this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
48 points (80.8% liked)

Bay Area

1526 readers
5 users here now

Discussion for all things Bay Area.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
slaypuree@lemmy.world
48
Say NO to Mandatory E-Bike License Plates and Registrations [California] (bikeeastbay.org)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net to c/bayarea@lemmy.world
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/34367979

More barriers to cycling means more cars which means more dead cyclists/pedestrians. Help us defeat this terrible anti-safety bill.

all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I cycle / walk to work, and I 100% want to reign in these heavy ass bikes and doordash scooters that are flying past me at around 30mph. Ditto for when I’m out hiking in the hills with my dogs. About once a week I have to jump out of the way of a budget motorcycle.

This would basically mean petal assist would stop at 20mph if you don’t want a license. 20mph is still pretty damn reasonable if you’re commuting. I’m usually at about 15 to 20 mph.

Roads, trails, and intersections need to be safe for other cyclists, scooter users, and pedestrians. Visit SOMA during commute hours or redwood regional after work. That shit is not safe.

[–] ravenaspiring@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why this Bill Fails California and the East Bay Community:

It Ignores the Real Danger: The leading cause of traffic violence, especially for bike riders, is that of outdated street design and heavy vehicular traffic. We need protected bikeway networks for all ages and abilities, not license plates.

It Targets the Wrong Problem: Most “e-bike” safety concerns stem from illegal “e-motos” or hacked devices that operate in excess of legal speeds, not the legal Class 2 and 3 bikes used by families, commuters, and workers.

It Punishes Sustainable Choices: While a gas car emits 374 g of CO2 per mile, an e-bike emits only 8g. By adding DMV-style red tape to e-bikes, we discourage the exact behavior needed to meet the state’s ambitious climate goals.

It Enables Biased Policing: In 2022, California abolished local bike registration requirements (AB 1909) in part because they were used as a pretext for biased stops. Reintroducing regulation and plate requirements provides a new tool for discriminatory enforcement.

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 4 points 1 month ago

This bill is bad because something else is bad? Compelling.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So bikes with combustion engines by law need tags and insurance, but bikes with electric motors should not, despite being as fast and dangerous as their counterparts?

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net -5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

No? None of the vehicles covered by this law are as fast as gas powered motorcycles or whatever it is you're talking about. They're also much lighter.

Not to mention you know this is just an excuse to do more police brutality and racial profiling. They won't police the "good boys" (rich white kids).

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I meant motorised bikes in the same speed range as ebikes. Mopeds, not motorbikes. You need a licence, insurance, tag for them. Why not for an equally fast (and dangerous) ebike/pedelec?

[–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

F = m * a

Mopeds are at minimum 2-3 times heavier than electric bikes, making them 2-3 times more dangerous since they have 2-3 times more force, without taking speed into account at all. Taking speed into consideration, class 1 and 2 e-bikes top out at 20 mph, while a 50cc moped (based on some preliminary searching, someone please correct me here) tops out at 30 mph, multiplying the force by 1.5x in comparison.

[–] BigDiction@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

For velocity you want kinetic energy .5(mass*V^2)

That’s why braking distance scales exponentially with velocity. 30 vs 20 mph is over twice the energy at the same mass.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Tell that to the people run over or nearly hit by reckless ebike riders in the pedestrian shopping zone.

[–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Do you think they would rather be hit by a moped??

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Mopeds are easily identified as they have tags, so they don't dare to drive in the pedestrian zone.

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

I think they'd rather not be hit at all.

[–] EitherEther@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Berm Peak on YouTube has a video about this (actually focused around the similar law that just passed in NJ).

I like the idea of "ebikes" with throttles simply being treated as mopeds/scooters. The laws already exist, in this case it's just an electric moped.

It should be pretty easy to enforce too: person going relatively quickly without the assist of gravity or pedaling.

A bike with only pedal assist (motor only helps when pedaling) could just remain a bike.

