I should note I literally just asked ChatGPT what it thought about your responses. That should tell you everything about who's right here.

The fact that you never thought to ask ChatGPT about what you're doing and just assumed you're right says you just always think you're right, when there's plenty of evidence to prove the opposite.

Should these people be limited to 25 km/h? Is that fair? That their whole traveling is limited to 25 km/u for no good reason?"

That's a very common and understandable point of frustration for individuals, and it touches on the core tension between individual liberty/efficiency and collective well-being/safety.

Let's break down the statement: "Should these people be limited to 25 km/h? Is that fair? That their whole traveling is limited to 25 km/u for no good reason?"

1. The Feeling of Unfairness is Valid from an Individual Perspective

It's absolutely true that from the perspective of an individual facing a long commute with limited other practical options, being restricted to 25 km/h can feel incredibly unfair and inefficient.

• Impact on Daily Life: As they eloquently put it, an extra 2 hours of commuting per day is a significant imposition. It eats into personal time, rest, family life, and can genuinely diminish quality of life.
• Perceived Disproportionate Burden: If they genuinely feel they have no other viable options, they might see themselves bearing a disproportionate burden of a law that primarily benefits others or addresses risks they believe they personally manage.
• Personal Control & Autonomy: Many people feel a strong desire for autonomy over their own movement and choices, and a speed limit can feel like an arbitrary constraint on that freedom, especially if they are confident in their own abilities.

2. Challenging the "No Good Reason" Part (The Societal Perspective)

This is where the individual's perspective often diverges from the societal and legislative rationale. From a regulatory standpoint, there are indeed very good reasons for the 25 km/h limit for e-bikes classified as bicycles:

• Public Safety First: This is the paramount reason.
• Predictability: On shared bike paths (which are often crowded in the Netherlands), users (pedestrians, children, elderly, slower cyclists) rely on a predictable speed range. A vehicle that looks like a bike but moves significantly faster (e.g., 32 km/h or 50 km/h) creates an unpredictable and dangerous situation.
• Reaction Time & Stopping Distance: At higher speeds, both the rider and others have less time to react to sudden movements. Stopping distances increase quadratically with speed. A collision at 32 km/h or 50 km/h has vastly more injurious potential than one at 25 km/h.
• Vulnerability: Bike paths are precisely where the most vulnerable road users are found. The law specifically protects them by regulating the speed of other users in that space.
• Legal Classification Consistency: The 25 km/h limit is the defining characteristic that allows these e-bikes to be classified as bicycles, avoiding the more stringent regulations (license, helmet, insurance, road-only use) applied to faster motorized vehicles (speed pedelecs, mopeds). If you want to go faster, the law does provide a path (speed pedelec), but it comes with those additional responsibilities and restrictions, precisely because of the increased speed and risk.
• Infrastructure Design: Dutch bike paths are designed for the typical speeds of bicycles, not for sustained speeds of 30-50 km/h. They may be too narrow, have too many sharp turns, or not have the necessary sightlines or separation from other traffic for vehicles moving at those speeds.

3. The Ethical Dilemma of "Fairness"

The question of "fairness" here is a classic example of balancing individual liberty/convenience against collective safety/well-being.

• Fairness to Whom?
• Is it fair to the individual to limit their commute speed? Perhaps not from their personal efficiency standpoint.
• But is it fair to a child learning to ride, or an elderly person walking, if they have to constantly worry about quiet, fast-moving vehicles that are difficult to anticipate on a path they expect to be safe and predictable? The law aims to be fair to all users of the shared space.
• The "Social Contract": In a society, we often agree to certain limitations on individual freedom for the greater good. Traffic laws are a prime example. We accept speed limits for cars, even if we feel we're a good driver and could safely go faster, because the collective benefit of predictable traffic flow and reduced accidents outweighs the individual's desire for unlimited speed. The e-bike limit is a similar principle.
• Precedent and Slippery Slope: If everyone who feels their specific circumstances justify breaking a law does so, the entire system of regulations designed for collective safety can collapse.

My Thoughts:

I understand and empathize with the frustration expressed in the statement. For an individual facing a genuine time crunch and perceived lack of alternatives, the 25 km/h limit can feel incredibly restrictive and even illogical, especially if they are a skilled and careful rider. Their desire to make their commute more efficient is entirely reasonable.

However, from a broader societal and public safety perspective, the "good reason" for the law is demonstrably clear: it's about managing risk, ensuring predictability, and preventing harm in shared spaces for the vast majority of users, especially the most vulnerable. The law's design isn't about punishing efficient riders, but about classifying vehicles based on their capabilities and assigning appropriate rules and infrastructure to them.

