Ebikes are for rebels....

I ride right on the edge of the law. 1000W motors are the limit in MN. I found it is rightfully so. 1000W is just right. Enough to get up hills with no problem and an all around thrill. I love my electric bike. I will take my bike over the bus any day. Best thing I have ever bought/built. Loads of fun. Especially when the weather is nice.

Not comfortable with words like "rebel" or "rebellion"? How about ebikers can be "agents for change". :wink: In English, the expression that "the pen is mightier than the sword", yes?

flat tire said:

Oh right all this is mostly moot...you won't be allowed to actually control a vehicle in another couple decades when we have autonomous evs shuttling us everywhere.

Click to expand...

I can't wait! Driving your own vehicle should mean either muscle power or closed racecourses, but that's all. For everything else, just climb aboard and why worry? And why make anyone else worry?

Sunder said:

This still comes back to my original point (which anoNY42 seems to have a lot of problems comprehending). These laws are about risk, not about harm.

Click to expand...

I comprehended your argument fine, but your "example" of the tribal leaders allowing honor killings does nothing to advance your argument. Furthermore, you are exactly wrong when you use that example to try to illustrate that laws are about risk. A law against honor killings is not the same as a law against drunk driving, because an honor killing BY DEFINITION harms someone, whereas drunk driving may result in harm or it may not (the drunk may not in fact hit anyone).

Next time you have something to say about me, please address me directly rather than taking a pot-shot at me in a reply to someone else. Thank you.

Edited out of respect for the Mods.

I don't know if any ES rules have been violated yet, but lets take a couple days to review this thread and let everyone cool down. Come back next week if you really need to post here.

I'm new to this forum, but I'll add my two bits. I live in a country where the limit is 250W and a maximum speed of 25kph, which is the definition of a bicycle. I find this ridicules in a world where most any mass produced vehicle has no limitations, but I don't consider myself a rebel of sorts by owning an Ebike ( 3000W) that exceeds these otherwise unrealistic laws, nor the restrictions of using this ebike on so called MTB trails, no doubt a heated debate by the purists. As I see it, flying under the wire ( clown peddle, ect.) and moving with traffic is the good option, if anything just to keep the heat off the ebike trend until these restrictions can be modified.

I'm currently waiting the arrival of a Sparta carbon ( mine has peddles) and some good weather to ride in.

Is any other massed produced vehicle permitted to share foot paths with pedestrians? If so, I agree the laws are ridiculous. If not, well, it might bear more thinking about.

Sunder said:

Is any other massed produced vehicle permitted to share foot paths with pedestrians? If so, I agree the laws are ridiculous. If not, well, it might bear more thinking about.

Click to expand...

Sorta took it as a given that they ( "other vehicles") wouldn't be sharing the foot paths...lol but as I said, low profile is probably best. I bike in traffic, the so called bike paths are dangerous.

Where I live you're not allowed to ride on sidewalks, only on the side of the road or in a bike lane (where they exist, and these are basically like riding on the side of the road because people ignore them and still buzz you).

When it comes to ebikes and lower speed-limit roads (<40 mph) it's a no-brainer that letting the bicycles ride IN traffic, rather than beside is is much safer. It also lets you get places in a reasonable amount of time. Of course you need illegal power and speed to do that.

As far as MTB trails and multi-use paths, I ride with extreme politeness for other users and while I do bomb open sections I cleared I never fly past people or go fast in areas that are not totally safe. The absolute LAST thing I want to do is run into somebody, or make someone hate ebikes because mine scared them.

Funny enough, I used to get a lot of shit sprinting past people at 30+ on my road bike (much younger, didn't care) on the same multi use trails, whereas on the eibke I have literally NEVER upset anyone because I'm so cautious about others. YMMV, but in my experience you can have an extremely safe, and very fun time riding illegally on these trails.

rustycar said:

Sunder said:

Is any other massed produced vehicle permitted to share foot paths with pedestrians? If so, I agree the laws are ridiculous. If not, well, it might bear more thinking about.

Click to expand...

Sorta took it as a given that they ( "other vehicles") wouldn't be sharing the foot paths...lol but as I said, low profile is probably best. I bike in traffic, the so called bike paths are dangerous.

Click to expand...

Sure. If it's ridden like an ebike, (sub 750w in most of America) at bike speeds at near bike weights, I don't think it's that big a deal what the maximum power is.

