e-Bikes – Let’s talk

[lordofthemark]

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?

Unique is a problematic qualifier. There is obviously no problem with ebikes that is absolutely unique to them. Are they fast – some human powered riders are very fast. Are they heavy – some human powered riders are heavy. Do they make it possible for someone who is not an experienced rider to ride fast, with a lot of weight? Somewhere out there a human powered Fred with no experience riding off his trainer, can weighs 300 pounds and is doing 28MPH on flats (and faster on downhills)

But numbers matter. While many ebike riders are surely responsible, and a few human powered riders fit everything that people complain about wrt ebikes, WHEN we get lots of ebikes, we will almost certainly have an order of magnitude more fast heavy bikes.

Where is the evidence that those things are happening? There is only anecdotes afaict. I don’t know that we have any data on ebike usage on MUTs, and AFAICT we have very limited data on speeds on MUTS in general, and even less if any on other bad behaviors. We also have no evidence that the bans (in DC and on NPS trails) are slowing ebike adoption or limiting usage.

Which is why I am happy with the status quo, until we see evidence of a real problem in either direction.

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.”

I think that’s just unfair. I have explained what concerns me as an advocate.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 166079 wrote:

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).

Has anyone actually tried studying the impact of speed on bike vs ped collision, the way they have on car vs ped collisions? I guess the limited numbers of bike vs ped collisions and the generally poor data on them (for example estimates of speed) would make such studies difficult.

[hozn]

@dasgeh 166079 wrote:

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.”

I imagine we wouldn’t be having this debate at all if we had an over-abundance of trail resources. I think every group here is just looking out for their own self-interest when it comes to having access to trails. It’s similar to the idea that racism (or even something like the Rwandan genocide) are about scarcity of resources, and looking out for number one. The W&OD out west is sparsely used and while we may think SolarBikeCar is a jackass, he’s not a serious threat to trail users because there are so few. The Elf would be a serious hazard on the Custis. Man, that trail is busy in the mornings! I don’t envy those that use it to commute, but realize it’s really one of the only safe ways into the city from Arlington by bike.

Since I don’t ride an e-bike, I’m perfectly content with laws that ban them But I also would be disappointed if pedestrians and slower traffic joined forces to ban bicycles from these trails, so I realize that’s a bit hypocritical. But I don’t see anything wrong with treating e-bikes as a different mode of transportation. Sure, they’re like bikes, but I think you could just as easily argue that they’re more like electric mopeds or motorcycles. I mean, the Sondors e fat bike weights more and goes faster than the Surge electric scooter (http://www.dynacraftwheels.com/24v-surge-city-scooter).

Anyway, I think the point is that everyone will make sure they’re on the inside of the circle they draw. I think that having trails that are restricted to human-powered activities is perfectly reasonable, just like I think having off-road trails where mountain bikers are not allowed is perfectly reasonable. I think that having people ride electric-assist bikes to get to work is also perfectly reasonable. Maybe if the W&OD recognized their role as a transportation path instead of just a recreation path we’d get both specific allowance of [some class of] e-bikes and — more valuable to me — plowed trails.

[Harry Meatmotor]

@dasgeh 166079 wrote:

the argument here for banning ebikes seems to boil down to “I don’t want to share trails with people unlike me.”

Are you just trying to bait someone into fat-shaming people on e-bikes?

[dasgeh]

@hozn 166089 wrote:

Anyway, I think the point is that everyone will make sure they’re on the inside of the circle they draw. I think that having trails that are restricted to human-powered activities is perfectly reasonable, just like I think having off-road trails where mountain bikers are not allowed is perfectly reasonable. I think that having people ride electric-assist bikes to get to work is also perfectly reasonable. Maybe if the W&OD recognized their role as a transportation path instead of just a recreation path we’d get both specific allowance of [some class of] e-bikes and — more valuable to me — plowed trails.

I’m concerned that so many here are willing to draw such a small circle that they are the inside, but so many are left outside. In this area in particular, the difference between inside your circle and outside your circle boils down to fitness: an 110 lb out of shape woman on an ebike weighs less and goes no faster than a 200 lb fit dude on a carbon bike, the only difference is how they got to the speed (as an example). When we’re talking about transportation, fitness just absolutely shouldn’t matter.

In other words, I don’t think having a trail that serves transportation needs limited to only human power is reasonable (I also don’t think it’s legal, as it would violate the ADA).

