An updated micromobility law came into force in Finland on June 18, which includes a minimum age of 15 for the riding of e-scooters capable of speeds over 15 km/h, and tightens rules on drunk driving and riding, and rental regulations. The laws are designed to improve road safety and clarify micromobility accountability.
If an underage rider is stopped by police, whether on a private or rented e-scooter, their parent or guardian will receive a traffic violation fine of €60 – an increase from the previous €40 fine. In the case of rented scooters, the rental companies can also be fined if it is found they knowingly provide e-scooters to underage riders.
Alcohol limits
The updated law outlines clear penalties for riding e-scooters or other vehicles, including bicycles, while intoxicated. Those found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.5ppm, or to be under the influence of drugs, may receive a fine of €200. A refusal to take a breathalyser text will be viewed as insubordination.
Municipal control over rental operators
The law introduces a permit system for shared micromobility, giving municipalities enhanced control over rental companies’ activities. Local authorities are now able to regulate speed limits, parking rules, and operating hours and areas for rented e-scooters and other micromobility devices.
Helmet use is strongly recommended for all riders of LEVs including e-scooters, and is now officially aligned with the recommendations for cyclists, with the hope of boosting the use of helmets and enhancing rider safety.
Comments Off on LEVA-EU Statement on ZIV Position on E-bikes
On behalf of its members active in the e-bike sector and across the broader European Light Electric Vehicles (LEV) industry, LEVA-EU expresses its strong opposition to the position put forward by the German Bicycle Industry Association (ZIV) on 7 April 2025, titled “E-bikes – Active Mobility as Success Factor.”
ZIV’s proposal is based on the incorrect assumption that EPACs (Electrically Power Assisted Cycles) owe their market success to an alleged legal equivalence with bicycles. On this flawed basis, ZIV seeks to impose additional technical restrictions on EPACs, including limits on motor power, assistance ratios, and vehicle weight. Specifically, ZIV proposes to divide EPACs into two categories governed by separate legal frameworks:
EPACs that would remain excluded from L-category type approval under Regulation 168/2013, provided they meet all of the following criteria: – Assistance limited to 25 km/h – Maximum continuous rated power < 250W – Peak power < 750W – Assistance factor < 4 – Weight < 250 kg for single-track carrier cycles – Weight < 300 kg for multi-track carrier cycles
All other EPACs exceeding any of the above thresholds would become subject to the L-category vehicle type approval under Regulation 168/2013. This includes: Electrically assisted (mountain) cycles with assistance factor > 4 and/or peak power > 750W Electrically assisted carrier cycles exceeding 250 kg (single-track) or 300 kg (multi-track)
LEVA-EU strongly opposes this proposal, as it would create a deeply unfair regulatory divide. EPACs that remain excluded from type approval would continue to enjoy a favourable legal and technical status under the Machinery Directive. In contrast, EPACs falling outside ZIV’s narrow definition would be forced into the L-category type-approval system, which is overly complex, prohibitively expensive, and technically unsuitable for these vehicles. This would effectively eliminate their development and market viability.
ZIV claims that the legal status of EPACs is under threat and must be safeguarded through stricter definitions. This claim is entirely unfounded. The current legal framework—based on Article 2.2(h) of Regulation 168/2013 and the Machinery Directive—has provided a clear, stable, and effective basis for the development and market placement of EPACs. Harmonised European standards such as EN 15194, EN 17404, and EN 17860 ensure technical compliance and safety. There is no indication from the European Commission that this framework is inadequate or that EPACs are at risk of reclassification. The assertion of legal uncertainty is therefore misleading and does not justify the proposed restrictions.
It is also important to consider the underlying motivations behind ZIV’s proposal. ZIV represents major manufacturers of traditional bicycles and pedelecs, many of whom rely on specific drivetrain technologies that dominate the current 25 km/h – 250W market. The proposal appears designed to protect these incumbents by preserving the legal status of their products while restricting the growth of more powerful or innovative LEVs. This approach risks stifling competition, innovation, and the development of new vehicle types that serve broader mobility needs, including logistics, accessibility, and sport.
