Singapore
Mariette Vanderzon
On Mar 17, 2026, at 10:32 AM, Doug Scott <doug...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, in general Singaporeans understand they are not a large enough market to drive a global standard in anything like an e-bike. I think you will find there are an array of qualified e-bikes available from the brands we know to many we do not. In the early 1980’s, Lee Kuan Yew dispatched a couple of Singaporeans to help the Chinese’s set up the early special economic zones that are the giant manufacturing centers of today. I would bet they know where to go for higher quality Chinese sourced goods (or elsewhere).--There is a fixed limit to the number of cars allowed on the island enforced via 10-year Certificate of Entitlement stickers purchased at auction. The market rate for these stickers varies. Ours was about $35k US at a peak, during the financial crisis they dropped to a few hundred bucks.Mass transit is pretty good. An experiment with free driverless shuttle vans has now become a reality in one community.If you happen to be a car guy there, you go across the Straits of Johor into Malaysia for your Italian tune-ups.On Mar 15, 2026, at 9:23 AM, 'Steve Palincsar' via Pedalers <peda...@googlegroups.com> wrote:Reading the book, I see that e-bikes have to meet EN 15194:2017, the European standard for 250W/25 km/h e-bikes. Our Class 1 e-bikes meet this standard, except that the maximum assist speed in the US is raised from 25 km/h to 20 mph.
Performance Limits: Maximum continuous rated power of 250 Watts. Motor assistance must cut off at 25 km/h (15.5 mph).
They also have a maximum unloaded weight limit of 20kg, which is just barely over 44 pounds. That weight limit alone would exclude most inexpensive e-bikes: those typically weight 60 lb or more.
Bottom line: Singapore allows we we would call European spec Class 1 e-bikes. The only difference between their and our version of Class 1 is here we allow assist up to 20 mph rather than 15.5 mph.
On 3/14/26 11:14 PM, Doug Scott wrote:
I was corrected, the upper limit for speed on the bikeways is 25/kmh. The max speed for cars on the island is 80 km/h.
Here is the guide book:--
<preview.png>
On Mar 14, 2026, at 9:28 PM, Doug Scott <doug...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have tried to resist the conversation, restraint failed.
I limit my exposure to area MUTS. I have seen the TT bikes going full out on the W&OD, the fully extended 30’ leashes for dogs, electric mini-bikes and countless pedestrians blissfully unaware across both lanes with their music or podcasts as well as the ones that move left when I call out "on the left." This is not my jam.
Two problems: the intended users of these trails can be boiled down to anything but a car, truck, gasoline motorcycle or bus and no amount of regulation or categorization will make up for enforcement conceptually only in a society so hyper focused on individual rights that putting the dog on a 30’ leash and blazing down off limits paths along the water off Union Street in Old Town instead of staying on the trail which is on Union St. constitute acceptable behavior.
Part of this is mixing bicycles and pedestrians of any form on a common path is unlikely to result in success. Singapore does not mix bikeways and pedestrian paths on their newly created 450+ miles of bikeways. The demarcation in many places is simply color, but they have no enforcement/compliance issues on that island. When we lived there I took my bike out once and parked it assured I would die if I went out again. The Land Transit Authority has another 350 miles in planning, finding the land on that island is mind boggling. The are also redoing residential communities in a “car-lite mode” and one neighborhood is sinking all the bike lanes underground (to avoid the heat) and banning cars. Oh yeah, they have universal health care too.
Singaporeans solved the e-bike issue along simple lines. A qualified e-bike is under 250 watts and limited to 25 mph, on meeting those qualifications the bike gets an orange sticker which clarifies for all the bike can be on the trails. I do not know the assisted mobility device rules. Anything not qualified goes on the road or on mountain bike trails(?).
A friend of my father’s just got his first car. It was a retirement present to himself after leaving his job as head of the Central Bank. Hone of his predecessors is now President. Tharman is Senegalese the smallest official minority on the island, his speeches and beliefs about getting along across Singapore’s many potential cultural divides show a level of commitment to societal values that contrast radically with the 30’ dog leash.
My 0.02
Doug
On Mar 14, 2026, at 11:10 AM, Rodrigo Loureiro <rudy2...@gmail.com> wrote:
We all agree that "simply accepting chaos is absurd." Agreed. But so is 'ban e-bikes'.
Among imperfect solutions, "go back to how things were" ranks among the worst. Rejecting innovation that aids members of our community just because it doesn't personally benefit you isn't pragmatism — it's regression. And a reminder that protecting the status quo has historically come at the cost of those who benefit most from progress and innovation.
Your framing has been consistently one-sided: e-bike users cast as threats to children, grandparents, and bunny rabbits — while Nancy's firsthand account of a conventional cyclist hitting a child goes unaddressed. The problem is behavior and enforcement, not the vehicle.
