中文版 (Chinese version):“「電動輔助單車」不可踩馬路”

What is an “electric assisted bicycle”? What is the difference between these and ordinary bicycles?

Electric-assisted bicycles, as the name suggests, are bicycles that are mainly human-powered and supplemented by electricity. The way to move forward is to pedal with both feet. When the speed reaches 25 kph or above, the electric motor will cut out. Above 25 kph, such machines are entirely dependent on human power.

This offers the following advantages:

1. Better strength when going uphill, which helps to overcome gradients.

2. The same human energy output can support longer distances.

3. Saves effort, helps overcome the weight of freight, and helps Hong Kong commuters avoid the problem of arriving sweaty at their workplace.

4. Allows people of lower physical strength, or with slight disabilities or injuries to use bicycles.

In terms of driving speed, university research[1] shows the speed of ordinary people using electric-assisted bicycles is similar to that of ordinary bicycles, and some researchers [2] have found that using electric-assisted bicycles can also achieve the same amount of exercise as using ordinary bicycles.

What is the difference between “electric-assisted bicycle” and “electric bicycle”?

“Electric-assisted bicycle” refers to a bicycle (or tricycle) equipped with an auxiliary electric motor that operates only in support of human pedal power. It will only provide motor assistance when the user is pedalling. When a certain speed (generally 25 kph) is reached, the motor assistance stops.

“Electric bicycles” on the other hand refer to fully electric-powered bicycles, which do not necessarily have pedals (and are controlled by a throttle, like a motorbike). The speed and horsepower are often higher than for electric-assisted bicycles. In the laws of various countries, there are usually different regulations for “electric-assisted bicycles” and “electric bicycles”.

In Hong Kong, more and more people use electric scooters and electric-assisted bicycles, and the public and the Legislative Council are increasingly calling for the development and regulation of this area. It is hoped that Hong Kong can catch up with the world.

Recent developments in Hong Kong include the Government’s briefing on the results of the review on the use of electric mobility devices in Hong Kong, at the meeting of the Legislative Council Committee on Transport held on 19 June 2020, and the introduction of a regulatory system.

The Transport Department (TD) is currently planning to amend legislation to allow electric mobility devices (such as electric scooters, electric-assisted bicycles, etc.) to be used on the cycling track (only), and is seeking communication with the industry. On 14 October 2020, Hong Kong Cycling Alliance attended a meeting to exchange views between TD and invited cycling groups.

The discussion paper submitted by the TD to the Legislative Council and organizations mentioned that “electric mobility devices” will be divided into three categories:

(i) PMD, or Personal Mobility Device: common examples are electric scooters, two-wheeled electric scooters and electric unicycles; electric bicycles that do not need to be pedalled but are powered at high speed will also be classified as a PMD.

(ii) PAPC, Power Assisted Pedal Cycles: electric-assisted bicycles or tricycles equipped with an auxiliary electric motor and driven only in assisted pedalling mode to support pedalling force. Provide power but when reaching a certain speed, such as 25 kph, power assistance will stop.

(iii) “Electric personal mobility aids” PMA, Motorised Personal Mobility Aids (common examples are electric wheelchairs).

The Hong Kong Cycling Alliance has long striven to promote a welcoming environment for cycling in Hong Kong. Among the various “electric mobility devices” mentioned above, the Alliance is particularly concerned about the regulatory plan for electric-assisted bicycles.

This paper will not discuss “electric bicycles”, “electric scooters” or “electric wheelchairs”, the speed and horsepower of which may be greater than for electric-assisted bicycles..

Regulatory recommendations and discussion of the Transport Department

TD stated in the “Administration’s paper on review of the use of electric mobility devices in Hong Kong” (LegCo Document No. CB(4)698/19-20(02), hereinafter referred to as the “Paper”), that the government had reviewed the practices and regulations of 12 jurisdictions/cities, namely:

  1. Shanghai;
  2. Singapore;
  3. Tokyo;
  4. Seoul;
  5. Queensland (state), Australia;
  6. Victoria (state). Australia;
  7. the United Kingdom
  8. Germany;
  9. France;
  10. Barcelona;
  11. Washington DC; and
  12. New York State;

and used this review as a reference to formulate Hong Kong’s regulatory approach.

Regarding the circumstances in which the use of electric-assisted bicycles on the carriageway is permitted, the paper states:

“All jurisdictions/cities studied allow the use of electric assisted bicycles on the carriageway (if there is a dedicated bicycle lane on the carriageway, the electric assisted bicycle must use a dedicated bicycle lane)” (Paper page 3).

