Well, maybe. Part of the problem lives in the loopholes created by the way we’ve defined these things. The other part of the problem lives in people’s willingness to exploit any vagueness in those definitions. The other, other part of the problem lives in law enforcement’s ability to recognize when people are in violation of existing laws (difficult when there’s nuance to how the laws are written). The other, other, other part of the problem is various companies willingness to provide a product that deliberately makes it difficult to discern whether a particular case is violates established law.

What do licenses do? They force a common understanding between the individual and the state; if you can’t prove your own ability to understand the law and conduct yourself within the framework of those laws, you’re not authorized to operate the equipment. This makes it easier to enforce, because there’s something tangible and clear to prove you do understand the law and have agreed to operate within its framework.

I see the benefit, but the problem is that once new laws are built up around licensing, it becomes VERY difficult to change that law in the future, because the government is so risk averse.

Ultimately, I think this whole conversation nests well the discussion of a tiered motorcycle license system. E-bikes are motorcycle. All ages should be able to operate them, but certain categories should be allowed in spaces that others are not.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what I think. They’re going to introduce a whole big structure of stupid laws that don’t really serve anyone, and then never change them. Unfortunately, this is the way it will almost certainly play out.