2-stroke engine bike on 4MRT and W&OD

You’ve seen an e-bike that is “300+ lbs fully loaded”? My bike is 46 lbs. (which, by the way, is comparable to some of the old nonelectric Schwinn bikes, and lighter than my nonelectric bike with all the tools I carry on it). I suppose that if one had a 254 lb. rider, mine could be 300 lbs. But then again, even the lightest of bicycles could be 300 lbs. if the rider were heavy enough. Shall we prohibit heavy riders on the trails, too?

And “operate at speed parity with other motor vehicles”? Maximum speed on Class 2 e-bikes is 20 mph. (And Class 2 is the highest typically allowed on trails.) A whole lot of people on this forum are capable of speeds higher than 20 mph on their nonelectric bikes, but we’re not telling them that because they “operate at speed parity with other motor vehicles, they obviate the need for dedicated cycling infrastructure.” The speed limit everywhere in DC is 25 mph, and cars rarely go even that slowly unless there is a traffic jam, so it’s not true that I could operate at speed parity with motor vehicles, even if that were in fact the test.

And where do those “natural gas CO2 emissions” come from? E-bikes are not powered by natural gas. The only CO2 emissions I’m creating are from breathing hard.

Maybe you’ve never had to dive out of the way of a nonelectric bicycle, but I certainly have. And pedestrians have had to do it even more frequently that I have. Perhaps we ought to ban all bicycles from the trails for the safety of pedestrians?

What, exactly, do you think are things that an e-bike can do that “human-powered transit modes cannot”? There are a whole lot of humans who can cycle faster on a nonelectric bike than I can on an e-bike. An e-bike has no more protection from being run down by a car than a nonelectric bike (which is the major reason I avoid roads).

You also speak of “as these vehicles become more and more powerful.” But that’s rather a red herring. We already limit trails to Class 2 e-bikes and below, meaning they can’t go faster than 20 mph. Even if the technology is there to allow an e-bike to be faster, that faster bike isn’t going to be allowed on the trails.

@arlrider 220858 wrote:

Can’t say I am surprised by the self-justifying responses from the motorcycle users as to why their cases are special and how they are model citizens…I need to get from X to Y, I maintain the speed limit, I signal this, ring that, natural gas CO2 emissions aren’t that bad, lol, etc…Ah yes, and the old “they require pedaling” – because casually turning 50 rpm at low resistance to tell the control to unleash wattages a UCI pro could only dream of makes the thing “human powered”.

OK, so what if the 2-stroke rider (not diesel, look up combustion cycles) did all of the “good citizen” things noted above? Then it just comes down to noise (ah yes, the Custis is so quiet, being next to 66 and all…not like Mt Vernon is next to a parkway or airport or anything either, etc.) and marginal GHG emissions. Not much of an argument. Let the internal combustion guy ride, then, right?

At the end of the day, trails were designed for human-powered transportation and introducing these rigs that are 300+ lbs fully loaded and can do things that human-powered transit modes cannot have completely shifted the dynamic and, individual perfect citizens aside, made them a net more dangerous place. I’ve been out on these trails for nearly 15 years, and it wasn’t until a couple years ago that I had to regularly turn around and get ready to dive out of the way of a silent Harley blasting up on me, 300+ lbs, user talking on the phone or using a handlebar-mounted iPad.

PS electric motorcycles are NOT net positive for cycling, because by enabling their riders to easily operate at speed parity with other motor vehicles, they obviate the need for dedicated cycling infrastructure. It’s hard to make the case for a MOTOR VEHICLE that can hold the speed limit needing its own set of lanes or roadways…

@arlrider 220866 wrote:

My comments are reflective of reality. That reality is that 1) this thread is about someone being outraged over use of a motor vehicle on a trail, 2) yet that outrage is based off a false dichotomy between different types of motor vehicles, and that 3) the introduction of motor vehicles en masse to trails has made them into incrementally more dangerous places.