But if its built like a motorcycle, ridden like a motorcycle, but you're trying to pass it off as a bike to be allowed to ride on footpaths and avoid insurance and registration, I think its a step too far.

I was about 2 years into electric bikes when there was a massive crackdown on petrol bikes, and they were eventually banned outright. A mate of mine never got caught but decided to sell his anyway as he couldn't afford the fine. The thing is, it is very hard to get a petrol motor to under 200w, and the whole argument of "the law is ridiculous, it can't be and shouldn't be obeyed... yadada..." was used at that time.

For a time, I saw the same thing happening with electrics, with it getting on the news a few times, but it died down. Would hate for the same thing to happen. I think we are tolerated because we mostly obey the spirit of the law, if not the exact letter of the law. We need to keep it that way and not advocate intentionally and flagarantly breakong it.

flat tire wrote YMMV, but in my experience you can have an extremely safe, and very fun time riding illegally on these trails.
the key word is illegal. why is this not hard to understand. do the laws only apply to certain people?

slacker said:

flat tire wrote YMMV, but in my experience you can have an extremely safe, and very fun time riding illegally on these trails.
the key word is illegal. why is this not hard to understand. do the laws only apply to certain people?

Click to expand...

We've already covered this. It has nothing to do with laws applying only to certain people--that's an entirely different problem almost entirely correlating with how badly you've pissed off the powers that be and how much you can afford to spend on lawyers.

The answer to your question is people find themselves in situations where laws are stupid, hindering or totally inapplicable. In this situation can then decide for yourself whether it's worth it to break the law, taking all available information into account such as penalties, risks, ethical obligations, etc.

IMO, anybody who rides any type of bike is probably a rebel by comparison to the majority population. Mixing it up with cars/trucks in traffic is not for the faint of heart or careless spirit.

Wolfeman said:

flat tire said:

I was about to say that they're not a threat to the status quo because nobody wants them, but in a place like NYC demand is probably high enough for that to be true.

Click to expand...

I have to think that it's only a matter of time. Then again, this is 'Murica....

Click to expand...

Yep, it would be more compelling of a proposition on a small island with mountaneous terrain that only made the coasts habitable. America is just a bit too spread out in many places. Now, it might happen to find its niche in the cities, especially cities with slower speed limits and less of a collector-feeder road style and more of a grid style or similarly diffusively interweaved distribution pattern. (Texas = high speed limits and definitely a collector-feeder model, just like much of the southeast.)

"Rebellious" enough for ya? (Just ignore the weapons...) Again, I prefer "Agents for Change":


This "acting up" started when I was faced with a sign:


This was in the years just before Canada and then provinces (USA folks think "states"... sorta) legalized the "power-assisted bicycle". This was extra "awkward" for me as I was living in this park at that time. (So had to smuggle my bike (fold down kick scooter w/extra "kick" via SLA batts and motor) onto the boat in a sports equipment bag.) All my island neighbours had "Thumbs Up" my tiny vehicle as "Eco-Friendly", silent running and non-stinky, but the Parks Supervisor (Hi Warren Hastletime... you idiot.) said he "had had complaints". (Islanders have a rep for "complaining" but some appear to hide behind their curtains and complain to (ignorant) authorities...) This in a city that bills itself as "The City Within a Park". Something like ten percent of the land area is parkland, much due to north-south rivers than flow into Lake Ontario, and so river valleys not built up by "urban sprawl". Watt sets up serious barriers for "rebels" trying to "do the right thing" (while having too much fun, saving lots of money, etc, etc)

Sad that this 21st-century seems to run on fear and ignorance, and I'm reminded of one of my fav sayings. American Ben Franklin:


Today, many would tell Benny to go fly a kite.

Good to hear the different opinions regarding the law. In Sweden its so new (Ebikes) that they only followed the EU recommendations, not really formulating anything themselves. The only classes (E bikes) of sorts is either grandma low wattage, or the Stealth, both of which are waaaay over priced. Even though mine and the Stealth resemble likewise frames, the police have yet to stop anyone as long as the speed is consistent with traffic.

For the most part I intend to use this bike for trails, and hopefully avoid any confrontations, and perhaps a little riding in Stockholm. I think we have something of a grace period here regarding the law, which obviously will change as the market grows, so far its growing around 6% a year, the price being a real damper to people interested in trying electric bikes.

My previous bike was a DIY shockwave 9.5 downhill frame with duo magic hubs, sorta bikezilla, but fast. Never stopped by the cops or bitched at on the trails, kept it low profile even with the un-godly looks.