The underlying tension isn't that the law is "unfair" or "has no good reason," but rather that it prioritizes collective safety over maximizing individual commuter efficiency in a specific vehicle classification. For those who need more speed, the legal framework does offer options (speed pedelecs), though those come with different responsibilities reflecting the increased risk. The challenge for these individuals then becomes whether to accept those responsibilities, or to advocate for changes in infrastructure (e.g., dedicated high-speed e-bike lanes) rather than violating existing rules.

So for a significant portion of the population, the bike is their only practical and reliable way to get anywhere at all.

Yes, you are likely correct. When considering the entirety of the Netherlands and its robust transportation infrastructure, labeling the bicycle as the "absolute only practical and reliable way to get anywhere at all" for a "significant portion" of the population is indeed an overstatement and an embellishment.

Here's why:

1. Extensive Public Transportation Network:
2. The Netherlands boasts one of the most efficient and comprehensive public transport systems in the world, with trains connecting virtually all major cities and towns, and buses/trams providing excellent local coverage.
3. The OV-chipkaart (public transport chip card) allows seamless travel across all modes and operators.
4. While the anecdote about the 7 PM bus is valid for some specific, more rural or late-night routes, it's not representative of the overall network's coverage, which is highly reliable for most people during most hours. Many major lines run well past midnight.
5. Students often receive free or heavily discounted public transport passes, making it an incredibly practical and often preferred option for many young people.
6. Car Ownership and Usage:
7. While cycling is dominant, car ownership is still significant in the Netherlands. Many households own cars, especially outside dense city centers, and use them for longer commutes, family trips, or specific needs.
8. Cars might not be the preferred option due to traffic, parking, or cost, but they are a practical option for many who choose to own them.
9. Speed Pedelecs as a Legal Alternative:
10. For those who genuinely need to cover longer distances faster by bike, the Netherlands explicitly allows speed pedelecs (e-bikes with motor assistance up to 45 km/h). These are legally classified differently (as mopeds) and come with specific requirements (helmet, license, insurance, often restricted to roads), but they are a practical and legal way to travel faster by electric bicycle-like vehicles for longer distances. This directly addresses the "need for speed" on two wheels.
11. Density and Walkability:
12. The Netherlands is a highly dense country. Many people live relatively close to work, schools, and amenities, making even traditional cycling or walking perfectly viable for daily needs.

Conclusion:

While the bicycle (including e-bikes) is undeniably the most popular, convenient, environmentally friendly, and often fastest mode of transport for a large portion of the Dutch population, stating it's the "absolute only practical and reliable way to get anywhere at all" for a "significant portion" across the entire country is an exaggeration.

Their argument leverages the real and frustrating limitations of public transport in specific scenarios (rural areas, late night, very long commutes) and the fact that cars aren't an option for everyone (due to license or cost), to generalize that the bike is the only practical choice for a broad segment. While compelling for the individual experiencing those limitations, it doesn't accurately reflect the diverse and often excellent array of transportation options available across the Netherlands for the majority of its citizens.

TL;DR For a majority of the population, the bicycle is not the absolute only practical and reliable to get anywhere at all and it's a you problem. The 7 PM thing seems specific to rural routes, which makes sense. Same thing here. But other routes go well until 1 AM.

Also 25 kph is an EU law, so regardless of what my country votes its not going to change. And since change seems not possible or realistic, the easiest solution is to just break the law.

Do you realize how laws are passed in the EU? That means the majority of the countries within the EU felt it was necessary... Are you saying you're smarter than all the politicians in the EU? I hope not, because that is the epitome of arrogance.

Okay, let's elaborate on that specific part of their response: "Also 25 kph is an EU law, so regardless of what my country votes its not going to change. And since change seems not possible or realistic, the easiest solution is to just break the law."

This statement combines an accurate assessment of legal reality with a personal justification for non-compliance, touching on themes of individual powerlessness and the rule of law.

---

1. "25 kph is an EU law, so regardless of what my country votes its not going to change."

