e-Bikes – Let’s talk

[lordofthemark]

@TwoWheelsDC 165772 wrote:

We need to get these 40 pound, 20mile-per-hour death machines off our roads before more people get hurt!!!!!

Cars (and mopeds as well, I gather?) are required to have horns and rear lights, so this is not really a useful response to this particular article – not all the issues we have in the discourse are with folks who want to remove bikes from the road in general. We have all kinds of more specific issues, involving less flagrantly absurd pushback.

Dasgeh’s point, as I read it, that ebikes’ role in increasing the number of riders is more politically important than any particular concerns with weight, etc, is well taken though.

[huskerdont]

You occasionally see the argument that bicycles need to be required to have license plates so that scofflaws can be caught and punished (not that it works for cars, but nevermind). I could see the proliferation of motorized bikes adding fuel to that.

If they ever require license plates for bikes, I will become an outlaw.

[honestmachinery]

@huskerdont 165776 wrote:

You occasionally see the argument that bicycles need to be required to have license plates so that scofflaws can be caught and punished (not that it works for cars, but nevermind). I could see the proliferation of motorized bikes adding fuel to that.

If they ever require license plates for bikes, I will become an outlaw.

@huskerdont 165776 wrote:

If they ever require license plates for bikes, I will become an outlaw.

Except for the ring of that truncheon thing, likewse.

I’m not ringing any bells, either. If I can’t pass courteously, I’m reaching for brakes and waiting my turn, a method lost on some drivers.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[MFC]

@honestmachinery 165789 wrote:

Except for the ring of that truncheon thing, likewse.

Good working in of London Calling lyrics.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 165773 wrote:

Cars (and mopeds as well, I gather?) are required to have horns and rear lights, so this is not really a useful response to this particular article – not all the issues we have in the discourse are with folks who want to remove bikes from the road in general. We have all kinds of more specific issues, involving less flagrantly absurd pushback.

Dasgeh’s point, as I read it, that ebikes’ role in increasing the number of riders is more politically important than any particular concerns with weight, etc, is well taken though.

No, this is flagrantly absurd because the weights involved are so small and so variable. A small person on an ebike is going to mass less than me on my utility bike. There have been a lot of sturdy bikes with sturdy people on them for years, and there simply isn’t a statistically significant risk associated with them. At a certain point you have to simply acknowledge that people have irrational concerns without validating the concern as legitimate.

[EasyRider]

@lordofthemark 165773 wrote:

ebikes’ role in increasing the number of riders is more politically important than any particular concerns with weight, etc, is well taken though.

This has some limits for me.

[dasgeh]

@mstone 165796 wrote:

At a certain point you have to simply acknowledge that people have irrational concerns without validating the concern as legitimate.

A thousand times this.

[sjclaeys]

OK, let me try to explain rational concerns. The average e-bike weighs more than the average bike. The average e-bike can more easily reach and maintain a higher speed than the average bike. Thus, using the equation of Force = Mass X Acceleration, the average force exerted by an e-bike when impacting someone is greater. This, in turn, would suggest that an e-bike operator should exercise a great degree of care than a bicyclist, because the e-bike’s relative level of causing injury is greater. Note, that this is a conservative analysis. It does not reflect that: 1) most likely the majority of e-bikes are heavier than the average bicycle; and 2) the majority of e-bikes can more easily reach and maintain a higher speed than the average bicycle. This also does not take into account that e-bikes are marketed to go faster than bicycles, which likely will influence e-bike drivers to operate their e-bikes at higher speeds.

To anticipated arguments made here before, what about the outliers, i.e. the 70 pound e-bike driver, the 200 pound cyclist on the 50 pound bike that has the relatively unique ability to ride a constant 20 mph? I’d posit that it is using the outliers to drive the conclusion is what is irrational. It puts you in the same camp as those who say that yesterday was unusually cold, so climate change must not be happening. Also, outliers generally do not prevent establishing a general social norm. The general social norm that murder is wrong is not ignored because of possible outliers (what if it is done for self defense, what if it necessary to save another person’s life?).

Finally, as far as anecdotes about seeing e-bike drivers versus cyclists behaving badly or not, they are so skewed with observation bias as to be meaningless.

In sum, if e-bike advocates would just recognize that a greater degree of care should be given for driving e-bikes because of their relatively greater mass and speed, then I’d be happy to move on.

[EasyRider]

@sjclaeys 165803 wrote:

In sum, if e-bike advocates would just recognize that a greater degree of care should be given for driving e-bikes because of their relatively greater mass and speed, then I’d be happy to move on.