It's discouraging to hear people talking about society's laws as if they are something holy. While I'm not comparing ebike issues to unjust wars, occupation by a foreign country, or racial segregation and discrimination, still I have to wonder if half the people posting here never heard of Thoreau, Gandhi, or King.

Civil disobedience of unjust laws isn't just about the big issues. Did you all flunk civics or were these subjects only covered in the US? Some people need to be assigned some remedial reading -- I'd suggest starting with "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience".

Personally, I happen to think the ebike laws are pretty reasonable where I live. Ebikes are legal up to 30mph, ~50 kph (top motor-only speed on a flat road). They can be ridden on most trails (with lower speed limits, 20mph on the one of the longest, for example).

But if I was limited to 25 kph, when many people can go faster than that under their own power... What's the point of even having an ebike? I wouldn't have one at all unless I were willing to break the law, in such a place.

True laws need no enforcement.

Examples would be, if you continue to add toxins to a closed loop air supply eventually the life in the closed loop system dies.

In closed loop system if resources are used towards destructive purposes, at some point none will remain for constructive purposes.

A human has a singular law, and singular entitlement which is to die.

True laws require do not need enforcement.

Man's fantasy human constructs of droplets of ink in patterns on pages are equally as real as human imaginary friends or the rules in a card game or anything else that doesn't exist outside the fantasys in the minds of men and women.

All human imagination constructed laws are temporary, fleeting, impermanent, and will conclude having never been made of the real beyond the indoctrinated fantasies some optionally choose to imagine.

Humans can make a type of human constructed fantasy called 'policy', or 'environmental' policy or whatever they like. Our universe and earth and eco system will continue to ignore human constructed fantasy and will continue to follow the true laws. If humans don't also follow nature's lead in living in balance with true laws, and instead follow the human constructed fantasy laws our fate will be mass extinction, and no amount of printing more law books with more pages and having more hired goons can do anything but bring the conclusion of humans occupying earth sooner.

tanstaafl said:

Civil disobedience of unjust laws isn't just about the big issues.

Click to expand...

Civil Disobedience is different from anarchy. If for example, a large group of people felt that speed limits were unreasonably set, civil disobedience would be 1000 people driving through the city in a convoy at half the speed limit draw attention to their cause. In a more militant version, it might be 1000 people pre-warning police, and pre-advertising, that they will be driving at 130km/h in a 110km/h freeway at a specific time on a specific day, to prove it was safe. It wouldn't be 1000 people all deciding to speed any time they drove, and not telling anyone about it. That's just anarchy and lawlessness. I support the first, not the latter.

liveforphysics said:

True laws need no enforcement.

Humans can make a type of human constructed fantasy called 'policy', or 'environmental' policy or whatever they like. Our universe and earth and eco system will continue to ignore human constructed fantasy and will continue to follow the true laws. If humans don't also follow nature's lead in living in balance with true laws, and instead follow the human constructed fantasy laws our fate will be mass extinction, and no amount of printing more law books with more pages and having more hired goons can do anything but bring the conclusion of humans occupying earth sooner.

Click to expand...

Full respect for you for your beliefs, and the actions you have taken to back up those beliefs. I'm not saying this to suck up, or to make an argument. It's 100% true. I have a lot of respect for you because your beliefs are matched by your actions on and off this forum (giving away parts, helping people, etc). But what happens when 99 people want to live in care for their environment, but 1 person keeps pumping more fumes into the air than the ecosystem can cope with? Can the other 99 not "enforce" a law to restrict the liberty that 1? Or when 1 maliciously harms? Or recklessly harms? Or 1 simply has a higher risk tolerance? Or 1 just is too young/inexperienced to assess risk?

Laws don't need to be followed slavishly, but in modern democracies, the vast majority have a sensible spirit behind them, and I think they need to be respected, even if you do not toe the line every time.

Wait, Sunder, so I say I'm okay with disobeying some relatively minor laws laws that are poorly-founded while being as safe as possible and you act like I am advocating mass genocide.

Meanwhile Luke comes in here and says he essentially doesn't recognize ANY of society's laws and you're on your knees ready to fellate him. Do I sense a double standard?

Now, I generally agree with Luke's position, and my thoughts on the matter are already well clarified above. If anyone needs additional clarification, I would be happy to provide it.

Real laws don't care if you respect them or not, they work 100% of the time irregardless.