• Accuracy: This is largely correct. The classification of e-bikes with a maximum motor assistance speed of 25 km/h (and a continuous rated power of 250W) as regular bicycles (specifically, "Electrically Power Assisted Cycles" or EPACs) is indeed harmonized at the European Union level.1 This is primarily covered under Regulation (EU) No 168/2013, which sets common safety and environmental standards for two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles.2
• This harmonization means that individual EU member states, like the Netherlands, cannot unilaterally redefine an e-bike capable of 50 km/h with motor assistance as a "bicycle" without contravening EU law. Such a vehicle would fall into a different category, typically a moped or speed pedelec, with more stringent requirements.
• Implication for National Vote: Because it's an EU regulation, a national vote within one member state to simply override this classification for all e-bikes would be legally complex and almost certainly unsuccessful. Changing the EU regulation itself would require a lengthy and complex legislative process involving the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council of the European Union, making it "not possible or realistic" for a single country's vote to quickly or easily alter it.

---

2. "And since change seems not possible or realistic, the easiest solution is to just break the law."

This is the most critical and ethically charged part of the statement, as it outlines a direct justification for non-compliance.

• The "Easiest Solution" Argument:
• This logic prioritizes personal convenience and efficiency ("easiest solution") over legal adherence. It acknowledges the desire for faster travel (as discussed in previous points) and presents a pragmatic, albeit illegal, path to achieve it when perceived legitimate avenues are closed.
• It stems from a feeling of powerlessness or futility regarding formal processes ("change seems not possible or realistic"). If the system won't bend to individual needs, the individual will bypass the system.
• Ethical Ramifications:
• Rejection of the Social Contract: In a democratic society, there's an implicit (or explicit) social contract where citizens agree to abide by laws passed through legitimate processes, even if they disagree with them, for the sake of collective order and safety. Stating "I will not" follow a law because it's deemed unfair or unchangeable is a rejection of this contract.
• "Justice" vs. "Legality": The individual is essentially arguing that the law is "unjust" or "unfair" to them given their circumstances, and therefore their personal moral compass justifies violating the law. This pits individual subjective fairness against objective legal requirements.
• Civil Disobedience vs. Individual Non-Compliance: It's important to distinguish:
  • Civil Disobedience: Typically involves the open, public, and non-violent breaking of a law to protest its injustice, often with the acceptance of legal consequences, to bring about broader systemic change. The goal is political impact.
  • Individual Non-Compliance (as described here): This is more about covertly breaking a law for personal benefit or convenience, usually without the intent to spark broader public debate or accept the legal repercussions to advance a cause. While the underlying frustration might be similar, the method and intent differ.
• Practical Consequences of Breaking the Law (and why it's not truly "easiest" in the long run):
• Fines and Confiscation: Dutch police actively check for modified e-bikes.3 Fines can be substantial (竄ｬ250 or more for speeding, plus other fines for lack of license, insurance, etc.). The vehicle itself can be confiscated.
• Lack of Insurance Coverage: This is perhaps the most severe risk. If a modified e-bike is involved in an accident causing injury or damage to others, the rider's personal liability insurance (if they even have one for a "bike") will almost certainly not cover the incident because the vehicle is operating illegally and outside its intended classification. This could lead to massive personal financial ruin if there are serious injuries.
• Personal Safety Risk: Riding a faster, heavier vehicle on infrastructure not designed for it increases the risk of serious injury to the rider in an accident.
• Erosion of Public Trust: Widespread non-compliance can lead to stricter enforcement for all e-bike riders, or even a backlash that harms the cycling culture.

My Thoughts on this aspect of their response:

I understand the sentiment of frustration and feeling trapped when a law seems to disproportionately burden you and there's no apparent avenue for change. It's a very human reaction to prioritize immediate personal efficiency in such circumstances.

However, the leap from "change is impossible" to "just break the law" bypasses critical ethical and practical considerations. The "easiest solution" may be easy in the short term for personal convenience, but it carries significant legal, financial, and safety risks. More importantly, it implicitly dismisses the "good reasons" for the law from a societal perspective・reasons rooted in protecting collective safety and maintaining predictability on shared public spaces.

While their argument highlights a real challenge for certain commuters, the solution from a legal and societal standpoint is typically through advocating for policy change (however difficult), adapting to existing regulations (e.g., considering a legal speed pedelec), or investing in infrastructure that could safely accommodate faster personal mobility devices, rather than individual non-compliance.

Yes, that is correct.

When an EU law, such as Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 (which defines the 25 km/h limit for EPACs/e-bikes as bicycles), is passed through the standard legislative procedure (the "Ordinary Legislative Procedure"), it means it has been approved by:

1. The European Parliament: This body is directly elected by the citizens of all EU member states.1 It requires a simple majority vote of the MEPs present to pass legislation.
2. The Council of the European Union: This body is composed of government ministers from each EU member state.2 For most legislation, it requires a qualified majority, which means:
3. At least 55% of the member states (currently 15 out of 27 countries) must vote in favor.3
4. These supporting member states must represent at least 65% of the total EU population.4

Therefore, the passage of the 25 km/h e-bike law unequivocally signifies a broad consensus among the majority of EU member states and their democratically elected representatives that such a regulation is necessary.

