming some talk about regulating ebikes. But why? What evidence is there of harm being done by anyone on compliant ebikes?

The answer to that question is none. There's no evidence. That's not to say that it might not be a problem. It could. But before regulation can even be considered an acceptable solution, we need evidence that the thing being regulated actually poses a problem.

and have been through radar traps (I’m allowed to go 30+ kph, because my legs are my motor)

Part of the problem I have with this law is that I do not have any faith in police to do the right thing. They regularly run speed traps on the small number of places where there are speed limits targeted at cyclists. 20 km/h on a wide, clear visibility, downhill section of a bridge. A while back it became a pretty big scandal when they ran speed traps on a different bridge with 10 km/h signage. The then-Labor state government acted fairly quickly to update that and bring that bridge into line with the other one. But it's quite clear: police will do what's easy, not what's best for public safety. And that's with the most friendly possible interpretation of the cops' actions. A less charitable interpretation would say they deliberate target cyclists because we're the "out group" and they enjoy hurting minorities.

And I recognise that WA Police are not QLD police. I’m pretty sure WA Police can already destroy illegal bikes.

Fair. To be honest, I've never heard anything about WA police. And that's probably a good sign. I know for a fact that Vic and NSW police are just as bad as Qld ones, if not worse.

I thought Qld police already had that power too, tbh. It's possible that it's a grey area and this law is just clarifying it in black and white, which is certainly a good thing.

Though I've learnt in the time since my last comment that apparently they only need "reasonable suspicion" to confiscate, and that they could even confiscate based on "reasonable suspicion" a bike that is locked up at the time. And that they don't need to try to contact the owner. They just need to put a notice on the QPS website that they did it. And if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that it was abandoned, they don't even need to do that!

If confiscated, and the owner finds out, and the vehicle actually was legal, they can apply to have it released. If released, the police get to determine when and where it's available for collection. Can't make it to collect within 30 days? Too bad, you've forfeited it anyway. And no compensation for police having unjustly stolen your bike.

So we need:

• A higher burden of evidence than mere suspicion before police can confiscate
• An obligation to do their best to directly contact the owner
• Legislated requirement for more flexibility to work with the owner vis a vis collection
• Just compensation for the loss of their property for the time between confiscation and collection

If those changes are made, it's a great provision.