1. I have already explained why the dichotomy is real. Of course getting “more butts on bikes” improves biking by making biking more visible, by getting more folks (citizens, electeds (including on CM here in ALX) who influence policy into bike riders, and by creating more usage of onstreet infra. But re trails, NPS is looking at improvements to the MVT , and its heavy usage is one of the justifications they have mentioned. (The W&OD in Falls Church has recently been widened) So that would offset any dangers from more ebikes, though quite frankly, as I have stated, the ebike riders I see are as good with trail etiquette as fast riders of regular bikes are.

Telling me that I am “bad” (opposite of “better”) because I don’t agree with your position is not a valid form of discourse either, and I am not seeking your “sympathy”.

“Be better” is not an attempt at discourse on ebikes – it is personal advice. You may take it or dismiss it as you wish.

If you want to engage with me, engage with my actual position, which is that the introduction of a certain type of motor vehicle onto trails previously allowed only for human-powered transit, done under the presence of “green” transportation yet ignoring all pre-existing safety-based reasons why motor vehicles were not allowed, has increased the aggregate risk level of using those trails.

I did. I see evidence that adding class 1 ebikes has increased risk on trails, and I see at as doing lots of other things to improve biking, as well as helping to reduce GHGs, provide a mobility option for people, etc.

Well take a seat, because you just saw a real, live, many-thousands-of-taxes-paying, card-carrying citizen make that argument!

Oh you mean yourself? But you are a bike rider and bike supporter, no? Not an opponent of bike lanes using the speed of ebikes as an excuse? Or am I misreading you.

I don’t disagree that the view above reflects the “short game”. But as these motor vehicles become more and more powerful, there is going to become no distinction between them and other types of motorcycles, other than a pedal system installed as a showpiece. That is going to create lack of rationale for policymakers to advocate for protected lanes. The same people who say “no one bikes” will, in the future, say “Why do motorcycle riders need to be protected? They’ve always ridden on the road.” By breaking down the distinction as to what is and is not a bike, in the long run it is going to erode any support for true bike infrastructure.

Oh, so this is about slippery slopes and hypotheticals. Heck, why not go full NIMBY “if they can do a 4 to 3 road diet, what stops them from banning cars?”

The evolution of these motor vehicles has already accelerated beyond the ability or appetite of regulators to keep up. The trails and streets have become the wild west. Which is why I posit that the traditional position of “no motor vehicles on trails” was the easiest to maintain and enforce.

There’s no appetite for restricting ebikes on trails presumably because the folks at the trail orgs find no urgent problem from ebikes on trails.

We can agree to disagree. You can call me names and claim I’m not contributing. And I will go for a ride, as you suggest – I’ll just unfortunately have to keep one eye on my six for the next huge rig roaring up on me at automobile speed going uphill, distracted rider at the helm ready to mow me down.

When I go for my next ride I will have to keep an eye out for folks on acoustic bikes passing without calling, passing too close, riding at night without lights etc. None of which frighten me a fraction as much as the SUVs going above the speed limit, making crazy u turns, etc in shared infrastructure that is hostile to bike riders and to peds (and often to drivers who want to drive the speed limit and be safe) One less car, works for me.

Again, if you participate in advocacy work that protects bike riders and pedestrians from the things that actually, you know, kill us on a regular basis, I am eager to hear about it.

I unfortunately have a full-time job so will just respond to a select few points here…

@lordofthemark 220918 wrote:

But you are a bike rider and bike supporter, no? Not an opponent of bike lanes using the speed of ebikes as an excuse? Or am I misreading you.

Yes, you are misreading me. I think I have been pretty clear. I am a fan of dedicated infrastructure for human-powered vehicles. Not building that infrastructure then allowing motor vehicles onto it. My position, as strange as you seem to find it, is exactly consistent with the original *point* of having MUPs and bike / ped infrastructure…to protect from motor vehicles through separation.