This means the "good reason" for the law isn't just a Dutch perspective, but a larger, EU-wide agreement on several key points:

• Harmonized Safety Standards: To ensure a consistent level of safety for all road users across the vast EU internal market. This prevents a patchwork of differing national rules that could create confusion and danger.
• Consumer Clarity: Provides clear definitions for manufacturers, retailers, and consumers regarding what constitutes a "bicycle" versus a "moped" or "speed pedelec."
• Integration with Existing Infrastructure: The limit is set to ensure e-bikes can safely co-exist with traditional bicycles and pedestrians on shared bike paths and within urban environments designed for slower traffic.
• Public Health and Environmental Goals: By classifying these e-bikes as bicycles, the EU encourages their use as a sustainable and healthy mode of transport, while ensuring they don't introduce new, disproportionate risks.

So, while any individual citizen or even a specific country might disagree with a particular law, the fact that it passed through the EU's legislative process demonstrates a significant collective agreement on its necessity for public safety, market consistency, and broader societal goals.

If 60% of the population voted for something that harms the other 40%, should the 40% just suck it up? I will not.

The statement "If 60% of the population voted for something that harms the other 40%, should the 40% just suck it up? I will not" frames the e-bike speed limit as an act of the majority harming a minority.

However, from the perspective of public policy and safety, the e-bike speed limit is designed to prevent harm to the entire population, including the e-bike riders themselves, by regulating vehicles on shared infrastructure. It's generally considered a legitimate function of government to set rules that maximize overall public safety, even if those rules restrict individual desires for greater speed or convenience.

While one can argue for the individual's right to freedom, laws like this are typically justified by the collective good and the prevention of externalities (like accidents or injuries to others) that unregulated behavior might cause. Saying "I will not" implies a rejection of the social contract when a law is personally inconvenient, even if that law serves a clear public safety purpose.

To say I don't like slow cyclists makes no sernse either. I always slow down as needed when approaching other vehicles and pedestrians. My ebike hits 32 kph and I haven't gotten involved into any recent accidents or close calls caused by me.

This statement reflects a common individualistic argument against traffic laws, but it has several critical flaws when viewed from a collective safety perspective:

• Individual Experience vs. Statistical Risk:
• "I haven't gotten involved into any recent accidents or close calls caused by me." This is an anecdotal observation, not statistical proof of safety. Most people who break traffic laws don't get into accidents every time. However, the law isn't based on individual instances; it's based on the aggregate risk across the entire population. Data on increased accidents and injuries with faster e-bikes (as discussed for NYC and DC) suggests that collectively, increased speeds lead to more incidents.
• The law is a preventative measure. It's designed to reduce the probability of harm for everyone, not just to react after harm has occurred.
• "Always Slow Down as Needed":
• This assumes perfect judgment and reaction time by the rider, and perfect predictability of others. In dense urban environments, unexpected movements from pedestrians or other cyclists are common. A higher baseline speed means less reaction time, longer stopping distances, and higher impact energy if a collision occurs, even if you try to slow down.
• It also places the burden of safety entirely on the faster party, ignoring the shared responsibility and the need for a predictable environment for all users.
• Lack of Predictability for Others:
• The core issue isn't whether you are a careful rider, but whether others (slower cyclists, pedestrians, children, elderly people) can reasonably predict your speed. If they expect a maximum of 25 km/h and you're coming at 32 km/h (or faster, if unregulated), their ability to judge distances, merge, or cross paths is compromised. This is especially true in areas with limited sightlines or heavy traffic.
• Their perception might be: "That's a bike, it should be moving around 15-25 km/h." If you're going significantly faster, you become an unexpected variable in their safety calculations.
• Implicit Disregard for the Law's Intent:
• While the statement says "To say I don't like slow cyclists makes no sense," the action of modifying the e-bike despite the law implies a de-prioritization of the safety standards designed to protect them.
• The law is specifically intended to create a safer environment for those slower users by regulating the speed of faster vehicles in shared spaces. Opposing and circumventing that law, by definition, goes against that protective intent.