Since all 12 regions/cities allow the use of electric assisted bicycles on the carriageway, it is strange that TD recommends that electric-assisted bicycles should not be allowed on the carriageway.

TD’s reasoning, echoing its long-held opposition to cycling in the urban areas, is “We have carefully considered the local road conditions. The current road infrastructure design is centred on automobiles, and there is no dedicated cycle line. In fact, even in a non-central commercial area, Hong Kong is crowded with people and vehicles. Many roadside activities are also very frequent, so we recommend…electric assisted bicycles should not be allowed to be used on the carriageway.” (Paper, page 4).

Looking at many foreign examples, the usual practice is to basically treat “electric-assisted bicycles” (that is, they provide motive assistance only when pedalled, with motor assistance cutting out at around 25 kph) as a regular bicycles, because as long as the electric power is limited to a certain low level in terms of technical specifications, the actual performance of this “electric assisted bicycle” is very close to that of a normal bicycle [1], so it is suitable to be classified as a general bicycle.

This concept is applied in the European Union, the United Kingdom, North America, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, and even China, and other advanced cycling countries. It is also feasible in the practical experience of various countries.

Ask the Transport Department why can electric assisted bicycle not use the road?

So why is TD still choosing to go against the trend of the world’s advanced laws and regulations, insisting to exclude electric-assisted bicycles from the roads and only recommend pedalling on the bicycle track?

The rationale given by TD is still the old-fashioned argument, that is, “there is no bicycle lane on the road”, “there are more people and more cars in the city”, etc.

And this so-called “reason” has been said for more than 20 years, right?

During this period, cities such as London and New York, which once had these same attitudes of “there is no bicycle lane on the road” and “there are many people and many cars”, have turned into bicycle-friendly cities!

In 2020, Hong Kong is still discussing how to prohibit electric-assisted bicycles from appearing on roads in the city!

The question in front of us is why ordinary bicycles can travel on the road, but 25kph electric-assisted bicycles can’t?

In the exchange meeting between TD and the cycling group, one of the reasons given by the TD was that electric assisted bicycles were not safe on the road. Then why is it that electric-assisted bicycles are less safe on the road than ordinary bicycles? Is it safer to ride on the cycling track only? If safety is a consideration, in theory, electric-assisted bicycles on the road should be safer than ordinary bicycles, because they should be safer if the speeds on the same road are similar to traffic (the average speed of traffic in Hong Kong is about 20 kph)

We think the authorities only need to refer to the European Union to regulate the technical specifications of electric-assisted bicycles, and treat electric-assisted bicycles as ordinary bicycles. It is the most reasonable approach to allow electric-assisted bicycles to use roads and cycle tracks.

On the contrary, the government has inspected 12 countries/regions/cities in the world and found that all of them have unanimously approved the use of electric assisted bicycles on the roads, yet our government still restricts the use of electric-assisted bicycles on the road.

To limit their use to cycling tracks, the authorities must provide very strong justifications to prove that electric-assisted bicycles are less suitable for use on the road than ordinary bicycles. Does the Transport Department have such a rationale? Otherwise, banning the use of electric bicycles on the road appears illogical and contrary to common sense. It only continues the unreasonable policies of TD which are blindly unfriendly to bicycles.

The following table: Regulations on the use of electric assisted bicycles on roads, cycle tracks and footpaths in various jurisdictions.
(In all locations, a driving licence is not required to ride an electric assisted bicycle on a road or a bicycle track.)

City/countryOn the roadOn the bicycle trackOn the pavement
ShanghaiYes (if there are no special lanes, keep to the right of the road)YesNo
TokyoYesYesYes (under 13 years old or over 70, speed limit 10 kph
SeoulYesYesYes (from 2018), children, elderly and disabled
QueenslandYesYesYes (pedestrian priority)
VictoriaYesYesYes (people under 13 or disabled)
GermanyYesYesYes (under 10 years old)
FranceYesYesYes (under 8 years old)
Washington DCYesYesYes (except for city centre)
New York StateYesYesNo
Regulations on the use of electric-assisted bicycles on roads, cycle tracks and footpaths in various jurisdictions.

[1] A comparative health and safety analysis of electric-assist and regular bicycles in an on-campus bicycle sharing system. regular bicycles in an on-campus bicycle sharing system.


