Five people per day are ending up in Queensland hospitals due to e-scooter crashes - this is a serious issue that does need to be addressed. The status quo is not the answer. If you believe the proposed legislation is too far, then propose a viable compromise.

I actually agree with the ‘not under 16’ part. Sorry, but kids absolutely should not be tearing around on eridables on public roads/paths. Professor Roy Kimble from QCH, is on record reporting 1 in 4 children admitted with e-scooter injuries need intensive care treatment, and two-thirds need surgery. That’s just admittances, it won’t cover simple crashes like broken arms etc.

The ‘disabled kids’ is a fair argument: I wouldn’t object to a kid in a specialty NDIS bike, though how you’d differentiate that in legislation is a thing that would need to be defined. I’ve only ever seen the trikes, and they’re not fast, but I assume there are other models.

Learn to ride/scoot first. Then, get an eridable. I’d even be in favour of a test that everyone needs to pass before being allowed to get one (did I just describe a license?); though I can see that being an unpopular opinion.

This is coming from someone who commutes by bike every day and regularly sees incidents/near misses with people on eridables. The units themselves are not the issue, I love how they’re getting people out and about and I see huge benefits in them - particularly in reducing car reliance. But they need some rules, it’s the wild west out there.

kids absolutely should not be tearing around on eridables

You’re making the same mistake as everyone who supports this authoritarian nonsense. You’re conflating legal, safe ebikes with illegal, unregistered electric motorbikes. Kids are not “tearing around” on ebikes, because ebikes are not capable of tearing around. They are pedal assist only, no throttle; limited to going 25 km/h while receiving motor assistance; and can have a maximum continuous output of 250 W. For reference, on my analogue bike, I typically cruise on flat paths or roads, when they’re wide enough and visibility is clear and there are no pedestrians around, at about 30, and I’m pushing about 220 W to do that.

All ebikes do is making riding easier at the same or lower speeds than regular cyclists are doing, and they help flatten out the hills. They make it possible for someone who otherwise might have only been comfortable riding 5 km to go 10 or 20 km and replace their commute with a bike, including riding on some of the many hills that Brisbane is covered in.

Five people per day are ending up in Queensland hospitals due to e-scooter crashes

Last year, in Queensland there were 12 fatalities involving e-mobility devices. 8 of those involved PMDs, which I’m not interested in talking about either way. Legislation regarding them is an entirely separate issue from legislation regarding bicycles, and the conflation of the two is the problem.

3 involved illegal electric motorbikes, which I’m not interested in defending because they are a real part of the problem.

Only 1 involved a legal ebike:

Barbra Poen, 79, was killed when riding her legal e-bike on Bribie Island at 8.30am on July 14 last year when she was struck by a Ford Falcon driver, who was travelling in the same direction.

So the only ebike-related death last year was someone who had done nothing wrong and was struck by a car. The exact thing that forcing ebikers to use the road by effectively banning them on footpaths and shared paths will make more likely to happen.

The year before, a nine year-old boy was hit riding his ebike with his father on a pathway. Again not a death caused by irresponsible use of an ebike, but by inadequate infrastructure and irresponsible drivers. If having a licence and being of age is not enough to stop drivers from killing people at far higher rates than even the irresponsible electric motorbikes and PMDs are, how does it possibly make sense to restrict responsible use of safe ebikes to those with a licence?

If you believe the proposed legislation is too far, then propose a viable compromise

There are some components of this Bill that aren’t terrible. Giving police the power to confiscate illegal motorbikes and either resell them if they can be made compliant, or destroy them if not. Giving police the power to charge the parents of children who ride illegal electric motorbikes, unless the parents can prove they did everything in their power to avoid it or had no knowledge of it.

But overwhelmingly, this law is terrible. It doesn’t address the actual problem, and instead stabs out blindly at innocent people. There is no compromise to be had when a proposed law change will have no impact at solving the problem it purports to solve. The only answer is to drop that change entirely.

Legal ebikes are no more dangerous than legal analogue bikes. None. Thus, there is no justification for any restrictions being different for ebikes than they are for analogue bikes.

The ‘disabled kids’ is a fair argument: I wouldn’t object to a kid in a specialty NDIS bike, though how you’d differentiate that in legislation is a thing that would need to be defined

The second clause is part of the problem. The other part is that needing a special bike and/or special permission is adding an extra barrier to entry. And that is a complete non-starter. We need to be making it easier for more people to get out on bikes, not harder. Needing to apply for a special exemption adds an unacceptable barrier to entry to cycling as an option for people with accessibility needs. When faced with the need to request special permission, many people will simply react by deciding it is too hard and give up on the idea. Others might face an overbearing burden of proof, or risk their application being denied for technical reasons despite a genuine need and no safety risk.

Anyone who has ever interacted with, or even just heard about someone who has interacted with the NDIS or any other social program that you have to qualify to receive will be familiar with the problem of exception-based permission.

they need some rules, it’s the wild west out there

For the most part, they have the rules already. Some tweaks might be appropriate, and this Bill does actually include some handy tweaks in that direction within it. But the vast majority of the problem is not with inadequate rules, it’s inadequate enforcement. The danger is mostly coming from people who are already breaking the law in multiple ways. Adding more laws that will burden the current law-followers won’t fix that. It can’t fix that.