There should be 1 class, not 3. It's about the rider, not the bike. Motors give average riders superpowers that turn them into TdF cyclists. But they don't have the experience, skills and athleticism to handle that power without significantly more risk for themselves and others. Importantly, riders need to be engaged and invested in the activity and others around them.
So limit throttle to 10 and power to 20. "If you're not pedaling above 10 and vigorously above 20, plate it!" Easy to legislate, implement and enforce. 750w to help with loads and hills is a little harder to regulate and enforce; typically only after the fact (accident or citation). But 1 class covers 90-95% of use cases. For the other 5-10% there are existing laws to cover more throttle, speed and power.
There are some valid points in both of these posts, and I think they’re worth separating out slightly, as they are addressing different parts of the same issue.
On the first point, I agree that this is fundamentally about access. Once different types of machines begin to overlap in capability—particularly around speed, power, and throttle use—the distinction between a bicycle and a light motor vehicle becomes less clear. At that point, the question of where each is appropriate becomes unavoidable.
The concern about higher-powered devices, throttles, and rider behaviour affecting shared trail environments is a reasonable one. Particularly on mixed-use paths, large differences in speed and control can create both real and perceived risk, and perception alone can be enough to drive access restrictions.
At the same time, I think it is important to avoid treating all e-MTB use as a single category. A low-speed pedal-assist bike used responsibly on a shared trail is not the same as a higher-powered throttle-driven device being used aggressively. If those are grouped together, the behaviour of one segment can end up defining policy for all.
That leads into the second point around classification.
A single class system is simple, but it risks losing the distinctions that actually matter in practice. The current multi-class approach—while not perfect—at least attempts to separate different use cases (pedal assist vs throttle, speed limits, intended environments). Without that separation, enforcement becomes easier in theory, but less accurate in practice.
I think the underlying issue in both posts is the same: how to maintain access while managing risk.
From what I see here in Greece, access is often less about formal regulation in isolation and more about how riders are perceived by the people who live and work in those landscapes—farmers, shepherds, landowners, and other regular users of those tracks and routes. That applies whether you are on public roads, shared rural tracks, or areas that are managed informally at a local level.
That dynamic is not universal, and regional differences matter.
In the UK, access is more formally structured, with defined rights of way and a clear legal framework. In much of mainland Europe, there is generally a stronger culture of regulated access, often supported by national or regional standards and designated trail systems. In the United States, access is typically determined through a mix of federal, state, and locally managed land, with formal designation and liability considerations playing a central role.
Greece operates somewhat differently. While there is formal law, a significant proportion of access in rural and mountainous areas is shaped by local custom, personal relationships, and day-to-day acceptance by those who use and manage the land. It is less codified, but still consistent in practice.
It is also worth noting that, in relative terms, mountain biking—and particularly E-MTB—is still a relatively small participation activity in markets such as Greece. Available data suggests that the overall bicycle market is modest in scale and growing at low single-digit rates annually, indicating that this is not yet a high-penetration cycling environment.
At the same time, there are consistent signals that e-bike use is increasing, supported by both consumer interest and government incentive programmes. While there is no reliable published data specifically for E-MTB sales at national or regional level (including Crete), the broader trend is clearly one of gradual growth rather than saturation.
In practical terms, this places E-MTB in Greece in a developing phase: small in absolute numbers, but expanding, particularly in areas where terrain and tourism create favourable conditions.
So I agree that overly broad or blunt regulation can be counterproductive, particularly if it doesn’t distinguish between different types of use.
At the same time, I think the more durable approach is one that recognises scale, but also focuses on proportionality—matching any controls to the actual risk, the type of riding, and the specific environment, rather than applying a single solution across all contexts.