[2] Physical activity of electric bicycle users compared to conventional bicycle users and non-cyclists: Insights based on health and transport data from an online survey in seven European cities




1. 上斜時更好力,有助於克服斜坡;

2. 同一出力可踩更持久更長距離,有助於克服長途旅程;

3. 省力,有助於克服貨運負重及減輕勞動,有利於香港夏季通勤減少出汗後要上班的問題;

4. 讓體力稍為遜色人士及腳患康復者也能使用單車。






(i) 「電動個人移動工具」PMD, Motorised Personal Mobility Device(常見例子有電動滑板車、兩輪電動踏板車和電動單輪車);不用踩踏而有動力高速前進的電動單車也會被歸類於此為「電動個人移動工具」;


(ii) 「電動輔助單車」PAPC, Power Assisted Pedal Cycles(裝設一個輔助電動馬達及只以輔助腳踏模式驅動以減輕腳踏用力的電動輔助單車或三輪車。只會在使用者踏腳踏時提供機動輔助,當達至某一速度例如每小時25公里便會中斷機動輔助。);

(iii) 「電動個人移動輔助工具」 PMA, Motorised Personal Mobility Aids(常見例子為電動輪椅)



運輸署在提交立法會的「政府當局就檢討電動可移動工具在香港的使用提供的文件」(立法會CB(4)698/19-20(02)號文件,下稱「文件」)中表示曾檢視了12個司法管轄區/城市的做法和規管方式,包括 (1)上海、(2)新加坡、(3)東京、(4)首爾、(5)澳洲的昆士蘭州和(6)維多利亞州、(7)英國、(8)德國、(9)法國、(10)巴塞羅那,以及(11)美國首都華盛頓和(12)紐約州,並以此為參考製定香港的規管方式。







那為什麼運輸署仍然選擇逆世界先進法規之風而行,硬要把電動輔助單車排除於一般單車可以使用之路面(馬路)之外而只建議可於單車徑踩踏呢?運輸署所給的理據仍然是那套老掉牙的論述,就是「馬路並無單車線」巿區「人多車多」等,而這所謂「理由」已經講了超過廿年吧?這期間那些曾經也是「馬路並無單車線」及巿區「人多車多」的城巿如倫敦、紐約等都已變身為單車友善城巿了!2020年香港仍然在討論如何禁止電動輔助單車在巿區馬路出現!面前的問題是為什麼一般單車可以踩馬路,每小時25公里的電動輔助單車反而不可以?運輸署與單車團體的交流會議上,運輸署所給的其中一個理由是電動輔助單車在馬路上不安全。那為什麼電動輔助單車在馬路上為什麼比普通單車更不安全?而只可以在單車徑踩踏就更安全?如果安全是考慮,理論上在馬路上電動輔助單車應該比普通單車更加安全,因為同一路面上車速相近的話是理應更為安全(巿區平均車速大約每小時廿多公里)。 我們認為當局只要參考例如歐盟把電動輔助單車做好技術規格的規管,並把電動輔助單車當作為普通單車一樣的處理,容許電動輔助單車便用馬路及單車徑,這是最合情合理的做法。



[1] A comparative health and safety analysis of electric-assist and regular bicycles in an on-campus bicycle sharing system. regular bicycles in an on-campus bicycle sharing system.


[2] Physical activity of electric bicycle users compared to conventional bicycle users and non-cyclists: Insights based on health and transport data from an online survey in seven European cities







「(1) 除第(2A)款另有規定外,如有並非根據許可證、撥地契據或撥地備忘錄而佔用未批租土地的情況出現,則當局可安排張貼通知,飭令在通知內指明的日期前停止佔用該土地,通知可張貼在下列一處或多處地方─ (由1979年第56號第3條修訂)

(a) 該土地上或附近;或

(b) 該土地上的任何財產或構築物上。」



而處理違例停泊車輛根本是有專為此制訂的的法例:第374C章 -《道路交通(泊車)規例》:








政府理應有責任創造單車友善環境,但卻往往反其道而行,巿區合法泊單車位是少得等於無,在巿區泊單車在路邊的巿民,在法理上雖有第374C章第4條(5) 路邊泊單車免責辯護,卻常受到地政署濫用法例充公單車的滋擾而投訴無門,公義何在!


