> he posits that bikes traveling 20-30mph will tempt riders to try and join traffic. who wants to tell him that that’s how fast human-powered bikes already go?

Maintaining 20-30 mph on even land takes enough effort, except perhaps on a road bike, that I doubt most commuters or utility cyclists regularly ride at those speeds for length, let alone in urban environments. A fit road cyclist will probably reach those speeds, of course, but I don't think that's what the author contrasted e-bikes with.

The article does seem perhaps a bit weird and the title is clickbaity but I can see how an e-bike at those speeds could be a bit of an inbetweener.

It's probably worth noting that if there's anything the article is probably quite right about, it's the relatively ambiguity of the entire concept of the e-bike. In many jurisdictions at least in Europe, e-bikes are legally limited in terms of powered speed (25 km/h where I live -- you can ride faster but the motor can't give power beyond that). In some jurisdictions they don't seem to be legally limited at all. There's a big difference between a bike that runs at normal commuter/utility bicycle speeds but helps you do that and what is essentially an electric moped.

> Maintaining 20-30 mph on even land takes enough effort, except perhaps on a road bike

Averaging 20 mph over non trivial distances puts you in elite territory. Most people can't sustain that, even experienced cyclists. Wind and climbing eats into sustainable speed even more.

> Averaging 20 mph over non trivial distances puts you in elite territory. Most people can't sustain that, even experienced cyclists.

Probably. I've never owned a road bike so I was leaving room for the possibility that I don't know everything. (I have ridden thousands of kilometres per year in most of the last ~15 years, mostly urban or suburban, and I have considered myself fairly fit for most of those years. But who am I to tell what other people reach on lighter equipment?)

It's not that e-bikes are legally limited in EU to be <25 km/h, but instead there's a different category (requiring registration) for those going above.

Whether those in the higher category are e-bikes is a matter of definitions, not legality.

You're technically correct, but I think one major advantage of ebikes vs motorcycles is that you don't need to deal with all the equipment.

In Europe, this means you need at least a helmet and approved gloves when riding the faster bikes. They're legally considered a form of "motorcycle", so have the requirements: license + registration + insurance. Although, in practice, for smaller bikes, basically everyone already has the license.

Well, yes. But the category that allows for higher powered speeds effectively makes them motorized vehicles akin to mopeds, removing ambiguity regarding their status or place in traffic. Motorized vehicles generally aren't allowed on bicycle paths.

That is, again, at least where I live. Last time I took a glance, I got the impression there wasn't EU-wide consistent regulation on that.

Yep! The only information contained in this terrible article is not about bicycles, it’s about the author. He has toxic friends and a fragile self image.

Wait, what's wrong with joining regular traffic?

I join traffic (on single carriageways up to 60mph), as does my 6yo daughter, accompanied. If we didn't, we'd never get anywhere.

This idea that roads are for cars has to die. The guidance here in the UK has recently been adjusted to emphasise that you're responsible for the safety of vulnerable road users around you, but that's long been the letter of the law. Educating people (and police) to follow that law is still catching up.