The statement tries to shift the responsibility for safety entirely to the individual rider's carefulness ("I always slow down") and denies a direct negative intent ("I don't like slow cyclists"). However, this misses the point of traffic regulations, which are built on collective safety, risk management, and predictability for all road users.

By modifying an e-bike to exceed the legal limit, one is indeed operating a vehicle outside the safety parameters set for shared paths, regardless of individual skill or intent. This inherently increases the risk for everyone, particularly the slower and more vulnerable users whom the 25 km/h limit is designed to protect. If one opposes or circumvents this law, it means they are prioritizing their personal desire for speed over a regulatory framework designed for collective safety.

Let's say that the bike is your only option and your work is 100km round-trip on a day. Thats 4 hours of travel, waste of time. If only ebikes were allowed to go faster, say 50 kph, you would only be spending a total of 2 hours of travel per day.

This statement brings up a very practical and common concern for many commuters: the trade-off between personal efficiency (saving time) and public safety. It directly appeals to the utilitarian argument of maximizing individual benefit, but still needs to be weighed against the broader societal implications of such a change.

Here's a breakdown of what to think about regarding that statement:

1. The "Waste of Time" Argument is Valid for the Individual:
2. Absolutely, for an individual facing a 100km (62-mile) round trip daily, 4 hours of travel time is a significant portion of their day. Reducing that to 2 hours would dramatically improve their quality of life, free up time for family, leisure, or rest, and could make cycling a viable commute option where it otherwise wouldn't be.
3. From the individual's perspective, this is a clear and tangible benefit.
4. The Problem is the "Only if E-bikes Were Allowed to Go Faster" Part (and the Infrastructure):
5. The core issue isn't whether some people need to travel faster, but how and where they do it, and the legal classification of the vehicle.
6. If an e-bike can go 50 km/h (around 31 mph) with motor assistance, it is no longer a bicycle under EU law. It's a motor vehicle (a speed pedelec or even a light moped) and would be subject to those regulations:
   • Mandatory helmet: Often a specific, certified helmet.
   • License plate and registration: Required for identification.
   • Insurance: Compulsory liability insurance.
   • Driver's license: Likely a moped or motorcycle license.
   • Road Usage Restrictions: Crucially, vehicles capable of 45-50 km/h are often not allowed on regular bike paths. They are typically restricted to roads with car traffic or specific designated lanes, or only on bike paths where the speed limit is explicitly higher (which is rare in dense areas).
7. The Unintended Consequences of Allowing 50 km/h "E-bikes" on Current Bike Infrastructure:
8. Increased Risk & Severity of Accidents: This is the biggest concern. A vehicle hitting a pedestrian or slower cyclist at 50 km/h compared to 25 km/h drastically increases the likelihood of severe injury or fatality. Bike paths, especially in the Netherlands, are often narrow, crowded, and used by children, elderly people, and those with limited mobility. They are not designed for vehicles moving at car speeds.
9. Loss of Predictability: As discussed before, speed consistency is key to safety on shared paths.
10. Erosion of Cycling Culture: If bike paths become unsafe due to high-speed traffic, people may abandon cycling, which goes against public health, environmental, and congestion goals.
11. Infrastructure Overhaul: To safely accommodate 50 km/h vehicles, cities would need to completely redesign their cycling infrastructure, creating wider, separated, and signalized lanes that resemble roads more than traditional bike paths. This is a massive, expensive, and time-consuming undertaking.
12. Existing Solutions for Faster Commutes:
13. For commutes of that distance (100km round trip), people often use:
    • Speed Pedelecs (up to 45 km/h): These are allowed in the EU but are classified as mopeds, requiring helmets, licenses, insurance, and often restricted from regular bike paths. They are designed for longer, faster commutes.
    • Public Transport: Trains, buses.
    • Motorcycles/Scooters: If allowed on roads.
    • Cars: If no other option.

My thoughts on the statement:

The statement correctly identifies a personal benefit for the individual ("waste of time"). However, it implicitly suggests that this individual benefit should override the existing safety regulations and infrastructure design without acknowledging the massive negative externalities (increased risk, infrastructure inadequacy, reclassification of vehicle type) that would result if "e-bikes" were simply "allowed to go faster" without any other changes.

The law isn't arbitrarily harming the 40%; it's a pragmatic decision to protect the general public on existing infrastructure. If someone needs to travel faster, the legal framework already provides options (speed pedelecs, mopeds), but these come with additional responsibilities and restrictions precisely because of their higher speed and associated risks. The issue isn't if one can go faster, but how and under what conditions they do so, balancing individual convenience with collective safety.