單車墳場,photo credit : Slow-Mo Classic 慢騎主義 



第374C章 -《道路交通(泊車)規例》

(1) 除第(6)款另有規定外,任何人不得在設有街道照明系統,而燈與燈之間相距不超過200米的街道上停泊車輛,惟停泊在泊車處則不在此限︰
(2) 署長可按照附表1第6、7、8、9、10、11及12號圖形豎立或放置交通標誌或設置道路標記,以限制將任何道路作泊車之用。
(3) 除第(6)款另有規定外,任何人不得─
  (a) 在任何道路上停泊車輛而違反按照第(2)款規定所豎立或放置的交通標誌或道路標記;
  (b) 停泊車輛而造成阻礙。
(4) 除第(6)款另有規定外,任何人不得停泊車輛─
  (a) 在行人路、行人道、中央分道帶、路旁、路肩或交通安全島上;
  (b) 以致阻礙車輛出入毗連車路的處所;或
  (c) 以致阻礙從車路到消防龍頭的通道。
(5) 任何人違反第(1)、(3)或(4)款,即屬犯罪,可處罰款$2000︰
(6) 第(1)、(3)及(4)款不適用於汽車。


















主動拆前輪爭取單車無障礙政策?Actively giving in to wheel removal requirement?


taking the lane





在馬路上騎行大致可分類為三種模式:「行人模式」(pedestrian style),「靠邊模式」(hugging-the-kerb style),「車輛模式」(vehicular style);第一種模式「行人模式」就是不行馬路,即使行馬路也無視交通規則;第二種「靠邊模式」就是在馬路踩但卻儘量貼近馬路邊,基本上避開成為路上車流的一部分,讓出行車線給其他車輛。


在大部分情況下,建議以第三種方式騎單車,即車輛模式(vehicular style, 也可稱為bicycle driving, vehicular cycling),簡單來說是把單車作為和其他車輛一樣的方式行駛並跟隨道路上共通的法則及語言;

原因一. 這是較安全的做法;因為和其他道路使用者用同一套道路規則及道路語言,大家知道如何配合;另外,路邊的危險也較多,例如溝渠,突然打開的車門,忽然有行人踏出馬路等…避開路邊能減少這類危險。

原因二. 這是完全配合法例的做法;如果單車人仕沒有充分行駛路權,例如縮在馬路邊行駛,萬一有汽車巴士等埋站上落客或者在同一行車線超越時發生意外,法庭及警方未必會同情主動讓出行車線路權的單車人仕,單車人仕自然吃虧。

近來運輸署的宣傳片(例如李慧詩那個「騎單車 安全才是第一」http://youtu.be/xPoWHkAg0Lo)也說單車和其他車輛有同等路權,而按多方車友的經驗,現時警方交通部也不會就單車佔用慢線有任何質疑。而道路安全議會也已經於2012年3月出版的刊物更新了騎單車的建議,並且已經上載於運輸署網頁:(http://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_4552/web_221201433_leaflet_a.pdf)「在狹窄的行車(線)道(相信這包括香港大部分的行車(線)道,因為香港大部分的行車(線)道也是狹窄得不足夠讓單車及其他車輛安全並排行駛的)或轉彎時,宜駛在行車(線)道的中央以策安全

車輛模式(vehicular style)的其中一個具體實施,就是在行車線的中間行駛佔用行車線,原因之一是要讓其他車輛清楚看到單車,原因之二是鼓勵其他較快的車輛使用另一行車線超越單車,以保持安全距離,可以看這影片「在行車線的哪一處踏單車才安全?(2分鐘版)」(http://youtu.be/w3RXZm7539A)就會清楚。










Are cyclists killing themselves on the roads, or is it time for the Hong Kong Government and the police to realise that the majority of cyclists killed each year are cycling on the roads, and are killed by vehicles.

The Hong Kong Police are about to start one of their biannual safe cycling campaigns, giving the police a chance to tell cyclists how to behave whilst letting drivers of vehicles who are the real dangers on the roads for cyclists, continue to put cyclists lives at risk.

Does anyone really believe that cyclists need telling how to behave around drivers?

Anyone who cycles on the roads here already knows the rules and how to ride safely without needing the police to tell them how to do it. The best way to bring down the numbers of cyclists killed in Hong Kong each year is to start proper driver education, showing drivers how to behave around cyclists.

Here is the press release:

Safe cycling campaign to launch in Hong Kong

Police will hold a citywide safe cycling campaign from September 19 to 25, taking stringent enforcement action on cyclists disobeying road rules.

Between January and August, there were 1,639 traffic accidents involving bicycles, resulting in 1,540 cyclist casualties. The figures are up 11% and 10% on last year. Six cyclists died in traffic accidents in the first eight months of this year, a decrease of four when compared with the same period last year.

Common cycling offences include carrying another person, carrying an animal or article which obstructs the cyclist’s view, riding a bicycle on the footpath, and riding without illuminated lights.

