Getting rid of the three class system was a galaxy brain move, lol.
Have fun with emotos on shared use trails, instead of gentle class I-3 bikes doing 15.
Getting rid of the three class system was a galaxy brain move, lol.
Have fun with emotos on shared use trails, instead of gentle class I-3 bikes doing 15.
It's New Jersey for anyone wondering. Really didn't expect them of all places to do it.
Creating rules for Formula 1 cars that also apply to a Toyota Corolla might not be the best idea.
Am I missing something, or did Murphy sign this on his last day in office?
Are there not already laws about being reckless in public areas? Why are we not enforcing those? Why do we need new specific ones about bikes?
Main issue for me is that this gives cops a valid reason to stop and harass cyclists.
I do not live in an urban area, it's a suburban sprawl, and I already get stopped and harassed by the cops for biking on roads. I'm properly lit up and cautious.
They haven't done anything yet, because they can't, but that doesn't stop them or the drivers from reporting me either.
Only e-cyclists
Or anyone they "suspect" of being an e-cyclist.
To a cop, any black man on any two-wheeled vehicle is presumptively an e-cyclist until proven otherwise. They are also "armed" and "fit the description".
We need to be stripping the old toys away from the cops. The authoritarians don't get new toys until they prove they can be responsible with the ones they have.
Or anyone they "suspect" of being an e-cyclist.
That would not be a valid reason.
Oh, it absolutely would. "Reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime" is all that is needed to stop someone. Criminalizing e-bike usage gives yet another "crime" for cops to justify an "investigation" of "suspicious" activities.
Sure, their "investigation" will ultimately disprove their initial suspicion. But that doesn't make their initial suspicion invalid.
That initial suspicion gets them the stop, the detention. That initial stop gets your ID in their hands, their questions in your ears. While stopped on that initial suspicion, they get to evaluate your actions and behavior for nebulous "crimes" like "disorderly conduct" and "disturbing the peace" and "resisting arrest". They get to issue contradictory orders, then arrest you for the one you didn't follow.
The solution to "ACAB" is to strip them of the justifications they have to act, not to expand their scope.
"Reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime" is all that is needed to stop someone.
I'd love to hear them articulate reasonable suspicion that your plain old mechanical bike is an ebike...
"Reasonable suspicion" would indicate that they identified a battery or motor, which they simply would not on a mechanical bike.
Either way, I think we're arguing 2 sides of the same unconstitutional coin, and they don't give a shit about what's "valid" or "reasonable" anyway.
The laws aren't really harsh, they're just catching up with new tech. In my area there are tons of 10-15 year olds riding the motocross style e bikes, which isn't a problem, except that they go like 40+ mph in residential areas with no helmets, and they blow through stop signs all the time. Matter of time before one of those kids get veggied
The laws are harsh when they treat a pedal assisted ebike that your grandma can use to what is basically a motorbike, but sold as an "e-bike".
The real problem is motorbikes being sold as e-bikes (which can also come with deceptive advertising).
Real e-bikes that can't go 40mph shouldn't be effected, but it looks like they are blanket banning them.
Yeah, the fact this would affect my class 1 ebike really pisses me off.
100% whoever proposed this law doesn't see the full ramifications it will have (most likely deepended reliance on cars as less people use their ebikes for small trips and hurting poorer people).
most likely deepended reliance on cars
They know exactly what they are doing. Never underestimate the pro-car bullshit American politicians will pull.
Blame the people that illegally modify their bikes.
Why not blame the legislators who are passing dumb laws?
Because there is a need to control the morons. This is how all laws are started. Same reason speeding tickets are a thing, because people can’t follow the law.
Same reason speeding tickets are a thing
I mean, you are sort of making my point for me. We penalize people for speeding, when they are operating a vehicle that has the capacity to speed. We don't require license, registration, and insurance for a 10 year old to drive a go cart around their neighborhood - even if we can imagine a 30 year old modifying it to reach highway speeds.
We don't "need" to have these poorly written laws because of the morons. We need intelligently written laws that will reign in the morons while still allowing new, sensible mobility options to people who want a cheaper and greener way to get around. When we already have the option of intelligently written laws (which other places have adopted and which are already fairly standardized), and then we get poorly written laws, the fault lies with poorly informed (or possibly corrupt) legislators.
There's a kid in my neighborhood who rides a pedal assist ebike like 30 mph without a helmet all the time. Kid's gonna get brained one of these days.
