Rick writes: “we could accomplish electric bikes absolved from allotment and authorization fees as an added benefit ….the petrol acquisitive cars can pay for the up accumulate of roads” In case you didn’t know, electric bikes are, petrol acquisitive cars already do.

I disagree with Klaus and anyone who says electric bikes should be acceleration bound to 20 or 25 km/h. It is almost accessible to do 30 km/h aloof on pedal power. I particularly disagree with the argument that the top speed that the motor alone can acheive should be limited to 20 or 25. Why is it added alarming to do 35 if you are not pedalling? Does that make it more dangerous to roll down a hill than to pedal on a flat? Especially if you are rolling at, say, 40 km/h? If not, how is being propelled by gravity any “safer” than being propelled by electricity? Unlike electricity, you can’t turn gravity off, so if your brakes fail, you can’t stop, or you may not be able to; if your electricity fails on a flat, you slowly stop (I won’t consider what happens if your electricity fails on a downhill as you are not likely to be using it whilst rolling). Clearly then, we need to limit the maximum speed that a bike can roll down a hill at, proabably to about 20 to 25 km/h. This doesn’t assume to accomplish abundant sense, and yet I can’t absolutely accountability the argumentation arbitrary admitting it is. In that case, it charge be that our apriorism does not accomplish abundant sense, and that is, of course, actually true; there is no acumen to accede a bike accomplishing 35 actuality propelled by force bottomward a acropolis any abnormally to a bike actuality propelled by electricity up a acropolis or forth a collapsed at 35. If we had electric bikes that were significantly more powerful than the average adult (or shall we say the average person 15 years or older), and that could, therefore, acheive significantly higher speeds than the average person 15 years or older, then we would have to look at limiting the speed. If we absolute the acceleration to 25 beneath any affairs added than one of aerial ability motors, again we charge to absolute the acceleration of animal powered bikes to 25 as well. That is if it is a safety issue (its not, it is more stable, smoother, and easier to control a bike being pushed by a well balanced motor than it is to control a bike that is swaying from side to side, wandering slightly as the rider puts in the elbow grease necessary to get up a hill). No, it is about making sure that electric bicycles are as useless as possible. It is about keeping them at “kids toy” status, keeping us adults in our cars (this is to feed the machine, see another post I’ve done) Not that anyone who is writing to this forum would be speaking with those aims in mind, but the government is VERY glad that people are writing it, otherwise they’d have to, and its just not as beleivable when the government says it.
There is no reason to restrict the top speed of electric bikes in Australia while they are in their current form. Nor will there be a need for it if the proposed change to 300 watts comes in. ALL pushbikes ridden by addition over the age of about 14 already has a 300 watt motor (the rider’s legs) with no brake on the acceleration it can do, added than the concrete limitations inherent in a 300 watt motor. A 300 watt motor additional 300 watts of pedal ability is about the aforementioned as pedalling adamantine bottomward a appropriate hill, so there is no acumen to bind the acceleration of that aggregate either. We have to get away from the idea that a motor makes it dangerous; it doesn’t. Oh by the way if you are worried about your kids injuring themselves on more powerful bikes, then I should mention that I support a minimum age. None of the comparisons i have made between human and motorised power output would apply to someone younger than 13, so they perhaps should not have access to an electric bike that could get them going faster than they coudl on their own, which they may not be ready for.
See, logic makes good laws.