LEVA-EU firmly states that EPACs are Light Electric Vehicles, not bicycles, as defined by the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. Bicycles are vehicles with at least two wheels, propelled solely by muscular energy, typically via pedals or hand-cranks. EPACs, by contrast, are electrically assisted and fall outside this definition. Their development and legal status should not be dictated by the bicycle industry.
Technical legislation such as Regulation 168/2013 and the Machinery Directive is intended to ensure that vehicles placed on the market are technically safe. These frameworks are not meant to prescribe vehicle characteristics, regulate user effort, or define mobility behaviour. The suggestion that EPACs risk being classified as motor vehicles unless assistance ratios and weight limits are imposed is legally baseless.
The ZIV proposal would: – Severely hinder the development of EPACs for logistics, accessibility, and sport – Discriminate against elderly, disabled, and physically weaker users – Undermine the EU’s climate and mobility goals by reducing modal shift potential and innovation – Misrepresent the purpose of technical legislation, which is not to define active mobility or enforce physical effort
The real legislative priority should be the creation of a dedicated LEV regulatory framework, developed in close consultation with the LEV industry. Such a framework should ensure fair, inclusive, and technically justified rules for all types of Light Electric Vehicles. In its current form, the ZIV position promotes a narrow industrial agenda that conflicts with broader EU goals for competitiveness, sustainability, and inclusive mobility.
China has passed a new electric vehicle (EV) battery safety regulation, becoming the first country to mandate that battery packs must not catch fire or explode, even in the event of internal thermal runaway.
Effective from mid-2026, this regulation will require EV manufacturers to meet significantly enhanced safety standards. Currently, EV manufacturers are required to include warning systems that alert users to thermal incidents at least five minutes before they become dangerous. This is typically achieved through extensive sensor systems that detect abnormalities and trigger automatic shutdowns or alerts.
Under the new regulation, manufacturers must now demonstrate that battery packs will not ignite, explode, or release smoke into vehicle cabins under a variety of stress conditions. The testing requirements include a new safety evaluation following a fast-charging cycle, as well as an external short-circuit test after 300 fast-charging cycles – neither of which may result in fire or explosion.
Wider e-mobility industry implications
Although the regulation is primarily targeted at electric cars, it applies to all electric vehicles, raising potential implications for the broader e-mobility sector, including e-bikes. The new standard, GB38031-2025, titled Safety Requirements for Power Batteries of Electric Vehicles, may influence battery suppliers and technologies across related industries due to shared components and manufacturing practices.
While the regulation may lead to increased compliance costs, particularly challenging for smaller or mid-sized suppliers, it is expected that larger battery manufacturers, many of which already supply reputable e-bike brands, will be able to adapt. Many companies in the bicycle industry have already been voluntarily improving battery safety standards.
Research from UK testing facilities has indicated a clear relationship between product cost and adherence to safety standards. For the bicycle industry, failure to adopt robust safety practices may present significant risks, particularly as incidents involving poorly regulated battery products continue to attract public and regulatory scrutiny.
Recent restrictions by transport operators and property managers have often followed media coverage of e-bike battery fires. However, investigations frequently trace such incidents to aftermarket conversion kits, which are commonly sold directly to consumers without rigorous safety oversight, rather than to mass-produced e-bikes from established brands.
In parallel, China is advancing the adoption of sodium-ion battery technology, which is inherently non-toxic and non-flammable, reducing the risk of thermal incidents. While sodium-ion batteries are currently less energy-dense and larger than their lithium-ion counterparts, they are gaining traction in applications where size and weight are less critical, such as cargo bikes. For instance, AKKU Energie has supplied Deutsche Post with sodium-ion batteries for its delivery fleet.
Continued advancements in sodium-ion battery performance suggest increasing viability in a wider range of electric vehicles. As China expands its use of this chemistry, it may influence global battery technology trends.
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.
Minister of Infrastructure, Jimmy Gasore, announced the ban which aims “to promote the use of cleaner, more efficient energy and reduce gas emissions“.
