Chasing Speed, Chasing Risk: The Safety Myth Behind Modified E-Bike Policies

As Australia and the international community race to keep up with the green transition, a wide range of electric transport options—from electric cars to buses—have been rolled out. Among them, e-bikes have become the most widely adopted: accessible to all ages, spanning high-end to budget models, and used both publicly and privately. For many, they represent the ideal compromise between environmental responsibility and everyday convenience.

However, following a series of fires linked to modified e-bikes, the Victorian government announced that from 21 December 2025, any modified or non-compliant e-bike will be banned from trains and ticketed station areas. Factory-standard e-bikes may still be carried on trains, but they must not be charged, powered on, or ridden.

This raises a crucial question: is this new rule genuinely about protecting public safety, or is it merely a symbolic response designed to give the appearance of action?

Why Modify E-Bikes at All?

The original design philosophy behind e-bikes is fundamentally sound. They were intended as lightweight, environmentally friendly, and low-cost transport options. Compared with traditional bicycles, e-bikes require less physical effort and are particularly suitable for short urban commutes, climbing hills, or carrying loads. More importantly, they can serve as partial substitutes for cars, reducing carbon emissions and traffic congestion, while being especially accessible to the elderly, students, office workers, and people with limited mobility.

E-bikes are also meant to assist rather than fully replace pedalling, allowing riders to avoid exhaustion on long distances or steep terrain while still retaining the benefits of physical activity. In essence, their purpose is balance: safety, sustainability, and convenience working together.

Yet, as the saying goes, intentions do not always align with outcomes. Under distorted market incentives and real-world usage pressures, e-bikes have gradually drifted away from their original purpose. Modifications driven by user convenience—and impatience—have emerged as a natural consequence.

In pursuit of riding “faster and farther,” some users replace 250W motors with 500W units or install higher-capacity batteries, bypassing factory limits on power and range. Cost considerations also push those who cannot afford factory-built models to retrofit old or cheap bicycles with electric kits. Within DIY and tech-enthusiast communities, modifying e-bikes has even become a form of personal expression—an informal competition to outperform factory specifications.

But shortcuts always come at a price. The desire for speed, range, and aesthetic appeal inevitably brings increased safety risks.

The Risks of Modification—and Real-World Consequences

At its core, most e-bike modifications are carried out by hobbyists or individuals with limited technical expertise, making safety and quality highly inconsistent.

The most prominent risk lies in lithium batteries. While widely used, modified e-bikes often rely on uncertified batteries, unknown sources, or even second-hand cells. This frequently leads to mismatches between battery capacity, discharge rates, and motor demand, causing overheating. Modifications may also damage or bypass the battery’s BMS (Battery Management System), triggering thermal runaway and resulting in explosions or severe fires.

Structural limitations present another major hazard. E-bike frames and components were never designed for high power, high speed, or heavy battery loads. After modification, common issues include undersized wiring, poorly soldered connections, mismatched fuses, and incompatible chargers that introduce voltage or current errors. Frames, wheels, and braking systems originally built for human-powered cycling are suddenly forced to endure higher torque, greater speeds, and heavier loads—often without any upgrades. Modified bikes can exceed factory speed limits while retaining stock tyres, suspension, and brakes, revealing a dangerous pattern: riders overestimate their control skills while underestimating the physical limits of the vehicle.

These risks are not theoretical. On 2 September 2025, a serious house fire in Melton West was traced to a modified e-bike lithium battery that exploded while charging, reportedly upgraded to improve performance but at the cost of increased overheating risk. Earlier that year, in April and August, similar fires caused by modified e-bikes occurred at Blacktown and Liverpool train stations in New South Wales. These incidents were later cited by authorities as justification for banning modified e-bikes from trains.

A Case of Policy Misplaced Priorities

Does the introduction of new regulations mean the government is addressing the real problem? Not quite.

The government’s approach targets the most visible and easiest-to-police aspect: banning modified e-bikes from train systems, rather than confronting the underlying causes. While this may reduce fire exposure in public transport settings and allow officials to demonstrate swift action, fires do not occur because e-bikes enter trains. They occur in homes, garages, and on the street during charging.

