Automated Safety Destroys Critical Decision-Making Skills

[David42000]

Time and again I see comments in support of software locked speed limits in e-bikes as a common safety measure.

Psychology begs to differ. Similarly to the way leg muscles atrophy when they aren't used, reduced exercise of critical judgment making results in reduced ability. When the bike takes control of speed, judgment critical to speed awareness is eroded. When that guy blows past you full speed on a narrow trail, one reason is that he has surrendered his own judgment to the bike to make those speed/safety decisions for him. In contrast, a biker who has to do the work of watching his speed limit is more situationally aware of and constantly making decisions about road conditions. Why make decisions when the bureaucrats have made them for you because you're too incompetent to observe a speed limit? Here is a psychological briefing on the matter that can be used at a professional level to make the point that the more automation we have in our lives the less able we are to exercise our own good judgment.

MEMORANDUM: THE COGNITIVE COST OF AUTOMATED REGULATION

TO: Interested Stakeholders / Safety Policy Review
FROM: [Your Name]
DATE:
SUBJECT: The Paradox of Competence Decay in Firmware-Limited Mobility

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The current trend toward software-based speed regulation in personal electric mobility devices—specifically electric bicycles—is framed as a safety measure. However, psychological and ergonomic evidence suggests that these measures induce "Competence Decay." By automating speed decisions, we are shifting the rider from an active operator to a passive monitor, ultimately weakening the situational awareness and manual reflexes required to navigate public roads safely.

II. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF AUTOMATION BIAS

The primary danger of firmware-enforced speed limits is the phenomenon known as Automation Bias. Research in human-computer interaction and aviation psychology consistently shows that when a system provides a "safety net," human operators significantly reduce their own vigilance.

• The Vigilance Decrement: As identified in classic human factors research, when an operator's role is reduced to monitoring rather than performing, their ability to detect anomalies drops precipitously (Warm, Parasuraman, & Matthews, 2008).
• The "Nanny" Effect: When an e-bike’s firmware intervenes to cap speed, the rider stops internalizing the speed-environment relationship. They are no longer "reading" the traffic or the road; they are waiting for the software to signal the boundary. This removes the essential "feedback loop" between the human brain and the physical environment.

III. SKILL ATROPHY AND OVER-RELIANCE

The long-term cognitive consequence of this technological "coddling" is the atrophy of critical motor and decision-making skills.

• The Transferability Crisis: We are observing a parallel to the transition to autonomous vehicles. Studies on "automation-induced loss of skill" demonstrate that drivers who grow accustomed to automated cruise control and braking exhibit slower reaction times when forced to take manual control (Endsley & Kiris, 1995).
• The Illusion of Safety: By artificially capping performance, manufacturers create a rider base that is conditioned to perform within a narrow, "governed" set of variables. When the rider encounters a real-world scenario that falls outside the firmware’s parameters—such as an emergency obstacle—they lack the refined instincts to manage the bike’s momentum manually. They have been "trained" to be passengers in their own transport.

IV. THE DANGER OF "DE-SKILLED" RIDERS

The push for uniform, firmware-enforced speed limits creates a false sense of security that masks a decline in actual rider capability.

1. Reduced Situational Awareness: Because the bike "takes care" of the top speed, the rider is less likely to actively scan for road conditions, as they assume the hardware will prevent them from reaching "dangerous" speeds.
2. Increased Risk of "Surprise" Failures: A rider who has never learned to manage a high-torque or high-speed input manually is unprepared for the moment the software fails or is overridden by environmental conditions (e.g., downhill momentum).

V. CONCLUSION

From a psychological standpoint, the most effective safety feature is a competent, engaged operator. Any regulatory system that incentivizes the reduction of the rider's active role is inherently counterproductive. By automating the safety threshold, we are systematically disabling the rider’s ability to function as a self-sufficient operator.

We are trading individual competence for collective mediocrity—a trade-off that, in the complex environment of public roads, likely increases the risk of accidents rather than mitigating them.

REFERENCES

• Endsley, M. R., & Kiris, E. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors.
• Warm, J. S., Parasuraman, R., & Matthews, G. (2008). Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors.
• Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010). Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation. Human Factors.

We do NOT want to train kids from a young age that the bike is "safe" because it limits their speed for them.
The memorandum is also attached in PDF form.