Rwanda has announced plans to discontinue the registration of petrol-powered motorbike taxis starting next year, as part of its efforts to transition to electric vehicles (EVs). According to Minister of Infrastructure Jimmy Gasore, the initiative aims to promote cleaner energy use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This policy will apply specifically to motorbike taxis operating in Kigali, where they are a primary mode of public transportation. Rwanda has introduced various incentives to encourage electrification, such as reduced electricity costs for charging, and tax exemptions for battery manufacturers.
Government estimates indicate that the country has approximately 110,000 motorbikes, of which 70,000 are used as taxis, including 30,000 in Kigali.
Eve Kayiranga, manager of SAFI Universal Link, a Rwandan company specialising in electric bikes, described the move as a “significant step forward for a greener city.” She highlighted its role in reducing emissions and supporting the development of e-mobility infrastructure.
Drivers have also expressed support for the shift to electric motorbikes. Alfonse Mbarabuceye, 32, reported a 50% increase in his daily income since transitioning from a petrol-powered bike in 2022. “It has significantly reduced the cost of maintaining the bike, as all I have to do now is change its battery once or twice a day,” he noted.
According to the UN Environment Programme, transportation is the fastest-growing source of global greenhouse gas emissions and is projected to contribute over 30% of future emissions. It is also a major source of short-lived climate pollutants.
Rwanda has set ambitious goals for its electrification strategy, aiming to have 20% of buses, 30% of motorcycles, and 8% of cars powered by electricity by 2030. These efforts are part of the country’s broader objective to achieve carbon neutrality.
UK Transport Secretary Louise Haigh announced the Government’s intention to legalise private e-scooters on public roads, acknowledging the need for regulatory changes.
Currently, privately owned e-scooters are prohibited on roads and pavements under laws applicable to motorbikes and cars, with exemptions granted only to Government-backed e-scooter rental schemes.
Need for E-Scooter Legislation
Ms. Haigh emphasised the urgency of addressing the current regulatory gap, stating that introducing e-scooter legislation is “clearly required.” While confirming there is no parliamentary time or relevant Bill in the current session to address this, she assured that future legislation is planned. “It’s not good enough that it’s been left in this situation for too long,” she added.
E-scooters, she noted, could play a significant role in an integrated transport strategy, potentially benefiting individuals with reduced mobility. However, she highlighted challenges such as parking, street clutter, and understanding the behavioural impacts of e-scooter usage.
Previous Legislative Efforts
Although plans to legalise e-scooters were included in the Queen’s Speech in 2022, they did not progress due to political changes, including the resignation of then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
Safety and Usage Concerns
Shared-use e-scooters are currently restricted to speeds of 15.5 mph and are available for hire to individuals over 18. However, Department for Transport data from 2022 revealed 12 fatalities, 1,480 injuries, and significant safety concerns for riders, pedestrians, and cyclists.
Industry Challenges
Despite trials of rental e-scooter schemes in various UK towns and cities, the industry has faced setbacks. Companies like insurance provider Zego and operator Dott have exited the UK market, citing regulatory uncertainty and challenges posed by unregulated e-bikes. Additionally, some e-scooter providers have collapsed in recent years.
The Government’s forthcoming legislative efforts aim to address these issues and provide clarity for e-scooter use on public roads.
The House of Representatives of the Netherlands recently passed several motions aimed at addressing the issues posed by fat bikes and enhancing the safety of young e-bikers.
Key measures include setting a minimum age of 14 for riders and mandating helmet use for fat bikes. These decisions contradict the advice of Minister Barry Madlener, who had cautioned against such motions due to concerns over their legal viability.
Despite Madlener’s previous hesitations, the House is urging him to consider the proposed age limit and helmet requirement for fat bikes. A motion put forth by parties VVD and NSC to explore these regulations received majority support, and it is anticipated that the Senate will also back these initiatives. Madlener’s primary concern lies in the legal differentiation between fat bikes and other types of e-bikes. He worries that manufacturers might alter their designs to evade compliance with the new regulations, resulting in a “cat-and-mouse game” that complicates the establishment of specific rules for fat bikes.
It remains uncertain whether the minister will heed the House’s requests. Previously, he stated that creating a legal distinction was impractical and suggested implementing uniform regulations for all electric bicycles. However, the House of Representatives rejected this approach.
