You might not like it, but faster electric bikes can be safer. Here’s why
There’s a popular belief that slower equals safer. The concept is not entirely without merit, but it doesn’t apply universally, and especially not to electric bicycles.
For those brave enough to power through their gritted teeth and keep reading, let me explain.
When it comes to electric bicycles, the mindset of slower equals safer has translated into some pretty restrictive speed limits. While most US states allow a segment of e-bikes to reach speeds of 28 mph (45 km/h), many cities and jurisdictions have discussed limiting speeds. New York City, one of the most significant recent examples, enacted a new law that limits e-bikes to just 15 mph. That means riders in NYC will now be slower than even most European countries, with their 25 km/h (15.5 mph) limit.
But here’s the thing: that conventional wisdom doesn’t always hold up. In fact, I’d argue that faster electric bikes, especially those that can cruise comfortably at 25 to 28 mph, can actually be safer in real-world traffic.
Why? Because when your e-bike can keep up with traffic, you stop being an obstacle and start being a participant. And that makes a big difference.
As the internet’s resident e-bike guy, I’ve ridden just about every type of electric bike you can imagine, from mellow pedal-assist cruisers to high-powered, throttle-happy monsters. I’ve ridden on more types of roads than I can count and in more countries than I can remember. And one thing has become very clear: When riding in a city, the scariest and most dangerous part isn’t going fast – it’s being passed. Over and over again. By cars. Trucks. Buses. Trolleys. Anything that weighs 100x what your bike does. Sometimes with inches to spare.
When you’re riding a 15 or 20 mph limited e-bike on a street where traffic is moving at 25 to 35 mph, you’re not flowing with traffic. You’re impeding it. And drivers don’t like that. They get impatient. They make unsafe passes. They buzz you close to the curb. Even the ones who mean well still have to swerve into the other lane to get around you. It doesn’t matter that you have every right, both societal and legal, to be in that lane. It’s simply a perfect setup for conflict.
Now take a Class 3 e-bike – one that can do 28 mph with pedal assist – and the dynamic completely changes. Suddenly, you’re not the slowpoke in the bike lane or shoulder. You’re riding in the lane, keeping pace with cars. You’re visible. Predictable. You can merge when needed. You can also move back to the shoulder when you need to and allow a pass in a safe place (that doesn’t take as long to reach because now you’re moving faster). But you don’t have to spend the ride hugging the curb or dodging into the gutter just to stay out of the way. Because you’re not in the way, you’re part of the way. You’re an equal participant among the other road users (at least, in terms of speed).
In many cases, that extra bit of speed turns you from a second-class road user into a full participant in the flow of traffic. That’s not just better for you as a rider, it’s also better for drivers, because it reduces overtaking events and simplifies the entire dance of shared road use.
Of course, I’m not suggesting that e-bikes should be going 50 mph. There’s a reasonable ceiling here, and I’m happy to accept the current legal limit (in the US) of 28 mph for Class 3 electric bikes, since it doesn’t seem like we’ll be getting a hypothetical Class 4 e-bike standard any time soon. But the idea that “anything over 20 mph is inherently dangerous” just doesn’t match up with the way urban traffic actually works.
If anything, artificially limiting e-bikes to sub-traffic speeds creates more danger by increasing interactions between cyclists and passing vehicles. That annoying car on the interstate doing 50 mph when everyone else is doing 70 mph is a danger to itself and others. Why would you force e-bikes into the same situation while using an even more vulnerable vehicle?
And let’s be honest: most pedal cyclists already ride “illegally fast” when conditions allow. Plenty of strong cyclists on non-electric road bikes can cruise above 28 mph.
And many US Class 2 or Class 3 e-bikes hit 25+ mph with ease, especially downhill or with a tailwind. Yet we simply don’t see an epidemic of high-speed e-bike crashes.
Yes, crashes happen, but they simply aren’t a significant threat to life or limb the way car crashes are due to e-bikes employing considerably lower energy. And don’t get me started on the ‘threat to pedestrians,’ a fact-supported near non-issue compared to the number of pedestrians killed by cars every year. If your argument is that we should focus on the 1% of pedestrians killed by an electric bike instead of the 99% of pedestrians killed by cars, then you aren’t pro-pedestrian, you’re simply anti-ebike.
The problem here isn’t speed, it’s context. It’s mixing slow vehicles with fast ones without giving either group the tools to navigate safely.
