Dear Sir,

I was saddened to see The Royal Gazette get on the road safety “hobby horse” in such a clearly counterproductive way in your editorial of August 28, “It’s time to regulate E-bikes”. It seems that the media generally are similarly inclined.

Just to put all the pearl-clutching in perspective, I am sure any roads-policing officer can tell you that 14-year-olds ride motorised cycles, motorcycles and scooters every day in Bermuda and often do so at speeds of 70km/h. What this particular young person did was stupid and illegal but, sadly, not unusual except that he was caught.

The missing piece in the reasoning is that most e-bikes (even when ridden unlawfully in dangerous ways by young drivers) simply do not rise to the level of risk to other road users or the general public that would justify regulating them as we do “motorised cycles”, motorcycles and scooters. Annoying at times, certainly, but not really a danger to us all.

The reality is that most e-cycles will never present the level of risk that would warrant the requirements of the Auxiliary Cycles Act. Enforcing their use in that category will increase cost and hassle and discourage use and effectively motivate more use of cars and larger, heavier, faster motorised cycles, motorcycles and scooters that are clearly the proximate cause of a lot of mayhem, injury and death on our roads.

On the other hand, incorporating that logic into the discussion would suggest the following as an alternative:

1, Explicitly carve out a class of “small e-bikes” that will NOT be subject to the “auxiliary cycle” rules. These would:

1.1, have motors limited to 1kW or less

1.2, be speed-limited to powered speeds under 55km/h

1.3, have functional brakes

2, allow for their use on the roads (subject to all road rules) provided that:

2.1, the user is over 16 years old

2.2, they wear a “bike” helmet (the kind designed for pedal-cycle use)

2.3, when ridden at night they show a white light to the front and a red light to the rear

3, All other e-cycles to be treated as “auxiliary cycles” including licence, helmet and insurance requirements

Then wait and watch and let the numbers tell us what to do next.

If at some point in the future it becomes clear that even given the restrictions mentioned, “small e-bikes” do become a serious risk to other road users, then — and only then — the next step will, sadly, be to increase regulation of them as well.

I would hope that there too a calibrated approach would be used so that the cost and inconvenience is kept as low as possible to encourage use as an alternative to larger, heavier, faster, more dangerous vehicles:

• Licensing the vehicles — if there are issues with identification, or if there is a pattern of use when they are unsafe — may be required. If that step is warranted, then allowing certified dealers to do inspections and issue licences should be permitted

• If user ignorance or carelessness surfaces as a risk to others, then an operating licence may be required. Again, allowing private Project Ride-style programmes to actually issue small e-bike licences to young and old riders as an alternative to regular “driver’s licences” should be allowed

• If a pattern of causing material harm to others emerges, requiring third-party insurance as a precondition to the issue of a licence would be a reasonable next step

The point would be to regulate with the “softest” touch possible and only as justified by actual metrics of risk.

These vehicles offer the promise of undoing some of the harms that we have come to accept on our roads, and of reducing environmental impacts as well. We must not allow unreasoned reflex to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”.

JAN CARD

Smith’s