e-Bikes – Let’s talk

[americancyclo]

@TwoWheelsDC 163885 wrote:

Mopeds have pedals and are motor-assisted (motorized). If it has pedals and can go faster than 20mph without pedaling, regardless of motor type (electric or internal combustion), it’s a moped.* If it can’t go over 20 without pedaling, it’s a “low-speed e-bike.”* If it doesn’t have pedals, it’s a scooter or motorcycle.

For all intents and purposes, e-bikes are not considered to have “motors” in the legal sense, as far as I can tell.

My understanding:

motorcycle = motorized
scooter = motorized
moped = motorized
e-bike = not motorized

*at least this is how I read the regs

Here’s the VA Code for those playing along at home:

“Electric power-assisted bicycle” means a vehicle that travels on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground and is equipped with
(i) pedals that allow propulsion by human power and
(ii) an electric motor with an input of no more than 1,000 watts that reduces the pedal effort required of the rider.

For the purposes of Chapter 8 (§ 46.2-800 et seq.), an electric power-assisted bicycle shall be a vehicle when operated on a highway.

“Moped” means every vehicle that travels on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground that
(i) has a seat that is no less than 24 inches in height, measured from the middle of the seat perpendicular to the ground;
(ii) has a gasoline, electric, or hybrid motor that
(a) displaces 50 cubic centimeters or less or
(b) has an input of 1500 watts or less;
(iii) is power-driven, with or without pedals that allow propulsion by human power; and
(iv) is not operated at speeds in excess of 35 miles per hour.

For purposes of this title, a moped shall be a motorcycle when operated at speeds in excess of 35 miles per hour.
For purposes of Chapter 8 (§ 46.2-800 et seq.), a moped shall be a vehicle while operated on a highway

[Dewey]

@lordofthemark 163873 wrote:

A word to the wise though. If I ride the WOD at 9:30 and hit a pedestrian (I ride particularly slowly and carefully at those hours) the ped is also unlawfully on the trail. I assume thats a wash in a civil suit. If I ride an ebike on the MVT and hit a ped, well …..

Regarding protection from civil suits, when I was investigating insurance for 3rd party liability I spoke with my auto insurer and two independent Virginia insurance agents: no household, rental, umbrella, or motorcycle insurer would agree to cover an ebike, the only insurer I could find that would issue a liability policy in Virginia is Markel/Velosurance who cover ebikes that meet the CPSC & California Class 1 & 2 definition (<750w, <20mph). I'm not a lawyer so have only a hazy understanding of concepts such as contributory negligence and rebuttable presumption of guilt but it would be helpful if regulations on those trails where ebikes are in a grey area but implicitly permitted to ride (your post #343) were changed to explicitly permit ebikes that meet the Virginia definition of an electric power assisted bicycle.

Thank you for accepting the need for a safe, legal, Potomac crossing for ebikes, I am dismayed DC DDOT/NPS continue to resist reasonable requests to improve bridge bicycle/ebike infrastructure, this is important for Virginia cyclists commuting into DC.

[LhasaCM]

@americancyclo 163924 wrote:

Here’s the VA Code for those playing along at home:

“Electric power-assisted bicycle” means a vehicle that travels on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground and is equipped with
(i) pedals that allow propulsion by human power and
(ii) an electric motor with an input of no more than 1,000 watts that reduces the pedal effort required of the rider.

For the purposes of Chapter 8 (§ 46.2-800 et seq.), an electric power-assisted bicycle shall be a vehicle when operated on a highway.

“Moped” means every vehicle that travels on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground that
(i) has a seat that is no less than 24 inches in height, measured from the middle of the seat perpendicular to the ground;
(ii) has a gasoline, electric, or hybrid motor that
(a) displaces 50 cubic centimeters or less or
(b) has an input of 1500 watts or less;
(iii) is power-driven, with or without pedals that allow propulsion by human power; and
(iv) is not operated at speeds in excess of 35 miles per hour.

For purposes of this title, a moped shall be a motorcycle when operated at speeds in excess of 35 miles per hour.
For purposes of Chapter 8 (§ 46.2-800 et seq.), a moped shall be a vehicle while operated on a highway

And here’s a link to the handy chart DC put together regarding its laws:

https://dmv.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dmv/publication/attachments/May%2017%202013%20Non-traditional%20Motor%20Vehicle%20chart.pdf

[Dewey]

@LhasaCM 163942 wrote:

And here’s a link to the handy chart DC put together regarding its laws:

https://dmv.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dmv/publication/attachments/May%2017%202013%20Non-traditional%20Motor%20Vehicle%20chart.pdf

Except this fact-sheet mis-interprets 18 DCMR §§ 1201.18 by claiming motorized bicycles are not permitted in DC “bike lanes” when that rule applies to “off-street” sidewalk, bikepath, or bicycle routes. Rule 18 DCMR §§ 1201.19 states “a motorized bicycle may be operated on any part of a roadway designated for the use of bicycles” therefore ebikes that meet the CPSC & California Class 1 & 2 ebike definition (<20mph) are allowed in DC on-street bike lanes and PBL's as they are in Virginia and Maryland.