What’s more, newer e-bikes are better equipped than ever to handle slightly higher speeds. Hydraulic disc brakes are becoming nearly standard equipment on all but the cheapest e-bikes these days, not to mention the inclusion of integrated lighting, wider/grippier tires, and upright geometries that all contribute to safer, more stable handling at 25 to 28 mph. These aren’t 1990s beach cruisers with motors slapped on. Modern e-bikes are increasingly built for the job of going faster and carrying heavier loads at those speeds.
And the riders? For the most part, they’re not daredevils. They’re commuters. Parents. Students. People who want an alternative to driving that doesn’t make them feel like second-class citizens on the road.
Yes, there are hooligans out there popping wheelies and being idiots on two wheels, or trying to pass off 40 mph non-street-legal Sur Rons as simple e-bikes (which, they aren’t). But those extreme rule breakers are not the majority of riders. And if you think they are, then I’d like to introduce you to that comfortable little overlap on the Venn diagram between confirmation bias and availability heuristic. That’s where you’re standing.
This is what frustrates me about efforts to clamp down on e-bike speed. The well-meaning argument is usually “but what if someone gets hurt?” But the overlooked danger is that a slower bike might put someone in more harm’s way by forcing them into the margins of the road where they’re harder to see and constantly being passed.
And I’m not totally blind to the unique dangers of higher speeds, either. Of course, there are situations where riding slower is undeniably safer. On crowded bike paths, in dense pedestrian zones, or during wet or low-visibility conditions, lower speeds give riders more time to react and avoid hazards. A bike zipping through a shared-use trail at 28 mph doesn’t belong there, and pushing for faster e-bikes or against arbitrarily low e-bike speed limits shouldn’t mean encouraging reckless riding. There’s a time and place for reasonably high speed, and a time to ease off the throttle or pedals. Education is paramount. We offer driver’s education for cars instead of programming a speed limiter into them. We teach drivers how to drive, rather than physically limiting cars to 40 hp and 65 mph, despite both being sufficient to drive on any road in the entire US.
As e-bikes become more powerful and accessible, particularly to teenagers and young riders, there’s a real need for better education around safe riding practices. High speeds come with higher risks, especially when reaction time and braking distance shrink. But acknowledging those risks doesn’t mean we should impose blanket limitations that restrict responsible riders from using e-bikes to their full potential. The answer isn’t capping all bikes at 15 or 20 mph – it’s smarter infrastructure, better training, and rules that reflect real-world conditions instead of a one-size-fits-all limit.
We need to shift the conversation. Instead of treating faster e-bikes like ticking time bombs, we should recognize their potential as safer, more effective urban vehicles. Yes, speed can be abused. But when used responsibly, it’s a powerful tool for staying safe and in control on the road.
Not every e-bike rider needs to go 28 mph. But every e-bike rider should have the option to keep up with traffic when conditions call for it. And cities should embrace that, not fight it, if they’re serious about reducing car dependency and improving safety for vulnerable road users.
Maybe one day the US will invest in better cycling infrastructure, and this won’t be as big an issue. But that day is not today. And with the way US cities are built now, sometimes the safest place to be is right in the middle of the lane, moving with traffic, not behind it.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
![Daimler CEO just dropped some pretty WILD pro-hydrogen claims [update]](https://i0.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/09/hydrogen_semi.jpg?resize=1200,628&quality=82&strip=all&ssl=1)
Daimler Truck AG CEO Karin Rådström hopped on LinkedIn today and dropped some absolutely wild pro-hydrogen talking points, using words like “emotional” and “inspiring” while making some pretty heady claims about the viability and economics of hydrogen. The rant is doubly embarrassing for another reason: the company’s hydrogen trucks are more than 100 million miles behind Volvo’s electric semis.
UPDATE 22NOV2025: Daimler just delivered five new hydrogen semis for trials.
While it might be hard to imagine why a company as seemingly smart as Daimler Truck AG continues to invest in hydrogen when study after study has shut down its viability as a transport fuel, it makes sense when you consider that the Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA) holds approximately 5% of Daimler and parent company Mercedes’ shares.
That’s not a trivial stake. Indeed, 5% is enough to make KIA one of the few actors with both the access and the motivation to shape conversations about Daimler’s long-term technology bets, and as a major oil-producing country whose economy would undoubtedly take a hit if oil demand plummeted, any future fuel that’s measured molecules instead of electrons isn’t just a concept for the Kuwaiti economy: it’s a lifeline.
