That's not an e-bike. That's an electric motorcycle.
Edit: I am not saying these things aren't crazy fast and dangerous, but if you go into an electric motorcycle store and they try to sell you an e-bike with a pedal assist, it's obvious they are not the same thing. The form-factor is just different.
I understand the motivation for requiring pedal assist rather than a throttle, but the motor speed cutout is the important bit. If I can put it in easy gear and pedal to operate the throttle while the chain is freewheeling the whole time, the pedals are just a throttle I operate with my feet; I'm not actually providing any of the energy for locomotion.
Not legally.
I would argue that the presence of pedals matters much less than the power and weight of the device when it comes to how it should be regulated. Power and weight are what create the risks that the laws exist to regulate.
If you have an ~80 pound device with hardware that can do >40mph on flat ground, it should not regulated like a bicycle.
Edit: To make my point clearer, I think the focus on top speed in a bit of a red herring. High speeds can be achieved on anything with enough hill/drafting/etc. The rate at which the object can gain kinetic energy is what matters. Devices that gain kinetic energy quickly are much more dangerous to operate. Thus the combination of Power x Weight is what the regulations should focus on. There is such a plethora and proliferation of different device types, any other type of distinction can't keep up and will either leave safety gaps or unnecessarily curtail critical innovation in personal transport technology.
I don't know what the strict legal definition is and I'll take your word for it that "pedals directly connected to a chain" is the one. However, for all intents and purposes in every-day conversation, "electric motorcycle" seems accurate to me.
These things are between 27 and 37kg, depending on the model. You can cycle them, but it's obviously not really intended to any normal use. The chain is a useful backup (or perhaps a legal loophole, or maybe a bit of both). I think that legal definition is perhaps outdated and should be updated.
Clearly speed isn't the only thing that matters to this classification and we've made a mess conflating "can ride on public roads" and "can operate a motor vehicle" and deciding what exactly we have a problem with for under 16s.
Bicycles go downhill real damn fast. The top speed of a bicycle is largely limited by how foolish the person atop it is and the local geography.
Bicycles can be geared to go across the salt flats real damn fast. The top speed of a bicycle is largely limited by how foolish the person atop it is and the local geography.
Bicycles, even without crazy geography or gearing, can be ridden real damn fast by professionals. The top speed of a bicycle is largely limited by how well-trained the person atop it is. Says Wikipedia:
> The 2025 edition was the fastest Tour de France in history. Tadej Pogačar rode 3,298.6 km in 76h 00m 32s, thus realising an overall speed of 43.4 km/h or 27.0 mph.
Traffic regulations are fundamentally about tail events. Most of the time, vehicular traffic is boring.
The right metric is kinetic energy. But, it'd be unpopular for speed limits to depend upon vehicle mass. Or, in the case of bicycles vehicle and rider mass since the rider mass isn't negligible.
However, that shark is jumped as soon as the classification criteria involve operator-dependent properties like maximum speed of a bicycle. It has no operator-agnostic answer.
So maybe we can enforce that part a little better.
If I tried to drive a car on pedestrian path at even 10kmh I'd be chased by police helicopter and appear on national news.
Coasting down switch-backs at whatever speed the car traffic on the road feels like, and not giving any car incentive to overtake by matching the speeds.
I feel like it's obvious that capability would be measured with a fixed level of user input on a fixed course/dynamo.
I'd wager most weekend spandex warriors could break 100 MPH peak.
Try getting hit by them, you'll feel a pretty big difference. My Zero in a custom riding mode that limits its speed will do way more damage than any e-bike at the same speed.
In France, you can drive without a license once you're 14 (you need the BSR but it's basically impossible to not get it). If I remember correctly the motor has to be a 50cm3 or equivalent and go under 45 (or 50?) km per hour.
So effectively, if you put the right motor in a Harley, you can. The bikes discussed here have large motors but only a speed limiter which is very different.
Most jurisdictions use engine size, so you’d need a 49cc engine in your Harley. I doubt it would even get up to 30mph with a 49cc engine, have fun!
in the article they call it out that yes currently the max speed of the bike is what's defined under the law and they're tightening that down to also include motor power (so it's harder for people to buy an artificially speed limited bike and remove the limiter while avoiding the regulations that go with that).