Following your argument to its logical conclusion and you must also ban regular bikes — the speed differential between a cyclist on a regular bike and a pedestrian is every bit as dangerous to walkers. You'll find no shortage of trail users who would support that position.
E-bikes are a thoughtfully engineered innovation: assist activates only when you pedal, and only up to a defined speed limit. That design constraint is what fundamentally distinguishes them from e-motos — a distinction you continue to ignore. An e-bike does not allow a rider to do something a rider of a bicycle cannot do; they are behaviorally and visually identical on the trail.
Which brings us to your enforcement argument, which is not just flawed — it's demonstrably false. An e-bike and a regular bike are visually indistinguishable at any meaningful distance. You cannot enforce what you cannot identify. An e-moto, by contrast, is immediately recognizable — large, heavy and unmistakable. Reckless behavior is observable regardless of the vehicle; that's what enforcement should target.
Your own argument reveals the deeper flaw: you concede the current rules are unenforceable, then expect a ban to fare better. It won't — it will simply tries to punish responsible users while bad actors continue to ignore the rules, as they always have.
In 1894, Vermont passed a law requiring a "person of mature age" to walk 1/8 of a mile ahead of steam vehicles to warn people.History remembers that law as a ridiculous overreaction to new technology. "Ban the e-bike" rhetoric is the modern equivalent—and it isn't going to age any better
Most importantly, associating all e-bike users with unruly behavior is assigning a presumption of guilt that goes against the foundational principle of this country — and falls hardest on the riders to whom an e-bike is the gateway to start cycling or an assistive tool to enable them to continue enjoying a bicycle.
Rodrigo
On Mar 14, 2026, at 08:51, James Logie <jamie...@gmail.com> wrote:
Virginia's definition of "Electric personal assistive mobility device" describes a Segway or a hoverboard, neither of which is what I would think of I agree, there are problems with Virginia's rules around electric mobility devices, including E-Bikes. The current E-Bike regulations are not enforceable and that is why we have a problem now.
Even if you're going to resort to bans, you've got to have enforcement Whether or not a ban is the 'best' solution, it is enforceable, which the current set of rules is not.
The people who endanger others on the trail are doing it whether or not they're riding e-bikes. This is one of several arguments you're advancing that add up to the same thing: There's no perfect solution, so we should just do nothing.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 5:13 PM Nancy Johnson <waterfo...@gmail.com> wrote:
James,
I am not advocating for cyclists to create a lobbying bloc promoting convenience over safety, etc., etc. I said that the genie is out of the bottle. People using e-bikes aren't going to stop using them unless cops pull them over with the same ubiquitous ruthlessness we are seeing at present in immigration enforcement. The lobbying blocs are already there. I believe that bike clubs will fight the the proscription of e-bikes because 1) most bike clubs are dominated by old people who see the assistive value of e-bikes and 2) wider e-bike use provides additional demand for facilities that riders of conventional bikes want, like bike lanes and protected routes past obstacles like interchanges. The bike industry will fight it because most of the sales growth they've seen in recent years comes from e-bike sales. As most of the non-cycling public would just as soon push us off the road entirely, I don't know that many people would argue that e-bikes should be banned from the trails and use the roads instead.
A No Motorized Vehicle rule on trails that are not designed for motorized use is common sense and can readily accommodate appropriate exceptions for disabled persons using assistive devices. Simply accepting chaos is absurd.(Emphasis mine.) There's the rub. Who is disabled, and what is an assistive device? Looking at the latter first, I will note that Virginia's definition of "Electric personal assistive mobility device" describes a Segway or a hoverboard, neither of which is what I would think of as a device most disabled people would use to get around. A motorized wheelchair seems like an assistive device, but it would be hard for a person to enjoy much of a trail on one of those; they might want to travel faster than a walk, like so many of the other trail users do. If only there were such a thing as an assistive bicycle....
I will argue that Steve and Don are using their bicycles as assistive mobility devices. I have known Steve for about 40 years and used to ride with him quite a lot. While he may have a sharp tongue or keyboard when provoked, he wouldn't hurt anyone; he was never one to push the pace, and he upbraided young upstarts like me when we did so. (This was on the open road, not on trails.) I can say the same thing about the handful of other people I have ridden with. They don't hammer away to go fast; they use the motor assist to extend their range and to stay with riding partners who would otherwise be coasting along and struggling to maintain their balance. Their e-bikes allow them to extend their enjoyment of cycling into their 70's and 80's.