 

[jabberwocky]

By access I mean everything that isn't strictly motor vehicle infrastructure. So bike lanes, MUPs, paths/sidewalks, unpaved trails, singletrack, etc. I don't mean strictly singletrack.

And hey, if all you care about is riding on the roads, you already have an option (legit motorcycles) that can go however fast you want with no power restrictions, and they are allowed everywhere any other motor vehicle is. But the existence of all bikes lanes/MUPs/etc is because pedestrians and cyclists did not want to have to ride in the road and share space with motor vehicles. So creating a legal definition for ebikes that limits them enough that a coherent argument can be made for allowing them those places is kind of the entire point.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

I think the thesis of this thread is too broad and there are lots of easy counterexamples. Even with very precise definitions I strongly suspect that there are obvious counterexamples.

One super easy counterexample of an automated safety system that doesn't destroy anyone's critical decision-making skills are the systems that detect if the operator of a vehicle is impaired in some way and refuse to allow the vehicle to be operated in those cases.

 

[David42000]

By access I mean everything that isn't strictly motor vehicle infrastructure. So bike lanes, MUPs, paths/sidewalks, unpaved trails, singletrack, etc. I don't mean strictly singletrack.

And hey, if all you care about is riding on the roads, you already have an option (legit motorcycles) that can go however fast you want with no power restrictions, and they are allowed everywhere any other motor vehicle is. But the existence of all bikes lanes/MUPs/etc is because pedestrians and cyclists did not want to have to ride in the road and share space with motor vehicles.

Even broadening it as you have to more general urban problems (or even if you meant that from the start) I still fail to understand why everybody has to be governed by rules that might work okay in a city. You can ride a motorcycle all you want, too, to solve your problem. So tell me again why I can't have rules in a semi rural small town that meet our needs? Why is that? We don't have the kinds of traffic that make for the big city problems. I've yet to see a showoff e-biker around here or anyone doing obvious stupid stuff. Nobody's going 50 mph on an e-moto on the sidewalk, and they're empty enoughg to do it without causing an accident, perhaps. The larger point is to get people out of their cars. No, I shouldn't have to go buy a motorcycle so you can praise the wonders of nationwide 3 class. I need the exercise of the bike. I got too unhealthy driving and doing too much sit down work. I probably could get an OPDMD accomodation and to be honest I don't think any cop around here would do anything if I handed them the placard. So, yes, I personally have solutions, but many others don't.

So creating a legal definition for ebikes that limits them enough that a coherent argument can be made for allowing them those places is kind of the entire point.

But that's the problem, it's NOT the entire point at all, it's the entire point from your POV, but you forgot the needs of so many others that don't fit your worldview, and that's why you won't talk about the specific problem I have asked you to recognize. Because it makes your argument fall flat. You have a false dichotomy; it's NOT either limit the bikes artificuially or ban then from bike trails and bike lanes to get them to mix well with pedestrians and bicycles because it says nothing of the 22 mph analog bike or going downhill. There's a third solution, and that is ticket people for their conduct. Impound the bike for violations. You know, the way the rest of the world works. No, e-bikes should not be only for you and I can just go buy a motorcycle. Solve your own transportation problem with a motorcycle and leave me alone.

 

[Chargeride]

Sounds interesting...but how to be sure they're just being random? 5,5,5,5,5 isn't really random. It's certainly not the answers someone has to think about to give. Unless the tricky test has "correct" answers, and they are all five. I did a bunch of MMPI II's with random answers. I've had to take a couple before in serious context, and told the test taker I was too familiar with it to answer the questions honestly. One agreed and just sat down and talked to me to evaluate me because I was right. The other didn't care, just going through the motions. You'll be pleased to note various computers say I am crazy 17 different ways, including mutually exclusive.

They were so random they averaged them out

 

[David42000]

I think the thesis of this thread is too broad and there are lots of easy counterexamples. Even with very precise definitions I strongly suspect that there are obvious counterexamples.

One super easy counterexample of an automated safety system that doesn't destroy anyone's critical decision-making skills are the systems that detect if the operator of a vehicle is impaired in some way and refuse to allow the vehicle to be operated in those cases.

