In a horrific act of violence, on September 29 in Cranford, NJ, a teenage boy drove a Jeep at 70 mph down a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, mowing down two teenage girls who happened to be riding e-bikes at the time. In light of this senseless tragedy, it is reasonable to ask whether teenagers should be given such ready access to a two-ton vehicle capable of 70 mph or whether it should be possible for anyone to drive 70 mph down a residential street when the speed limit is just 25 mph.
But it is utterly confusing why the New Jersey Legislature is now not only not focused on reducing dangers from high-speed, heavy motor vehicles but instead searching for answers in victim-blaming and looking to restrict low-speed e-bikes, a far safer form of transportation.
Our state legislature is currently considering the most restrictive low-speed e-bike laws in the country in NJ Senate Bill S4834. The bill proposes to treat class 1 and class 2 e-bikes, which are speed-limited to just 20 mph, the same as cars and trucks and require full registration and insurance. If this ill-considered, unprecedented measure passes, not only would it not prevent another similar tragedy, but there will be severe consequences on urban mobility in NJ:
- It will result in a de facto ban on Citibike and other popular bike share programs;
- It will put the livelihoods of many restaurant and delivery workers at risk;
- It will make a critical, clean, low-cost transportation tool for many parents and car-free residents unaffordable and inaccessible; and
- It will push people to drive more instead, increasing congestion and making our streets more dangerous.
Tragedy-after-tragedy, there’s a lot of talk about traffic safety these days, and there should be. So far, 536 New Jerseyans have died in traffic crashes this year. The count will only continue to grow through the end of 2025. The tremendous number of fatal crashes this year is no anomaly; it is a status quo we have accepted for far too long.
Nearly all of these fatal crashes involve multi-ton motor vehicles, typically a car or truck. In many instances, the vehicle involved was also speeding. In contrast, though there are rare recorded instances of bicycle-caused tragedies in other states, out of the roughly 500-700 traffic deaths that occur annually in NJ, we know of no instances in which a bicycle or low-speed e-bike has killed another road user in NJ.
To understand why, we need to understand the basic physics of moving objects: E = ½mv2. The kinetic energy of a moving object scales with the mass times the speed squared, meaning a vehicle traveling at 40 mph will impart 4 times the kinetic energy into flesh-and-bone compared to the same vehicle traveling at 20 mph. This danger is reflected in overall risk statistics: A pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle at 20 mph has about a 10% chance of serious injury or death; but a pedestrian struck at 40 mph has about 8X the risk with a nearly 80% chance of serious injury or death. Accounting for the typical two ton weight of an average car, a speeding car at 40 mph contains roughly 80 times the kinetic energy of a low-speed e-bike traveling at 20 mph.
Yet despite these facts and while NJ’s top speed limit is 65 mph, most cars and trucks are capable of far higher speeds. Some street-legal “sports” models have top speeds of over 200 mph. Despite the well-known dangers of speeding, operating cars at safe speeds is unquestioningly left entirely as the responsibility of each individual driver. In contrast, low-speed e-bikes are electronically limited to just 20 mph and are further mechanically constrained by motors capable of outputting only 750 watts.
The problem of speeding by cars should be the primary focus of any safety-focused campaigns. However, it is true there is confusion today stemming from the proliferation of e-motos: high-speed two-wheeled devices masquerading as low-speed e-bikes. To deal with this conflation between low-speed e-bikes and high-risk e-devices, there are important reforms that can be pushed forward:
First, we can better enforce the laws already on the books. Both e-mopeds capable of 28 mph and e-motos capable of 35 mph or higher pose substantial risk to both their riders and others, and New Jersey already recognizes this risk with requirements for license, registration, and insurance. Enforcing these existing laws would be a sensible first step.
