We all know there’s concern. But without evidence of eMTB access actually being rescinded due to excessive power or speed, it seems entirely premature to propose limiting power and speed as the mechanism to prevent losing trail access.
Industry Veteran Hans Rey Calls for Clearer E-Bike Definitions
- Thread starter Mcharza
- Start date
Your above proposition means that you believe that power/speed should/can be increased until the relevant authorities act to restrict trail access. You will of course do as you wish in Arizona which I believe is your jurisdiction, but not a risk that I in the UK wish to take.
To me it seems way too radical to limit the entire eMTB industry worldwide for what’s apparently just a concern(!) by a vocal minority.
I’m sure motor suppliers would love to innovate at a governed pace and suspect that desire is a contributing factor in the power limit propaganda.
Our laws are different to yours.
But it is not about a vocal minority...you are barely representing the concerns of the majority in this tiny thread, in a eMTB invested community.
Which means that chances of you representing the opinions/concerns of the broader trail user base is...probably much closer to zero than not. Yet you write the same stuff with so much conviction over and over and over.
And it is rich coming from someone who has demonstrated ignorance or disrespect to laws not only outside AZ, but pretty much everywhere, when you over-generalize and bundle everyone's wishes and concerns being the same as yours, but somehow, every one is "coerced" and/or "oppressed" by "the others" to be silent, and all the others are mindless sheep fallen for the propaganda of "the big speed governor". As I said from my 1st post pretty much, the problem is that of lack of respect for others, and half of the things certain people say here, could be copy-pasted by those wanting to screw up eMTB access and would have their argument made for them...no need to strawman anyone out of context: increasing limits doesn't mean anything because some will never be satisfied and want unlimited everything - for them. Others, we don't care, they should have police or rangers actively witnessing rule breaking, otherwise nothing happened.
And of course larger economies with a big market share influence the markets. Bicycle companies cannot develop different models or firmware and support them for every different municipality and trail system. They go for what is universally the safest approach. AZ doesn't even develop their own building codes for new construction within their borders, and they will "bother" developing standards for eMTB classification? No. AZ uses the ICC international building code, just like they use eMTB classifications based on international bodies. Beggers cannot be choosers.
Last edited:
I could not care less about peak power, torque, acceleration, deceleration or any of that numbers shit. As long as the speed for EMTBs is limited to 25kph/15mph, it will keep the nanny state numpties satisfied.
It's ridiculous anyone claiming that a 250Watt nominally rated Pedal Assist EMTB, limited to 25kph is a danger to anyone or anything, no matter any of the other numbers. FFS, next peeps will want Gravity tampered with, so riders can't accelerate downhill quickly.
The stupidity of this numbers argument, (Other than speed) is beyond belief, and is being propagated by numpties who have a vested interest in eliminating competition for the incumbered Motor Manufacturers. FFS, This thread is a classic example as Hans Rey is bloody sponsored by Bosch, who is losing bike manufacturers, hand over fist to Avinox Motor Systems.
Literally look at the Active Topics on this forum, and it is inundated with Avinox threads.
That said. I do not agree with the 25kph limit, as it is a danger to using an Ebike on the roads. But I am prepared to accept it as a compromise, to keep all bicycle trail access, open to EMTBs.
Those who believe that upping speed limits won't impact Trail access, have no concept of the hate for Ebikes that exists in certain parts of the world. There are Anti-Ebike lobbies waiting with baited breath for any excuse to exclude Ebikes from access.
With the political instability of the current environment. Govts are looking for any angle to appease the majority. And FACE THE FACTS. Ebike riders are a minority of the voting public in most parts of the world. So we are an easy target.
It's ridiculous anyone claiming that a 250Watt nominally rated Pedal Assist EMTB, limited to 25kph is a danger to anyone or anything, no matter any of the other numbers. FFS, next peeps will want Gravity tampered with, so riders can't accelerate downhill quickly.
The stupidity of this numbers argument, (Other than speed) is beyond belief, and is being propagated by numpties who have a vested interest in eliminating competition for the incumbered Motor Manufacturers. FFS, This thread is a classic example as Hans Rey is bloody sponsored by Bosch, who is losing bike manufacturers, hand over fist to Avinox Motor Systems.
Literally look at the Active Topics on this forum, and it is inundated with Avinox threads.
That said. I do not agree with the 25kph limit, as it is a danger to using an Ebike on the roads. But I am prepared to accept it as a compromise, to keep all bicycle trail access, open to EMTBs.
Those who believe that upping speed limits won't impact Trail access, have no concept of the hate for Ebikes that exists in certain parts of the world. There are Anti-Ebike lobbies waiting with baited breath for any excuse to exclude Ebikes from access.
With the political instability of the current environment. Govts are looking for any angle to appease the majority. And FACE THE FACTS. Ebike riders are a minority of the voting public in most parts of the world. So we are an easy target.
Exactly why I want regulation to be as local as possible instead of a worldwide, industry-level approach.
I find comfort in the fact that I never had to resort to personal attacks when debating this topic.
E-MTBinGreece
Active member
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
I agree that the broader issue of shared trails, rider behaviour, and environmental impact is important. In fact, much of my earlier post was addressing exactly those wider questions — including trail erosion, environmental concerns, and the way land managers typically deal with multi-use trails.
However, the narrower point I was responding to in the thread was a specific question raised earlier by another user: whether there are documented examples of trail systems that were intentionally opened to Class-1 e-MTBs and later closed again because they proved too dangerous. I did not originally raise that question myself; I was responding to it. As you note, the overall topic of trail access is much wider.
I have actually spent some time looking into that question. So far I have not been able to find a clear, documented case of that sequence occurring. There are many examples of debates about access, proposals to restrict e-bikes, or trails where bicycles were never allowed in the first place. But verified cases where access was deliberately granted and later revoked specifically because of safety problems appear to be very difficult to identify.
Regarding your suggestion of asking an AI system to generate examples, that can sometimes produce useful leads. However, those outputs still need to be checked against original sources, because AI systems typically aggregate references from existing discussions rather than verify the historical details of individual trail closures. In practice, the same step is still required: examining what actually happened in each specific case and why a particular trail policy changed.
