I don't see anything wrong with the electric motorcycles, but they shouldn't be on a pedestrian or bicycle path, they should be on the street and you should need a license to drive them just like any other motorized vehicles capable of those speeds.
Well they were. But these fatbikes bring them on par, with a throttle instead of having to pedal, a riding stance similar a scooter and an unlocked speed limit.
That's not a fatbike / bicycle then, but I have no idea about the context here. The photo shows a regular fatbike hardtail, with rather small tires even.
There is a link to the article without paywall somewhere in the comments, but yes, the image is a wrong one (or actually a real, non electric mtb fatbike). The “fatbikes” we have here in the Netherlands look like this:
I don't see a paywall, it just does not contain anything but the stock photo.
Your example looks more like a moped, which is indeed a motorcycle and should fall under the same regulations.
The problem the government faces is how to make a distinction between moped and a classic e-bike. Because from the factory there is no real difference apart from “oh it looks a bit like a moped”.
My vote goes to setting the minimum age for assisted riding at 16 (except medical reasons) or at least obligating having a helmet under the age of 18 (to protect their poor undeveloped brains).
Which will immediately kill the attraction which is to ride a moped without helmet.
The real challenge is regulating e-bike unlocking in general (as well as adding a throttle). Which is hard because the electronics can quickly be set back to factory with a click of a button.
That's the issue. They aren't supposed to go that fast. It's an illegal alteration for a reason. And we are talking about teenagers.
They don't need a driver's licience to ride a bicycle. So people may not know how to traverse traffic safely if they go on the car lanes. Or not care about safety as teenagers tend to do.