@lordofthemark 166085 wrote:

Do they make it possible for someone who is not an experienced rider to ride fast, with a lot of weight? Somewhere out there a human powered Fred with no experience riding off his trainer, can weighs 300 pounds and is doing 28MPH on flats (and faster on downhills)

@Harry Meatmotor 166090 wrote:

Are you just trying to bait someone into fat-shaming people on e-bikes?

That is what seems to be behind the “ban them” argument.

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 166085 wrote:

There is only anecdotes afaict. I don’t know that we have any data on ebike usage on MUTs, and AFAICT we have very limited data on speeds on MUTS in general, and even less if any on other bad behaviors. We also have no evidence that the bans (in DC and on NPS trails) are slowing ebike adoption or limiting usage.

Which is why I am happy with the status quo, until we see evidence of a real problem in either direction.

The status quo is that if a woman biking on her kids on her e-cargo-bike on the MBT gets hit by a dude on a carbon bike coming the other way who pulled into her lane around a blind curve to pass a jogger, and her bike is totaled and her kids end up in the hospital, she’ll probably be on the hook for the entire bill. Are you ok with that status quo?

[Vicegrip]

@Steve O 166084 wrote:

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

Nope…. :p

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 166106 wrote:

The status quo is that if a woman biking on her kids on her e-cargo-bike on the MBT gets hit by a dude on a carbon bike coming the other way who pulled into her lane around a blind curve to pass a jogger, and her bike is totaled and her kids end up in the hospital, she’ll probably be on the hook for the entire bill. Are you ok with that status quo?

1. Personally I would like to see Virginia change to a comparative negligence standard from contributory negligence. That would not only largely resolve the issue above, but would address a wider range of injustices that won’t be solved by changing the NPS rule on the MVT (what happens on the MBT is up to DC and I have no position on it)

2.Where is the evidence that those things are happening?
Again, its a hypothetical versus a hypothetical.

Perhaps I should have worded it more carefully – not so much “happy with the status quo” as “changing the rules in either direction is a low priority for advocacy”

ADA lawsuit possibility is interesting. Anyone bringing forward a suit?

[hozn]

@dasgeh 166105 wrote:

I’m concerned that so many here are willing to draw such a small circle that they are the inside, but so many are left outside. In this area in particular, the difference between inside your circle and outside your circle boils down to fitness: an 110 lb out of shape woman on an ebike weighs less and goes no faster than a 200 lb fit dude on a carbon bike, the only difference is how they got to the speed (as an example). When we’re talking about transportation, fitness just absolutely shouldn’t matter.

I guess the first question is whether the NVRPA treat the W&OD as a transit corridor. My understanding was that to them this is a recreational park so their policy was based on recreation first. Hence no plowing. (Yes, they do use a snowblower now, which is a big help for people that also have studded tires.) I realize we’re talking about more than the W&OD, but I wonder if this focus/responsibility is part of the problem when it comes to e-bike policy.

I don’t think I agree with the proposition here, though. Indeed fitness does not matter for transportation; people can take public transportation, drive, etc. But if I decided to be like Subby and start commuting by running, I’d probably need to be able to run (or even walk) a few miles (or, ideally, 15). The hypothetical out-of-shape commuter could also wake up earlier to ride slower or live closer to work. Having a motor is certainly more convenient, but I fail to see how lack of motor prevents this particular hypothetical person from using the trail. And I definitely don’t think that we should give people the option of buying a class-3 e-bike to ride 30mph down a mixed-use trail because they want to have a house with a 4-car garage in Ashburn and not wake up early for their “bike ride” in to work in the city. They might as well buy a motorcycle. Or I guess they effectively have done, in that scenario.

I think there’s a fundamental difference in how we look at this; admittedly, I think yours is probably a position that is better for the world — you certainly put far more effort into advancing it. I care less about bicycles for transportation (I agree in removing cars, but not sure about favoring bicycles over public transportation) and instead am interested in cycling for recreation and sport — and cycling as a community. E-bikes don’t do much to that end for me. Sure, I ride my bike to work, but I do it for fitness (and because I hate sitting in traffic).

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 166086 wrote:

I guess the limited numbers of bike vs ped collisions and the generally poor data on them (for example estimates of speed) would make such studies difficult.

