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.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
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.
It seems like the writing was already on the wall last week when Volvo moved to make its Luminar-supplied LiDAR system an option – there are now reports that the Swedish car brand is set to ditch LiDAR tech entirely in 2026.
In a recent SEC filing following a missed interest payment on its 2L notes, Luminar confirmed that Volvo’s new ES90 and EX90 flagship models (along with the new Polestar 3) would no longer be offered with LiDAR from Luminar. The move signals a full reversal on the safety tech that had started as standard equipment, then became an option, and is now (according to reports from CarScoops) gone altogether.
In a statement, a Volvo Cars USA spokesperson added the decision was reportedly made, “to limit the company’s supply chain risk exposure, and it is a direct result of Luminar’s failure to meet its contractual obligations to Volvo Cars.”
This is what Luminar had to say about the current, icy state of the two companies’ relationship as of the 31OCT filing:
Advertisement – scroll for more content
The Company’s largest customer, Volvo Cars (“Volvo”), has informed us that, beginning in April 2026, Volvo will no longer make our Iris LiDAR standard on its EX90 and ES90 vehicles (although Iris will remain an option). Volvo also informed the Company that it has deferred the decision as to whether to include LiDAR, including Halo (Luminar’s next generation LiDAR under development), in its next generation of vehicles from 2027 to 2029 at the earliest. As a result of these actions, the Company has made a claim against Volvo for significant damages and has suspended further commitments of Iris LiDAR products for Volvo pending resolution of the dispute. The Company is in discussions with Volvo concerning the dispute; however, there can be no assurance that the dispute will be resolved favorably or at all. Furthermore, there can be no guarantee that any claim or litigation against Volvo will be successful or that the Company will be able to recover damages from Volvo.
As a result of the foregoing, the Company is suspending its guidance for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2025.
On November 14, Luminar confirmed that Volvo had terminated its contract altogether, in a blow that could leave Luminar rethinking its long-term future and planning litigation against its biggest ex-customer.
The news follows a host of significant upgrades to the EX90 that include a new, more dependable electronic control module (ECM) and 800V system architecture for faster charging and upgraded ADAS that improves the automatic emergency steering functions and Park Pilot assistant.
That said, it’ll be interesting to see if ditching the LiDAR has a negative impact there. Or, frankly, whether ditching the LiDAR and its heavy compute loads will actually help mitigate some of the EX90’s niggling software issues. It could go either way, really – and I’m not quite sure which it will be. Let us know which way you think it’ll go in the comments.
SOURCE: Luminar, via SEC filing; featured image by Volvo.
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.
The new John Deere Z370RS Electric ZTrak zero turn electric riding mower promises all the power and performance Deere’s customers have come to expect from its quiet, maintenance-free electric offerings – but with an all new twist: removable batteries.
The latest residential ZT electric mower from John Deere features a 42″ AccelDeep mower deck for broad, capable cuts through up to 1.25 acres of lawn per charge, which is about what you’d expect from the current generation of battery-powered Deeres – but this is where the new Z370RS Electric ZTrak comes into its own.
Flip the lid behind the comfortably padded yellow seat and you’ll be greeted by six (6!) 56V ARC Lithium batteries from electric outdoor brand EGO. Those removable batteries can be swapped out of the Z370RS for fresh ones in seconds, getting you back to work in less time than it takes to gravity pour a tank of gas.
When John Deere launched the first Z370R, Peter Johnson wrote that electrifying lawn equipment needs to be a priority, citing EPA data that showed gas-powered lawnmowers making up five percent of the total air pollution in the US (despite covering far less than 5% of the total miles driven on that gas). “Moreover,” he writes, “it takes about 800 million gallons of gasoline each year (with an additional 17 million gallons spilled) to fuel this equipment.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Daimler CEO at European Hydrogen Week; via LinkedIn.
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.
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.
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
Via Mahle.
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.