Yeah, but those things got nothing to do with e-bikes. They're electric motorcycles with added pedals to pass as bicycles legally
to pass as bicycles legally
Not even legally if you legally define ebikes as only being within the 3-class system. They only pass as ebikes at a glance if they're going slow enough at the time you look or can't measure their speed (granted, a decent cyclist can get those well past the 20mph cap were you get assistance even on flat paths and downhill gravity will do that with no assistance from the bike or rider, so it becomes harder to prove without just testing it out).
This viewpoint is exactly how this law got passed.
No consideration for the electric bikes that either only assist when pedalling, nor throttle controlled bikes that only get to 15-20mph.
Imagine if the laws surrounding atv's were changed to include 'anything with four wheels that doesn't operate primarily on a roadway', and now someone in an electric wheelchair needs insurance and licencing to get around 'legally'.
If I got $100 each time I see a car in NYC blowing through red light or stop sign in NJ I would retire, sit and watch traffic! (Maybe not in 0F lol)
Murphy pointed to several recent fatal crashes involving e-bikes as the motivation behind the law. He also pointed to a variety of cases that involved people using shoes to walk places, and encouraged the committee explore similar insurance and licensure to use shoes.
The committee attempted to explain that the most prominent commonality in those crashes was cars, but he had already stuffed his fingers in his ears.
I mean there's already laws for small engine equipped bikes, and e-bikes are just those but without the gasoline.
I'm not even required to insure my motorcycle, these laws are a bullshit money grab
Where do you live that you're not required to insure a motorcycle??? You should probably be required to insure it.
This is entirely necessary. In the US, teenagers are ripping these things by the dozen in public parks and all over the place. I've seen 3 near collisions with small children. It is incredibly dangerous. When I was a kid, a handful of kids had 50cc dirt bikes, and they would ride them around town, but I never saw anything close to what I see these days. They'd use them to get from point A to B for the most part, and it was usually only 1 or 2 kids. Yes, they'd do occasional dumb shit, but again it was only a handful of kids in the whole town. Today I see kids age 12-15 rolling in gangs on these things, riding them in places where motorized vehicles have no business being doing wheelies and just being careless. This is a good thing.
A ebike is a motor vehicle. Most of them exceed the power output of motorcycle and scooters.
Manufacturers that comply with the class 1/2/3 classifications mostly voluntarily limit ebike power to 750W. I don't know if there are laws regulating ebike power output - the existing laws state limits on motor-assisted speed, not power, with caps at 20mph for class 1 & 2, and 28mph for class 3. But I see that California is working on mandating a 750W max.
In reply you talked about ebikes exceeding 1650W, and going 150mph. Those are not legal ebikes. Those are the e-motos that others in this thread are talking about - vehicles that are regulated like motorcycles in most US states. They have pedals so they can pass as ebikes, and states haven't really figured out enforcement yet. The vehicles that that people in this thread are concerned should not require licensing and insurance are proper ebikes, which are limited to 20 or 28mph (or 15mph in NYC).
Most of them exceed the power output of motorcycle
Are you high?
Define a motorcycle or scooter? The legal limit in most states for a street legal unlicensed gas bike is 47cc which is usually stated as 2.2 horse power or around 1650 watts max. A lot of these ebikes exceed that and it isn't a apples to apples comparison in term of total power. Most 47 cc bike conversions are lucky to hit 30 mph. Almost all the ebikes I've tried could go faster than that at 1000 watts. Someone got arrested in florida recently for going 150mph on ebike. Its well past the time they were licensed and regulated for the safety of us all.
So no I'm not high. I always enjoy someone not bothering to give me any numbers when disagreeing with my post.
You said motorcycle, and you said most ebikes sold exceed the power output of them. Not that they exceed the power limit of the legal classification - you said they exceed the power output of a motorcycle. I could be unfair and say you were talking about a Harley, but I can assume you were talking about the low end. And about the smallest displacement motorcycle I normally see being sold are 125cc dirt bikes, which can still hit 50mph. A sport bike of the same displacement can hit 80.
In contrast, here is a market research firm's analysis of the ebike market, which states:
By Class, the class 1 segment generated the major market share in 2025.
By Speed, Up to 25 km/h segment held the largest market share in 2025.
So no, most ebikes sold are not capable of reaching actual motorcycle speeds.