What’s more, Kuwait’s “Oil Strategy 2040” includes plans to nearly double crude oil production and invest billions of dollars in new oil extraction projects and downstream refining facilities, even as the rest of the world rushes to decarbonize.
In that context, the push to make hydrogen seem like an attractive decarbonization option makes more sense. So, instead of giving Daimler’s hydrogen propaganda team yet another platform to try and convince people that hydrogen might make for a viable transport fuel eventually by giving five Mercedes-Benz GenH2 semi trucks to its customers at Hornbach, Reber Logistik, Teva Germany with its brand ratiopharm, Rhenus, and DHL Supply Chain, I’m just going to re-post Daimler CEO Karin Rådström’s comments from Hydrogen Week.
Earlier this month, Daimler Truck AG issued a press release entitled, “Five and a Half Times Around the World: Daimler Truck Fuel Cell Trucks Successfully Complete More Than 225,000 km (~139,000 miles) in Real-World Customer Operations.” Don’t bother looking for it on Electrek, though. I didn’t run it. And I didn’t run it because, frankly, a fleet of over-the-road semi trucks managing to cover a little over half the number of miles that David Blenkle put on his single Ford Mustang Mach-E isn’t particularly impressive.
In the meantime, Daimler competitors like Volvo, Renault, and even tiny Motiv are racking up millions and millions of all-electric miles and MAN Truck CEO Alexander Vlaskamp is saying that it’s impossible for hydrogen to compete with batteries. Heck, even Daimler’s own eActros BEV semi trucks are putting up better numbers than those hydrogen deals.
So, why then is Rådström pouring on the hydrogen love over at LinkedIn?
For some reason – posts about hydrogen always stir up emotions. I think hydrogen (not “instead of” but “in parallel to” electric) plays a role in the decarbonization of heavy duty transport in Europe for three reasons:
- If we would go “electric only” we need to get the electric grid to a level where we can build enough charging stations for the 6 million trucks in Europe. It will take many years and be incredibly expensive. A hydrogen infrastructure in parallel will be less expensive and you don’t need a grid connection to build it, putting 2000 H2 stations in Europe is relatively easy.
- Europe will rely on import of energy, and it could be transported into Europe from North Africa and Middle East as liquid hydrogen. Better to use that directly as fuel than to make electricity out of it.
- Some use cases of our customers are better suited for fuel cells than electric trucks – the fuel cell truck will allow higher payload and longer ranges.
At European Hydrogen Week, I saw firsthand the energy and ambition behind Europe’s net-zero goals. It’s inspiring—but also a wake-up call. We’re not moving fast enough.
What we need:
- Large-scale hydrogen production and transport to Europe
- A robust refueling network that goes beyond AFIR
- And real political support to make it happen – we need smart, efficient regulation that clears the path instead of adding hurdles.
To show what’s possible, we brought our Mercedes-Benz GenH2 to Brussels. From the end of 2026, we’ll deploy a small series of 100 fuel cell trucks to customers.
Let’s build the infrastructure, the momentum, and the partnerships to make zero-emission transport a reality. 🚛 and let’s try to avoid some of the mistakes that we see now while scaling up electric. And let’s stop the debate about “either or”. We need both.
Commenters were quick to point out that Daimler recently received €226M in grants from German federal and state governments to build 100 fuel cell trucks – but, while Daimler for sure doesn’t want to give back the money, it’s also pretty difficult to believe that Rådström’s pro-hydrogen posturing is sincere.
Especially since most of it seems like nonsense.
We’re not doing any of that
At the risk of sounding “emotional,” Rådström’s claims that building a hydrogen infrastructure in parallel will be less expensive than building an electrical infrastructure, and that “you don’t need a grid connection to build it,” are objectively false.
Further, if her claim that “putting 2,000 H2 stations in Europe is relatively easy” isn’t outright laughable, it’s worth noting that Europe had just 265 hydrogen filling stations in operation in 2024 (and only 40% of those, or about 100, were capable of serving HD trucks). At the same time, the IEA reported that there are nearly five million public charging ports already in service on the continent.
Next, the claim that, “Europe will rely on import of energy, and it could be transported into Europe from North Africa and Middle East as liquid hydrogen” (emphasis mine), is similarly dubious – especially when faced with the fact that, in 2023, wind and solar already supplied about 27–30% of EU electricity.