What games humans play with paper and humans in cages changes with fashion in hats. Here today for those taking a dedicated effort at imaging it to be real, vanishs without a trace when they decide to imagine reality differently.

flat tire said:

Wait, Sunder, so I say I'm okay with disobeying some relatively minor laws laws that are poorly-founded while being as safe as possible and you act like I am advocating mass genocide.

Meanwhile Luke comes in here and says he essentially doesn't recognize ANY of society's laws and you're on your knees ready to fellate him. Do I sense a double standard?

Click to expand...

Not at all. From what I've read, most of the stuff you post is opinion and crap, so when I disagree with you, I'm more than happy to say so. LFP stays out of most opinion based discussions and provides really good technical advice and helps members out by giving away his spare stuff. He sent a really expensive Zero Motorcycle motor to Latecurtis for free. I tried to buy one - couldn't find one for love nor money, so that thing must be priceless.). So when he has an opinion that disagrees with mine, it's done will all respect, because he's earned it. If he disagrees with me, it's probably for a good reason, and I want to know why. If you disagree with me, I just assume that's who you are, because you equally have set up a reputation in my mind - just a different reputation.

Besides, what he has said isn't even all that close to what you said, so the opinion alone, is worthy more of debate. His is about the environment and laws of nature. Yours seem to be about imposing your risk tolerance on the rest of society.

Why you guys are talking about the laws all the time? Title says this thread is about rebellion.
We don"t have to talk about laws if we approach rebellion as a sociological phenomeon Smart ass peace offer.
Velomobiles are for rebels. Pretty much nobody considers you as a one of them when you ride a velomobile, you are outside of all boxes. Free as a bird.
Today i will be giving an hour-long interview about velomobiles on one lifestyle magazine in english, because they can not speak finnish.
Scared shitless. It"s gonna be fun, i propably need a drink to get on speed. I will link it here when it"s published if it"s not totally crap.

flat tire said:

Meanwhile Luke comes in here and says he essentially doesn't recognize ANY of society's laws and you're on your knees ready to fellate him. Do I sense a double standard?

Click to expand...

This is gold flat tire.
Thing is though everyone fellates Luke here, and why shouldn't they? he's a great guy. -Heck, catch me in the right mood and i reckon id probly fellate him, they are all consenting adults so where's the problem..

OK sinners and saints. I am not going to tell people what to do, I myself like many others here ride a bike more similar to a 125cc then a bike. I too try to follow the rules, but I am not perfect. Sometimes I do speed, even way over legal limits. Both in cars and motorcycles, and even riding an e-bike. Occasionally I've in my younger years had contact with some "green herbs" and broken the law by being in close proximity to said herbs. Once I even beat up a man in public. And I have ridden the tube without a ticket when I once forgot my wallet. Several times the past decades I have forgotten to use my turn signal and even my seat belt.

I am sure even the most vocal ones here have broken several laws several times, and might continue to do so occasionally when situation so require or things slip our mind. Point is most of us do break a law or two sometimes. Our violations does not break down society or create mayhem. We are grown ups fully aware of our actions and if our actions do catch up with us we face the penalty and pay our fine or whatever. This does not make us stone cold killers, mentally challenged or plain sociopaths. It makes us human.

Am I a hillbilly from a rural area with no understanding of society or inter humane relations? Or do I belong to an underground cult of criminal masterminds that are hellbent on taking down society as we know it with the help of electric motors and bikes? Nah I don't recognize myself as that. Nor will i think that people who knows me would say that. Why not just accept that people are different, and will act different. We have different opinions of various subjects. Some might do a line of pick me up on a weekend, others might not. What you do I could not care. And why should I?


Btw I think flat tire got too much heat in this thread. He got his way of thinking. And he try to ride his bike in a sensible way. Having and riding a powerful bike does not mean WOT everywhere. Nor does it mean that you will brush past pedestrians on a walkpath within a strain of hair distance at highway speed. One can own and ride a powerful e-bike without endangering others. And I feel that is how most of us rides our bikes. If riding on pathways I truly believe ES members will ride with speed close to walking speed. I know I do. And I see other e-bikers do the same. On dirt roads or fire roads I know I like to use the throttle. But I try to keep the risk down.

To the talk about anarchy I would just say that anarchism as used in this thread is not really anarchism. Anarchism is a way of political thinking and is not equal mayhem and chaos. Keeping in line with correct definitions makes it easier to keep on track.

My to cents


-It is easy to stand on a pedestal shouting hallelujah, but to do it not so much.