That does not mean the concerns you mention are invalid. Shared-trail safety, rider behaviour, erosion, and environmental impact are all legitimate issues and they are actively discussed in many countries. But those discussions are different from documented evidence showing that a trail system experimented with e-MTB access and then closed it again because it proved unsafe.
Your example from Corno alle Scale is interesting, but accidents and rescue incidents unfortunately occur in many mountain activities — hiking, climbing, skiing, and cycling alike. Without comparative data it is difficult to determine whether cyclists are over-represented in those incidents or simply one of several activities that occasionally require rescue.
For that reason I find it useful to distinguish between three different things in these discussions:
1. policy debates about access
2. anecdotal experiences on individual trails
3. documented evidence from trail management or safety studies
All three are relevant, but they are not the same type of evidence.
It is also worth noting that many riders use e-MTBs for practical reasons rather than for higher speed or more aggressive riding. In my own case, I ride an e-MTB following a heart attack, on the advice of my cardiologist. Before that I rode both road bikes and mountain bikes, including the same mountain trails I ride today. The pedal assistance simply allows me to continue riding those routes while managing effort and cumulative strain. Situations like this are quite common, where riders transition to pedal-assist bikes because of age, injury, or medical advice. From that perspective, being able to continue using the same trails responsibly is an important consideration for many riders.
Ratcliff1893
New Member
In the UK I believe the issue is less about trail access and what we do on our bikes as enthusiasts and more about being put in the same boat as all the other ebike goings on!
It’s us buying legitimate bikes that are going to get punished not all manor of illegal bikes and behaviour, law breakers will carry on regardless.
It’s us buying legitimate bikes that are going to get punished not all manor of illegal bikes and behaviour, law breakers will carry on regardless.
Is 100% the correct answer. The legislation has little to do with a bloke riding solo in the woods. It has lots to do with a muppet riding it in town at 25mph and ploughing into 3 young kids as he's wheelying through the shopping center. The problem is, the law has to blanket all eventualities, not just "i was in the woods on my own".
I personally don't think the 15mph is incorrect. But i seem to be somewhat in the minority with that.
Ratcliff1893
New Member
I can accept the current speed limit too
It’s more than enough to enable people to do more than can on a regular bike. 18-20 mph maybe the sensible compromise. I know the majority of weekend warriors can’t sustain that off road on the pedalling bits!
I think the speed limit is a compromise between fast enough to increase your average speed and keep the battery usage sensible.
E-MTBinGreece
Active member
I think that is a very fair point.
In many countries the regulatory concern is often less about people riding legitimate pedal-assist e-MTBs on mountain trails and more about the rapid growth of high-power electric bikes, modified machines, and illegal vehicles being used in public spaces. Those issues tend to get grouped together in public debate even though they are quite different things.
A Class-1 pedal-assist e-MTB limited to 250 W and 25 km/h is legally defined in many places as a bicycle. It only provides assistance while pedalling and operates broadly within the same speed envelope as a normal mountain bike on many trails. By contrast, many of the machines that attract regulatory attention are effectively electric motorcycles — higher power, throttle-controlled, or modified to exceed legal limits.
As you say, the difficulty is that responsible riders using compliant bikes can end up being affected by regulations that are actually aimed at very different types of vehicles and behaviour. People who are already ignoring the law will likely continue to do so regardless.
The situation also varies significantly from country to country.
In countries where mountain biking developed earlier as an organised activity, such as the United Kingdom, there is a clearly defined legal framework governing access to countryside routes. Public rights of way are formally classified as footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways, or byways open to all traffic, and their legal status is recorded on official maps.
Greece does not operate such a system. There is no national legal category equivalent to a public bridleway or mountain-bike trail, and the off-road tracks that riders encounter in rural areas fall into several different types of land access with varying legal status.
A significant proportion of the dirt tracks across rural Greece are agricultural roads (αγροτικοί δρόμοι). These routes historically allowed farmers access to fields, vineyards, olive groves, and water sources. Many were constructed or later improved by municipalities and function as public rural roads even though they may pass through privately owned land.
Alongside these are forest roads (δασικοί δρόμοι) managed by the Forestry Service. These were built for forestry management, fire control, and access to remote terrain and are generally open to non-motorised users unless a specific restriction is imposed.
There are also tracks created directly by landowners to reach their own land. These can be private agricultural access routes. In addition, there are numerous older paths historically used by shepherds, mule trains, and villagers travelling between settlements. Many of these routes pre-date modern land registration and municipal planning, which means their formal legal status is sometimes unclear even though they have existed for generations.
Greek legislation largely regulates the use of vehicles on public roads rather than establishing a comprehensive countryside access system. Bicycles are treated as vehicles within the road traffic code when operating on recognised roads, but the law does not establish a specific framework for mountain-bike trail access. As a result, maps alone rarely reveal the legal classification of an off-road track.
In practice, particularly in rural regions, long-established agricultural and forestry tracks are commonly used by many different people. Farmers, shepherds, hunters, walkers, and cyclists all share the same network of dirt roads and paths. Unless a route is physically gated, clearly marked as private property, or subject to a specific restriction, informal shared use is widely tolerated.
There are of course circumstances where access may legitimately be restricted. During periods of high wildfire risk forest areas may be temporarily closed. Some archaeological sites, protected habitats, or Natura 2000 zones limit movement to designated routes. If a route is marked with signs such as “Απαγορεύεται η διέλευση” (passage prohibited) or “Ιδιωτικός χώρος” (private property), those restrictions should obviously be respected.
Despite these formal possibilities, the practical reality across much of rural Greece — and especially on the island of Crete — is shaped less by strict legal enforcement and more by long-standing patterns of shared land use. Dirt farm tracks, shepherd routes, and forestry roads form an interconnected network used daily by the local population.
Provided riders behave respectfully, avoid damage to crops, close gates, and show consideration for livestock and working farmers, cyclists are rarely challenged.
This is particularly true in Crete, where the cultural attitude toward countryside access tends to be relatively relaxed. The island has a long history of movement across the land by shepherds, farmers, and villagers, and the tracks that thread through olive groves and mountain valleys have traditionally been treated as functional routes rather than tightly controlled corridors.