I never said there weren't any good automated systems or ones that don;t atrophy critical safety decisions. But I don't think any of this is a good idea at least until we have glitch free systems. Or that anyone should have to pay the money for calibration of those systems, which periodically must be done. I don't want to be told I can't drive when I have a .002 and the calibration of the device is messed up. But the greater fear is that ince these systems are in place you can be locked down. During the next pandemic coming to a city near you, there is no reason they wouldn't do this. You'll eventually be told where you can drive and when you can drive. You recall that claim that by 2030 you'll own nothing and be happy? Your car won't really be your car, but you still pay for it. And no, many of us will not be happy leasing stuff we cannot fix and have to beg it's permission to use. But the canary never notices the gilded cage it builds for itself until it can no longer fly.

 

[David42000]

They were so random they averaged them out

Perhaps a little 2+2=5 was going on, even.

 

[Roamers]

@David42000 do you mind sharing what aspect of the legal world you work(ed) in? I understand if you don't care to share.

I'm a retired Engineer, retired Certified Safety Professional and supported our legal team in product liability cases (accident investigation and discovery analysis.) Also worked on ISO System Safety Standards for our industry. When I talked about Academic Mumbo Jumbo, that comes from 5 years working on Doctorate.

By no means should my background increase the validity of my opinions; l have zero expertise on ebikes, except I ride one recreationally. I just find as you write, it's less about helping Johny's Mom; and that's ok.

I promise I'm probanly done unless asked a question or tagged.

 

[jabberwocky]

But that's the problem, it's NOT the entire point at all, it's the entire point from your POV, but you forgot the needs of so many others that don't fit your worldview, and that's why you won't talk about the specific problem I have asked you to recognize. Because it makes your argument fall flat. You have a false dichotomy; it's NOT either limit the bikes artificuially or ban then from bike trails and bike lanes to get them to mix well with pedestrians and bicycles because it says nothing of the 22 mph analog bike or going downhill. There's a third solution, and that is ticket people for their conduct. Impound the bike for violations. You know, the way the rest of the world works. No, e-bikes should not be only for you and I can just go buy a motorcycle. Solve your own transportation problem with a motorcycle and leave me alone.

I'm unclear what you are proposing. If you had your way, how would ebikes be legally defined?

The rest of the world regulates ebikes AFIAK. In most cases, more stringently than the US does.

I don't really see a point in engaging with the "why is this sold as a safety issue" because I don't actually see anyone in the ebike space holding up legal limits as mainly being about safety. IMO the safety issue on ebikes is a largely orthogonal issue to their legal definition.

 

[David42000]

@David42000 do you mind sharing what aspect of the legal world you work(ed) in? I understand if you don't care to share.

I'm a retired Engineer, retired Certified Safety Professional and supported our legal team in product liability cases (accident investigation and discovery analysis.) Also worked on ISO System Safety Standards for our industry. When I talked about Academic Mumbo Jumbo, that comes from 5 years working on Doctorate.

By no means should my background increase the validity of my opinions; l have zero expertise on ebikes, except I ride one recreationally. I just find as you write, it's less about helping Johnnies Mom; and that's ok.

I promise I'm probanly done unless asked a question or tagged.

When I was employed I worked strictly domestic and related criminal. But my interests are very broad and of course I have studied areas that might have application to my life. So I know consitutional and criminal pretty well, I know ciovil tort and equity. I had my own trust case and so Iearned that in and out. I've been involved in other organizations and helped out there. I don't mean to argue out of authority if I came off that way. No, I'm not right because I am a paralegal. But I can help people with the right information and explain it. Ask a lawyer if you doubt me about anything legal. It's not always about Johnnie's mom, but I like to try to keep an eye out for others.

I'm no engineer, but I did grow up the stepson of an electrical and mechanical engineer who loved explaining things and taught me more advanced math than the schools were. It was always hands on, he'd ask me how I'd soplve a problem and he'd show me some simple agebra when I couldn't, that sort of thing. My first inkling of an e-bike was when he told me it might be possible to electrify my bike by taking a starter motor and q car battery and bolting them onto my bike. I gave it seriosu thought and a week alter he asked if I was going to try and I told him no. He'd taught me th amth adn I did it and it didn't sound so good. I'd have had to destroy my bikes crank hub to mount the motor as I couldn't find a way with my resources to mount it or integrate it with the pedals. I told him why it wasn't a good idea, he suggested battery technology might get a lot better soon and maybe we could get a different motor, etc., figure out the drive train. We never did it, but it was good thought exercise. That doesn't make me. There's another thread I am posting in that you might be interested in with an engineering background. https://forums.electricbikereview.c...bikes-actually-legal.41981/page-2#post-717483 I believe new developments have made the 750 watt question very important, and I explain some stuff that people don't understand about electrical terminolgy. Perhaps you'd like to have a look.