I stated minimums. Anything beyond 47cc for gas or its electric equivalent which is around 1500 to 1650 watts. Most ebikes sold now are least in the 2000 watt range and they exceed the minimum power of the current laws on gas engines.
I don't know anything about them beyond what I've experienced and I've been around a quite few at this point Some of them in the 2000 watt range went 50mph. I guess its possible they were all modified but I'm pretty sure this is one of those cases where industry specs areunderstated. I saw one guy with a 4000 watt ebike hitting a hundred. All called ebikes all capable of causing serious injury. All taking up the space of motorcycles.
I can see you see things differently from me. I don't care. I've seen idiots on these things endangering others and its time for them to be regulated as motor vehicles.
I stated minimums.
Where?
A ebike is a motor vehicle. Most of them exceed the power output of motorcycle and scooters.
...
Most ebikes sold now are least in the 2000 watt range
I provided a source that says the opposite.
I don’t know anything about them beyond what I’ve experienced
I always enjoy someone not bothering to give me any numbers when disagreeing with my post.
I did. Now explain why my source is wrong and provide a more accurate source other than "in my wildly selection-biased experience..."
I’ve seen idiots on these things endangering others and its time for them to be regulated as motor vehicles.
I agree. Two wheeled motor vehicles which can hit the same top speeds as motorcycles and scooters should be regulated as motorcycles and scooters. But those which can't (which according to the source I provided above, is most of them) should not be regulated, since such regulation would reduce adoption of this extremely economically and environmentally beneficial alternative to personal automobiles.
There is no way I'm going back through this. I will answer the first one though just so you know you know your are not comprehending what I'm saying. Most likely you just dont like the answer.
The legal minimum for a gas powered bike to to not require licensing in my state and most US states is 47cc displacement. These engines generate on average 2.2 horse power which is equal to (let me get the exact number so you don't nit pick) 1640.5 watts. Any ebike over this wattage is a motorcycle under the law. A motorcycle not a ebike.
Now go away. You lost and I'm tired of you.
Most ebikes sold now are least in the 2000 watt range and they exceed the minimum power of the current laws on gas engines.
Where the heck are you finding those? Mine is 850w and it's a heavy duty ebike that can carry 2-3 people. The ones at the local shop look like they're under 500w. If someone's putting a 2000w motor in one and trying to pass it off as a bike, then they're breaking laws that already exist.
You have a motorized contraption that can handle three people and don’t feel it should be treated like a motor vehicle?
Cargo bikes are a great way to transport people - especially kids! For a lot of families it's important for a parent to be able to get two kids onto the bike. But they aren't speed demons. It's not cargo bikes that are endangering people on the streets.
I have a cargo bike that I can get two kids on that has two wheels, and is close to the wheelbase of a typical bike: 135 cm / 53 in. Like most cargo ebikes it's class 1, so speed limited to 20mph assisted. The extra powerful motor is for getting the thing up a hill. It's about three times the weight of an un-motorized bike. It's not that big, not crazy heavy, and not very fast.
I understand what a cargo bike is.
I don’t understand the resistance to licensing, insurance, and safety laws.
I own a motorcycle, a road-legal scooter, and several bicycles. E-bikes are very dangerous to riders and pedestrians and will be regulated one way or another. Especially how people ride them at 30+ mph on shared bike/foot paths and through crosswalks.
Getting a motorcycle endorsement wasn’t some epic struggle and frankly weeds out some of the yahoos. A weekend, a couple hundred bucks, and a trip to the DMV is all it takes.
Getting on board with e-bike regulation now will guide it in a beneficial direction.
If it's going 30+ mph on a path or a crosswalk then it's not a regulation-compliant e-bike. You might be seeing e-motos, and mentally categorizing them as e-bikes. We all want extra requirements on vehicles that go 30+ mph.
E-bikes are regulated. They are required to max out at 20 mph, or 28 mph. (Where I live in California the class 3 28 mph bikes are not allowed on mixed use trails, and are only allowed for ages 16 and up.) We are on board with regulation exactly because we want it to go in a beneficial direction. I don't think requiring a driver's license and insurance, and cutting out young teenagers is a beneficial direction. No, we don't want dangerous vehicles zooming around without accountability. That's why e-bike advocates came up with the 20 mph limit in the first place!
We don't want restrictions on bikes, because bikes get people outside, and reduce dependence on cars. E-bikes are bikes that work in places with hills, or in situations where long distances make unassisted cycling prohibitive for people who are not athletes.