For those of us riding regularly in the hills of Apokoronas and across the wider countryside, that shared landscape brings an important responsibility. When we meet shepherds tending their flocks or farmers working their land, we stop, exchange greetings, and take time to talk. These encounters are part of the rhythm of riding here and reflect the simple understanding that these hills are first and foremost a working landscape.
For context, I am originally from the United Kingdom but have lived permanently on Crete for around twenty years. I rode mountain bikes long before switching to an e-MTB following a heart attack on my cardiologist’s advice. So I have experienced both systems: the structured rights-of-way framework in the UK and the more informal shared landscape that exists across rural Greece.
In that sense, mountain bikers are simply another group moving through an existing network of agricultural and mountain routes — sharing them rather than claiming them.
Mario Antony
Active member
Yes, several times.
Actually, I’m part of a pro-cycling activist group called Salvaiciclisti (literally “Save the Cyclists”), which put pressure on local authorities and the government to improve road regulations and make them safer for cyclists and pedestrians.
The situation here in Emilia-Romagna, the region where I live since almost a year, has certainly improved over the past few years. In this part of Italy, cycling has traditionally been seen as a healthy, sustainable and practical way to get around, even since traffic was still manegeable. On weekends, hundreds of people pass along my street in the hills cycling, running or simply walking, so it’s clear that better regulation is needed: more dedicated cycling and pedestrian paths, fortunately increasing, separated from motor traffic , and stronger enforcement by the police.
Unfortunately, the right-wing parties currently governing Italy tend to oppose policies that promote sustainable transportation in favor of cars. Because this region has a strong progressive tradition, there is often political friction that slows down or obstructs these initiatives.
For example, the city introduced a few years ago a 30 km/h speed limit for motor vehicles across ALL urban streets. However, a court sided with a taxi driver who challenged the rule (with explicit support from the right-wing party currently in power nationally) and the measure was temporarily removed.
The municipality of Bologna is now reintroducing it gradually by installing new signage throughout the city.
Once again, things vary enormously from one part of the world to another, even within what you called the “fucking EU,”and even between different regions of the same country.
BTW, this is a region with an extremely high level of technological development and wealth. Companies like Ferrari, Maserati, Ducati, Pagani, and Lamborghini—along with their entire industrial ecosystem—have their headquarters within about 50 km of where I live (and prototypes of new models under road testing are a quite common sight around here). So we’re certainly not a bunch of troglodytes with no money to pay for gasoline. But people do tend to drive fast, though, and enforcing the rules isn’t always easy, somewhat similar to what I experienced in Portugal when I spent time there.
Personally, as I’ve already said, I see bicycles—both traditional and electric—as the future of transportation in many areas of the world. They’re healthy, affordable, non-polluting, and sustainable, especially in areas like this. The small electric motor, limited to 250 W, easily helps me climb the last 3 km to my home, which includes about 250–300 meters of elevation gain, without arriving completely exhausted.
I barely use my small car today. Maybe once a week at most, mainly for grocery shopping and a few other errands. Or for some road trips with my wife (and our cat...). My ebike (or bike) is what I use to commute to work every single day, get around, enjoy riding in the hills without disturbing people who are out hiking in the countryside, and . Sitting in traffic in a car today genuinely makes my skin crawl.
And for the record, I’m 67 years old, not exactly a kid.
Yes, several times.
Actually, I’m part of a pro-cycling activist group called Salvaiciclisti (literally “Save the Cyclists”), which put pressure on local authorities and the government to improve road regulations and make them safer for cyclists and pedestrians.
The situation here in Emilia-Romagna, the region where I live since almost a year, has certainly improved over the past few years. In this part of Italy, cycling has traditionally been seen as a healthy, sustainable and practical way to get around, even since traffic was still manegeable. On weekends, hundreds of people pass along my street in the hills cycling, running or simply walking, so it’s clear that better regulation is needed: more dedicated cycling and pedestrian paths, fortunately increasing, separated from motor traffic , and stronger enforcement by the police.
Unfortunately, the right-wing parties currently governing Italy tend to oppose policies that promote sustainable transportation in favor of cars. Because this region has a strong progressive tradition, there is often political friction that slows down or obstructs these initiatives.
For example, the city introduced a few years ago a 30 km/h speed limit for motor vehicles across ALL urban streets. However, a court sided with a taxi driver who challenged the rule (with explicit support from the right-wing party currently in power nationally) and the measure was temporarily removed.
The municipality of Bologna is now reintroducing it gradually by installing new signage throughout the city.
Once again, things vary enormously from one part of the world to another, even within what you called the “fucking EU,”
BTW, this is a region with an extremely high level of technological development and wealth. Companies like Ferrari, Maserati, Ducati, Pagani, and Lamborghini—along with their entire industrial ecosystem—have their headquarters within about 50 km of where I live (and prototypes of new models under road testing are a quite common sight around here). So we’re certainly not a bunch of troglodytes with no money to pay for gasoline
Personally, as I’ve already said, I see bicycles—both traditional and electric—as the future of transportation in many areas of the world. They’re healthy, affordable, non-polluting, and sustainable, especially in areas like this. The small electric motor, limited to 250 W, easily helps me climb the last 3 km to my home, which includes about 250–300 meters of elevation gain, without arriving completely exhausted.
I barely use my small car today. Maybe once a week at most, mainly for grocery shopping and a few other errands. Or for some road trips with my wife (and our cat...). My ebike (or bike) is what I use to commute to work every single day, get around, enjoy riding in the hills without disturbing people who are out hiking in the countryside, and . Sitting in traffic in a car today genuinely makes my skin crawl.
And for the record, I’m 67 years old, not exactly a kid.
No one, will take seriously an old person, that moved 1 year ago... to anywhere!!!!
And thinking that YOU or/and the organization put pressure, is simply hilarious!
It's not the right wing... put it simple:
Italy, is not for you...
Nor is any Southern Country, for that matter.
And because you touch politics, let me state this in clear english:
The "Lefty Party" in all Southercountries, will fall in comming elections.
It started in Italy, it happened in Portugal, and will happen in Spain (already happening in local ellections).
France will also move to the far right.
So in your opinion, the problem is speed and not how you reach it (motor vehicle/pedal bikes/ebikes/etc...)?
Last edited:
pagheca
Active member
A bit of respect please. It is really unacceptable that you keep insulting and making jokes about other commenters in a someway civil discussion like this (I reported your post, btw).
