The Electric Bike: A Regulatory Anomaly
Published on November 20, 2025
For about twenty years, the electric bike has gradually established itself in the French urban landscape. Despite numerous public purchase incentives and sustained marketing, its success remains paradoxically mixed. This situation deserves questioning about the real relevance of this mode of transport and the regulatory inconsistencies surrounding it.
Following my previous article on bikes where I exposed the limits of traditional bikes despite my daily use for 10 years, it seems relevant to analyze this electric variant that claims to solve some of these problems.
The stated objective: reconciling speed and comfort
The electric bike responds to a legitimate need: to move faster than on a traditional bike while limiting physical effort. This promise is particularly appealing for home-to-work commutes, where one wants to minimize transport time without arriving sweaty at the office.
Regulations strictly frame this assistance: it must stop from 25 km/h and can only function if the user pedals. Without this last condition, the vehicle would legally be considered a scooter.
The physical reality: a disguised scooter
However, this obligation to pedal is more about legal formalism than energetic reality. An electric bike is a heavy machine, and when it travels at more than 20 km/h — which represents 90% of its use — about 95% of the necessary energy comes from the battery, not from the cyclist's legs.
This situation creates an aberration: why bother with a pedal system, a chain and all the associated mechanical equipment if human input is marginal? Why accept getting your legs wet in rainy weather and sweating unnecessarily for an effort that only contributes 5% of the propulsion?
The electric bike thus combines the disadvantages of the traditional bike (residual physical effort, exposure to bad weather, vulnerability to punctures) without retaining the main advantages (mechanical simplicity, lightness, real physical exercise).
The logical alternative: the electric scooter
In this logic, the electric scooter appears as a much more coherent solution. It offers the same advantages as the electric bike — electric motorization, removable battery for apartment charging — without the artificial constraints. Its speed limited to 45 km/h makes it more efficient for urban travel, while better protecting the user from bad weather.
Although slightly more expensive than an electric bike, the price difference remains reasonable given the additional advantages provided, which makes the persistence of the latter in the market all the more inexplicable.
So why does the electric scooter struggle to establish itself against the electric bike? Several factors explain this paradoxical situation:
- Social image : the bike benefits from a "green" and sporty image, while the scooter still drags a reputation as a polluting vehicle (even in electric version)
- Public aids : massive subsidies for electric bike purchases distort competition
- Infrastructure : bike lanes are forbidden to scooters, even electric ones
- Regulations : the electric scooter requires an AM license (ex-BSR) and insurance, unlike the electric bike
The case of electric scooters: when logic prevails
The meteoric rise of electric scooters perfectly illustrates what a product really adapted to its use can achieve. Cheaper, less bulky, easily stored under a desk, they conquered urban users without needing public subsidies.
Their success was even such that most cities had to ban free-floating rental services, overwhelmed by their popularity. This demonstrates that a truly relevant product doesn't need financial incentives to find its market.
A relevant niche: seniors
There is nevertheless a segment where the electric bike finds its justification: that of retirees and active seniors. For this population, electric assistance allows extending cycling practice while maintaining moderate physical activity. It also opens the possibility of making long trips and beautiful rides, something that would be impossible for a retiree who had never practiced cycling intensively before. The pedaling effort, even reduced, retains its relevance here in a fitness maintenance logic.
Conclusion: rethinking electric mobility
The electric bike, in its current regulatory form, appears as a lame compromise between legal requirements and real mobility needs. Its artificial success, supported by massive public aids, poorly masks its intrinsic contradictions.
A coherent mobility policy should more encourage solutions really adapted to urban needs: electric scooters for medium trips, scooters for short distances, and electric bikes for uses where physical exercise remains an objective in itself.
It's time to move beyond dogmas and obsolete regulatory classifications to serenely rethink 21st-century urban electric mobility.