One more note I'll add about cargo bikes is why I don't think of them as motor vehicles: everything you can do on a cargo e-bike you can do on a non-motorized bike - on flat ground. A cargo e-bike is a cargo bike that works on hills.
There are two groups who are hit hard by licensing and insurance requirements: people with low income, and kids.
People with low income will struggle with any additional cost. A couple hundred bucks, insurance - even if it won't cost very much from some people's perspective - is a burden. E-bikes can be a livelihood, like for delivery drivers in cities. Even if it's not a livelihood, everyone needs transportation.
The New Jersey law flat-out prohibits kids under 15 years old from riding e-bikes. Kids 15 or 16 now need a motorized bike license. Kids are not getting out or socializing enough these days. E-bikes help change that. My 14-year-old rides a class 1 e-bike to school. Before getting that bike he spent most of his time on weekends at home, mostly in front of a screen. We live in a car-dependent society where everything is miles apart. Public transit in my town is crap. There are big hills that make it impractical for him to get home on an unassisted bike. My kid could only go places when my wife or I had time to drive him. But since getting the bike he goes out on the weekend, and visits friends who live a few miles away. They organize nerf battles. He's much happier! And no, he's not going more than 20 mph on that bike. With the NJ law there would have been two years of missing out on those benefits, and then an extra licensing and insurance process after that which is going to reduce the number of kids getting outside. Fewer parents are going to set kids up with bikes if there are extra bureaucratic steps, and if it comes with a recurring insurance cost.
It’s heavy and requires me to pedal it. The only way I break 20mph, something doable on flat ground on a normal bike, is by starting on a good hill.
You can do the same on a skateboard or skis. Going to require licensing and insurance for those too?
You seem to be confusing class 1 and 3 e-bikes with electric motorcycles.
If people were skiing on public roads and sidewalks, yeah.
But skiers aren’t allowed on public roads and sidewalks. They’re confined to semi-private areas which have rules and patrols and if you don’t follow the rules you get kicked out.
And they aren’t even riding a 100+ pound vehicle.
Kinda ignored that part about the skateboards since they can get going just as fast downhill.
The reason I'm against the licensing is that ebikes are a great way for teenagers to get around town if you're in an area that's bike friendly. The hardware is already going to cap the assistance at 20mph, but it makes going up hills or extremely windy days a heckuva lot easier and then they aren't stuck at home waiting for a ride.
And you ignored the fact that skiing has training, licenses, and insurance. And constantly patrolled by rule enforcers/paramedics. And roughly 80% of skiers voluntarily wear helmets. And it isn’t even allowed on public roads or sidewalks.
So thank you for making that excellent comparison.
Where did you go skiing that it required training, licenses or insurance? I’ve never heard of any of that being required.
In fact I’ve spoken to insurance agents that specifically will not insure heavy skiers because of their increased risk.
The pass pays for ski patrol. And an ambulance ride. Whether you use it or not. You know, like insurance.
You also lose your pass if you behave dangerously. You know, like a license.
And ski school isn’t strictly necessary, but struggle to get on the lift without it and cause enough accidents and your pass will get pulled.
You know, like a license.
You can ski on private land without a pass. You know, like off road vehicles.
If you don’t see any similarities, it isn’t because I haven’t sufficiently explained them to you.
With them being as fast and dangerous as other vehicles that have these requirements for decades, it is just a consequential move.
Fucking eMotos are a scourge on this Earth. Along with ignorant politicians.
I think emotos are great! They look like tons of fun, and I look forward to buying one when they hit the used market en-mass with a price drop.
And when that happens, I also hope that the government will have figured their shit out, and I'll be required to register it and ride it as a motorcycle.
So are cars my dude.
These high power e-motos are being sold as e-bikes, so the legislators are applying their stupid ass law planned for e-motos to slow pedal-assisted e-bikes. That's just plain idiotic
Maybe it's time they make a distinction between the two. Like an electric car isn't a go kart.
There was already classification system, but these idiots decided to lump them all together
The requirements they're putting on e-bikes already applied to e-motos. In most states bikes that don't follow the class 1/2/3 restrictions are regulated like motorcycles.
The problem is too many people don't know the distinction, including some people buying the bikes, and many people who are concerned about dangers of e-motos. Manufacturers just want to sell bikes, and compete with each other on speed and power, and so are not incentivized to make the distinction clear. They also want to make sales to people who don't want to follow the rules, so there's incentive to leave plausible deniability.