Additionally, the House has approved a motion empowering the police to verify whether fat bikes are properly registered by accessing their electronic systems, which would aid in enforcing the new regulations.
Here’s how the House of Representatives cast their votes:
1. Motion NSC/CDA (Olger van Dijk/Vedder) proposed that the government explore the feasibility of implementing a type approval system for all electric bicycles equipped with pedal assistance, potentially establishing a quality mark. This motion was APPROVED by the House of Representatives.
2. Motion VVD/NSC (Veltman/Olger van Dijk) called for the government to set a minimum age of 14 years and mandate helmet use specifically for fat bikes, with a request to update the House of Representatives on this matter before the Christmas break. This motion was APPROVED by the House of Representatives.
3. Motion VVD/CDA (Veltman/Vedder) sought to empower the police to access the menu of fat bikes during inspections, enabling them to identify violations and impose penalties on the spot. This motion was APPROVED by the House of Representatives.
4. Motion GL/PvdA & D66 (de Hoop/Bamenga) urged the government to assess the possibility of extending a registration requirement to all motorized road traffic, including e-bikes, fat bikes, and other current or future vehicles on public roads. This motion was REJECTED by the House of Representatives.
5. Motion BBB (van der Plas) requested the government to explore the potential use of geofencing in the Netherlands to enhance road safety in public areas. This motion was APPROVED by the House of Representatives.
The new bill proposed registration and insurance for low-speed electric bikes
Representatives from over 40 organisations gathered to protest a bill (S-2292) that would impose strict regulation on e-bikes in New Jersey. The bill, sponsored by Senate President Nick Scutari (D-Union) and Sen. Vin Gopal (D-Monmouth), mandates that low-speed electric bikes and scooters be registered with the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission. It also bans the use of any unregistered e-bikes and scooters and requires owners to have insurance coverage.
“Adding an extra layer of cost to insure these level 1 e-bikes would be a burden and would exclude not just e-bike delivery workers but anyone who cannot afford a car,” said Karin Vernoppan of Bike JC.
The coalition, comprising bike and pedestrian advocates, clean-energy groups, and members of the insurance industry, sent a letter to Scutari and Gopal criticizing the proposed legislation for its ineffectiveness and its inconsistency with the state’s net-zero emissions goal. Gopal mentioned that he expects the bill to be amended, while Scutari offered no comment.
The coalition advocates for a Vision Zero policy enacted across the state instead. “Jersey City has a great Vision Zero policy. They eliminated fatal crashes on Jersey City streets recently. And neighbouring Hoboken has gone seven years without a fatal crash,” said Corey Hannigan, active transportation program manager at the Tri-State Transportation Campaign. “And because of that success, Secretary Pete Buttigieg called out Hoboken on a national level and said it’s an example. And every county in New Jersey is working on a Zero Vision policy right now, but they don’t have jurisdiction over state roads where a plurality of fatal crashes happen in New Jersey.”
Comments Off on Last Chance to Help Pushing for Inclusive E-Bike Regulations in the UK
In the UK, an online consultation organized by the governement, to gauge opinions on improving technical rules for electric bicycles, will be closing next Thursday 25 April at 23.59. Don’t miss this unique opportunity to significantly improve the rules and make the electric bicycle market accessible to millions of British people. The consultation is here: https://rb.gy/a8guw3.
LEVA-EU calls on all parties with a real interest in growing the light electric vehicle market, and electric bikes in particular, to respond in a positive way to the proposals. It will give millions of people access to electric bikes, it will boost electric cargobike use and it will make mobility in the UK more sustainable.
The two main proposals are:
1) increasing the maximum continuous rated power from 250 to 500W 2) allowing electric pedal assisted bikes to be equipped with a throttle without the vehicles having to be type approved (as is the case today).
In the EU, and until further notice also still in the UK, an electric bicycle with pedal assistance up to 25 km/h, a maximum continuous rated power of 500 W and a throttle, is categorised as an L1e-A powered cycle, and must be type-approved.