Good luck with that. Does ANYBODY on this thread actually support “banning” e-bikes from MUPs and existing bicycle infrastructure? I’m among the skeptical voices about e-bikes and I don’t; I just think there should probably be speed limits during rush hour. Response when I floated the idea here? Crickets.

BTW, that Post editorial recently linked to here didn’t call for “banning e-bikes” either. It called for requiring A BELL on all bicycles, and mentioned that it would be especially welcome on heavy bikes that go fast (e-bikes).

[Judd]

@EasyRider 165821 wrote:

Good luck with that. Does ANYBODY on this thread actually support “banning” e-bikes from MUPs and existing bicycle infrastructure?

Not really. But there also isn’t a consensus on what an e-bike is.

[lordofthemark]

@EasyRider 165821 wrote:

Good luck with that. Does ANYBODY on this thread actually support “banning” e-bikes from MUPs and existing bicycle infrastructure? I’m among the skeptical voices about e-bikes and I don’t; I just think there should probably be speed limits during rush hour. Response when I floated the idea here? Crickets.

BTW, that Post editorial recently linked to here didn’t call for “banning e-bikes” either. It called for requiring A BELL on all bicycles, and mentioned that it would be especially welcome on heavy bikes that go fast (e-bikes).

Since I actually attended a meeting of BPAC’s legislative and policy sub comm, let me tell you what we determined (as best I remember it – someone else took the notes – BPAC folks can correct me if I misspeak)

Its our understanding Ebikes are legal on City trails in Alexandria. We know they are illegal on the Mount Vernon Trail, the only NPS trail in the City. We could have A. Asked the City to limit ebikes on the City trails B. Asked NPS to end their ban on ebikes on the MVT C. Asked NPS to enforce their ban on ebikes on the MVT.

Our choice was to do none of the above, but to accept the status quo. For now. Because (and this is more my opinion –
our discussion was brief, but I think in line) A We have higher priority asks with the City, and even with NPS, than any change on ebikes in either direction. B. Because raising the whole question of speed and mode conflicts on the MVT in Alexandria is, given the circumstances in Alexandria likely to generate anti-bike trolling in the local media, and to focus the discourse on things that divide bike riders and pedestrians, at a time when we want the Council, and the entire City “polity” to focus on Vision Zero, on making our streets safer for all, but especially for people not in cars. C. Most people seem okay with the status quo – on the one hand few folks have major complaints with ebikes rather than with bad users in general, and most ebikers who need the MVT to make connections (such as to access DC) are okay with being “scofflaws” if they are even aware they are.

At some point, when there are more ebikes, and we have gotten more where we want to be on a range of other issues, we can revisit the issue. But I would hope by then Vision Zero and other improvements would make biking in the streets more attractive to people on bikes in general, and esp to those capable of riding faster, however powered.

The only reason I raised the WaPo piece HERE, was because it seemed to present another aspect to the impact of ebikes we had not yet discussed – the impact on the discourse. Personally I am skeptical of bell requirements, for reasons quite apart from the ebike issue – the way such a ban has in the past been used to harass specifically minority youth. Dasgeh has persuaded me that the impact of ebikes on this discourse is not worth worrying about – not so much because of any argument with Steve about the physics , but because increasing the number of riders total is much more important to the entire range of bike related policy and politics issues.

BTW, it does seem our biggest issue with ebikes is how SOME shops and brands are marketing them. But as I haven’t shopped for one, its hard for me to know precisely how widespread that is.

[hozn]

@Judd 165823 wrote:

Not really. But there also isn’t a consensus on what an e-bike is.

I think that’s the big problem here. We’re all talking about different things. The e-bikes that I see increasingly on the W&OD have been predominantly Class-3 e-Bikes like the Specialized Turbo. E-Bike advocates are talking about Class-1 e-bikes. They’re obviously not the same thing.

I doubt anyone here really cares if the trail is full of box bikes with e-assist or other people proceeding at a normal trail pace (e.g. 12-15mph) to get to work without working up a sweat. That’s great. There is concern over inexperienced riders (or even experienced riders) on these faster-than-class-1 e-bikes posing a trail hazard. I don’t think this concern is at all unfounded. It isn’t just about added weight, it’s about weaving through slower traffic at 28mph — and the added weight doesn’t help. There are some people that can do this on regular bikes, but it is much, much harder (and hence much much rarer, in my experience).

A speed limit would address this, but it’d be unenforced (and probably unenforceable). As would just a general regard for other users on the trail, which I find tends to come with experience riding on the trail.

