And shown on the picture is yet another pseudo electric motorcycle abomination of a fat bike instead of an actual average ebike to make the argument look sane.

The only reason this would ever be necessary is because ebikes (and bikes) have to interact with cars in dangerous spaces. Instead of punishing people who are reducing traffic by cycling, they should be building safer spaces to do so.

Meanwhile, like every other US state New Jersey has made absolutely zero effort to include these inevitable vehicles in any road or transportation planning whatsoever, guaranteeing that every time one is used it's either getting in the way of a driver or bringing a motor into an otherwise non-motorized space. Thereby generating legislation that ensures the "maximum pain" period of increasing adopting with zero infrastructure support lasts as long as possible.

related ☞ Amsterdam prepares to ‘ban the fatbikes’ amid rise in serious accidents
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/25/amsterdam-prepares-to-ban-the-fatbikes-amid-rise-in-serious-accidents

If advocates are clever, this could be used against cars. One thing that I think prevents adoption of utility ebikes in areas they are most useful (relatively population dense areas) is that many people who might otherwise be interested in them do not have anywhere to park them.

Think of someone in an apartment or townhouse that relies on street parking. They might have a bike rack, or maybe they can carry a regular bicycle inside, but there often isnt space for something like a bakfiets that could absolutely replace a car.

If you decide to regulate them like cars, why shouldn't people take up car parking spaces with them?

Literally none of this would be necessary if the US didn't treat its speed limits like a loose suggestion.

Way to fuck it up. Well done idiots.