e-Bikes – Let’s talk

[hozn]

I think the TN laws seem like a good starting point. https://www.tn.gov/tdot/article/bikeped-bikelaws

Banning class-3 from MUPs as a general rule (assuming I read that right) seems perfectly fine to me. Does the trail needs class-3 e-bikes?

[peterw_diy]

@sjclaeys 166025 wrote:

Interesting approach to assessing the risk of a vehicle or any product, do nothing until someone gets hurt. Reminds me of the neighbor against traffic calming measures because no kids had been yet hit by a car.

Worse than that, it reminds me of Federal Highway Administration standards for traffic controls.

Warrant 7: “Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash”

FIVE crashes at the same intersection in ONE YEAR! WTF?

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4c.htm

Anybody here watch the old John Corbett TV show “Lucky”? This rule reminds me of Vincent and Buddy’s pedestrian crash scam. Want a stop sign? Just go jump in front of moving cars… FIVE TIMES.

[SolarBikeCar]

@hozn 166026 wrote:

Banning class-3 from MUPs as a general rule (assuming I read that right) seems perfectly fine to me. Does the trail needs class-3 e-bikes?

A directly observable fact (e.g. Speed) is better than a conjecture (potential to speed) or checking stickers on bicycles. We don’t prohibit vehicles on the parkway based on whether they have speedometers with numbers higher than 120 mph. We set a speed limit and apply it to all vehicles. Instead of banning class-3 e-bikes, ban speeds of more than 20 and apply to all users without regard to vehicle. Otherwise you are going to repeat this discussion for unicycle hover boards and jet powered skates, etc.

[mstone]

@SolarBikeCar 166032 wrote:

A directly observable fact (e.g. Speed) is better than a conjecture (potential to speed) or checking stickers on bicycles. We don’t prohibit vehicles on the parkway based on whether they have speedometers with numbers higher than 120 mph. We set a speed limit and apply it to all vehicles. Instead of banning class-3 e-bikes, ban speeds of more than 20 and apply to all users without regard to vehicle. Otherwise you are going to repeat this discussion for unicycle hover boards and jet powered skates, etc.

That’s a ridiculous answer, speeds in the range appropriate for a trail aren’t enforceable. 20 is too high much of the time, and really means 30 (which is way too high). The real answer is for people to be considerate of others, but that’s not going to work either. (As has been amply demonstrated by those who already think the rules don’t apply to them.)

[Oldtowner]

I know right. Just ask the officer on foot with the radar gun on the CCT. I’ve never seen him stop anyone, but I don’t see how that would work without really creating some safety issues.

The trails weren’t designed for high speeds at high volumes, but that’s where we seem to be heading.

[cvcalhoun]

@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).

Maybe no one on this thread does. But they already got banned on the CCT, so apparently someone does.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@cvcalhoun 166038 wrote:

Maybe no one on this thread does. But they already got banned on the CCT, so apparently someone does.

DC law is pretty poorly worded in such a way that it bans e-bikes on all trails (“motorized bicycles” are prohibited, and the definition of “motorized bicycle” includes any type of motor, no matter how powerful). Was that actually in response to an e-bike incident or some kind of e-bike panic?

[SolarBikeCar]

@mstone 166036 wrote:

That’s a ridiculous answer, speeds in the range appropriate for a trail aren’t enforceable. 20 is too high much of the time, and really means 30 (which is way too high). The real answer is for people to be considerate of others, but that’s not going to work either. (As has been amply demonstrated by those who already think the rules don’t apply to them.)

“Considerate of others” is so corrupted by bias that it can’t be a rational rule. Do we have to be considerate of people who hate purple and not buy a purple vehicle? The only rules that matter are the ones that improve safety outcomes enough to offset the social cost of enforcing the rule. If 20 is too fast for the trails why do non-ebike riders consistently pass me on the downhills at speeds much closer to 30? Attempting to apply a speed limit to e-bikes that you don’t want applied to everyone exposes the bias–just be honest that you hate e-bike riders more than roadies.

[mstone]

@SolarBikeCar 166047 wrote:

“Considerate of others” is so corrupted by bias that it can’t be a rational rule. Do we have to be considerate of people who hate purple and not buy a purple vehicle? The only rules that matter are the ones that improve safety outcomes enough to offset the social cost of enforcing the rule. If 20 is too fast for the trails why do non-ebike riders consistently pass me on the downhills at speeds much closer to 30? Attempting to apply a speed limit to e-bikes that you don’t want applied to everyone exposes the bias–just be honest that you hate e-bike riders more than roadies.