The people who endanger others on the trail are doing it whether or not they're riding e-bikes. I witnessed a cyclist hitting a child of around five years of age on the W&OD last year. He didn't seem to have the sense to recognize that children are just as (or more) unpredictable than dogs, and when the girl suddenly dashed toward another family member a small distance away along the trail, he was going full speed and unready for it. The girl wasn't badly hurt, thank goodness, but the guy wouldn't give any information to the brother in case she needed follow-up medical care. I'd have called the police except the kids were Hispanic, and the police aren't seen as helpful in the current political environment. There have been plenty of other accidents on the W&OD, including a fatality, that resulted from people on conventional bicycles doing stupid stuff. If you want to make the trails safer, we need education and enforcement. Even if you're going to resort to bans, you've got to have enforcement, and failure to conduct ongoing education is just plain stupid.
I am a road cyclist who prefers to avoid trails, although I will take leisurely rides on the W&OD when I'm feeling out of shape or lazy -- or to avoid really unpleasant, possibly dangerous things like crossing Rte. 28 or Lawyers Road in Vienna. When I see children or animals, I slow down and pass at close to a walk unless they are restrained and the parents/owners are aware that I'm passing. I try to leave lots of room any time I pass someone, because I don't want them feeling stressed when they're out enjoying the trail. I don't have an e-bike and don't have any definite plans to get one, but for me, it's an adaptive tool that I may need someday to continue enjoying the activity I enjoy most of all: riding a bicycle.
That's all I have to say on this subject. Have a good weekend.
Nancy Johnson Herndon, VirginiaOn 13/03/2026 08:48, James Logie wrote:
People should use electric vehicles for transportation and recreation -- on roads that are modified to accommodate them and on trails that are designed for that purpose.
A No Motorized Vehicle rule on trails that are not designed for motorized use is common sense and can readily accommodate appropriate exceptions for disabled persons using assistive devices. Simply accepting chaos is absurd.
All of the arguments I've heard around this put the interests of cyclists above the interests of all other users of public multi-use trails. You're argument elevates the interests of the numerous scofflaw moto users to the same level as law abiding cyclists and responsible E-Bike users. That's absurd and profoundly disrespectful of the many other legitimate users of public multi-use trails.
Effectively you're saying that cyclists and moto riding scofflaws should become a lobbying block that promotes our convenience over the safety of others. I will not join that group. We as cyclists should promote the safety of all. Forgotten in your argument are the interests of the many non-cyclist users of public multi-use facilities who, under the conditions that you insist should be acceptable for sake of your own convenience, are now effectively vulnerable users in a space where they have every right to expect to be safe and respected:
Pedestrians -- often family groups including children and older people; People of all ages who choose to use trails as a safe space to ride non-motorized bicycles at a slow pace; Families including very young children on bicycles; Children at play, unaccompanied by adults; Parents and grandparents with infants and toddlers in strollers; People riding horses; People walking dogs (for that matter, wildlife, like squirrel, fox and deer) -- And Bunny Rabbits! I forgot the Bunny Rabbits!
On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 9:50 PM Nancy Johnson <waterfo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sigh. I have tried to stay out of this, but I couldn't sit on my hands
any longer. I see here a binary choice that seems to merit Steve
Palincsar's charge of "simple minded". You seem to be saying that
because we can't control the variety of motorized vehicles -- e-bikes,
hoverboards, electric unicycles, two-wheeled scooters, 3-4 wheeled chair
scooters for disabled people, etc. -- we should prohibit all of them. I
personally feel that the benefit offered for people like Steve Palincsar
and Don Hefferman -- and future me, ten years from now, or possibly
sooner -- is worth the danger presented by irresponsible people. The
behavior on trails is reflective of the larger society, and we have the
same chaos among the theoretically licensed, registered, and insured
drivers on public roads. I see red lights run every day, and driving the
speed limit as I do, I sometimes feel like the Lone Ranger. Almost no
one says we should abolish motor vehicles on the roadways, even though
40,000 people are killed by them every year, but I don't see a lot of
difference between that and the idea of banning e-bikes from trails.
Besides the adaptive recreational aspect of e-bikes, they are
demonstrably reducing congestion and air pollution by providing an
alternative to automobiles, and they help people who cannot afford a car
meet their transportation needs.
It may be a moot point. The genie is out of the bottle. Millions of
people use e-bikes all over the world because they find them to be
economical and practical. Having enjoyed the freedom they have found,
they aren't going back. I suppose you could try to build a constituency
and get legislators to undo all the hard work WABA, VBF, and other
bicycle advocacy groups have put in trying to enact sane, fair laws for
bicyclists, but I am certain that these groups, together with bicycle
manufacturers, will fight you the whole way. I certainly will. It would
be nice to see some creative forward thinking, like funding safety
patrols on busy trails, instead of trying to restore an unworkable past.