[LhasaCM]

@Dewey 163954 wrote:

Except this fact-sheet mis-interprets 18 DCMR §§ 1201.18 by claiming motorized bicycles are not permitted in DC “bike lanes” when that rule applies to “off-street” sidewalk, bikepath, or bicycle routes. Rule 18 DCMR §§ 1201.19 states “a motorized bicycle may be operated on any part of a roadway designated for the use of bicycles” therefore ebikes that meet the CPSC & California Class 1 & 2 ebike definition (<20mph) are allowed in DC on-street bike lanes and PBL's as they are in Virginia and Maryland.

I don’t know if it’s accurate to call it a misinterpretation or just a different interpretation, given how clearly some things are (or aren’t) defined. The fact sheet I linked to was created by DDOT shortly after the Motorized Bicycle Amendment Act of 2012 took effect, so regardless of any discrepancies (and I don’t profess to be an expert), I do think it’s useful to know how an official government body is interpreting the rules.

Digging into the rules a bit more: Per 18.-9900 (the definitions section for Rule 18), a roadway is defined as “that portion of a highway which is improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel.” So while one could consider a bike lane part of the roadway designated for the use of bicycles (so falls under the “restricted lane” definition in the same section) and therefore motorized bicycles are allowed, let me suggest an alternative line of thought.

Elsewhere in the definitions, a bicycle is defined as a “device” whereas anything with a motor (even if not in use) makes it a “vehicle.” In other words, under this interpretation, a “bicycle” lane, since it’s meant for bicycles which are not “vehicles” but “devices”, is not part of the roadway since it’s not designed for vehicular travel, and therefore the allowance given to motorized bicycles under 1201.19 does not apply. This train of thought could be seen as consistent with the WABA pocket guide interpretation regarding the legality (not the intelligence) of using a cell phone while cycling where, because bicycles are not vehicles, the DC law banning the use of a cell phone when operating a vehicle doesn’t apply. Not saying that’s correct (and other aspects of the DC rules and the master plan suggest otherwise), but it could be.

(All that being said, I’m not sure what the point of all of this was other than to avoid work or the dishes. But it was a fun thought exercise.)

[LhasaCM]

@Dewey 163929 wrote:

Thank you for accepting the need for a safe, legal, Potomac crossing for ebikes, I am dismayed DC DDOT/NPS continue to resist reasonable requests to improve bridge bicycle/ebike infrastructure, this is important for Virginia cyclists commuting into DC.

I think it’s equally important for DC cyclists traveling into Virginia. FWIW, the DC Bicycle Master Plan (Rule 10-A409) does pay lip service to improving bridge access to bicyclists.

[Steve O]

We are getting tantalizingly close to 400 comments on this thread.

[sjclaeys]

I saw an ad for the Faraday e-bike on the Washington Post website this morning and, because of this thread, thought that I’d check it out. Two things jumped out to me in the marketing of what appears to be a regular e-bike (emphasis added):

“Everybody knows electric bikes can climb hills with ease. The lesser known secret? On flat ground – they FLY. So while an electric bike can save you money, the biggest thing it can save is your most precious resource … your time.”

“Your Faraday keeps you safer with an upright riding posture that gives you a clear view of the road, fast acceleration, and a 20 mph cruising speed that lets you stay with the flow of traffic.”

[Subby]

@sjclaeys 164005 wrote:

“Everybody knows electric bikes can climb hills with ease. The lesser known secret? On flat ground – they FLY. So while an electric bike can save you money, the biggest thing it can save is your most precious resource … your time.”

We might all come at this issue with different opinions and agendas. However, I am confident that we can unite in agreement that using pedal assist on flat ground on the trail is laaaaame af.

[sjclaeys]

@Subby 164009 wrote:

We might all come at this issue with different opinions and agendas. However, I am confident that we can unite in agreement that using pedal assist on flat ground on the trail is laaaaame af.

I don’t think that you’d get agreement on that from the e-bike community based on what I’ve read here and seen on the trails.

P.S. Post #400 FTW!

[lordofthemark]

@sjclaeys 164005 wrote:

I saw an ad for the Faraday e-bike on the Washington Post website this morning and, because of this thread, thought that I’d check it out. Two things jumped out to me in the marketing of what appears to be a regular e-bike (emphasis added):

“Everybody knows electric bikes can climb hills with ease. The lesser known secret? On flat ground – they FLY. So while an electric bike can save you money, the biggest thing it can save is your most precious resource … your time.”