I’d go a little further, though, and suggest that part of the “debate” here is really about whether people riding e-bikes should be treated as “cyclists”. And to that I say that I don’t see any great hypocrisy in permitting them on MUPs but not accepting them at cycling events (just as we would forbid Segues or electric skateboards or motorcycles — or rollerblades or pedestrians) . I don’t think there’s anything wrong with cyclists defining their sport as one that is exclusively human propelled. And no contradiction in at the same time embracing e-bikes as a great alternative mode of transport.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@sjclaeys 165803 wrote:

I’d posit that it is using the outliers to drive the conclusion is what is irrational. .

Except that you’re doing exactly that. The massive e-bike (or massive rider on an e-bike) cruising at a constant 20+ mph is an outlier. Most e-bikes a)don’t weigh dramatically more than normal bikes; b)aren’t traveling dramatically faster than normal bikes, and; c)can’t go up a hill at a “constant speed.” The rider with 2 kids on a e-bakfiets probably isn’t hammering along the Custis at 20mph, just like the 300lb rider on a 300WH e-bike probably isn’t hammering at 20mph on the Custis either. An e-bike will get you up a hill with less effort than a regular bike, but not dramatically faster and not at a constant speed as you say. I just read an e-road bike review and the author struggled to keep up with fitter, non-assisted cyclists going up a hill.

My problem with focusing on e-bikes as a unique hazard is that it ignores the extremely wide range of rider mass and speeds that are already out there. I see guys bigger than me (200lbs) going 20+ mph on regular bikes on the Custis all the time. Is that not a greater potential hazard than Gillian cruising at 15mph on her e-bike? Why are we focused on making sure e-bike riders take all this extra care when e-bikes are almost-without-exception within the existing range of rider mass and speeds already on the trail? Let’s just say “everyone be careful and considerate on the trail” and not single out any group of riders on trail-legal bikes.

[lordofthemark]

@EasyRider 165821 wrote:

Good luck with that. Does ANYBODY on this thread actually support “banning” e-bikes from MUPs and existing bicycle infrastructure?

Quibble (not that I support expanding bans on ebikes or increasing enforcement where they are currently banned) but I think its important that we distinguish MUPs and MUTs on the one hand, from bike specific infra (bike lanes and PBLs) on the other. IMO the biggest conflicts on the MUPs are not between different classes of riders, but between some riders and pedestrians. MUPS and MUTS present unique issues because we are mixing riders and pedestrians there. While a PBL may not be ideal for fast riders, it does not present the issues of mixing with peds (except where scofflaw peds enter it, or at intersections/crosswalks) This means we need to think about them differently in advocacy, but also when we ride.

[hozn]

@TwoWheelsDC 165827 wrote:

Except that you’re doing exactly that. The massive e-bike (or massive rider on an e-bike) cruising at a constant 20+ mph is an outlier. Most e-bikes a)don’t weigh dramatically more than normal bikes; b)aren’t traveling dramatically faster than normal bikes, and; c)can’t go up a hill at a “constant speed.” The rider with 2 kids on a e-bakfiets probably isn’t hammering along the Custis at 20mph, just like the 300lb rider on a 300WH e-bike probably isn’t hammering at 20mph on the Custis either. An e-bike will get you up a hill with less effort than a regular bike, but not dramatically faster and not at a constant speed as you say. I just read an e-road bike review and the author struggled to keep up with fitter, non-assisted cyclists going up a hill.

My problem with focusing on e-bikes as a unique hazard is that it ignores the extremely wide range of rider mass and speeds that are already out there. I see guys bigger than me (200lbs) going 20+ mph on regular bikes on the Custis all the time. Is that not a greater potential hazard than Gillian cruising at 15mph on her e-bike? Why are we focused on making sure e-bike riders take all this extra care when e-bikes are almost-without-exception within the existing range of rider mass and speeds already on the trail? Let’s just say “everyone be careful and considerate on the trail” and not single out any group of riders on trail-legal bikes.

The class-3 e-bikes rolling at 20+mph are not the outliers on my commute. They are [almost] the only e-bikes on my commute. (There are about half a dozen that I see with my range of commute times.) I have seen a box bike once. I have not seen any lower-power/class-1 “regular” commuting bicycles. I would notice; as someone that is obsessed with bike gear, I look at everyone’s bike.

But, yeah, class-1 e-bikes are quite different. They certainly wouldn’t stand out for the behavior that concerns sjclaeys. I don’t think we’d be having this conversation at all if the e-bikes on the trail were just class-1 e-bikes.

[Author]

Posts