I will agree, however, with one of Rådström’s claims. She notes that, “some use cases of our customers are better suited for fuel cells than electric trucks – the fuel cell truck will allow higher payload and longer ranges.” That’s debatable, but widely accepted as true … for now. Daimler’s own research into lighter, more energy-dense, and lower-cost solid-state battery technology, however, may mean that it won’t be true for long, however.
Unless, of course, Mercedes’ solid-state batteries don’t work (and she would know more about that than I would, as a mere blogger).
Electrek’s Take
As you can imagine, the Karin Rådström post generated quite a few comments at the Electrek watercooler. “Insane to claim that building hydrogen stations would be cheaper than building chargers,” said one fellow writer. “I’m fine with hydrogen for long haul heavy duty, but lying to get us there is idiotic.”
Another comment I liked said, “(Rådström) says that chargers need to be on the grid – you already have a grid, and it’s everywhere!”
At the end of the day, I have to echo the words of one of Mercedes’ storied engineering partners and OEM suppliers, Mahle, whose Chairman, Arnd Franz, who that building out a hydrogen infrastructure won’t be possible without “blue” H made from fossil fuels as recently as last April, and maybe that’s what this is all about: fossil fuel vehicles are where Daimler makes its biggest profits (for now), and muddying the waters and playing up this idea that we’re in some sort of “messy middle” transition makes it just easy enough for a reluctant fleet manager to say, “maybe next time” when it comes to EVs.
We, and the planet, will suffer for such cowardice – but maybe that’s too much malicious intent to ascribe to Ms. Rådström. Maybe this is just a simple “Hanlon’s razor” scenario and there’s nothing much else to read into it.
Let us know what you think of Rådström’s pro-hydrogen comments, and whether or not Daimler’s shareholders should be concerned about the quality of the research behind their CEO’s public posts, in the comments section at the bottom of the page.
SOURCE | IMAGES: Karin Rådström, via LinkedIn.
If you drive an electric vehicle, make charging at home fast, safe, and convenient with a Level 2 charger installed by Qmerit. As the nation’s most trusted EV charger installation network, Qmerit connects you with licensed, background-checked electricians who specialize in EV charging. You’ll get a quick online estimate, upfront pricing, and installation backed by Qmerit’s nationwide quality guarantee. Their pros follow the highest safety standards so you can plug in at home with total peace of mind.
Ready to charge smarter? Get started today with Qmerit. (trusted affiliate link)
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Audi embraced its future in China with the launch of a new Chinese market electric sub-brand called AUDI that ditched the iconic “four rings” logo in favor of four capital letters – but one thing this latest concept hasn’t ditched is the brand’s traditionally teutonic long-roof design language.
Co-developed with Audi’s Chinese production partner, SAIC, the all-new AUDI E SUV concept is based on the PPE (Premium Platform Electric) skateboard, and is only the second model introduced by the company’s domestic sub-brand — which was all-new itself just one year ago.
“The AUDI E SUV concept celebrates the new AUDI brand’s first anniversary following the E concept’s debut in Guangzhou (2024),” said Fermín Soneira, CEO of the Audi and SAIC cooperation, at the E SUV’s unveiling. “It showcases an unmistakable AUDI design language that gives the SUV a prestigious, progressive stance — with no compromise between sporty aesthetics and interior roominess or versatility. This concept embodies our vision for premium electric mobility by fusing Audi’s engineering heritage with digital innovation to fulfill our commitment in China.”
As a vehicle, the AUDI E SUV concept promises to handle “like an Audi,” and is powered by a pair of electric motors good for a combined 500 kW (~670 hp), good enough to get the big crossover from 0-100 km/h (62 mph) in about five seconds. Those efficient motors are fed electrons by a 109 kWh battery riding on AUDI’s 800V Advanced Digital Platform system architecture, and can allegedly add 320 km (~200 miles) of range in under 10 minutes at a high-powered DC fast charging station.
If you’re a fan of self-driving tech, the AUDI 360 Driving Assist System is the AUDI E SUV concept is for you, with features that, “enable a relaxed and safe driving experience – on highways, in dense city traffic, and during assisted parking.”
No word yet on pricing, but it likely won’t matter. As successful as the AUDI sub-brand has been, it’s still a long shot that we’ll ever get these Stateside, no matter what Canada does.
