A heated debate has erupted over the safety of Oregon’s public ways — highways, streets, paths and trails. Boilerplate media coverage may leave the impression that electric-motorcycle riders, particularly young people, are the primary lethal threat to public safety. But is that where our attention should be focused?

Oregon’s highly publicized youth fatalities have fueled calls to address the so-called “e-moto” or “full-throttle” user behavior. Yet the role of the motor vehicles and their driver behavior deserves just as much, if not more, attention. 

The term “e-moto” itself adds to the confusion. We should distinguish between the vehicles, their legal status, and the behavior of their riders — rather than lumping them all together with inflammatory catch terms.

Oregon Revised Statutes defines a “vulnerable user of a public way,” recognizing a broad range of people and vehicles, including pedestrians, people on bicycles, scooter users, moped riders and motorcyclists. Safety policy should reflect that breadth rather than treating one category of rider as the problem.

The Oregon Department of Transportation recently released this timely and up-to-date summary of fatality and serious injury crash trends in Oregon. This is an excellent resource for these discussions. Eugene police and the Oregon Legislature would benefit from absorbing this ODOT analysis.

Kinetic energy is calculated as one-half mass multiplied by velocity squared. Now, consider the energy involved in a collision. A 200-pound rider on a 50-pound bike traveling at 28 mph carries approximately 8,900 joules of kinetic energy. A ton of bricks moving at the same speed carries roughly 71,000 joules. A compact SUV weighing about 3,500 pounds, including its driver, carries approximately 124,000 joules.

Do the math. Measure the impact energy. An e-moto won’t hit you like a truck.

I question the efficacy of the Oregon Legislature’s response, as it was guided by the 2026 Legislative Toolkit and has included efforts to regulate e-bike specifications, motor power and related hardware. These poorly targeted restrictions risk limiting free-market competition, discouraging research and suppressing innovation.

No single advocacy group represents every person who uses Oregon’s public ways. Safety policy should account for the multiple interests of vulnerable users of public ways. Data, not “eMotions,” should drive our local transportation policy.

Kevin Craig
Eugene