if you're targeting younger people, I don't think they would be satisfied with that speed.
When I'm talking with my collegues about electric bike, they always ask for the speed (and just that shows how important it is). And when I say 25km/h, the common reaction is that they can already reach this speed with a normal bike.
So, advantage of the electric bike turns out to be only for lazy people, or old people. Which doesn't make them attractive.
Seriously, electric bikes advange over normal bikes should not only be "not sweating" or "great climbing ability" if you want to make it as real commuting tool.
The three key things are that word "assist", that the legislation is not an e-bike sales promotion tool, and safety.
1)
Assist. The authorities wish to promote cycling, not cycle sport, but cycling as a means of transport as it exists in countries like The Netherlands, but recognise that the effort involved in some circumstances can be too much for various reasons. Therefore they've made provision for an assistance system, free of most vehicle legislative restriction to make adoption easy. Their logical start point was to see what that cycling consisted of, and it was largely people ambling around at speeds centred around 20 kph (12 mph). In Europe to give latitude they therefore fixed the assist limit on the high side at 25 kph (15.6 mph), but Britain, legally strict as ever, fixed it at 12 mph (20kph) originally. Much later when roads law harmonisation with Europe became an objective, that was increased to 15 mph.
2)
Sales promotion. The assist allowance is a compromise existing only to promote a generic means of transport. It's not a tool intended to widen the scope of that means of transport into the edge of the sporting arena to attract another class of user. In the same way, motor vehicle law is a compromise aimed at controlling all vehicles, not promoting fast sports saloons which are arguably safe for higher than the allowed speeds.
3)
Safety. Those who wish to drive motor vehicles and enjoy their allowed speeds have to use traceable registered vehicles and be trained and then tested for their competence. They also have to have third party insurance to protect others from any consequences. Bicycles and by inclusion E-bikes and their riders under the present legislation are untraceable, they have no insurance cover to protect others, and riders can be both utterly incompetent and dangerous, even psychotic.
It's therefore essential that the vehicles marketed and used are restricted for power and speed in the absence of any control of the riders. On normal bicycles some degree of control is naturally given by the capabilities of the human body, and some compatibility with performance results from the fact that fitness of mind, body and reaction speeds are related, a self regulating physiological system. Having the money to buy a faster e-bike is not the same thing at all, there is no self regulating safety mechanism.
Summary. Since Britain is part of the EU, effectively borderless to all transport, laws need to be harmonised. The EU is never going to ask for more speed since there's little demand for it there anyway. In addition, other parts of the world are adopting EU type e-bike law with even that giant China wanting to model their new law on it, so that reinforces any self-belief that EU law is right. And if we were not in the EU, it would be worse, remember our assist limit was 12 mph before adopting the EU speed. The same goes for the call for throttles that often exists in Britain, in Europe there's no such demand, they've used pedelec for years and are happy with it.
Now add to the above summary by considering the fact that in such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, their e-bike sales are up to 20 times ours in the UK and their bicycle usage can be 40 times ours. Can anyone realistically argue that with their huge experience, all of them are wrong and just our few in Britain are right?
I think not, so it's best that we settle down and accept the status quo, since we are never going to change it anyway.
.