You’re not even paying attention to who you’re talking to, since I’ve stated several times that I think speed limits on trails are stupid–so I don’t know why you think I want an e-bike speed limit. I’ve also repeatedly stated that the safe maximum speed depends on conditions, and that there isn’t a single number that makes sense on (for example) the entire 40+ miles of the W&OD. Even the text you quoted is me talking about yet another reason that a speed limit doesn’t work (in this case, the fact that the default “grace speed” applied to speed limits as low as those on the trail result in an effective limit much too high for those situations where people want a speed limit). I think mostly you have a knee-jerk defensiveness that comes from doing something that everyone knows you’re not supposed to, while not wanting to admit it.

For the record, I said “considerate of others” is the only way to make this mess of infrastructure we have work, but we can’t actually rely on that. So coming up with ridiculous scenarios for why you can’t possibly demonstrate courtesy won’t actually gain you any debating points.

[hozn]

Blocking SolarBikeCar’s messages from showing up has been one of the best online decisions I have ever made. (Thanks for the tip, dkel.)

[Vicegrip]

@hozn 166059 wrote:

Blocking SolarBikeCar’s messages from showing up has been one of the best online decisions I have ever made. (Thanks for the tip, dkel.)

Agree. If only there was a app that let me block some people in the real world……

[Harry Meatmotor]

@SolarBikeCar 166047 wrote:

“Considerate of others” is so corrupted by bias that it can’t be a rational rule. Do we have to be considerate of people who hate purple and not buy a purple vehicle? The only rules that matter are the ones that improve safety outcomes enough to offset the social cost of enforcing the rule. If 20 is too fast for the trails why do non-ebike riders consistently pass me on the downhills at speeds much closer to 30? Attempting to apply a speed limit to e-bikes that you don’t want applied to everyone exposes the bias–just be honest that you hate e-bike riders more than roadies.

You have a Gadsden bumper sticker on your car-bike thing, don’t you?

[hozn]

@Vicegrip 166068 wrote:

Agree. If only there was a app that let me block some people in the real world……

I suspect you’re not alone in that. It sounds like Mr. SolarBikeCar / aka Ed Myers of Sterling (as is openly attributed on his website) has a bit of a reputation for thriving off of conflict (w/ schools, the courts, etc.), apparently driven by Christian conviction. (Yeah, I’m trying hard to look beyond the irony of that, but I guess the crusades were also driven by conviction.)

[dasgeh]

@sjclaeys 166025 wrote:

Interesting approach to assessing the risk of a vehicle or any product, do nothing until someone gets hurt. Reminds me of the neighbor against traffic calming measures because no kids had been yet hit by a car. So that we know when any mitigating measures should be taken, how many injures will be required?

Wait, what? This is the approach taken for the vast majority of products. Every vehicle is allowed on the trail unless it’s banned, and the bans are limited. That silly looking Eliptigo? Allowed, not because we have done nothing to ban it. Bikes fall in this category, too.

My understanding is that these “no motor” bans were enacted before ebikes were widely available. “No motor” is a convenient way to say “no cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, etc”. I don’t think anyone was thinking about something battery powered, aside from possibly wheelchairs, which usually get an exception.

So, yes, I’m saying that we should treat ebikes like bikes, because they are much more like bikes. The riders of both are vulnerable. The size and weight of both are similar. It’s easy to control the speed (up to the max speed of the rider or rider+motor) on both. Yes, the max speed on one is higher, but there is no evidence that the higher speed leads to a higher rate of collision or more severe injuries in real life (v. in theory).

@sjclaeys 166024 wrote:

But cars aren’t guns. Cars get people places. And don’t kill . . .

But (1) cars do kill people; (2) cars are significantly larger. That alone is reason to ban them from trails. (3) A driver has to actively manage a car to go slowly. Again, a reason to ban them from trails.

This has just gotten silly. Possibly in an effort not to answer the basic questions. What externalities are you afraid of that are unique to ebikes? Where is the evidence that those things are happening?

Again, without answers to the above, the argument here for banning ebikes seems to boil down to “I don’t want to share trails with people unlike me.”

[Steve O]

@Vicegrip 166068 wrote:

Agree. If only there were an app that let me block some people in the real world……

I haven’t seen you for months. Ever wonder why?

[Author]

Posts