AUDI E SUV concept
SOURCE | IMAGES: Audi.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Unless they have vivid memories of guys like Nigel Mansell, Fernando Alonso, and Sebastian Vettel driving the wheels off a screaming, Renault-powered Formula 1 car, it’s tough to get an American to care about a new Renault — but Nissan’s renewed willingness to work with its old partners means we may yet get the new Trafic E-Tech here. (!)
First shown as thinly-veiled concepts co-developed with Volvo back in February, the Renault Trafic E-Tech shown here made its official debut in full production spec and trim at this week’s Solutrans 2025 logistics show. The best part: it arrived looking nearly identical to the radical and well-received concept.
And, in case you’re thinking Renault just got lucky with the styling, you can stop thinking that. The official press release rambles on and on (and on) about the Trafic E-Tech’s styling, going in depth into such apparently mundane topics as the quality of the grain on the new Trafic E-Tech van’s black plastic bumpers:
The front bumper comprises a large section with a black grained finish. Each constituent part was the focus of extensive design work, in order to showcase the overall appearance while avoiding a bulky look. The black grained plastic of the lower bumper section features a laser pattern, similar to Scenic E-Tech electric. This attention to finish is a signature of the new Renault design language.
RENAULT
Nearly every paragraph of the release is like this. Here’s a section about the shape of the van’s windshield that reads, “the futuristic style of Trafic can also be seen in its visor-like windscreen, made up of the windscreen itself and the two side windows.”
The van’s designers care, in other words — they care so freakin’ much about this niche product that they probably doodle it, idly, in the margins of their notebooks when they’re supposed to be listening in whatever staff meeting they just got dragged into. And that level of caring made me think of a once-and-future Renault partner who could use that level of caring in its North American product line.
Enter: Nissan
Back in March, I wrote that the key thing that Nissan had to do in order to stage a successful comeback was care about its products — and, in that article, I used the lowly Nissan Cube to highlight just how much Nissan used to care about its products.
Nissan used to care so much about its product, in fact, that it once did something that seems unthinkable in today’s modular-construction, Ultium electric-skateboard-platform EV age. And what made that “something” all the more astonishing was that they didn’t do this for the six-figure GT-R or some 370Z halo car – they did it for the Cube.
That decision speaks to an absolutely massive commitment. A commitment to build two sets of stampings, two sets of expensive window shapes, two sets of stuff I probably haven’t even considered, and it was all done for what? To eliminate a blind spot?
Can you imagine the amount of sheer, epic, truckloads of f*cks you would have to give in order to sit in a boardroom and argue that your company should spend millions of dollars in tooling and certification and assembly line re-jiggering because someone, somewhere else, might have a bit of a blind spot when they look over their right shoulder? (!)
The mere suggestion of such a thing would be a career-ender at most brands, and Nissan didn’t just listen to that unnamed engineer, they did it. They built an entire mirror-image of their home market Cube, and they did it so quietly that I bet more than a few of you reading these words never even realized they’d done it at all.
Today, Nissan’s best-effort at caring is launching an “all-new Rogue PHEV” that’s actually a rebadged Mitsibishi Outlander PHEV that was all-new itself way back in 2013. And that decade-plus-old car? It’s a significant upgrade to the last heap that wore the Rogue badge … largely because Mitsubishi, you know, still cares about the quality of its new products.
Renault cares enough for everyone
Renault gives truckloads of f*cks. Van-loads, anyway, and now that Nissan seems more open to enter into JVs with its partners in China and Japan, it seems entirely possible that they’ll come crawling back to their old Renault alliance partner. And, when they do, Renault’s level of caring could do wonders for a next-generation, all-electric Nissan Quest based on the Trafic E-Tech.
Heck, they wouldn’t have to do much more than change the logo on the front and make the infotainment graphics red and white instead of gray and yellow and they’d be there.
And that new-age Nissan Quest based on the Renault Trafic? It would offer up to 280 miles of European cycle range and motivate itself around US roads with a ~200 hp (150 kW) electric motor pushing out 345 Nm (~255 lb-ft) of off-the line grunt — which isn’t too far off Nissan’s last V8-powered van offering!
Great styling, plenty of room, peppy performance, and zero emissions? I’d take a look at it, for sure — and, since there aren’t any other electric van options in the US*, I think a lot of other people would, too.
SOURCE | IMAGES: Renault.
NOTE: I know the Tesla Model X is basically an electric minivan, but a) the bros hate it when you call their Model X a minivan, and b) the doors are stupid.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024