Adequate market survey, user feedback key to e-bike reform

Eight o'clock in the morning, China's streets hum with a familiar urgency — parents weave through traffic on electric bikes, kids clinging tightly to their waists, helmets askew, rushing to beat the school bell. For families in the world's second most populous nation, e-bikes are more than a mode of transport. They're a lifeline — 25 kilometers per hour speeds cut through gridlock, more nimbly than cars let alone buses, and more affordable than private vehicles. On bustling roads, they navigate like fish in water. That is ... until the new national standards arrived on the scene.

Feng Xiaoran, a Beijing mother of a seven-year-old girl, learned this the hard way. When she picked up her new "national standard" e-bike this month, she found herself cramming her daughter onto a shrunken rear seat, shoving helmets and coats into a tiny front bucket.

"It is supposed to be safer, but I can barely get her settled without worrying she'll slip. The bike looks clunky and impractical, all for a rule that's supposed to make our commute easier, not harder," Feng said.

Her grievances aren't unique. Since December, when the new electric bike safety standards took effect, many commuting families have been caught in a bind. The rules — from 35 centimeter seat length limits to strict weight caps — are rooted in good intentions: cutting fire risks, standardizing quality and boosting overall safety. But in practice, they've led to some absurd compromises: manufacturers stripping rear seat backs to meet weight requirements, new models lacking child seat mounting points and parents forced to drive at a snail's pace to keep drowsy kids from sliding off. "We bought a lawfully 'safe' scooter," one parent lamented online, "But it's not safe to take my kid to school in it."

Authorities acted quickly to crack down on manufacturers cutting corners. The same week when the new rules were launched, several government units launched actions against e-bike makers that echoed the new rules simply by sacrificing safety designs to lower redesign costs, such as those removing the backs of seats.

Timely responsiveness is welcome. But how did this disconnect between policy design and reality occur in the first place? Could such complaints be avoided before they became a spark for broader debates about how regulations can protect safety without sacrificing practicality?

The answer lies in a critical gap: regulatory adjustments that shape millions of daily lives demand rigorous pre-implementation research and multistakeholder dialogue. Yet this critical dialogue — between regulators, families, manufacturers and the entire supply chain — is not supposed to be absent in the rule-making process. Such engagement should never be an afterthought in decision-making, least of all now, at a time when boosting and safeguarding consumer sentiment is paramount to anchoring consumption as a stable driver of the nation's economy. Regulatory adjustments shaping millions of daily commutes demand rigorous pre-implementation research and multi-stakeholder engagement. While the new guidelines, including the Technical Specifications for Safety of Electric Bicycles, aim to enhance safety and quality, their effectiveness hinges on aligning with market realities, user needs and industry capabilities.

The new rules' focus on production standards reflects a valid commitment to safety. However, these mandates risk overlooking ground-level challenges. For smaller-sized manufacturers, sudden equipment upgrades may trigger operational stress or even market exit, leading to risky operations like insecure redesigns, reduced market competition and limited consumer choice. Meanwhile, end-users, as highlighted by real-world feedback, prioritize practicality: commuters value manageable weight — not just durability- adjustable designs, and reliable battery performance over excessive technical specifications. Ignoring such demands could render safer scooters impractical for daily use.

Worse, insufficient dialogue with the entire supply chain — from component suppliers to retailers — may create unintended gaps. For instance, the anti-tampering hardware requirements fail to address user frustrations with rigid speed limits that conflict with urban commuting needs. Similarly, battery safety standards, while critical, should incorporate manufacturer insights on cost-effective compliance rather than one-size-fits-all mandates.

Regulation should be a collaborative effort, not a top-down edict. The goal of cutting safety hazards is commendable, but it must be paired with deep market surveys, user surveys and industry consultation. By listening to commuters' pain points, manufacturers' operational constraints and suppliers' technical capacities, regulators can craft rules that balance safety, accessibility and industry sustainability. Only through such inclusive processes can policies truly serve the public good while fostering a healthy market ecosystem.

The writer is a master's student at the School of Marxism, Nanjing University of Science and Technology.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.