Mario Antony
Active member
There wasn't any insult or joke.
And if you cannot take it in a forum, can imagine in real life.
Thinking that with 67 years old, you would already be matture enough to move along.
Is that the reason why you move so much?
2cool2fool
Active member
This is being way over complicated. How about something simple like this:
- Class 1 - No Throttle - pedal assist only
- Class (Whatever) - Throttle
pagheca
Active member
Really???
Just to clear things up, and to give you a little something to clutch your pearls about, here’s what we actually do and have done:Our Association is part in the Consulta Municipale per le Biciclette (Municipal Bicycle Council) in Bologna, right alongside 28 other associations who also seem suspiciously fond of sustainable, and inclusive mobility.
We’re also part of the promoting and organizing committee of Bike Pride Bologna, a big, cheerful parade of cyclists who have the audacity to celebrate bicycles in public. With smiles and bells, and sometimes costumes. The horror, I am sure people like you will be shocked by inclusive activities like this...
, but we’re just working, in broad daylight, with a bunch of other people who want to live in a better place where to ride a bike.I know. Outrageous!!!
But let me list some of the results obtained by our "hilarious", according to you, Consulta Municipale delle Biciclette di Bologna just in the last few years:1. Significant Growth in Cycling Across the City
- Cycling increased by 80% between 2012 and 2023, according to long‑term monitoring cited by the Council.
- Between 2024 and 2025, the number of cyclists grew by 11%, with the Bicycle Ring (“Tangenziale delle Bici”) reaching one million annual passages a full month earlier than the previous year.
- Additional measurements showed a further 22% increase in bike traffic between 2024 and 2025.
2. Support for the Development and Expansion of the "Bicycle Ring"
- Bologna's Bicycle Ring, surrounding the beautiful old center of town, is now recognized as a key transport infrastructure, exceeding one million yearly transits and prompting calls for upgrades at critical intersections (e.g., Porta San Donato, Porta San Vitale).
- In 2026, a new protected stretch was already completed.
3. Contributions to the Strategic Cycling Network (Biciplan)
- The Council regularly provides formal technical feedback and observations to PUMS and Biciplan planning documents, with several proposals being at least partially adopted.
- Ongoing pressure to complete major radial cycling routes, identified as still lacking adequate infrastructure. Note that the Eurovelo 7 connecting the Island of Malta with Nordkapp, funded by EU, pass through our wonderful city.
4. Improvements to Urban Cycling Infrastructure
- In 2023 alone, Bologna implemented 11 km of new cycling infrastructure and upgraded another 10 km of existing routes, as reported during a Council meeting: comune.bologna.it
- Newly built or improved radial routes are already increasing usage:
5. Initiatives for Safety and Sustainable Mobility
- The Council has been an active voice in supporting the implementation of Bologna Città 30, aiming to reduce car speeds and improve cycling safety.
- It has highlighted priorities such as maintenance of the Bicycle Ring’s pavement, widening bottlenecks, and improving safety at crowded junctions.
6. Promotion and Public Awareness Initiatives
- Organized public events celebrating milestones such as the “one‑millionth cyclist,” offering free bike checks and velostation passes.
- Actively counters misinformation by grounding public debate in real usage data and analysis.
7. International Recognition for Bologna
- The city entered the Copenhagenize Index 2025 for the first time, ranking 25th worldwide—the only Italian city in the top 30—reflecting years of work on cycling infrastructure and policy.
So, feel free to keep thinking with that charmingly outdated, small‑scale mindset of yours. Thousands of us, of all ages and sexes, will keep actually busy trying to make things better for the whole city, together with our smart and leftist local authorities.
With my warmest regards.
Last edited:
E-MTBinGreece
Active member
Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed reply and for setting out the work your association has been involved in.Just to clear things up, and to give you a little something to clutch your pearls about, here’s what we actually do and have done:
Our Association is part in the Consulta Municipale per le Biciclette (Municipal Bicycle Council) in Bologna, right alongside 28 other associations who also seem suspiciously fond of sustainable, and inclusive mobility.
We’re also part of the promoting and organizing committee of Bike Pride Bologna, a big, cheerful parade of cyclists who have the audacity to celebrate bicycles in public. With smiles and bells, and sometimes costumes. The horror, I am sure people like you will be shocked by inclusive activities like this...
I know. Outrageous!!!
But let me list some of the results obtained by our "hilarious", according to you, Consulta Municipale delle Biciclette di Bologna just in the last few years:
1. Significant Growth in Cycling Across the City
- Cycling increased by 80% between 2012 and 2023, according to long‑term monitoring cited by the Council.
- Between 2024 and 2025, the number of cyclists grew by 11%, with the Bicycle Ring (“Tangenziale delle Bici”) reaching one million annual passages a full month earlier than the previous year.
- Additional measurements showed a further 22% increase in bike traffic between 2024 and 2025.
2. Support for the Development and Expansion of the "Bicycle Ring"
- Bologna's Bicycle Ring, surrounding the beautiful old center of town, is now recognized as a key transport infrastructure, exceeding one million yearly transits and prompting calls for upgrades at critical intersections (e.g., Porta San Donato, Porta San Vitale).
- In 2026, a new protected stretch was already completed.
3. Contributions to the Strategic Cycling Network (Biciplan)
- The Council regularly provides formal technical feedback and observations to PUMS and Biciplan planning documents, with several proposals being at least partially adopted.
- Ongoing pressure to complete major radial cycling routes, identified as still lacking adequate infrastructure. Note that the Eurovelo 7 connecting the Island of Malta with Nordkapp, funded by EU, pass through our wonderful city.
4. Improvements to Urban Cycling Infrastructure
- In 2023 alone, Bologna implemented 11 km of new cycling infrastructure and upgraded another 10 km of existing routes, as reported during a Council meeting: comune.bologna.it
- Newly built or improved radial routes are already increasing usage:
5. Initiatives for Safety and Sustainable Mobility
- The Council has been an active voice in supporting the implementation of Bologna Città 30, aiming to reduce car speeds and improve cycling safety.
- It has highlighted priorities such as maintenance of the Bicycle Ring’s pavement, widening bottlenecks, and improving safety at crowded junctions.