@lordofthemark 220918 wrote:

There’s no appetite for restricting ebikes on trails presumably because the folks at the trail orgs find no urgent problem from ebikes on trails.

Or because, as you have noted in your own post, funding is tied to user count…

Anyhow, I’ve made my opinion, and nothing more, clear. My lived experience as a cyclist is that the world has gotten more dangerous since motorized vehicles (to the guy referencing legal definitions – I’m talking the laws of physics, not the laws on the books), have started to occupy the spaces previously designed and built to protect human powered transit users from motor vehicles. This isn’t to say that humans can’t be dangerous – of course a rider going flat-out on a traditional bike can cause plenty of damage – I’m simply noting that incremental risk has been introduced. We can all have one issue or another that makes us cranky, for me as a cyclist, this is mine.

Also, PS, you can copy / paste quote blocks as I have done if you want to respond to multiple points a user has made. Makes the response a lot easier to follow.

@lordofthemark 220924 wrote:

Fact is that more ebikes means fewer cars, more citizens who will support better bike infra and bike policy, more justification for bike infra (especially in street, but ALSO more and wider trails) In general it will help with the things that not only make many of us cranky, but also kill us

I think this is our fundamental disagreement. My personal empirically-driven belief is that when “bike” infrastructure that is opened up to vehicles that weigh significantly more than traditional bicycles and which can move under their own power, it is basically nullified because that defeats the purpose of bike infrastructure…having a separation between bike, heavy things that can move under their own power and…bicycles.

@lordofthemark 220924 wrote:

As for your lived experience mine is not similar.

Not really sure what to say. Plenty of riders I speak with have noted this. Sometimes I feel like the electric motorcycles and one-wheel electric unicycle things on the Custis are overtaking traffic on 66!

@lordofthemark 220926 wrote:

For me the purpose of bike infrastructure is to separate me from 2 to 3 ton vehicles that can move at 100MPH (and which routinely do 45 in 35MPH zones). And kill me.

I guess this is the part where we differ. I agree that a 2-3 ton hunk of metal moving at 45 mph can kill me. I also fear that a 300 lb rig, including 80+ lbs of bike and battery, moving at 25-30 mph can kill me. So are you only concerned about things that can make you really, really super dead, not just regular dead? I’m personally concerned about both.

@lordofthemark 220926 wrote:

I do not ride the Custis Trail that often…Perhaps this is a North Arlington thing?

I think there is actually some truth to this, a few hypotheses: 1) the Custis is the final routing for long-distance commuters from beyond Arlington who may have switched over due to the increasing challenges of getting into DC by car (e.g. 66 to HOV-3), thus folks who may be less about the cycling and more about hurrying downtown, and 2) the terrain of the Custis (rolling hills of steep gradient) exacerbates the unnatural behavior of electric bikes (e.g. rocketing up climbs) more than the flat MVT or W&OD.

Although I’m coming late to this party, it seems that we might all agree on the need for more enforcement – against clearly unlawful stuff as well as people being, well, idiots. Alas, in spite of our desire for that I’d give odds we won’t see it in the immediate future. Hell, we can’t even get Arlington to consistently enforce cars that block bike lanes in (insert Arlington neighborhood here) and for those violations the police can drive up to the “scene of the crime”.

While I agree that internal combustion cycles annoy me on the trails, I’m not sure there is much that can be done. In my experience, they are few and far between and other trail users annoy me more (because of their higher population).

I think that legislative bodies are coming late to the game with respect to crafting regulations for dockless bikes, scooters, ebikes, and other potential game changers. It was those same legislators that were surprised by Lyft and Uber five years before, so I’m not full of hope. I think for the vast majority of cyclists, ebikes will be far preferred to internal combustion, so the noise/odor issue is likely short lived. Establishing some societal norm for trail etiquette is likely to take much longer. To that, we should all strive to set a positive example.