When there is an e-bike crash involving the harm or death of an underage person, a familiar pattern occurs from established bicycle “advocacy” organizations: first, a call for punishment for the offending car driver, and then, “Parents, ensure your children are safe. Sign your children up for bike safetly lessons and always wear a helmet.” The statement appears to be a reasonable concern until you examine the context behind it. Many of these groups have close working relationships with industry lobbyists, and their primary activities often focus on protecting manufacturers from liability, maximizing bike sales, and securing protections for road cyclists and the tech companies employing delivery drivers. This seems to guide much of their function.

Recognizing this offers a different perspective on their immediate press releases on “education.” These are, at times, strategic communications from organizations whose funding and influence may depend on sustaining prevailing narratives within the bike-lobby community.

Their push for personal responsibility does not truly protect children. If that were the aim, they would prioritize safer infrastructure and stronger corporate oversight, not post-incident analysis benefiting the hundreds of personal injury attorneys who sponsor top cycling orgs and advocacy groups.

In addition, most of these crashes involve vehicles that are not bicycles. An e-bike is a bicycle equipped with an electric motor that assists only when pedaling. It does not exceed 20 miles per hour. It does not have a throttle. Despite this, vehicles classified in the U.S. as Class 3 are viewed as e-bikes, vehicles with throttles and that go over 20 mph. They are effectively mopeds masquerading as bikes, and U.S. advocates help perpetuate this confusion. In Europe, such devices would never be tolerated under the label of “e-bike,” but here, the misleading classification is aggressively marketed.

The onus must shift from the rider to the distributor and the manufacturer. Funders be damned.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with education. What is wrong is deploying it as a narrative shield for corporations, a substitute for accountability. This is more than unethical, it is a form of amorality.

To promote “education,” to evade regulation, and to literally lie to the public by employing a strategy proven to kill people and sour the public toward utility cycling is quite frankly, diabolical. To do this on the backs of children is reprehensible. I am exhausted of advocacy that uses the graves of the young to guard the fortunes of the wealthy and the social capital of the sycophant.