6. Promotion and Public Awareness Initiatives
- Organized public events celebrating milestones such as the “one‑millionth cyclist,” offering free bike checks and velostation passes.
- Actively counters misinformation by grounding public debate in real usage data and analysis.
7. International Recognition for Bologna
- The city entered the Copenhagenize Index 2025 for the first time, ranking 25th worldwide—the only Italian city in the top 30—reflecting years of work on cycling infrastructure and policy.
So, feel free to keep thinking with that charmingly outdated, small‑scale mindset of yours. Thousands of us, of all ages and sexes, will keep actually busy trying to make things better for the whole city, together with our smart and leftist local authorities.
With my warmest regards.
The information about the Municipal Bicycle Council in Bologna and the various initiatives around cycling infrastructure, usage monitoring, and public engagement is genuinely interesting. Practical examples like this are useful because they show how cycling advocacy can move beyond abstract debate and into concrete policy and infrastructure improvements.
It is also encouraging to see long-term data being used in the discussion, such as the monitoring of cycling volumes and the development of the Bicycle Ring and other urban routes. That kind of evidence-based approach tends to produce more productive conversations than assumptions about how people might behave.
Whatever differences of opinion people may have about specific issues, the broader objective of improving cycling safety, infrastructure, and public acceptance is something many riders can probably agree on.
So thank you again for sharing the information and the examples from Bologna.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mario Antony
Active member
Really???
Our Association is part in the Consulta Municipale per le Biciclette (Municipal Bicycle Council) in Bologna, right alongside 28 other associations who also seem suspiciously fond of sustainable, and inclusive mobility.
We’re also part of the promoting and organizing committee of Bike Pride Bologna, a big, cheerful parade of cyclists who have the audacity to celebrate bicycles in public. With smiles and bells, and sometimes costumes. The horror, I am sure people like you will be shocked by inclusive activities like this...
I know. Outrageous!!!
1. Significant Growth in Cycling Across the City
- Cycling increased by 80% between 2012 and 2023, according to long‑term monitoring cited by the Council.
- Between 2024 and 2025, the number of cyclists grew by 11%, with the Bicycle Ring (“Tangenziale delle Bici”) reaching one million annual passages a full month earlier than the previous year.
- Additional measurements showed a further 22% increase in bike traffic between 2024 and 2025.
2. Support for the Development and Expansion of the "Bicycle Ring"
- Bologna's Bicycle Ring, surrounding the beautiful old center of town, is now recognized as a key transport infrastructure, exceeding one million yearly transits and prompting calls for upgrades at critical intersections (e.g., Porta San Donato, Porta San Vitale).
- In 2026, a new protected stretch was already completed.
3. Contributions to the Strategic Cycling Network (Biciplan)
- The Council regularly provides formal technical feedback and observations to PUMS and Biciplan planning documents, with several proposals being at least partially adopted.
- Ongoing pressure to complete major radial cycling routes, identified as still lacking adequate infrastructure. Note that the Eurovelo 7 connecting the Island of Malta with Nordkapp, funded by EU, pass through our wonderful city.
4. Improvements to Urban Cycling Infrastructure
- In 2023 alone, Bologna implemented 11 km of new cycling infrastructure and upgraded another 10 km of existing routes, as reported during a Council meeting: comune.bologna.it
- Newly built or improved radial routes are already increasing usage:
5. Initiatives for Safety and Sustainable Mobility
- The Council has been an active voice in supporting the implementation of Bologna Città 30, aiming to reduce car speeds and improve cycling safety.
- It has highlighted priorities such as maintenance of the Bicycle Ring’s pavement, widening bottlenecks, and improving safety at crowded junctions.
6. Promotion and Public Awareness Initiatives
- Organized public events celebrating milestones such as the “one‑millionth cyclist,” offering free bike checks and velostation passes.
- Actively counters misinformation by grounding public debate in real usage data and analysis.
7. International Recognition for Bologna
and many others... including for example the opening of a laboratory (the Velostazione ExDinamo) where every associate can go to repair their bike or ebike for free and with the help of an expert.
- The city entered the Copenhagenize Index 2025 for the first time, ranking 25th worldwide—the only Italian city in the top 30—reflecting years of work on cycling infrastructure and policy.
So, feel free to keep thinking with that charmingly outdated, small‑scale mindset of yours. Thousands of us, of all ages and sexes, will keep actually busy trying to make things better for the whole city, together with our smart and leftist local authorities.
With my warmest regards.
It's good to have actions toward cycling, and promoting it's use.
I've been promoting Cycle Commute since 2000, and participated in several bike gatherings and parades, until I saw fanaticism.
Bike commute is not for all, and there are people that won't change, just because they have some people on bikes or have cycle path.
So to clarify, you are part of this Council, for the last year, since you moved to Bologna?
You are in favor of Bike use (commute I supose), but against ebikes going faster than 25km/h // more powerfull ebikes?
Or, Yoi are just advocating that all pedal vehicle should be bellow 25km/h?
PS: Don't worry about me or my feelings.
Last edited by a moderator:
With such a nuclear solution proposed you’d think there would be evidence of speed and/or power causing loss of access somewhere.
I forecast trail access will expand as eMTB increases in popularity. Artificial limitations will only slow the growth of the sport, and thus slow the broadening of trail access. The solution proposed ironically may exacerbate the problem instead of being the remedy.
Last edited:
That’s how it already is here in the UK:
‘Class 1’ with no throttle and pedal and walk assist only = classed as a bicycle and allowed legally everywhere a bicycle can go.
‘Class (Whatever)’ = electric motorbike, illegal on public trails but can be ridden on public roads with licence, insurance, registration, MoT, number plates etc.
Sorted.
I agree it isn’t difficult, there’s a line that once crossed turns a bicycle into a motorcycle. That’s when the problems for trail access starts.
On the subject of Hans Rey, he’s expressing a view, it’s fine if people disagree with it but it’s no less valid then the ‘more speed and power’ viewpoint, depending on where you are in the world, obviously.
I say again, he’s got people talking and thinking about it, which I’d say is a good thing.
Mario Antony
Active member
The issue regarding his comment is real what you refered: SPEED.
Nothing to do with Power or even Resctrition speed.
