Queensland has accepted all recommendations from its parliamentary e-mobility inquiry, which proposed that any non-compliant e-mobility device exceeding 25km/h be reclassified as a motorcycle or moped, with the inquiry making 28 recommendations to reduce harm from e-mobility devices. What emerges from this response is worth examining closely, because it represents a classic case of policy overreach in pursuit of legitimate safety concerns.
The underlying problem is real enough. From 2021 to 2024, there was a 112 per cent rise in injuries to riders, passengers and pedestrians in Queensland. The inquiry was ordered following several months of devastating incidents including 12 deaths, some involving children. That horror justifies action.
But here is where the analysis gets complicated. The inquiry recommends e-bikes and personal mobility devices can only be ridden by those aged 16 and older, with all users required to hold at least a Queensland Class C learner's licence. That would make Queensland one of only two jurisdictions globally with such a requirement, and it creates a problem that policymakers may not have fully grasped.
Such a requirement would have sweeping unintended consequences across Queensland's transport, tourism and delivery sectors, and international tourists wouldn't be able to hire an e-bike anywhere in Queensland, including during the Olympics. Queensland hosts more than 2 million international visitors annually, and Brisbane is expected to welcome more than 100,000 international visitors during the 2032 Olympic Games.
The inquiry has also flagged a proposed 10km/h speed limit for footpaths, which would have unintended consequences on most of the shared path network, including long-distance rural rail-trails and commuter bikeways, and would kill off key tourism and recreational riding in regions.
There is a genuine tension here worth acknowledging. Bicycle Queensland argues that linking e-bike usage to driver licences makes little sense, as that system is designed to show you're safe to drive cars but doesn't equip people to ride e-bikes. The criticism has merit. Test questions focus on motor vehicle laws, not rules specific to cycling or e-mobility.
Yet the inquiry's diagnosis of the actual problem differs. The safety crisis involves children being killed while riding electric motorbikes, with the majority of these devices not meeting Australia's legal pedal-assist standards. The distinction matters. A legal e-bike, limited to 250 watts and 25km/h with pedal-assist, represents a fundamentally different risk profile than high-powered throttle-only devices.
Queensland's food delivery services, which rely heavily on e-bikes and e-scooters and employ many international students, would face higher prices, increased delivery times, or potential closure in some areas. Queensland has whole suburbs where around 30% of households do not have anyone with a licence, and that's exactly where safe, legal e-bikes provide a vital transport solution.
The government still has time to refine these recommendations. The government has three months to respond to the report recommendations, after which its response will be published. The case for stricter enforcement against illegal high-powered devices is strong. The case for penalising legal, low-speed bicycles by requiring a driving licence is considerably weaker.
Strip away the rhetoric and the simple question emerges: should Queensland prohibit millions of legal, safe users from riding compliant bicycles to solve a problem created by illegal devices? The answer appears obvious once you separate the two categories. Enforcement of existing law against illegal e-motorbikes would address the safety crisis without the collateral damage.