Advisors tell minister that attempts to distinguish fat bikes in law is a “futile path”

The Minister of Infrastructure, Barry Madlener, has been advised that distinguishing between fat bikes and other electric bikes is a "futile path.” This advice was given based on conversations with organizations in the sector. Distinguishing features are not unique to fat bikes and are easy to circumvent.

A significant parliament majority supported a motion in September to only have fat bikes for people over 14 years of age and to enforce a helmet requirement.

Madlener predicted at the time that this would become a “cat and mouse” game with manufacturers, and this advice confirms that is the case. "If we introduce a helmet requirement tomorrow for bicycles with a tire thickness of more than 8.0 cm, from the day after tomorrow, only fat bikes with a tire thickness of 7.9 cm will be made."

The advisors could not find any characteristics that can be captured in rules, are unique to fatbikes, are not easy to circumvent, and also reduce safety. For example, the shape of the frame cannot be described in the rules, while a higher weight also applies to other types of bicycles.

In addition, some features, such as wider tires and a lower saddle, may actually make fat bikes safer than other electric bikes. This makes stricter regulations for bikes with these features difficult to legally substantiate.

It is also possible to include a combination of fat bike characteristics in the rules, the advisors wrote. The question then is whether a bike with one of those characteristics is immediately a fat bike or whether a bike only counts as a fat bike if it meets all the characteristics.

In the first case, many other electric bikes will also be considered fat bikes. In the second case, many fat bikes fall outside the category of fat bikes.