And on any vehicle. Top speed is easier to achieve DH.
Being Speed the problem, it affects ALL. Bikers/Ebikers/etc, and has nothing to do with Power.
Tensions are high and I really cannot undestand how those who from the first page are calling Hans Rey a "shill for Bosch", and that all of these are moved by Bosch and this and that, use language like this, throw in characterizing my and other's opinions as "propaganda" or that we are "sheeple" in favor of Bosch etc etc, and then have the gall to say the they are being called names, is the worst kind of projection.
Regulations like eMTB/eMoto etc classifications exist to protect people. It is impossible for someone who fundamentally believes that "The Government" is some dark entity that loses sleep over "controlling you and destroying fun" or whatever to see that quite a few regulations are good and for our protection over greed or selfish biggots, but...facts over feelings.
Claiming that Bosch would do all of that because they are so far outclassed by DJI or whomever, that now they trembling and trying to "cook the books" and bend the Laws along with the "Deep State" to not allow their competition to catch up, is (trying to be polite and not catch the bate) not smart.
Bosch already has a proven motor that can do 100Nm, and Watts is a derivative of torque, not the other way around. A motor that can do 100Nm, will output 750W at 72 crank rpm and 1000W at 95.5 crank rpm. DJI has a 105Nm motor, it is not like they are blowing the competition away. Brose (Specialzied) advertize 111Nm. They can all do "loads of watts" to grab headlines if they do not care for battery consumption, it is simply a firmware update, and this is why as soon as the competition started saying we have 100, they matched it up from 85, and then Brose one-uped them to 111 and DJI went 120 under the special turbo mode etc. It is all a game. And it is not like Bosch doesn't sell anymore or they do not get an championships and whatnot; they are doing fine.
These motors are all low RPM motors, i.e. it is not like the motor's RPM are in the 1000s and we start having impedance issues with the user outrunning the motor going up 20-25rpm, i.e. these are not direct drive EVs that start having issues because they rev "too high" , as it was the case for the P100D Tesla S that would "redline" its motors at 18,000 rpm or so. We are operating at orders of magnitude less than that with eMTBs, so having Back-EMF issues that effectively red-line the motor at high rpm, do not come into question. Long story short, 100Nm "ballpark" motors, all can do 1000W if their life depended on it...nobody cares but those who want to one-up others because "I am better than you" and i bought the best thing with my $, that's makes me smart and you stupid" - exactly how the posts are written here, everyone pretending being a genius for buying the "right motor" and "supporting the right capitalists".
Sure, DJI has the best motor, I agree, but it is because of its angular speed sensor and potential "resolution" of power delivery, not for 5Nm here and 20 there. Having power on an on-off switch is pointless, finesse is the hard part, and that is what the competition cannot just FW update in. But Watt #s are all made up when not contextualized and claiming that company A does all of that because they are left behind, is simply wrong.
Long story short, if you want to make everything into a conspiracy, sure. have at it. But it is rich to insult everyone and rapid-firing responses that you make it obvious to disregard all the arguments as "stupid" with single liners and sentiment and accusing others of "missing the point" that only you can grasp, or calling others shills and propagandists etc, and then being personally insulted and/or claiming a moral high ground for not demining others. For real tho.
eMTB access is a loophole. A good, yet fragile one.
You focus on the wrong things by talking power. The operative word is ACCESS, not eMTB. It refers to the people.
eMTBs are tool that allows broader access to the outdoor recreation activities to a larger swath of people. People who are weaker than a fully abled individual, elderly or even disabled people. This is the "EQUAL ACCESS" part that enables it, and under this framework of equal access that is a CIVIL RIGHT, eMTBs were allowed.
It was not for LBSs or Bosch and Shimano to sell bikes. They gladly did fill the demand and separated us from $, but it was not for them.
It is not about MTBs having equal access to eMTBs, it is all about the riders who could not otherwise ride or ride along, now gaining access to that recreational activity. Turning it into a pee contest for 20mph or 25mph or whatever, for FULLY ABLED PERSONS that are actually the vast majority of real eMTB users to get their thrills on mixed access MTB trails instead of a dirt bike track for what could be mistaken (perhaps intentionally due to manufacturers abusing the letter of these access loopholes), is the completely wrong conversation to start when we don't even have the terminology down correct, and the majority of laymen - and it will be most likely laymen making those changes - cannot tell the difference between a Class 1 and a class 2 or 3. It is too obvious that a good % of people even in this forum do not know or do not care to know what the differences are, or they wish they would cherry pick figures from one class to use in the other interchangeably etc. We are already faster than what the average fully abled rider can do. Asking for more stops being about equal ACCESS and it is about "I want to ride my eBike", ME ME ME...and this is a loser argumenta.
This is what Hans Rey is warning against and he is far from the first.
So to just demean all of this into "Bosch shilling" and DJI simping or whatever side-quest brought you here, please, take the chill-pill and if you cannot think past yourself and when you hear "access" it is about something you just buy with your little $...I implore you...let your Ego chill, and either put up what the community NEEDS and protect what got us ACCESS or shut up because you are hurting us, and you with us. It is not about one-upping an idiot like me in the interwebs, or "telling it" on your friends who do not approve of your eMTB. Yes, there are things bigger than you.
Regulations like eMTB/eMoto etc classifications exist to protect people. It is impossible for someone who fundamentally believes that "The Government" is some dark entity that loses sleep over "controlling you and destroying fun" or whatever to see that quite a few regulations are good and for our protection over greed or selfish biggots, but...facts over feelings.
Claiming that Bosch would do all of that because they are so far outclassed by DJI or whomever, that now they trembling and trying to "cook the books" and bend the Laws along with the "Deep State" to not allow their competition to catch up, is (trying to be polite and not catch the bate) not smart.
Bosch already has a proven motor that can do 100Nm, and Watts is a derivative of torque, not the other way around. A motor that can do 100Nm, will output 750W at 72 crank rpm and 1000W at 95.5 crank rpm. DJI has a 105Nm motor, it is not like they are blowing the competition away. Brose (Specialzied) advertize 111Nm. They can all do "loads of watts" to grab headlines if they do not care for battery consumption, it is simply a firmware update, and this is why as soon as the competition started saying we have 100, they matched it up from 85, and then Brose one-uped them to 111 and DJI went 120 under the special turbo mode etc. It is all a game. And it is not like Bosch doesn't sell anymore or they do not get an championships and whatnot; they are doing fine.