Exactly that. I don’t think “severity of injury in collision with bike at 30MPH vs severity of injury in collision with bike at walking speed” is something that even needs serious study. The basic physics involved are so straightforward that to question the relationship between speed and outcomes is ridiculous. (Even calling for a study of something that fundamental smacks of classic NIMBY delaying tactics more than serious inquiry.) Now, there aren’t enough instances to make any kind of valid local study of comparative outcomes, and that will remain true as long as the number of fast bikes on the trails continues to be limited. When that will change is after the trails have reached/passed their capacity, at which time it will be difficult or impossible to put the genie back in the bottle and ban large numbers of people already on the trails. We’re pretty close to capacity on the more popular trails during peak hours now, and unless bags of money fall from somewhere I don’t see how we get useful mode separation on the current infrastructure. We already know that best practices (from places that do trails well) indicate that the trails we have now are doing it wrong. We’ve gotten away with having cyclists and pedestrians and dogs and chickens and whatever all mixed up on the trails mainly because the utilization is so low–but we know that the current designs are suboptimal, and there is no way that adding large numbers of faster users can make the situation better. We don’t need to study our trails to death, because other places have already shown that outcomes are improved when you separate fast & slow trail users.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 166105 wrote:

I’m concerned that so many here are willing to draw such a small circle that they are the inside, but so many are left outside. In this area in particular, the difference between inside your circle and outside your circle boils down to fitness: an 110 lb out of shape woman on an ebike weighs less and goes no faster than a 200 lb fit dude on a carbon bike, the only difference is how they got to the speed (as an example). When we’re talking about transportation, fitness just absolutely shouldn’t matter.[/quote]

I think we’re just talking past each other here, as you seem to be fixated on current e-bikes that have a limited ability to boost speeds and depend on pedal assist, and disregard the concerns that such legal distinctions are wishful thinking. I don’t have any objection to moms on ebikes tootling along slowly and considerately (and I doubt many people do) but I don’t see any way that opening the floodgates for electric vehicles on the trails results in that user being a representative sample.

Quote:

In other words, I don’t think having a trail that serves transportation needs limited to only human power is reasonable (I also don’t think it’s legal, as it would violate the ADA).

As far as ADA goes, I don’t think any reasonable person has ever complained about electric wheelchairs or other assistive devices posing a problem. People tend to recognize a reasonable accommodation when they see one. But somewhere in the continuum between an electric wheelchair and an electric motorcycle you pass the point of accommodation and start providing a whole new capability and causing a whole new set of issues.

Quote:

That is what seems to be behind the “ban them” argument.

Rational debate over a topic about which reasonable people can disagree is facilitated if neither party attacks a strawman characterization of the motives of the other party.

[Judd]

@hozn 166109 wrote:

But if I decided to be like Subby and start commuting by running, I’d probably need to be able to run (or even walk) a few miles (or, ideally, 15).

You just need an e-Elliptical Bike. The downside is that everyone will think you have a stutter. The upside is that you can justify going to 28 mph down the Custis on your Class 3 e-Elliptical Bike by stating that you need it for your stuttering disability.

[mstone]

@hozn 166109 wrote:

I guess the first question is whether the NVRPA treat the W&OD as a transit corridor. My understanding was that to them this is a recreational park so their policy was based on recreation first.

It’s not just their policy, it’s also their design. Replace the current MUT with a dedicated cycle track and distinct pedestrian facility and a lot of the objections would vanish.

[Judd]

@lordofthemark 166108 wrote:

ADA lawsuit possibility is interesting. Anyone bringing forward a suit?

I have successfully submitted an ADA complaint and it was a fairly pleasant experience. It’s something on my list to get smarter on because it can be a powerful tool against dangerous infrastructure.

[Harry Meatmotor]

@dasgeh 166106 wrote:

The status quo is that if a woman biking on her kids on her e-cargo-bike on the MBT gets hit by a woman on a 750W e-bike bike coming the other way who pulled into her lane around a blind curve to pass a jogger, and her bike is totaled and her kids end up in the hospital, she’ll probably be on the hook for the entire bill. Are you ok with that status quo?

This is the same argument, right?

@dasgeh 166105 wrote:

That is what seems to be behind the “ban them” argument.

Well, I can only speak as someone who used to weigh 250lbs, then after almost 10 years of riding bikes regularly, am down to 155. I know firsthand what being fat is. And I know firsthand how awful and hopeless one can feel being obese.

So, I’ll reiterate. This has nothing to do with what you think it does. This argument is about safer utilization of limited resources. Class 3 e-bikes are motorcycles.

[Author]

Posts