The proposed legislation, HB243/SB382, currently under consideration by the Florida Legislature, includes two problematic provisions threatening cyclist safety in Florida.

Executive Summary
We stand in opposition to two specific provisions within Florida's proposed HB243 and SB382 legislation as currently drafted. While we support evidence-based safety improvements for all road users, these particular requirements fail to address the root causes of cyclist vulnerability and may actually undermine genuine safety progress. This statement focuses on: (1) the oversight of speed differential regulation between cyclists and motor vehicles, and (2) the misguided driver's license requirement for Class 3 e-bike operation.

 
I. THE CRITICAL FAILURE: SPEED DIFFERENTIAL PROTECTION
The Problem

The bills under consideration make no substantive changes to address what transportation safety research consistently identifies as a primary contributor to cyclist injury and death: the dangerous speed differential between motor vehicles and cyclists on shared roadways. In fact, by proposing to cap Class 3 e-bike speeds at 28 mph, the bills actively worsen this critical safety problem.

The evidence is clear. Research from the Federal Highway Administration and academic studies consistently demonstrate that speed differentials between motorized traffic and vulnerable road users represent a critical safety factor. Greater speed differentials between motor vehicles (traveling 35-45 mph on typical Florida streets) and bicycles or e-bikes (traveling 15-28 mph) create conditions where drivers have inadequate time and distance to react, judge safe passing gaps, and avoid collisions. The physics is unforgiving: higher closing speeds result in more severe injuries and fatalities.

Why This Matters
A cyclist struck by a motor vehicle traveling at 40 mph faces exponentially greater injury risk than one struck at a speed closer to 35 mph. Speed differential—not absolute speed—is the dominant variable determining crash severity. When a cyclist travels at speeds closer to general traffic flow, drivers are more likely to perceive them as part of normal traffic rather than obstacles, and the relative speed between vehicles is reduced, improving both reaction time and crash survivability.

Yet HB243 and SB382 arbitrarily cap Class 3 e-bikes at 28 mph, creating a wider speed gap between e-bikes and typical motor vehicle traffic on 35-45 mph roads. Furthermore, the bills propose to "prohibit the tampering with or modification of any electric bicycle to change the motor-powered speed capability or engagement of an electric bicycle"—essentially locking riders into the artificially low speed cap and preventing any adjustment that might bring their e-bikes closer to traffic flow speeds. This regulatory limitation unnecessarily increases the speed differential and thus increases risk. Worse, it does nothing to address the core problem: excessive motor vehicle speeds in areas where cyclists operate.

The Counter-Productive Speed Cap
The proposed 28 mph speed limit for Class 3 e-bikes appears designed to satisfy safety concerns, but it actually undermines genuine cyclist safety by:

Widening speed differential: On roads where traffic flows at 35-40 mph (the norm in Florida), capping e-bikes at 28 mph creates a 7-12 mph differential that is worse than allowing e-bikes to match traffic speeds more closely.
Reducing traffic integration: Cyclists traveling significantly slower than surrounding traffic become more noticeable as "different," increasing driver impatience and risky passing behavior.
Ignoring the actual risk variable: The problem is not that e-bikes are "too fast." The problem is that motor vehicles are traveling too fast in areas where vulnerable road users operate.
The Real Solution
The real safety solution lies in two evidence-based approaches:

Remove the arbitrary 28 mph speed cap on Class 3 e-bikes, allowing them to operate at speeds that match or approximate general traffic flow, thus reducing the speed differential that creates crash severity.
Require motor vehicle speed reduction in areas with significant bicycle and e-bike traffic through lower speed limits, enforcement, and traffic calming measures.
These complementary approaches address the actual problem: the gap between motor vehicle speeds and e-bike speeds. By allowing e-bikes to maintain closer speeds to motor traffic while simultaneously reducing motor vehicle speeds through enforcement and policy, Florida can dramatically reduce both crash likelihood and crash severity.

The Road We Should Take
We advocate for a comprehensive, evidence-based approach:

Lower speed limits on roads with designated bike infrastructure (25 mph or less where appropriate) with traffic calming enforcement
Enforcement of existing 3-foot passing laws with meaningful penalties for violations
Speed reduction technology in high-conflict areas where cyclists and motor vehicles mix
Protected bicycle infrastructure that physically separates cyclists from motor vehicle traffic, eliminating speed differential concerns entirely
Adoption of an Idaho Stop Law (stop-as-yield legislation): Research from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicates that stop-as-yield and red-light-as-stop laws "showed added safety benefits for bicyclists in States where they were evaluated, and may positively affect the environment, traffic, and transportation." After Idaho adopted this law in 1982, bicyclist injuries from traffic crashes declined by 14.5%. In Delaware, a similar law reduced injuries at stop-sign controlled intersections by 23%. Such laws recognize that requiring cyclists to come to complete stops creates unnecessary fatigue, reduces momentum, and actually increases intersection exposure time—a primary risk factor. When bicyclists can maintain safe but precautionary momentum through an intersection, it allows for safer, more continuous traffic flow.
These interventions address the actual problem. The proposed bills do not.