EPACs 250W without throttle and EPACs 500 W with a throttle, of the same weight, have exactly the same kinetic energy. Consequently, the result of an impact will be identical for both vehicles. So you would expect these identical vehicles to be subject to identical technical requirements. And yet they are subject to two completely different legal frameworks: the Machinery Directive for the 250W as opposed to Regulation 168/2013 for the 500 W. The result of the latter damming legislation, originally designed for mopeds and motorcycles, thus totally inadequate and inaccurate for any type of electric bike, is that not one powered cycle has been approved. No manufacturer wants/is able to risk type-approval. Moreover, most Member States wouldn’t even know how to deal with such a vehicle in their traffic code. Belgium, one of the few member states to acknowledge the difference between mopeds and electric bicycles in the traffic code, has given L1e-A vehicles the same status as conventional bikes. However, this is to no avail since there are no such vehicles on the market.
LEVA-EU has been advocating for years for the abolition of the maximum continuous rated power requirement, which plays no role in the safety of electric bicycles. Instead, technical regulations must be developed to ensure that vehicles accelerate safely. The proposed increase from 250 to 500W is not ideal but would provide some breathing space for cargo bicycles in particular.
The proposal to give electric bicycles with pedal assistance and a throttle the same legal status as bicycles with pedal assistance only sounds like music to LEVA-EU’s ears.
The UK has 16 million people with a physical disability. For several millions of them this means that they are unable to pedal consistently. The combination of pedal assistance and throttle is therefore a solution that can get millions of people in the saddle. Moreover, it will also make the lives of, for example, cargo bike riders and bicycle couriers considerably easier.
But guess what? The entire British cycling community is loudly calling for the proposals to be turned down!!!!
The Bicycle Association (BA), the professional organization of (electric) bicycle manufacturers and importers and the dealer organization ACT call the proposed measures “unnecessary” and “risky”. They even claim: “There’s no evidence these changes would significantly boost demand.” That’s really making a fool of the truth. Until 2016, electric bicycles with a throttle were allowed as regular EPACS in the UK. They know all too well that the so-called twist and go bicycles were more popular than bicycles with pedal assistance only. It took the UK until 2016 to align its legislation with European legislation as a result of which e-bikes with a throttle were banished to the L1e-A category.
The BA and ACT warn that 500W could pose a fire risk! Such absolute nonsense, provided without any proof, undermines the credibility of their argumentation completely. They further argue that e-bikes, on which you no longer have to pedal, could lead to “moped-style regulation on the whole e-bike category“. They have clearly erased from their collective memory the long episode in British law during which e-bikes with throttles enjoyed the same status as conventional electric bicycles, without that resulting in moped-style regulation on the whole e-bike category. The British government now voluntarily offers once again equalization for equal vehicles. Why would they suddenly turn around and change the law into moped-style regulations after all?
The sheer nonsense that electric bicycles with throttle could jeopardize the bicycle status of the current EPACs is a song that has been sung by CONEBI for 25 years. The only reason for that position is protectionism. The major companies behind CONEBI do everything they can to protect their cash cow, the EPAC with pedal assistance only, against any competition and at any price. And as a member of CONEBI, the BA naturally sings from the same hymn sheet. It is not clear why the ACT also finds it necessary to deny their members, the (electric) bicycle dealers, a much better future.
Cyclists’ organisation, Cycling UK, is also firmly against the proposals. In a comment, the director of external affairs showed a complete lack of knowledge of the matter as she stated: “These proposals present a huge safety risk to pedestrians and others who cycle. The dramatically increased power would mean faster acceleration and much heavier bikes, which we’re really concerned about.” The Cycling UK director is clearly not familiar with the concept of maximum continuous rated power, ignorance which does not prevent her from taking a firm stance.
The British government is voluntarily offering a unique opportunity to remove legal barriers to electric bicycles, making them accessible to millions more people. The BA and ACT challenge that proposal with nothing but intellectual dishonesty, Cycling UK even with stupidity. How dare they deny millions of people access to sustainable mobility, whilst claiming they are defending the interests of their industry?
The consultation is here, https://rb.gy/a8guw3, and will remain online until 25 April, midnight.
We welcome the challenging of the LEVA-EU position on this issue, but we will only engage in evidence-based discussions.