Queensland e-bike recommendations raise national questions

Pedal Power ACT | 25 March 2026

The Queensland Government has accepted all 28 recommendations from its parliamentary inquiry into e-mobility, signalling a potential shift in how e-bikes and similar devices are regulated in Australia.

The recommendations cover a broad suite of measures, including possible licensing requirements, minimum rider age limits, speed restrictions, stronger enforcement powers, and tighter controls on the import and sale of devices.

While these changes are not currently being considered in the ACT, they warrant close attention. If implemented, they could establish a precedent for other jurisdictions.

The solution doesn’t match the problem

The inquiry has been framed around improving safety. However, as highlighted by We Ride Australia, the primary safety concern is not compliant e-bikes.

Legal pedelecs are pedal-assisted bicycles. They require active pedalling, operate within typical cycling speeds, and have a risk profile broadly comparable to conventional bikes.

The real issue lies with higher-powered, non-compliant devices that can operate at much higher speeds with little or no rider input.

By failing to clearly distinguish between these categories, the recommendations risk targeting low-risk, everyday riders while failing to adequately address the devices that present the greatest safety concern.

Licensing would be a step backwards

Among the most significant proposals is the introduction of licensing requirements for e-bike riders.

Cycling has always been an accessible, unlicensed form of transport. Extending licensing to pedalecs would represent a major policy shift, and one that is not supported by evidence.

For many people, e-bikes are as safe as pushbikes without any measurable increase in risk . They enable older riders to continue cycling, support people returning to riding after injury or illness, and provide a low-cost alternative to driving or public transport.

Tying e-bike use to holding a driver’s licence risks excluding those who rely on cycling the most. This includes people without access to a car, those who cannot drive, and  Australians who have chosen to give up driving but still depend on cycling to remain mobile and independent.

Young people risk being shut out

The recommendations also consider age restrictions, including limiting e-bike use to riders aged 16 and over.

Bicycles have long been a first step toward independent mobility for young people, a role that has been widely accepted and embedded across societies worldwide. From school commutes to social travel, youth cycling has long been tolerated and supported as part of growing independence.

Introducing blanket age limits for e-bikes risks overlooking this well-established role. Where a rider is using a compliant pedelec, the risk profile remains broadly comparable to that of a standard bicycle. If speeds or behaviour fall outside those expectations, the issue is more likely to lie with the device rather than the rider.

Restricting access based on age, while drawing a distinction between pushbikes and pedelecs, risks limiting independence without addressing the underlying safety concerns.

Blanket speed limits miss how infrastructure works

The proposal to introduce blanket speed limits as low as 10 km/h on footpaths and shared paths reflects a one size fits all approach. Path users do not have speedometers, and people travelling actively tend to move at speeds where they can safely respond to changing conditions and stop if a hazard emerges.

Shared paths serve different functions. Some operate as high pedestrian environments where slower speeds are appropriate. Others function as key commuter routes, designed to support continuous, efficient cycling in a safe and predictable setting.

Applying a universal 10 km/h limit across all settings fails to reflect this variation. It risks reducing cycling to a pace that is no longer practical for everyday travel, particularly for commuting. [1]

Blanket speed limits are also widely recognised as ineffective risk controls. Evidence consistently shows that safe speeds are best achieved through context, design and user awareness rather than rigid, unenforceable limits. Guidance from Austroads, as well as input from transport authorities including Queensland’s Department of Transport and Main Roads, highlights the importance of aligning speed expectations with infrastructure type and surrounding activity levels.

A more effective approach would be context-sensitive, with speed expectations shaped by the environment, supported by clear design cues and targeted education.

A broad regulatory approach risks unintended consequences

Taken together, the 28 recommendations point towards a more restrictive regulatory framework. They include stronger enforcement powers, clearer device classification, and tighter controls on imports and retail standards.

Many of these measures are important and necessary. However, without clear distinctions between compliant and non-compliant devices, regulation likely will be misdirected.

This could result in low-risk, compliant e-bikes being captured by rules intended to address much higher-risk devices.

A more targeted approach

If the goal is to improve safety outcomes, more targeted measures are available. These include:

• enforcing existing rules

• distinguishing clearly between compliant and non-compliant devices by educating regulators and the public

• strengthening import and sales standards

• investing in safe infrastructure and education

Such approaches focus on higher-risk behaviours and devices, rather than placing broad restrictions on everyone.

A national conversation

While the Queensland proposals are not currently being applied in the ACT, their implications extend beyond one state. Decisions like these shape broader national conversations about transport, access and safety.

As governments respond to rising cost-of-living pressures and changing transport patterns, e-bikes are increasingly recognised as a practical and affordable alternative to driving. Australia will benefit by learning from countries where pedelecs are successful.

Ensuring that regulation remains proportionate and evidence-based will be critical to improving safety without limiting access to cycling.

[1]‍ ‍Austroads (2020), Integrating Safe System with Movement and Place for Vulnerable Road Users, Publication no. AP-R611-20, ISBN 978-1-925854-71-8. Available via Austroads (free download with login)