An Once of Prevention: Licencing electrified bicycles.
From "What laws would you like to see modernized, reformed or introduced for the benefit of Bermuda?"
Go to the project
The best way to avoid the stifling effect of bad legislation is to not pass it in the first place. A perfect case in point is the terrible suggestion fromn the BRSC to require all electric-assist bicycles (and, one assumes, scooters (not vespas), electric skateboards, future segway-style people-movers, etc) to be licenced and insured as if they were 'Auxiliary Cycles'. The future will hopefully see such vehicles being used more and more; they will eventually begin to be attractive for commuter and errand running and will be reducing SUV, Card and cycle traffic. This is all good. The same person who hesitates to pedal from Devonshire or Smiths to Hamilton to arrive sweaty for a day at work (remember the good old days !) may well be attracted if his assisted cycle turns a workout into an enjoyable ride and he arrives relaxed.
To be clear, I am not talking about the full-on electric versions of what would otherwise be called motor-cycles or dirt bikes or vespa-type scooters. I am referring to pedal-able cycles that are pretty clearly of a style and construction normally seen in Bicycles which are fitted with small (typically under 1 Kw max power) motors.
A host of local opportunities will come as these evolve from what are now mostly early concepts to mass produced, inexpensive vehicles. Jobs in selling and fixing these bicycles. Leasing and renting them to both locals and visitors (The Railway Trail would be a far more attractive experience by asssited cycle or segway-type mover than when walking - particularly in the heat), the list is long. Visitors to St.George would have access to all of Ferry Reach and St.Davids in a way that is simply not available now. The cost and the inconvenience of Licensing will certainly suffocate all that.
As for insurance; . . . . . Really !!!!. With the sizes, weights and speeds of the vehicles we all have to put up with on the roads today to take the position that the riders of assisted-cycles contribute to the risk and should therefore pay into the pool is arrant nonsense. That logic would suggest that unassisted cycle riders, skaters, runners, joggers, walkers and just plain pedestrians should all be required to be insured before they use our roads as well.
Government should "just say no" to this ridiculous over-exercising of the natural bureaucratic urge to expand authority to fill the available space.