Second, while NJ already requires license, registration, and insurance for e-mopeds and e-motos, buyers regularly ride these devices out-the-store no-questions-asked without any of those requirements met and are unlikely to ever later register their vehicle. Commercial vendors of these devices have a shared responsibility here, but currently no law requires it. To fix this, New Jersey should require point-of-sale proof of license, registration, and insurance for these vehicles before they can leave the store. Dealing with this same issue, New York implemented point-of-sale registration earlier this year.
Third, many class 3 e-bikes are rolling oxymorons. They have powerful motors of 2,000 watts or more – physically capable of over 45 mph – while being electronically limited to 28 mph. With a nudge and a wink, manufacturers let prospective buyers know that the electronic limits can be defeated as easily as changing a menu setting. Adding an upper limit of 1,000 watts for motors to the definition of “motorized bicycle” would end this charade and re-classify these powerful devices as motorcycles. As motorcycles, these high-speed devices would be limited to adults, removing the ability for children to ride them.
If passed as is, the current bill under consideration by the NJ state legislature would dramatically restrict mobility for tens of thousands of New Jerseyans that rely on low-speed e-bike as an alternative to cars and as their primary mobility device. It would likely mean the end to a key option for safe, clean, affordable transportation that many parents in urban and walkable communities use to transport their kids to school and for errands. It would also likely mean the end of bike share in New Jersey where electric-assisted e-bikes are widely popular and make up the vast majority of rides.
Last, the authors of this legislation should be careful what they wish for – with the same regulations applying to both low-speed e-bikes and unlimited speed e-motorcycles, once able to meet these requirements – there would be no incentive to choose a lower speed device and the prevalence of risky e-motos could even increase.
At the beginning of 2025, Governor Murphy and the New Jersey Legislature took tremendous first steps to solve a longstanding crisis of preventable traffic deaths by adopting Vision Zero for the state of NJ, establishing a Target Zero Commission and setting a goal of reducing traffic deaths and serious injuries to zero by 2040. But to make progress towards this worthy goal and to prevent these tragedies, we must follow the facts. Cars are the primary safety challenge to both their operators and other road users. If we want safer streets, instead of leaving people with no other choice but to drive, we must encourage and grow transportation alternatives, from transit, to walking, to biking, to yes, low-speed e-biking.
To help stop this bad e-bike bill, please contact your legislators using this petition from our friends at NJ Bike Walk:
Jimmy Lee is a member of the boards of SafeStreetsJC and Hudson County Complete Streets
One response to “Speed Kills: Why discouraging low-speed e-bikes will lead to more dangerous streets”
Agree 100% with cars, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that the majority of people are confused by the role of eBikes because of their classification system. Simply put, eBikes should be “bicycles” with motors, with a couple of restrictions: 1) if there is a throttle (which helps with starting to pedal) then it should be limited to 10mph and provide no assistance above, 2) the motor should provide assistance to 20mph and level (not cut) off, 3) the motor is 750w max (helps for hills and shopping). Everything else can be governed under existing laws for scooters and motorcycles.
If you aren’t pedaling above 10mph or hard above above 20mph you are illegal. Period. Both require effort and pedaling keeps the rider observant and focused. It’s simple and easy to enforce. Very few grey areas. And of course posted speed limits always hold; wherever. Nothing about this approach is arbitrary and capricious; contrary to many of the laws and rules that are being adopted by municipalities and states across the nation killing the golden goose of eBike adoption and mass, sustainable micro-mobility to reduce our car dependency.
The reality is the 3 class system was first proposed 20 years ago before rapid changes in technology, cost and wide-spread adoption of eBikes (which really started just 10 years ago from a very small base) which has given us a wealth of reliable data from users and non-users alike. But what we know today, is what we could have guessed 20 years ago. Namely the majority of people don’t use bikes that much and the majority that do (80-90%) are not trained or experienced enough to handle speeds over 20mph. Only your consistent road and pro cyclists could maintain speeds over 20mph safely for themselves and others 20 years ago. What has changed for the population over that time? Nothing. So let’s simplify things and get rid of the 3 class system and make 1 class for all eBikes which will satisfy nearly all users and non-users alike.