“Your Faraday keeps you safer with an upright riding posture that gives you a clear view of the road, fast acceleration, and a 20 mph cruising speed that lets you stay with the flow of traffic.“

Seems like they agree with me, that the big advantage of ebikes is making full VC style riding a lot easier for a much wider range of riders.

[EasyRider]

@lordofthemark 164011 wrote:

Seems like they agree with me, that the big advantage of ebikes is making full VC style riding a lot easier for a much wider range of riders.

I agree with you too, the “problem” is that e-bike operators prefer to ride on MUPs at such speeds, rather than on roads.

[dasgeh]

@EasyRider 164012 wrote:

I agree with you too, the “problem” is that e-bike operators prefer to ride on MUPs at such speeds, rather than on roads.

It’s a problem is that some people ride bikes (e- and not) on MUPs at speeds that are unsafe (and there are places where 12mph is unsafe, others where 20mph is safe).

The reason the anti-ebike argument grates on me is that the “e” part of the bike is a red herring. The logical position would be to ban any vehicle from a trail that has the ability to obtain unsafe speeds. Yet, anti-ebike folks don’t want to ban (as I understand it) road bikes ridden by roadies, and those have the ability to obtain unsafe speeds. So why should only fit people be allowed on vehicles that have the ability to obtain unsafe speeds, but not unfit people and people with heavy loads?

The only answer to that I’ve seen on this thread is capacity: we don’t have that much room on the trails, so let’s just keep the unfit off/heavy loaders off the trails. But is that how we should allocate our resources?

@Subby 164009 wrote:

We might all come at this issue with different opinions and agendas. However, I am confident that we can unite in agreement that using pedal assist on flat ground on the trail is laaaaame af.

No, we can’t unite in this argument. Some people are carrying big loads. Some people just can’t pedal a bike at a sustained 15mph. It’s not lame is add assist to this equation so that people can bike — getting 90% of the benefits (movement, time outside, sense of community, fiscal savings, environmental savings, less impact on our already crowded cities) — at speeds that allow them to work biking into their day.

In fact, the only thing lame here is the implication in this statement (and others on this thread) that only fit and unburdened people should be equipped with the ability to bike fast on trails.

(Note: I said “equipped with the ability” – no one should be biking too fast for conditions/above the speed limit)

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 164017 wrote:

It’s a problem is that some people ride bikes (e- and not) on MUPs at speeds that are unsafe (and there are places where 12mph is unsafe, others where 20mph is safe).

The reason the anti-ebike argument grates on me is that the “e” part of the bike is a red herring. The logical position would be to ban any vehicle from a trail that has the ability to obtain unsafe speeds. Yet, anti-ebike folks don’t want to ban (as I understand it) road bikes ridden by roadies, and those have the ability to obtain unsafe speeds. So why should only fit people be allowed on vehicles that have the ability to obtain unsafe speeds, but not unfit people and people with heavy loads?

The only answer to that I’ve seen on this thread is capacity: we don’t have that much room on the trails, so let’s just keep the unfit off/heavy loaders off the trails. But is that how we should allocate our resources?

No, we can’t unite in this argument. Some people are carrying big loads. Some people just can’t pedal a bike at a sustained 15mph. It’s not lame is add assist to this equation so that people can bike — getting 90% of the benefits (movement, time outside, sense of community, fiscal savings, environmental savings, less impact on our already crowded cities) — at speeds that allow them to work biking into their day.

In fact, the only thing lame here is the implication in this statement (and others on this thread) that only fit and unburdened people should be equipped with the ability to bike fast on trails.

(Note: I said “equipped with the ability” – no one should be biking too fast for conditions/above the speed limit)

1. Not everyone on a road bike can bike fast though. I know this, because I am competitive enough that I look to see who I am passed by, and who is passing me. Its not every day that I pass someone on a road bike, but it happens enough times. (yes they could be people just out for a mellow ride, but my impression is that often they are not) I assume those are mostly people who are new to biking and bypassed the “ride a hybrid because road bikes are scary” stage. In contrast its sounds like almost everyone can ride fast on an ebike.

2. Again the reason to move ebikes off if we are reaching a capacity limit on our trails (and note, its about both overall capacity, and the particular issues of speed/mode mix as we get closer to capacity) is that its easier for ebikes to use the general road network, as the ebike ad Steve mentioned points out. Of course its also easier for fast human powered road bikers to do so, and I very much hope more will, but IF it comes to banning things, its simply not possible to ban only those who can ride 20MPH uphill on human powered bikes – what do we do, get people to submit their strava feeds to get a special can use trail with this bike license? We could ban all road bikes from the trails, but that would impact lots of people who can’t go that fast. Maybe ban high end road bikes, but leave the entry level road bikes? Probably even harder to enforce than the current ebike bans.