So it's lack of regulation? You know how cars have speed limiters? Maybe they need to apply the same to the various types of e-bikes.
Bicycle? Limit to 20km/h.
E-scooter? 60km/h and they can't use bike lanes or highways.
E-moto? 200km/h limit, can't use a bike lane.
E-bikes already have these in classes 1, 2, and 3. Everything else is not classified as an electric bicycle.
They already do this. Or - the law doesn't impose regulations on manufacturers, but it applies different laws to different classifications of vehicle, which are defined by metrics like top speed. So if a manufacturer wants their product to fit in one classification or another, they must put on speed limiters. Or at least, this is the way the law works in some places, and these laws are fairly standard, as they have been promoted by ebike advocacy groups for years who feared exactly the sort of heavy-handed regulation we are seeing in this post.
There are, unfortunately, a few problems.
First is public education. Most people buying any of these products don't know which classification they are buying, nor that the classifications exist at all, or that different laws apply to different classifications. Governments should take on the responsibility of informing the public about their potential purchases, and sellers should be required to clearly display a vehicles classification when selling in so consumers can make an informed choice.
Second is aftermarket modifications. While this will almost certainly remain the domain of niche hobbyists, the government should make it clear that if you do modify your vehicle, then it will be considered as part of a new class if it meets those standards and will have to follow those laws.
Third is infrastructure. Infrastructure for different classifications should be built differently to accomodate its preferred classification and exclude others. We already know how to do this with cars, and we can apply the same techniques to high-powered emotos.
Yeah, speed limits seem like a reasonable way to catch people who are not in compliance. If a bike is going faster than 30mph, and that's in a bike lane or on a trail instead of on a road, or they don't have a license plate, that could be cause to pull someone over. It is tricky because the 28mph limit for class 3 ebikes (in the US) is an assisted limit, and a strong cyclist might be able to go faster than that pedaling unassisted.
20km/h is the assisted limit in Europe (I think), but that limit is too low for a bike lane speed limit. Plenty of unassisted cyclists go over 30km/h.
People complying with the law already have speed limiters built into the bikes. But yes, it's a method to spot misbehavers.
The creator of the Youtube channel Berm Peak suggested that unregulated ebikes should not be allowed to have throttles, which would eliminate class 2 ebikes. That would make it much easier to spot problem riders, because they typically use a throttle instead of pedaling. That's also how Europe regulates ebikes (I think). You'd want some way for people with accessibility needs to get an exemption. I've heard throttles are nice for getting started from a stop, especially with a heavy load, or going uphill. But I've noticed that California law already makes a distinction between a throttle and a "start assist", and maybe a start assist could cover that use case.
Italy here. I LOVE bikes, I do part of my commute by bike (the rest by train) and I wish my city made even harder for cars to drive in the city in favour of bikes.
With that said, we need a law like this here because e-bikes are a new kind of hell for everyone:
Most of them are easily modifiable so they reach up to 50km/h without having to pedal. Making them electric motor-scooters.
Because of this, they are basically a free for all: no need to respect traffic laws, red lights... fuck, they even pass pedestrians in the sidewalk at speeds that are superior to the speed limit of the street for car
Also because of this, you better pray to not get involved in an accident with one. If you are on foot and get hit by one, they will simply run and let you in the ground. And if you are in a car... well, tough luck because you'll have to pay for your own repair even if they caused them.
And most of these assholes work for delivery companies like deliveroo, just eat and similars.
So yeah, since we can't have nice things, give me a law and fuck all these assholes dearly.
I haven't seen any complaints about this law in regards to these fast bikes you're describing. The problem with this law is that it also applies to everything below, regardless of top speed.
An electric bike with no throttle control that only provides power under 20kmh and when the rider is actively pedalling would still required to have licensing and insurance. That's the trouble with this type of blanketed solution to the problem.
Legally, e-bikes here can't go over 25km/h. And in any shop you try to buy one, this is the norm. However, to put a throttle on them is so easy that you rarely see an e-bike with someone pedaling.
Is it unfair for those who follow the law? Probably? But when I think as a citizen, not just as a biker, in my country, e-bikes are a problem to my safety even as pedestrian.
I suppose there is something to be said for simple modifications, though bikes are relatively simple overall. I'm hesitant against making them difficult to work on as I wouldn't want to see a future when you must visit a repair shop to change a tire or something like that.
