The debate on the 25 km/h pedal assistance limit for e-bikes continues to agitate users who pour out their discontent in the comments on our articles and also on social media. It is not a coincidence and we do not want to close the door to a discussion by simply referring to what the law says. Behind that apparently technical threshold lies an increasingly evident fracture between those who see the electric as a natural evolution of the bicycle and those who consider it a vehicle to be strictly kept under control.
Readers’ comments tell this rift well. There are those who consider the limit anachronistic and far from the real use of e-bikes, especially considering that a muscle bike, on the plains, can easily exceed 30 km/h. For many, the blocking of assistance at 25 km/h represents more of a regulatory override than a real safety measure. Others, however, defend the limit as a necessary element to maintain order on the infrastructure and clearly distinguish bicycles from faster and heavier vehicles.
A regulatory risk for everyone
In the midst of these positions there is a point that is often underestimated, but central for those who manage the sector today: the fear that changing the law will open the door to new restrictions, rather than greater freedom.
According to this vision, maintaining the current classification of e-bikes as “bicycles”, and not as motor vehicles, represents a sort of fragile but precious balance. Touching it would mean risking the introduction of license plates, insurance, inspections, compulsory helmets and further bureaucratic requirements, transforming an accessible vehicle into something much more complex and expensive. Unfortunately, in the generalized hatred towards those who cycle and with the search for consensus, the risk becomes real.
It is a fear that is far from unfounded. Recent history shows that every time a vehicle enters a new regulatory category, the consequences are not limited to maximum speed, but extend to approvals, legal responsibilities and inspections. For this reason, part of the sector, producers, operators and associations, prefers to defend the status quo, even if imperfect, rather than open a legislative Pandora’s box.
The action of LEVA-EU, the European association representing the light electric vehicle sector, fits into this context. LEVA-EU has long reported that the risk is not only that of too low limits, but of increasingly fragmented and punitive regulation, capable of slowing down innovation, investments and the spread of e-bikes. The association has repeatedly warned against the idea of tightening the rules without an overall vision, underlining how European regulations are often designed more to “contain” than to accompany the evolution of the sector.
Even on Cyclinside the topic has emerged several times: the real issue is not simply whether 25 km/h is too little or too much, but whether the current regulatory framework is really suitable for changing mobility. Continuing to think only in terms of limits risks producing the opposite effect to the desired one: pushing towards illegality, creating confusion among users and slowing down a transition which, in fact, is already underway.
In the end, the question is not whether an e-bike should help up to 25, 30 or 35 km/h, but deciding what type of mobility do we want to encourage. An intelligently regulated mobility, capable of distinguishing uses and contexts, or a rigid system which, in an attempt to control everything, risks blocking the evolution of one of the few truly growing sectors. At the moment, the result is to have our cities invaded by vehicles that are actually dangerous because they have been modified without any control and potentially without any safety.