The real danger lies not in modification itself, but in the long-standing absence of meaningful regulation over the aftermarket. High-power motors and battery kits can be easily purchased online with little to no mandatory safety testing or compliance labelling. Sellers face minimal accountability, while users bear the full risk.

Equally overlooked is the cultural shift surrounding e-bike usage. “Faster, farther, and easier” has become the primary goal for many young users seeking convenience without obtaining motorcycle licences. As a result, e-bikes are increasingly expected to perform like motorbikes, especially under pressures from urban commute times, delivery-platform economics, and social-media glorification of speed and modifications. Speed has evolved from a functional need into a status symbol. In such an environment, restricting usage locations or relying on post-incident penalties does little to reverse accumulating risk.

Lithium batteries—arguably the most critical link in the risk chain—remain poorly regulated at the import level. Without a unified certification system, users must judge compatibility on their own, and responsibility becomes impossible to trace once an accident occurs. Legal boundaries around DIY modification remain vague, reinforcing the perception that “it’s fine as long as no one catches you.” Enforcement becomes reactive, inconsistent, and scene-based rather than risk-based.

Cross-border online shopping further exacerbates the issue. Large volumes of low-cost, uncertified batteries and modification kits—often sourced from Chinese e-commerce platforms—enter Australia with inflated specifications and questionable quality. Many reuse reclaimed cells or mislabel capacity, yet evade strict inspection through small-batch or postal imports. Government oversight has lagged far behind market reality, allowing high-risk products to circulate freely. When regulation fails at the source, restricting user behaviour after accidents merely shifts responsibility onto the public.

By contrast, Canadian provinces take a fundamentally different approach. They focus on technical standards and market entry rather than usage location. Clear limits on motor power and assisted speed are enforced, while batteries and chargers must meet CSA or UL safety certifications. Vehicles exceeding these limits are reclassified as electric motorcycles, requiring registration, insurance, and compliance. Responsibility is clearly distributed among manufacturers, importers, and modifiers.

Canada addresses why fires occur. Australia focuses on where they occur.

Treating Both Symptoms and Causes

If the Australian government truly intends to reduce safety risks associated with modified e-bikes, banning them from trains is little more than a cosmetic fix. While it may reduce public exposure in the short term, it fails to address the underlying danger.

Effective policy must tackle the issue simultaneously at the source, regulatory, and educational levels.

A mandatory, unified safety certification system should be established for all e-bikes, batteries, and chargers, covering battery capacity, discharge rates, BMS integrity, and charger compatibility. Import and sales channels must be traceable, preventing high-risk products from entering the market. Modification rules must be clearly defined—what is legal, what is not—and accountability must extend to manufacturers, importers, sellers, and modifiers alike. Safe, certified upgrade pathways should exist so users are not forced into risky DIY solutions.

Education is equally critical. Through media, social platforms, public transport systems, and retail channels, users should be informed about the real dangers of battery overheating, short circuits, and structural limits, alongside their legal responsibilities. Promoting verified upgrade options and safety guidance can reduce accidents while fostering voluntary compliance.

Rather than suppressing the demand for speed, governments should regulate it. Certified upgrade standards could specify motor power, battery capacity, frame load limits, braking, and suspension requirements, allowing performance enhancements within safe boundaries. This would channel the existing “speed culture” into a controlled framework instead of letting it spiral into unregulated risk.

A longer-term solution would involve a modification registration and inspection system. Modified e-bikes that pass safety checks could receive official certification, enabling lawful use and clearer enforcement. This approach rewards compliance rather than punishing all users indiscriminately.

Finally, the issue of uncertified imported batteries must be addressed at the border. Mandatory testing, strict certification requirements, active market surveillance, and penalties for non-compliant importers and platforms are essential. A traceable responsibility chain would ensure that when accidents occur, accountability does not end with the user.

At present, Australia’s policy remains fundamentally misaligned—managing where incidents happen instead of why they happen. Without systemic reform spanning technical standards, market oversight, and user behaviour, risks will continue to migrate from trains to homes and other public spaces.

Only through comprehensive, source-based regulation can e-bikes fulfil their promise as safe, affordable, and sustainable urban transport—rather than remaining shadowed by preventable accidents.

After all, when we pursue environmental convenience while tolerating market loopholes and safety hazards, can such e-bikes truly be called transport tools that serve us?