[–] unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Honestly, bicycles should have license plates, period. They may not be as dangerous as cars, but they can still be very dangerous. And considering an unfortunate number of cyclists see themselves as above the law, it's necessary. And honestly, I would have absolutely no problem with registering my bike, as long as the process isn't overly complicated.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I wouldn't consider 100x less dangerous to be "very dangerous". And this is just another step to get us used to the burgeoning police and surveillance state. I say fuck no to that.

[–] unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Something else being much more dangerous doesn't make that first thing less dangerous. Otherwise, why worry about rail safety then, for instance? Taking the train is also somewhere around 100x less dangerous than driving (and I'm pretty sure if you evaluated the statistics the way they are in your picture, it would be well more than 100 times less dangerous).

Add to that, just because it doesn't kill you, doesn't mean it's not dangerous. Injuries are also something that are, well, not good, especially when it's caused by other people's recklessness.

And let's not mix up licensing and surveillance. You get a surveillance state when that information is then used to track you where you go (see flock cameras). Otherwise you could make the same argument that cars shouldn't have license plates, either.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The entire purpose of license plates is to enable surveillance. I don't know how you can't see that.

No one is against safety. But this bill makes us less safe rather than more by entrenching car transportation as the default mode, which is far far more dangerous than any e-bike ever could be. If there are ways to improve safety that don't have this effect then let's talk about it, but it can't impose onerous bureaucratic hurdles on ordinary, law abiding cyclists. That's a non-starter.

[–] unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So are you arguing that cars shouldn't have license plates, either? Because if the point of license plates is to enable surveillance, then that would apply to cars, as well.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Cars are much, much more dangerous, and the system of surveillance already exists, so that's not a fight worth getting into right now. Once we've solved the issue of street safety, which, frankly, license plates have done little to mitigate, it would probably be appropriate to eliminate them.

Although honestly maybe there is a stronger case to be made against them because we're having this debate right now. The fact that people are required to give up their privacy and autonomy simply to get around makes them much more likely to accept further concessions in areas where the safety benefits are far less obvious.

[–] unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago

OK, well, at least you're consistent.

I would be careful with the statement that license plates have done little to mitigate road safety issues, though. They have not fixed the problem entirely of course, far from it, but they have greatly increased accountability, because all an ordinary citizen needs to do in the case of a hit and run is to note the plate number. It also enables the use of speed and red light cameras, which have also lead to a decrease in dangerous driving. (And note - speed and red light cameras are not surveillance in that sense, since they - bar malfunctions - only hit those who are guilty or are very likely to be guilty).

[–] Pricklesthemagicfish@reddthat.com -5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lol licensing. You mean paper surveillance. Fucking clownshoes

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's fun that everyone pushing this position sounds like a fucking retard.

[–] Pricklesthemagicfish@reddthat.com -4 points 1 month ago

I’ll try to go slow for you.
Did you ever see that movie with the slappy black guy where everyone in the entire world he met was this nightwalking vampire monster but in the end he turned out to be the monster?

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Unlicensed cyclists injure hundreds of people per year in the perfidious Albion alone, especially children and people over 65.

Less lethal doesn't mean non-lethal. All wheeled vehicles are dangerous, and must be regulated.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Now compare to the number of injuries caused by cars. Not that data from another country is all that relevant.

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Who the fuck said anything about cars? Car drivers being maniacal murderous bastards doesn't give cyclists a license to be equally abhorrent.

In any case, you need a test and a license to drive a car, even in the USA, and the car needs a license plate, same as any other vehicle should, bicycles included.

As for the data, it was just the first article I found, but it's easy to extrapolate to get a bare minimum for a lawless uncivilised shithole like the USA.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The commenter in the chain you're replying to? Do you even read the context before firing off angry replies like this?

In the USA, car is the default form of transit. If you make alternatives, like e-bikes, more difficult to access, some number of people will switch to driving. Because cars are far, far more dangerous than bicycles, those switchers will create a large increase in injuries and deaths. So you cannot ignore that factor when discussing overall safety.

And when you are placing legal restrictions on people, you are targeting people with police violence. As such, you have an obligation to prove the proposed change will help more than it hurts. Given the issues I just outlined, and the chart I shared above, I think it's fairly obvious that is not the case here.