And yeah, I've talked about academic mumbo jumbo before too. Sometimes it is. I don't think the studies I cited here are. I showed it to my therapist and she gave a thumbs up. She's critical of the mumbo jumbo, too.

 

[David42000]

I'm unclear what you are proposing. If you had your way, how would ebikes be legally defined?

The rest of the world regulates ebikes AFIAK. In most cases, more stringently than the US does.

I don't really see a point in engaging with the "why is this sold as a safety issue" because I don't actually see anyone in the ebike space holding up legal limits as mainly being about safety. IMO the safety issue on ebikes is a largely orthogonal issue to their legal definition.

How to define them is a question that depends on 15 USC 2085. Under it, there is no point becasue no other legally binding definition can be made.

If in a vaccuum, if I'm king-for-a-day at state level, and am free becasue Congress says nothing, I could come up with a class system that is a hell of a lot better than the 3 class, not void for vagueness and not trying to corner the market with fair competition from open source and proprietary manufacturers alike so the amrket decides which is better. I would totally not care about the rest of the world, per se; not that I won't look at good ideas, but our legal system and our way of life made the best economy in the world, so I would in fact in many cases distinguish between what works in the American system and what works in other systems. I'm not making rules that are ultimately in place due to Bosch's fascism or China's communism, and I'd definitely want rules that promoted American manufacturing. And by "fascism" I'm not loosely throwing it around in the sense that everyone does in political rhetoric, I am specifically referring to the economic system Bosch still promtoes today. (govenrment and business in partnership decide everything, there is no individual consumer concern) (If you don't know, they used slave labor in the Nazi years and gladly reaped the profits.) I don't hate Bosch for that, it was a long time ago; I hate them for what they are doing in America now.

So yeah, I would envision more like a five or six class system with age limits for kids on the lower end, power restrictions, restrictions to residential streets, combined with education and testing to prodcue a sense of civics into the matter,, and just not capable of high speed without artificial limits because this builds skills something in the middle for the access needs you speak of and the high end for people who are too heavy, or people who need to work with it. For some people, assisted exercise4 an e-bike gives can be the only way to combine their own effort with assistance so they don't feel they'll get stranded. If you think it through, this is the only need that only an e-bike can deliver. You can ride your trails analog (I'm assuming you're fit, you sound like you are) I could do my work on a registered e-moto or reclassify a high power e-bike as an OPDMD with an accomodation. But the four hundred poound guy who isn;t disabled yet? HE NEEDS a 2000 watt continuous 2 h.p. motor cause it is a non starter without it. So yeah, I'd range from about 150 mechanical and fifteen miles through the various necessary classes to meet everyone's needs, and I'd stop at about 2-3k continuous for 2-3 h.p. for the people who need power. I'd even be willing to consider restricted licensing for the upper end for those who are working and not diabled or exercising so they won;t become disabled. It should be available regardless of suspension of ordinary privielegs, and no registration or insurance.

All conduct is ticketable. no conduct issue enforced through proprietary technology like speed limits. Reminder, this is if there is no federal law defining an e-bike. Like I said as long as we have 15 USC 2085 in place, no other system that defines the bike itself is possible. The problem is that 15 USC 2085 is our friend, it is the sole thing preventing licensing, registration, and insurance. The sole thing, and we err badly when we think, in the legal sense, as anything different from a bicycle at all. !5 USC was welld 3esigned to grant us this great freedom, and it should not be lightly discarde unless we protect our right to acess and use without those onerous requirements. Any contest between 15 USC 2085 and 3 class comes down to 2085 trumping both as a matter of law and not illegally manipulating the market. Could it be better? Maybe. Honestly I love the idea of the laboratory of the states because if different states do different things we can find out what really works and what doesn't in real time. I love scientific method and the laboratory of the states concept makes scientific certainty of political ideas much more possible.

You said that 3 class was the entire point for access. You keep missing the point that NONE OF THIS is possible without 15 USC 2085. That's the sole law that made inexpensive (state costs) and easy access possible in the first place. Without it we are at the States' mercy on registration insurance and licensing and that is FAR MORE a benefit than the 3 class system solving some access problems.. The 3 class system counts on USC 15 USC 2085 while defying it. There's a reason for that, and it ain't pretty.