The New York Times published a pair of articles this weekend highlighting the rising number of deaths of cyclists riding electric bikes. However, in one of the most impressive feats of victim-blaming I’ve seen from the publication in some time, the NYT lays the onus on e-bikes instead of on the things killing their law abiding riders: cars.
E-bikes in the US (the subject) do 32. S-pedelecs are the ones with much higher fatalities for the elderly in the metherlands and do 45. Nornal pedelecs in europe also produce much more than 250W
Downhill is the situation in which ebikes are least likely to exceed the speed of regular bikes. Since the motor is designed to cut out at 20 mph anyway then it won’t help you go faster downhill, but it will continue to have increased rolling resistance. And if it’s no worse than a regular bike, it isn’t a problem.
I see you’ve never encountered an ebike on a hill.
Acoustic bike riders rest on the downhill.
Ebike riders who have motors that exceed their power output by a factor of 3 rest on the uphill.
The rolling resistance difference is single digit watts. Any influence from extra weight will increase coasting speed.
Actually, I was thinking of personal experience riding with my wife, with me on an ebike and her on an acoustic bike. I was surprised at how I actually needed to put in a little effort to keep up with her downhill.
^ precisely my point though. A little effort exceeds the motor speed limiter. Effort that is much more readily available because you didn’t spend it going up the hill.
I dont get what you want to achieve with a general 250W limit. There are 3 different motors which provide a completely different amount of power with 250W. You would need different limits per kind of motor
Edit: also the root-comment is about the netherlands, so thats why I assumed this discussion is about the netherlands. My bad
250W is an output limit not an input. And power is power.