Five people per day are ending up in Queensland hospitals due to e-scooter crashes - this is a serious issue that does need to be addressed. The status quo is not the answer. If you believe the proposed legislation is too far, then propose a viable compromise.
I actually agree with the ‘not under 16’ part. Sorry, but kids absolutely should not be tearing around on eridables on public roads/paths. Professor Roy Kimble from QCH, is on record reporting 1 in 4 children admitted with e-scooter injuries need intensive care treatment, and two-thirds need surgery. That’s just admittances, it won’t cover simple crashes like broken arms etc.
The ‘disabled kids’ is a fair argument: I wouldn’t object to a kid in a specialty NDIS bike, though how you’d differentiate that in legislation is a thing that would need to be defined. I’ve only ever seen the trikes, and they’re not fast, but I assume there are other models.
Learn to ride/scoot first. Then, get an eridable. I’d even be in favour of a test that everyone needs to pass before being allowed to get one (did I just describe a license?); though I can see that being an unpopular opinion.
This is coming from someone who commutes by bike every day and regularly sees incidents/near misses with people on eridables. The units themselves are not the issue, I love how they’re getting people out and about and I see huge benefits in them - particularly in reducing car reliance. But they need some rules, it’s the wild west out there.
Not all e-rideables are the same. Legal e-bikes are much safer than e-scooters due to wheel size and centre of gravity, and both are probably safer than e-motos because of the higher speeds involved.
FWIW I’ve seen plenty of kids hooning on e-motos and e-scooters, but yet to see it on a pedal-assisted bike.
Also, what about those kids who use pedal-assisted bikes to get to their friends’ places, go to school, or leisure rides with family? Frankly the idea of banning this is ludicrous in my view.
kids absolutely should not be tearing around on eridables
You’re making the same mistake as everyone who supports this authoritarian nonsense. You’re conflating legal, safe ebikes with illegal, unregistered electric motorbikes. Kids are not “tearing around” on ebikes, because ebikes are not capable of tearing around. They are pedal assist only, no throttle; limited to going 25 km/h while receiving motor assistance; and can have a maximum continuous output of 250 W. For reference, on my analogue bike, I typically cruise on flat paths or roads, when they’re wide enough and visibility is clear and there are no pedestrians around, at about 30, and I’m pushing about 220 W to do that.
All ebikes do is making riding easier at the same or lower speeds than regular cyclists are doing, and they help flatten out the hills. They make it possible for someone who otherwise might have only been comfortable riding 5 km to go 10 or 20 km and replace their commute with a bike, including riding on some of the many hills that Brisbane is covered in.
Five people per day are ending up in Queensland hospitals due to e-scooter crashes
Last year, in Queensland there were 12 fatalities involving e-mobility devices. 8 of those involved PMDs, which I’m not interested in talking about either way. Legislation regarding them is an entirely separate issue from legislation regarding bicycles, and the conflation of the two is the problem.
3 involved illegal electric motorbikes, which I’m not interested in defending because they are a real part of the problem.
Only 1 involved a legal ebike:
Barbra Poen, 79, was killed when riding her legal e-bike on Bribie Island at 8.30am on July 14 last year when she was struck by a Ford Falcon driver, who was travelling in the same direction.
So the only ebike-related death last year was someone who had done nothing wrong and was struck by a car. The exact thing that forcing ebikers to use the road by effectively banning them on footpaths and shared paths will make more likely to happen.
The year before, a nine year-old boy was hit riding his ebike with his father on a pathway. Again not a death caused by irresponsible use of an ebike, but by inadequate infrastructure and irresponsible drivers. If having a licence and being of age is not enough to stop drivers from killing people at far higher rates than even the irresponsible electric motorbikes and PMDs are, how does it possibly make sense to restrict responsible use of safe ebikes to those with a licence?
If you believe the proposed legislation is too far, then propose a viable compromise
There are some components of this Bill that aren’t terrible. Giving police the power to confiscate illegal motorbikes and either resell them if they can be made compliant, or destroy them if not. Giving police the power to charge the parents of children who ride illegal electric motorbikes, unless the parents can prove they did everything in their power to avoid it or had no knowledge of it.
But overwhelmingly, this law is terrible. It doesn’t address the actual problem, and instead stabs out blindly at innocent people. There is no compromise to be had when a proposed law change will have no impact at solving the problem it purports to solve. The only answer is to drop that change entirely.
Legal ebikes are no more dangerous than legal analogue bikes. None. Thus, there is no justification for any restrictions being different for ebikes than they are for analogue bikes.
The ‘disabled kids’ is a fair argument: I wouldn’t object to a kid in a specialty NDIS bike, though how you’d differentiate that in legislation is a thing that would need to be defined
The second clause is part of the problem. The other part is that needing a special bike and/or special permission is adding an extra barrier to entry. And that is a complete non-starter. We need to be making it easier for more people to get out on bikes, not harder. Needing to apply for a special exemption adds an unacceptable barrier to entry to cycling as an option for people with accessibility needs. When faced with the need to request special permission, many people will simply react by deciding it is too hard and give up on the idea. Others might face an overbearing burden of proof, or risk their application being denied for technical reasons despite a genuine need and no safety risk.