Nancy Johnson
Herndon, Virginia
"If you are lucky enough to find a way of life you love,
you have to find the courage to live it." -- John Irving
On 12/03/2026 10:23, James Logie wrote:
> Thoughtlessness is denying that there's a problem and/or accepting the
> idea that a lawless public arena is an unavoidable and acceptable
> state of affairs that cannot be solved. I do not accept that there's
> no alternative to chaos, and innocent persons should be prepared to
> accept the foreseeable consequences. It's better to return to the
> only enforceable rule available: No Motorized Vehicles
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "Pedalers".
To post a message, send email to: peda...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to: pedalers-u...@googlegroups.com
To post a message to the group owner, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers/post?sendowner=1&hl=en
For more options, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pedalers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pedalers+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/f60fe7bd-ceb8-4037-95bc-2ba3cd61cc01%40gmail.com.
--
Jamie Logie
301-356-1308
--
Jamie Logie
301-356-1308--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "Pedalers".
To post a message, send email to: peda...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to: pedalers-u...@googlegroups.com
To post a message to the group owner, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers/post?sendowner=1&hl=en
For more options, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pedalers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pedalers+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/CAMNy0GKnS-Z%3DMz_8Q_MLzqfodtrHY-74e9tKrT-bTwSftBw1OQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "Pedalers".
To post a message, send email to: peda...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to: pedalers-u...@googlegroups.com
To post a message to the group owner, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers/post?sendowner=1&hl=en
For more options, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pedalers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pedalers+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/222C99BE-3C66-4DAD-9BF6-4AC92A52CE31%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "Pedalers".
To post a message, send email to: peda...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to: pedalers-u...@googlegroups.com
To post a message to the group owner, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers/post?sendowner=1&hl=en
For more options, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pedalers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pedalers+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/C216C203-E208-4262-88BA-6B6B717FB062%40gmail.com.
-- Steve Palincsar Alexandria, Virginia USA--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "Pedalers".
To post a message, send email to: peda...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to: pedalers-u...@googlegroups.com
To post a message to the group owner, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers/post?sendowner=1&hl=en
For more options, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pedalers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pedalers+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/a871645b-7060-4fef-9705-271ad7cdbd85%40his.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "Pedalers".
To post a message, send email to: peda...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to: pedalers-u...@googlegroups.com
To post a message to the group owner, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers/post?sendowner=1&hl=en
For more options, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pedalers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pedalers+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/4077590A-00DE-47CB-AD02-BA13E3F54468%40gmail.com.
Doug Scott
Steve Palincsar
The point is, there is a global
standard for this, EN 15194:2017. We
here in the US have upped the maximum speed a bit, but not a
lot. Countries all over the world have shown that bikes that
meet this standard are bicycles, and fit in perfectly
fine with the general mass of unassisted bicycles. Draconian
measures are not required. What is required is to stop
muddling those machines that are electric mopeds and electric
motorcycles in with "bicycles." They're not bicycles, and their
performance is outside the envelope of bicycles.
You can identify those machines that do not meet the standard of "bicycle" at the point of sale. If licenses or insurance are required, the point of sale is the place to make sure those are obtained. It's not difficult to determine if the machines meet the legal standard for "bicycle". 1,000 watts? No. 15,000 watts? Hell no. Can you ride it with a; throttle and not have to pedal? Not a bicycle. Again, at the point of sale. Like a car or a motorcycle.
I’m not so USA centric to accept there is nothing we can learn from outside our immediate surroundings.
And since a visible bicycle was a unicorn when we lived there and now my son reports from his visit of a week ago they are all over, maybe someone has had a win we might learn from?
I'm lost. Is there a reason we should care?
On Mar 17, 2026, at 10:32 AM, Doug Scott <doug...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, in general Singaporeans understand they are not a large enough market to drive a global standard in anything like an e-bike. I think you will find there are an array of qualified e-bikes available from the brands we know to many we do not. In the early 1980’s, Lee Kuan Yew dispatched a couple of Singaporeans to help the Chinese’s set up the early special economic zones that are the giant manufacturing centers of today. I would bet they know where to go for higher quality Chinese sourced goods (or elsewhere).
There is a fixed limit to the number of cars allowed on the island enforced via 10-year Certificate of Entitlement stickers purchased at auction. The market rate for these stickers varies. Ours was about $35k US at a peak, during the financial crisis they dropped to a few hundred bucks.
Mass transit is pretty good. An experiment with free driverless shuttle vans has now become a reality in one community.
If you happen to be a car guy there, you go across the Straits of Johor into Malaysia for your Italian tune-ups.
On Mar 15, 2026, at 9:23 AM, 'Steve Palincsar' via Pedalers <peda...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Reading the book, I see that e-bikes have to meet , the European standard for 250W/25 km/h e-bikes. Our Class 1 e-bikes meet this standard, except that the maximum assist speed in the US is raised from 25 km/h to 20 mph.