HKCAll has surveyed candidates in Sunday’s (9 Sept) elections for the Legislative Council for their views on cycling.

The results show that many strongly support the substantive development of cycling for Hong Kong.  Some are better informed than others, but this is an important time for progress in many areas, with important decisions being made about key development projects, such as West Kowloon, Kai Tak and Northern District, as well as the sluggish development of the New Territories Cycling Network.  Moreover, we believe that now is the time to address the yawning policy void that the government has with regards to cycling.

It is vital that the new Legco is able to press our government to implement the visionary policies we need if Hong Kong is to properly serve the increasing number of cyclists of all stripes, and more importantly to justify its ‘world city’ label with planning and administration that integrates cycling, to ease traffic congestion, facilitate personal mobility, improve the quality of our environment (air pollution, noise pollution, excessive concrete and roads) and raise health and wellness levels for our whole population.

See what the candidates had to say.




This is reproduced from the excellent Transportation Alternatives website

A few years ago, the New York Times published a five-sentence brief about a man who “intentionally ran over five people” with an SUV after a fight in North Bellmore, Long Island. The driver, the Times reported, “fled the scene of the accident.” The police later located the vehicle that “they believed was involved in the accident.” One of the victims was in critical condition.

Ho hum. News briefs about the previous day’s car crashes are as routine as box scores and the weather forecast. Yet, in this case, the Times’ (and, presumably, the Nassau County cops’) choice of one particular word stood out: If a man intentionally ran over five people, how could that possibly be considered an accident? If, instead of car keys, the man had picked up a gun and shot five people, would the press and police have called that an “accident” too? No. They’d have called it “attempted homicide.” Yet, for some reason when the weapon is a car, when the violence on our streets is done with a motor vehicle, it’s always just an “accident.”

So, is it any surprise that the NYPD’s “Accident” Investigation Squad so frequently declares “no criminality suspected” after a motor vehicle is used to kill a pedestrian or cyclist on New York City streets? After all, they don’t call themselves the Motor Vehicle Manslaughter Squad. They don’t think of themselves as homicide detectives, or cars as weapons, or drivers as killers. The word “accident” implies no fault. It’s what we call it when a toddler makes a small mess. “Don’t cry over spilled milk,” we say. The assumption is built into the name of the NYPD bureaucracy itself: Death by motor vehicle is an “accident” before the investigators even get to what may very well be the scene of a crime. The Accident Investigation Squad is there to clean up and keep the traffic moving.

Though it may sometimes seem otherwise, New York City drivers don’t wake up in the morning intending to harm pedestrians and cyclists. Most crashes are unintentional and “accident” is not an inaccurate word to describe them. But the fact remains: Driver negligence is the number one cause of crashes, and it’s no big surprise—or accident—when negligent driving hurts and kills people on crowded city streets. In fact, our legal system has a word for this type of unintentional killing: “Manslaughter.” Lots of work needs to be done and lots of things need to change to fix the way the NYPD deals with pedestrians and cyclists who have been injured and killed by negligent drivers. But if it’s true that small changes in language can have a big impact on public policy, then the easiest change is simply this: Stop calling car crashes “accidents.”




Chinese version

The Transport Department has just released a new ‘Cycling Safety’ video.  It’s 14 minutes long and will be shown in schools and at government offices open to the public, such as vehicle licensing centres and police stations.

This online version is split into six sections: Equipment, Basic Skills, Riding on Cycle Tracks, Riding on the Road, For Motorists and For Pedestrians.

Rather than telling you what we think of it, immediately, why not take a look and tell us your view?

English version

Another new study out again finds that mandatory helmet use has a negative impact on public health. We are lucky that common sense has won on this subject, but I hope that other countries around the world will be able to question again their own mandatory helmet laws and fully understand the consequences.

This article seeks to answer the question whether mandatory bicycle helmet laws deliver a net societal health benefit. The question is addressed using a simple model. The model recognizes a single health benefit—reduced head injuries—and a single health cost—increased morbidity due to foregone exercise from reduced cycling. Using estimates suggested in the literature on the effectiveness of helmets, the health benefits of cycling, head injury rates, and reductions in cycling leads to the following conclusions. In jurisdictions where cycling is safe, a helmet law is likely to have a large unintended negative health impact. In jurisdictions where cycling is relatively unsafe, helmets will do little to make it safer and a helmet law, under relatively extreme assumptions, may make a small positive contribution to net societal health. The model serves to focus the mandatory bicycle helmet law debate on overall health.