I had a read of the article you linked in another comment claiming '80% of e-bikes are illegal'. After a touch of searching around, I saw some numbers showing roughly a quarter million e-bikes have been sold annually in Italy over the last few years. Over the two days of that operation, the sample size was only 71 e-bikes. That's not particularly representative - though it does make a flashy headline.
Something I keep in mind when I encounter aggressive drivers on the road is that they are one of a thousand other cars I've driven by that day. Negative experiences tend to be more noticeable than the nominal sort. Besides that, it occurs to me if the authorities in Milan believed this to be as widespread as it may seem to the average pedestrian, they would do this regularly as it seems it would bring in €200,000 a day.
For what it's worth, I do like that they immediately confiscated those e-bikes. Between that and the €7,000 fine, sounds a good penalty to keep people from doing it again.
Out of curiosity: have you ever been to Italy and see how people drive here? That number of 80% of ebikes being illegal might make a flashy number for you. But I live here and that number not only seems correct, it actually looks on the lower end.
I probably see at least 20 different delivery guys each day. If I see one that's pedaling, that's maybe... once a week? That if I'm lucky. They are largely ignored because, as the rest of the traffic related stuff, authorities do shit about it.
Sure, they take a day and stop a hundred bikes and most of them are illegal and they call it a day. And with that, they think they solved the problem, but the fact is there is a huge number of those that are illegal. Although it doesn't surprise me at all, this country is shit when it comes to enforcing traffic laws in general.
I haven't had the pleasure of visiting for any meaningful time unfortunately, however e-bikes aren't an Italy specific problem. If anything, the situation by your description is a failure of lawmakers to create classifications for this new technology as it was emerging, and that is an issue every government around the globe experiences. Technology always outpaces rule of law.
I don't doubt that there are a lot of these modified e-bikes racing around, but claiming nearly all of anything is operating out of the norm strikes me as quite off centre. Even sitting at a cafe or a park bench and using tally counters to track obvious e-bikes compared to non obvious e-bikes would reveal a ratio more closely resembling sales volumes of bikes vs e-bikes than what that operation in Milan put on display.
Regardless, we're sort of straying from the point here. The law as implemented in New Jersey is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We shouldn't be making rules about the fastest moving e-bikes and applying them to every subcategory. As the law stands, some overzealous officer could interpret this Ducati to be subject to licensing and insurance requirements.
The law mentioned in the article isn't doing what you are describing:
effectively lumps everything with a motor and two wheels into a single category, scrapping the widely accepted three-class system for regulating street-legal electric bicycles. That means pedal-assist e-bikes, throttle bikes, and high-powered e-moto-style machines are now treated the same under state law.
Most people support classifying electric motorcycles and gas-powered motorcycles the same, while keeping pedal assist in a category with regular pedal bicycles. But that's not what this law is doing.
I know. And I still want it. Why? Because if people here don't give a fuck about safety (neither theirs nor that of others), then at least we should force them to have the bare minimum to be accountable.
Would it be better if they did it in a different way? Probably, but I know this country, and I know people don't give a fuck about other when they drive any vehicle, so yeah, give me this, make them pay an insurance and get a license. And fuck them all, because we can't have good things here.
This is like banning knife because of some knife attack.
It's more like starting to ask people to have some rules after 80% of the e-bikes checked in a police checkpoint were illegally modified
The rule is already there, you're now supporting and asking for a blanket law, it's exactly like asking them to ban knife because of knife attack or robbery.
Rule are useless if there's no enforcement, and i bet that 80% is the result of no enforcement, so nothing shocking.
It's really nothing like that.
I like Seth from Berm Peak take on this and the whole issue, people like Micah "Faster E-bike are safer" Toll are basically asking for this sort of sweeping law to happen, because people just can't self-regulate.
Good. I'm tired of the armies of 12 year old kids with absolutely no awareness or caution whatsoever on bikes that can easily go 30+mph.
While I agree with your example, this law also applies to an 82 year old on a step thru that has a power limit of 15mph.
It's a bit of a misguided approach, seemingly signed into law by a Governor on his last day in office.
Walking home from shop the other day.
Dumb kid zooms past us on the grass from behind because the footpath is rather narrow. No lights, dressed all dark (it was evening and dark already).
Couple more idiot children zoom past on the road, blowing past a car stopped at a stop sign, almost hit pedestrian crossing the road at a crosswalk. Again all dark clothing, no lights. They're a disaster waiting to happen, but at this point...fuck em
all 78 comments