Source: Fietsberaad

A recent study conducted by consultancy DTV, commissioned by the the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, has concluded that creating a separate vehicle category for fat bikes would be ineffective and impractical. The findings suggest that fat bikes do not warrant distinct legislation, as their defining features are either easy to bypass, not significantly different from electric bicycles, or actually contribute to improved safety.

The report, titled Fatbikes as a Separate Vehicle Category, was shared with the House of Representatives on 15 January by Minister Barry Madlener. The study was prompted by a motion passed on 11 September advocating for a minimum age and helmet requirement for fat bike riders.

Challenges in defining a Fat Bike category

DTV’s research examined whether it would be feasible to legislate fat bikes separately or impose specific regulations on them. To explore this, the consultancy engaged with key stakeholders, including BOVAG, RAI Vereniging, the Cyclists’ Union, the Inspectorate for the Environment and Transport, RDW, SWOV, TNO, the police, and fat bike manufacturers Brekr and Phatfour, both of whom are part of the Safe Fatbikes Covenant.

One of the primary characteristics considered was tyre width, as fat bikes typically feature wider tyres than standard electric bicycles. However, DTV found that this characteristic could easily be circumvented by manufacturers simply reducing tyre width by 1 mm, rendering any legal distinction meaningless. Additionally, wider tyres were determined to enhance stability and safety, making it illogical to impose stricter regulations based on this feature.

“For almost all other characteristics of the fat bike, the traffic safety arguments for stricter rules are also lacking, that stricter rules would also affect other bicycles, or that they are easy to circumvent,” stated Hans Godefrooij, a bicycle and safety expert at DTV and lead researcher.

Identifying the core problem

The study also questioned whether fat bikes themselves are the source of road safety concerns. According to Godefrooij, many traffic incidents involving bicycles are being wrongly classified as a “fat bike problem,” when in reality, they stem from broader road safety issues that are not specific to fat bikes.

“Many of road safety problems are now lumped as a “fatbike problem”, while in principle they have nothing to do with the type of bike. Only when we agree with each other exactly what problem we want to solve can we see which measures can best be taken.” adds Godefrooij.

Need for improved enforcement

Rather than introducing new fat bike-specific rules, the report highlights the importance of better enforcement of existing laws, particularly regarding tuned electric bicycles, which are already prohibited under Dutch law and classified as unapproved mopeds.

DTV recommends further data collection on bicycle accidents to analyse risk differences between various bike types, usage patterns, and user demographics. This approach would allow policymakers to make evidence-based decisions on whether additional regulations are needed and, if so, which types of vehicles or users should be targeted.

Conclusion

The study ultimately concludes that separating fat bikes into their own legal category would be a misguided approach. Instead, enforcing existing laws and gathering more data on bicycle accidents would be more effective in improving road safety.

The findings are expected to inform future policy discussions on micromobility regulations in the Netherlands, as the government seeks to balance safety concerns with sustainable urban transport solutions.