Anyone who has ever interacted with, or even just heard about someone who has interacted with the NDIS or any other social program that you have to qualify to receive will be familiar with the problem of exception-based permission.
they need some rules, it’s the wild west out there
For the most part, they have the rules already. Some tweaks might be appropriate, and this Bill does actually include some handy tweaks in that direction within it. But the vast majority of the problem is not with inadequate rules, it’s inadequate enforcement. The danger is mostly coming from people who are already breaking the law in multiple ways. Adding more laws that will burden the current law-followers won’t fix that. It can’t fix that.
because ebikes are not capable of tearing around. They are pedal assist only, no throttle; limited to going 25 km/h while receiving motor assistance […] All ebikes do is making riding easier at the same or lower speeds than regular cyclists are doing
-
Alert: Viral Ragebait
-
Type: Faulty Argument
- Subtype: Lie of omission
-
-
Alert: Faulty Reasoning
-
Type: Fallacy
- Subtype: False Equivalence
-
A bike going 10km faster than an ebike is not more dangerous than the ebike.
The reverse is also true: An ebike going 10km slower than a bike does not make the ebike safer.
Reason: The ebike has more mass, which means there’s a lot more inertia getting transferred during a collision.
A bike going 10km faster than an ebike is not more dangerous than the ebike.
The reverse is also true: An ebike going 10km slower than a bike does not make the ebike safer.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
Ebikes are not more dangerous than regular bikes. Or if they are, the burden of proof is on you. The physics is not, per se, relevant. The physics could explain why they’re more dangerous, if they are, but the actual relevant factor is how many injuries they are causing in the real world. You need to show the public that data if you want to support regulating them.
All the data that’s been publicly shared so far points to the problem being PMDs and illegal electric motorbikes. Not compliant ebikes.
If we’re going to talk physics though, the relevant figure is energy, not inertia. Inertia is a meaningless stat. It remains constant regardless of velocity. Energy scales with the square of velocity, and because of that, a 30 km/h push bike (80 kg total mass) has significantly more KE than a 25 km/h ebike (100 kg total mass). The difference in mass of an ebike is not a significant factor. Heck, even if we decided to use momentum rather than KE (though KE is the relevant stat for damage done in a crash), the difference is miniscule. 2400 kgms-1 vs 2500.
The physics is not, per se, relevant.
I will forever remember this day, the 8th of April 2026 when Zagorath discovered that when it came to traffic collisions: physics was not relevant.
Please remember me, the little person, in your acceptance speech to the Nobel Committee.
So are you wilfully ignoring the entire context because you want to “win” the argument, or just naturally stupid? Because this reply is an impressive level of stupid in context.
You replied to someone establishing a premise (ebikes are not dangerous), then built a whole wall of text built upon that premise. If the premise is removed, everything else built upon it falls down.
The premise was flawed.
I pointed that out.
Anything built upon it becomes irrelevant. There’s as much point to go through the text built upon the flawed premise, as there is to keep trying to build upon it.
-
“Support” is a bit strong. I don’t know enough about existing laws in Queensland to be an authority on the topic. It’s more that I can see why this is getting attention and agree that rules - or at least public attitudes around eridables are rightly in a state of flux. 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.
I’m not conflating anything. I see all these vehicles (and that’s what they are - even the ‘kids’ eScooters) every day on the roads and paths. They are very popular in Perth - particularly in the CBD. I know that the assorted classes are. While you may not be interested in eScooters, the law covers them all, and so did my comment.
Legal ebikes are no more dangerous than legal analogue bikes. None. Thus, there is no justification for any restrictions being different for ebikes than they are for analogue bikes.
This appears to be your only issue with the proposal. Which in turn sounds like you are seeking an exemption on this one aspect of the law. That doesn’t sound like the whole thing needs to be scrapped. I don’t think I even disagree with this point. I also think the 10kph limit on shared paths is ludicrous. I run faster than that and I’m no elite athlete.
The other part is that needing a special bike and/or special permission is adding an extra barrier to entry.
This could likely just be a permit issued to the manufacturers. At the end of the day, these bikes are speciality bikes and not really consumer devices. It actually sounds easy to me to implement. I can’t name makes/models, let’s call them Ford Falcons. “Children under the age of 16 are permitted to ride Ford Falcons”. There - solved. Of course, there’s probably more than one make/model - but all that aside, they’re not being bought by you and I. They’re a niche thing.
But the vast majority of the problem is not with inadequate rules, it’s inadequate enforcement.
This I’ll readily concede - particularly in the city grid where people flout traffic lights, footpath speed limits and ride in malls. Though I have seen cops pull over eBikes and eScooters, and have been through radar traps (I’m allowed to go 30+ kph, because my legs are my motor) on the bike paths. They’re trying. And I recognise that WA Police are not QLD police. I’m pretty sure WA Police can already destroy illegal bikes. At least, I’ve heard that they intended to destroy one I saw pulled over.
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.
well done Qld voters.
Are you getting a kick back or something?
4 posts on the same topic in like 24 hrs, in addition to the 6 posts again on the same topic over the last week or so?.
And yet youre quick to accuse others of trolling…
I’ll accuse trolls of trolling.
This is a bill the government is trying to rush through, and for which the deadline is this coming Friday. There’s a short space in which to deal with it. So yeah, I’m sharing whatever I come across. Don’t like it? Ignore it and share your own content instead.
I feel like some day I want a beer with you to figure you out. Maybe at last man standing. We should not be judged by words but by action. Your actions aren’t the words but the propaganda you spread.
I’m not against your posts, to be clear, not exactly. In fact I believe you might be a much more idealistic and active person then I for your belief. But it’s so difficult to believe anything at face value.
Either way I think the poster before your reply is fair to ask. But I myself can’t tell your intention or standing.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