 
II. THE LICENSE REQUIREMENT: A COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BARRIER
The Core Issue
Requiring a valid driver's license to operate a Class 3 e-bike represents a fundamental misclassification that threatens to undermine transportation equity and access while failing to improve safety.

Why This Approach is Flawed
1. Legal and Logical Inconsistency

Florida law has already determined that e-bikes—including Class 3 models—are bicycles, not motorcycles. They operate under 750 watts of motor power with pedal assistance capped at 28 mph. The state's own statutory framework treats these vehicles like bicycles with respect to where they can operate and who can ride them. Suddenly requiring a motor vehicle operator's license contradicts this established classification without any change to the vehicle's mechanics or capabilities.

If a 28 mph Class 3 e-bike is truly dangerous enough to require a driver's license, the logical response is to reclassify it as a motorcycle and regulate it accordingly—complete with registration, insurance, and licensing. But that would eliminate it as an accessible transportation option for thousands of Floridians. The bill attempts to have it both ways, which undermines both safety and access.

2. Equity and Access Barriers

E-bike riders represent a broad demographic: elderly riders with mobility limitations, low-income workers seeking affordable commuting, people with disabilities, and teenagers. Many current e-bike riders deliberately chose this mode of transportation specifically to avoid the expense, complexity, and bureaucratic requirements associated with motor vehicles. A driver's license requirement erects a barrier that:

Excludes people who don't drive and have no driver's license
Creates age discrimination (teens unable to obtain licenses cannot ride Class 3 e-bikes)
Disproportionately affects lower-income communities with less access to licensing infrastructure
Discourages the adoption of active transportation, contradicting public health and climate goals

3. Safety Misalignment

Here's the uncomfortable truth: requiring a driver's license does not improve cyclist safety. Licensing tests measure knowledge of motor vehicle operation—braking distances for cars, highway merging rules, lane positioning for large vehicles. These competencies are largely irrelevant to safe e-bike operation. A cyclist needs to understand bike handling, traffic navigation from a vulnerable road user's perspective, and pedestrian awareness—none of which a standard driver's education curriculum adequately addresses.

If the goal is genuine safety education, the answer is dedicated e-bike safety training, not a motor vehicle license requirement. This is an important distinction.

4. The Precedent Problem

Currently, Florida sensibly treats e-bikes like bicycles—no license, no registration, no insurance required. This approach has not created chaos. It has enabled transportation freedom. Adding a license requirement for one narrow category of vehicle creates administrative confusion and sets a troubling precedent for similar requirements on other mobility devices.

What We Should Do Instead
We support:

Comprehensive e-bike safety education in driver's education programs and public campaigns (as the bills propose for drivers)
Dedicated cyclist education and certification programs voluntary for riders seeking additional safety knowledge
Infrastructure improvements that make e-bike operation inherently safer (protected lanes, reduced traffic speeds)
Age-appropriate minimum riding age standards (if needed) without requiring full driver's licensing
Public education campaigns targeting both motorists and cyclists about sharing the road safely
These approaches address actual safety concerns without erecting barriers to transportation access.

 
III. WHAT THIS REALLY MEANS
These two provisions—the speed differential silence and the license requirement—reveal that the proposed legislation misdiagnoses the problem and proposes solutions that don't fit the diagnosis.

The real threats to cyclist safety are:

Excessive motor vehicle speeds in areas where cyclists operate
Inadequate enforcement of existing cyclist protection laws
Lack of safe infrastructure separating cyclists from traffic
Poor driver awareness of cyclist vulnerability
The proposed bills address none of these. Instead, they create new barriers for cyclists and e-bike riders while leaving the actual threat—dangerous speed differentials and inadequate motorist protections—completely untouched.

 
IV. CONCLUSION
We support evidence-based policies that make cycling and e-biking safer for all Floridians. We oppose well-intentioned but misdirected requirements that:

Fail to address the primary safety issue (speed differentials)
Erect unnecessary barriers to transportation access
Misclassify vehicles according to their actual safety characteristics
Create administrative burden without corresponding safety benefit
We urge Florida lawmakers to return to first principles: identify the actual problem (vulnerable road users encountering fast motor traffic), implement evidence-based solutions (slower speeds, better infrastructure, educated motorists), and maintain the accessibility that has made Florida's e-bike community vibrant and growing.

Safety and access are not opposites. The right approach serves both.