“A rigid, one-size-fits-all power limit risks excluding riders who benefit most from additional assistance,” the company said.
The statement arrives as debate continues across the bike industry over rising motor outputs and whether increasingly powerful electric mountain bikes could attract greater regulatory scrutiny.
The last sentence precisely nails the issue: contrary to the headline, there is a very real threat to the industry, which would be realized if regulators decide to act due to public backlash. It is incredibly tone-deaf to ignore the very real problems that high power limits are directly responsible for, due to lax regulation thus far.
In the USA, we need only look to comic books in the mid 20th Century as an example. There was a point where comic books pushed against the edge of moral decency – even when a robust First Amendment should have meant that the government could not regulate such publications. And yet, due to a spate of comics that caused public furore, publishers realized that if they didn’t do something to reign in risque comics, the government would step in and force regulations upon them. Hence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority
Related to this is what happens when an industry publicly thumbs its nose against the already enacted regulatory structure. It is, somewhat understandably, viewed poorly by the regulators, painting their conduct as bad faith. Even if it’s “just business”, it’s still an incredibly bad look. A finding of bad faith will poison any future advocacy in good faith, and burning political capital like this is ill advised.
I do agree with the technical merits of their argument, that power that is moderated by a capable rider is not an additional risk. And that electric mobility enables people who could never have ridden before. But the minuses cannot be so blaisely ignored, in the carte blanche name of innovation. For all their harm reduction benefits, vaping still has public hazards that, while much reduced from smoking cigarettes, must be addressed. In all other industries, such a convenient line of reasoning is correctly viewed as self-serving. Ref: Uber.
Can a manufacturer point out that underskilled riders are a major issue? Absolutely, and they should. Can a manufacturer work with regulators to get ahead of pending rules, to minimize disruption to supply chains during the compliance window? Yes, very much so. But issuing a press release that basically says “the public and regulators don’t understand us” is just raw, negative value.
The last sentence precisely nails the issue: contrary to the headline, there is a very real threat to the industry, which would be realized if regulators decide to act due to public backlash. It is incredibly tone-deaf to ignore the very real problems that high power limits are directly responsible for, due to lax regulation thus far.
In the USA, we need only look to comic books in the mid 20th Century as an example. There was a point where comic books pushed against the edge of moral decency – even when a robust First Amendment should have meant that the government could not regulate such publications. And yet, due to a spate of comics that caused public furore, publishers realized that if they didn’t do something to reign in risque comics, the government would step in and force regulations upon them. Hence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority
Related to this is what happens when an industry publicly thumbs its nose against the already enacted regulatory structure. It is, somewhat understandably, viewed poorly by the regulators, painting their conduct as bad faith. Even if it’s “just business”, it’s still an incredibly bad look. A finding of bad faith will poison any future advocacy in good faith, and burning political capital like this is ill advised.
I do agree with the technical merits of their argument, that power that is moderated by a capable rider is not an additional risk. And that electric mobility enables people who could never have ridden before. But the minuses cannot be so blaisely ignored, in the carte blanche name of innovation. For all their harm reduction benefits, vaping still has public hazards that, while much reduced from smoking cigarettes, must be addressed. In all other industries, such a convenient line of reasoning is correctly viewed as self-serving. Ref: Uber.
Can a manufacturer point out that underskilled riders are a major issue? Absolutely, and they should. Can a manufacturer work with regulators to get ahead of pending rules, to minimize disruption to supply chains during the compliance window? Yes, very much so. But issuing a press release that basically says “the public and regulators don’t understand us” is just raw, negative value.