3. The main argument against either removing ebike bans, or extending/enforcing them, is inertia. Given that the status quo is mostly acceptable ( Even the explicit bans on NPS trails are not enforced, and OTOH, fast human powered bikes are still more widespread than ebikes on the trails, and only a few trail sections at a few times are really really crowded) there is no reason to make this an issue with NPS, either way – it could detract from other issues with NPS, and it would stir up the question of fast cyclists vs peds in the media (which is like the last thing I want at this time). I know this leaves the problem of civil liability/contributory negligence (which latter is still the law in Va and Md, though not in DC) for ebikers on places with a nominal but unenforced ban still in place.

4. Do you have to be able to go 15MPH on flats to get benefits from bike commuting? When I began, aside from being totally unfit and unskilled, I was riding an undersized dept store mountain bike. It took me about 45 minutes to get from Navy Yard to Pentagon Metro (where I did the next phase of a multimodal commute) which is about 8 miles an hour (there were faster segments on the way, but I am pretty sure I went well under 15MPH on them). That speed won’t make it possible for people to commute more than 5 or 6 miles, but I am not sure the goal of getting the “masses” to do 10 mile plus bike commutes anyway would really be plausible absent ebikes. I am not saying we should ban ebikes from the trails based on that – but I wonder if one of the things we as a bike community need to do, is join forces with the smart growth community to make create changes to urban form (more density close to employment centers, more mixed use, etc) that make short bike commutes available to more people. Much of this discussion, on both the ebike and fast road bike sides, seems to take for granted forms of urban development that are a heritage of our autocentric suburbs.

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 164020 wrote:

1. Not everyone on a road bike can bike fast though. I know this, because I am competitive enough that I look to see who I am passed by, and who is passing me. Its not every day that I pass someone on a road bike, but it happens enough times . I assume those are mostly people who are new to biking and bypassed the “ride a hybrid because road bikes are scary” stage. In contrast its sounds like almost everyone can ride fast on an ebike.

2. Again the reason to move ebikes off if we are reaching a capacity limit on our trails (and note, its about both overall capacity, and the particular issues of speed/mode mix as we get closer to capacity) is that its easier for ebikes to use the general road network, as the ebike ad Steve mentioned points out. Of course its also easier for fast human powered road bikers to do so, and I very much hope more will, but IF it comes to banning things, its simply not possible to ban only those who can ride 20MPH uphill on human powered bikes – what do we do, get people to submit their strava feeds to get a special can use trail with this bike license? We could ban all road bikes from the trails, but that would impact lots of people who can’t go that fast. Maybe ban high end road bikes, but leave the entry level road bikes? Probably even harder to enforce than the current ebike bans.

3. The main argument against either removing ebike bans, or extending/enforcing them, is inertia. Given that the status quo is mostly acceptable ( Even the explicit bans on NPS trails are not enforced, and OTOH, fast human powered bikes are still more widespread than ebikes on the trails, and only a few trail sections at a few times are really really crowded) there is no reason to make this an issue with NPS, either way – it could detract from other issues with NPS, and it would stir up the question of fast cyclists vs peds in the media (which is like the last thing I want at this time). I know this leaves the problem of civil liability/contributory negligence (which latter is still the law in Va and Md, though not in DC) for ebikers on places with a nominal but unenforced ban still in place.

1. I see your point, but your “seems” is not correct. Not every ebike has a lot of power. Depending on the weight of the bike and the power of the motor, the rider’s power may make a significant difference. So yes, not every road bike can bike fast, not every ebike can bike fast, and not every ebike can bike fast for every rider.

2. Again, not all ebikes are that fast, and (has we’ve discussed) there isn’t always an on-road option. Besides, as you note, we’re not really to “crowded” yet (the example listed in a previous post is having to slow once a ride behind pedestrians — that’s not really crowded) How about this proposal: we allow ebikes on all bike infra now (lanes, PBLs, MUPs), but we really concentrate on improving the behavior on trails, including making sure there are safe road-route options where people who can bike fast will average higher speeds that on the trails (e.g. a safe bike lane on a 4-lane Lee Hwy in Arlington would probably be faster than the Custis). In a few years, we can evaluate whether that change fixed the problem, or whether we need to think about banning some or all users.

3. I don’t think the status quo is acceptable for really growing cycling. Plenty of people are not willing to blatantly break the rules, and need to use trails that ban ebikes to get places.

[Author]

Posts