These motors are all low RPM motors, i.e. it is not like the motor's RPM are in the 1000s and we start having impedance issues with the user outrunning the motor going up 20-25rpm, i.e. these are not direct drive EVs that start having issues because they rev "too high" , as it was the case for the P100D Tesla S that would "redline" its motors at 18,000 rpm or so. We are operating at orders of magnitude less than that with eMTBs, so having Back-EMF issues that effectively red-line the motor at high rpm, do not come into question. Long story short, 100Nm "ballpark" motors, all can do 1000W if their life depended on it...nobody cares but those who want to one-up others because "I am better than you" and i bought the best thing with my $, that's makes me smart and you stupid" - exactly how the posts are written here, everyone pretending being a genius for buying the "right motor" and "supporting the right capitalists".
Sure, DJI has the best motor, I agree, but it is because of its angular speed sensor and potential "resolution" of power delivery, not for 5Nm here and 20 there. Having power on an on-off switch is pointless, finesse is the hard part, and that is what the competition cannot just FW update in. But Watt #s are all made up when not contextualized and claiming that company A does all of that because they are left behind, is simply wrong.
Long story short, if you want to make everything into a conspiracy, sure. have at it. But it is rich to insult everyone and rapid-firing responses that you make it obvious to disregard all the arguments as "stupid" with single liners and sentiment and accusing others of "missing the point" that only you can grasp, or calling others shills and propagandists etc, and then being personally insulted and/or claiming a moral high ground for not demining others. For real tho.
eMTB access is a loophole. A good, yet fragile one.
You focus on the wrong things by talking power. The operative word is ACCESS, not eMTB. It refers to the people.
eMTBs are tool that allows broader access to the outdoor recreation activities to a larger swath of people. People who are weaker than a fully abled individual, elderly or even disabled people. This is the "EQUAL ACCESS" part that enables it, and under this framework of equal access that is a CIVIL RIGHT, eMTBs were allowed.
It was not for LBSs or Bosch and Shimano to sell bikes. They gladly did fill the demand and separated us from $, but it was not for them.
It is not about MTBs having equal access to eMTBs, it is all about the riders who could not otherwise ride or ride along, now gaining access to that recreational activity. Turning it into a pee contest for 20mph or 25mph or whatever, for FULLY ABLED PERSONS that are actually the vast majority of real eMTB users to get their thrills on mixed access MTB trails instead of a dirt bike track for what could be mistaken (perhaps intentionally due to manufacturers abusing the letter of these access loopholes), is the completely wrong conversation to start when we don't even have the terminology down correct, and the majority of laymen - and it will be most likely laymen making those changes - cannot tell the difference between a Class 1 and a class 2 or 3. It is too obvious that a good % of people even in this forum do not know or do not care to know what the differences are, or they wish they would cherry pick figures from one class to use in the other interchangeably etc. We are already faster than what the average fully abled rider can do. Asking for more stops being about equal ACCESS and it is about "I want to ride my eBike", ME ME ME...and this is a loser argumenta.
This is what Hans Rey is warning against and he is far from the first.
So to just demean all of this into "Bosch shilling" and DJI simping or whatever side-quest brought you here, please, take the chill-pill and if you cannot think past yourself and when you hear "access" it is about something you just buy with your little $...I implore you...let your Ego chill, and either put up what the community NEEDS and protect what got us ACCESS or shut up because you are hurting us, and you with us. It is not about one-upping an idiot like me in the interwebs, or "telling it" on your friends who do not approve of your eMTB. Yes, there are things bigger than you.
Last edited:
E-MTBinGreece
Active member
I think this is one of the most constructive posts in the thread so far. In particular, the way you’ve framed the issue around access rather than brand, politics, or headline power figures is, in my view, exactly where the discussion needs to sit.
From my own perspective riding in Crete, that point about access is very real. The terrain here is shared by default — farmers, shepherds, walkers and riders all using the same network of agricultural and forestry tracks. There is no formal trail classification system like in the UK, so what matters in practice is behaviour, control, and respect for others using the land.
Where I agree strongly is that the current access many of us have with E-MTBs is not guaranteed. It exists because pedal-assist bikes are still broadly treated as bicycles within defined limits. If that distinction becomes blurred — particularly around speed, power, or behaviour — then it risks being reclassified, and access can be lost quite quickly.
At the same time, E-MTBs clearly widen participation. In my own case, following a heart attack, pedal assist is what allows me to continue riding at all. Without it, I would not be out on the trails. So the access question works in two directions: protecting shared use, and enabling people to ride who otherwise could not.
For me, the practical balance comes back to maintaining the conditions that allow that access to exist: clear classification, responsible riding, and an understanding that these are shared environments rather than exclusive ones.
If we lose sight of that, the likely outcome is restriction rather than expansion.
pagheca
Active member
The issue I see with this approach is that it doesn’t really account for differing views on what constitutes acceptable limits in terms of speed, power, and usage.
Let me give you an example.
I grew up in Italy, where at the time, like in other countries, I guess, there was a vehicle category known as “ciclomotori” (mopeds). These were extremely popular, especially among teenagers. Getting one was almost a rite of passage: on your 14th birthday, you were expected to start insisting with your parents that you absolutely needed one to fit in socially. And usually you succeeded (like in my case...
)This category included vehicles up to 50cc, around 1.5 hp, with a top speed of 40 km/h. Remarkably, they could be driven from the age of 14. Models like the Vespa or the Ciao and Bravo Piaggio were part of this group. Unsurprisingly, strong industrial lobbying (notably from Piaggio) played a role in shaping the regulations.
Note: at the time (I’m referring to the 1960s–70s), there was no digital electronics to enforce limits internally. No license plate, no insurance, no formal license, being 14 was enough. Because these vehicles were small and agile, enforcement was already difficult for the police.
Here’s the problem: I don’t recall a single “ciclomotore” among my friends that was actually compliant with the rules. Modifications were extremely easy: adjusting the carburetor or making small mechanical tweaks could push these vehicles to 80–90 km/h or more.
However, the frame, brakes, and, most importantly, the maturity of the riders (myself included
) remained unchanged.The result was a very high number of accidents and fatalities. A slaughter, actually.
Eventually, in the 1990s, legislation had to evolve to better protect the public: license plates were introduced, along with clearer rules and the requirement for a so-called "AM license".
In many ways, current EU regulations for pedelec e-bikes seem designed to anticipate a similar problem. The principle is straightforward: if you want to ride something classified as a bicycle but equipped with a motor, that’s fine, but beyond a certain point, the motor assistance simply stops. Modern digital electronics make this (relatively) easy to enforce.
Of course, we can debate where those limits should be set, or how they should be verified. But conceptually, the system is simple, at least in much of the EU.
One could imagine introducing more complex rules, with exceptions depending on context or location. But is that really practical? In Italy, the real issue at present is often something else: a well-known, widespread tendency to disregard rules, combined with relatively low levels of enforcement. And this is not limited to this specific case, it applies to many aspects of everyday life.
After that, we could spend the next 100 years debating these limits, or whether it makes sense to go for a “free-for-all” approach in this area, or instead introduce systems where “here you can do whatever you want, and here you can’t.” But the real question is: is this actually realistic?
Personally, unfortunately, I don’t think so.
If you want to ride fast on a bike, then you should have insurance, a license plate, and pass a test to prove you’re capable of doing it safely. For yourself and for the whole community. And if I catch you riding at 70 km/h on a bike path, you should be in serious trouble.
Honestly, I don’t see any other way out. The usual argument about “responsible use” doesn’t seem to work, or to have ever worked, in any field. We are just too many, and 1% of "unresponsabile" people would be a threat to the whole community.
Last edited:
I’ve been of the opinion that cyclists on public roads should be required to have a bike license (essentially pay a fee) ever since we started making special lanes for them.The issue I see with this approach is that it doesn’t really account for differing views on what constitutes acceptable limits in terms of speed, power, and usage.
Let me give you an example.
I grew up in Italy, where at the time, like in other countries, I guess, there was a vehicle category known as “ciclomotori” (mopeds). These were extremely popular, especially among teenagers. Getting one was almost a rite of passage: on your 14th birthday, you were expected to start insisting with your parents that you absolutely needed one to fit in socially. And usually you succeeded (like in my case...
This category included vehicles up to 50cc, around 1.5 hp, with a top speed of 40 km/h. Remarkably, they could be driven from the age of 14. Models like the Vespa or the Ciao and Bravo Piaggio were part of this group. Unsurprisingly, strong industrial lobbying (notably from Piaggio) played a role in shaping the regulations.
Note: at the time (I’m referring to the 1960s–70s), there was no digital electronics to enforce limits internally. No license plate, no insurance, no formal license, being 14 was enough. Because these vehicles were small and agile, enforcement was already difficult for the police.
Here’s the problem: I don’t recall a single “ciclomotore” among my friends that was actually compliant with the rules. Modifications were extremely easy: adjusting the carburetor or making small mechanical tweaks could push these vehicles to 80–90 km/h or more.
However, the frame, brakes, and, most importantly, the maturity of the riders (myself included
The result was a very high number of accidents and fatalities. A slaughter, actually.
Eventually, in the 1990s, legislation had to evolve to better protect the public: license plates were introduced, along with clearer rules and the requirement for a so-called "AM license".
In many ways, current EU regulations for pedelec e-bikes seem designed to anticipate a similar problem. The principle is straightforward: if you want to ride something classified as a bicycle but equipped with a motor, that’s fine, but beyond a certain point, the motor assistance simply stops. Modern digital electronics make this (relatively) easy to enforce.
Of course, we can debate where those limits should be set, or how they should be verified. But conceptually, the system is simple, at least in much of the EU.
One could imagine introducing more complex rules, with exceptions depending on context or location. But is that really practical? In Italy, the real issue at present is often something else: a well-known, widespread tendency to disregard rules, combined with relatively low levels of enforcement. And this is not limited to this specific case, it applies to many aspects of everyday life.
After that, we could spend the next 100 years debating these limits, or whether it makes sense to go for a “free-for-all” approach in this area, or instead introduce systems where “here you can do whatever you want, and here you can’t.” But the real question is: is this actually realistic?
Personally, unfortunately, I don’t think so.
If you want to ride fast on a bike, then you should have insurance, a license plate, and pass a test to prove you’re capable of doing it safely. For yourself and for the whole community. And if I catch you riding at 70 km/h on a bike path, you should be in serious trouble.
Honestly, I don’t see any other way out. The usual argument about “responsible use” doesn’t seem to work, or to have ever worked, in any field. We are just too many, and 1% of "unresponsabile" people would be a thread to the whole community.
I grew up in Italy, where at the time, like in other countries, I guess, there was a vehicle category known as “ciclomotori” (mopeds). These were extremely popular, especially among teenagers. Getting one was almost a rite of passage: on your 14th birthday, you were expected to start insisting with your parents that you absolutely needed one to fit in socially. And usually you succeeded (like in my case...
Yes, it was exactly the same in the UK, me and my friends all rode Yamaha FS-1 (or ‘Fizzys!) mopeds, albeit we needed a provisional driving licence, insurance, had to wear a helmet and they were limited to 30mph, if you were going downhill with the wind behind you.
We too used to modify them to go faster, exhausts and air filters were changed and carburetor jets fiddled with and all of a sudden 50mph was attainable.
Great fun at the time, but fast forward 4 decades and I tend to follow the rules more than I did then, and for me I just want to legally be able to ride my pedal assist bicycle without registration, insurance or other encumbrances, anywhere I can ride a bicycle.
Sure, parents still somehow buy their kids a £3k electric motorcycle and they ride (and die) and generally cause havoc in the towns and cities where they live, but that is a different issue.
Enforcement (or not) of somebody illegally riding an illegal e-motorbike is an issue that needs to be kept away from me riding a pedalec for 20 miles across an open moor historic bridleway.
The lines between an e-motorbike and pedal assist bicycle are blurring though, and that’s the issue for e-mountain bikers.
Similar Threads
-
-
Hawai'i Legislation prohibiting more than 750W on public roads- Started by sharkimano
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
