e-Bikes – Let’s talk

[Vicegrip]

@DismalScientist 167169 wrote:

I think we should mandate untrue wheels and badly adjusted brakes. That will keep you bastard speed demons in check.

Way too much untrue around already. Not adding lack of true to my wheels.

[huskerdont]

@Vicegrip 167181 wrote:

Way too much untrue around already. Not adding lack of true to my wheels.

I am also uncertain on the concept of badly adjusted brakes making the trails safer.

[Dewey]

@lordofthemark 167159 wrote:

we need the General Assembly to establish a classification like that in California, possibly even copying the Ca legislative language, which would enable localities to allow class 1 and 2 ebikes on trails

I’d like for that to happen, and for all the bike advocacy groups to get behind such a change. I would note the California language requires legal ebikes be labelled by the manufacturer with their class rating but that could be interpreted as covering only manufactured complete ebikes and may exclude folks like me that have converted their bicycle with a class 1 pedelec kit motor, if the legislation were worded to make explicit retailers can certify and label aftermarket conversions in a similar way the DMV undertakes safety inspections, I would gladly pay a local bike shop that services ebikes to check my controller settings in return for the required class label.

[EasyRider]

@sjclaeys 167162 wrote:

Good question and one that the more vocal e-bike advocates do not seem to want to answer.

I don’t know that class 3 distinction is of great importance. Seems to me that speed limits are the real hangup for e-bike advocates, and 20mph (class 2) is still faster than 90% of trail traffic. I think that establishing even modest limits on trails — say, 15mph limits during peak weekend and commuting hours – would really dampen the market for ebikes. I think most people will obey speed limits even if they can’t be enforced, because they understand they exist for public safety reasons. I also think that they would therefore think twice about spending $2,000 on a bike that they can’t in good conscience take above 15mph. If you’re able bodied and in reasonably good shape, it’s not that hard to go 12-14mph, which gives the ebike an edge of just a few mph. Speed sells.

[secstate]

@Crickey7 167079 wrote:

Right now, a very high percentage of bikes sold each year are Huffy-type bikes retailing for $350-$400. And many of those bikes get ridden around 3 times a year. If ebikes don’t get close to that price, they won’t sell more than a relatively small share of that market because most bikes are not being sold for transportation or even regular recreation. To hit that kind of share, E bikes would have to create their market, not cannibalize the existing market.

Here are some numbers I came across this morning — apologies if they have already been mentioned in this impressively long thread.

Around 30% of bikes sold in Holland are now e-bikes, and they account for more than 50% of turnover. The rise of e-bikes has driven the average selling price of a bicycle to more than 1,000 Euros.

The Dutch market is probably very different than the U.S., in no small part due to superior infrastructure, but e-bikes have taken off without trying to compete with the proverbial Huffy. We may need to stop thinking of e-bike prices in comparison to other bikes, but rather in terms of how price-competitive they are with public transportation, gas, parking, etc.

If I were an e-bike lobbyist, I would be pushing hard for employers to stop subsidizing parking, or instead give employees the option to cash out the parking subsidies.

http://www.bike-eu.com/sales-trends/nieuws/2016/11/milestone-for-e-bikes-in-holland-10128192

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/16/rise-of-the-ebike-how-going-electric-could-revolutionise-your-ride

I would be glad to lead an eBikeArlington study trip to the Netherlands.

edit: re: EasyRider’s comment above, I would be curious to know the average speed of an e-bike rider in countries where they have become popular. It’s not at all obvious to me that speed is their main selling point and that 15mph is somehow “too slow” for them to be competitive.

[lordofthemark]

@EasyRider 167191 wrote:

I don’t know that class 3 distinction is of great importance. Seems to me that speed limits are the real hangup for e-bike advocates, and 20mph (class 2) is still faster than 90% of trail traffic. I think that establishing even modest limits on trails — say, 15mph limits during peak weekend and commuting hours – would really dampen the market for ebikes. I think most people will obey speed limits even if they can’t be enforced, because they understand they exist for public safety reasons. I also think that they would therefore think twice about spending $2,000 on a bike that they can’t in good conscience take above 15mph. If you’re able bodied and in reasonably good shape, it’s not that hard to go 12-14mph, which gives the ebike an edge of just a few mph. Speed sells.

1. The general question of enforcement has also come up in our discussions. On the one hand, at least that does not require action by Richmond – though it would involve the NPS on the MVT – but at least on City owned trails (Holmes Run, Wayne Anderson, etc) it would be within City jurisdiction. OTOH , while I cannot speak for other jurisdictions, the City of Alexandria remains under substantial financial pressures, due to the weak commercial real estate market, WMATA needs, education needs, and aging infrastructure. In recent years the police dept was understaffed for various reasons – that seems to be remedied and the number of officers dedicated to traffic enforcement significantly increased. However the priority for that will be, and IMO has to be, enforcement on the streets, where the greatest dangers to pedestrians, to people on bikes, and also to drivers exist.

2. I am not sure why California chose 20MPH as the cutoff point rather than 15MPH. IIUC at least some European countries make 15 (the metric equivalent, rather) the cutoff – not sure of the full range in all Euro countries. Not sure if it would be viable for Va to establish a different standard (and I strongly think it would be good if at least Va, Md, and DC had common classifications). Note also, the classification does not only impact the question of legality on trails – at least in California class 3 ebikes are not allowed to be ridden by riders under 16, and helmet use is mandatory for adults riding them – which is not the case for class 1 and 2, which are treated more like bikes in those regards.

[lordofthemark]

Note one reason for not making the cutoff point too low. Though the contention here has been about usage on trails, as I have said earlier, I think the real strength of ebikes is on roads. Maybe not for a cautious parent pulling children, or for someone completely new to riding, but for someone who is an experienced rider facing issues of aging or physical disability (quite a few of us in not that many years) or a newbie who has learned enough to be more confident, a speed of 20MPH instead of 15 could be very helpful in navigating our streets. We have many streets that are signed at 25MPH of course, where riding in the general travel lane, or a conventional bike lane, is more comfortable at 20MPH than at 15MPH or 12MPH. I know my least comfortable times on roads is when I am laboring up a hill (or even a “hill”)at under 10mph, and taking the lane is really not a reasonable option, but the lane is too narrow for riding to the right to be comfortable or even safe. Now someone could buy a class 3 ebike, but then they would not have legal access to trails which in some places are key connections (as dasgeh has pointed out). But making the cutoff point 20MPH, may make it more important to actually enforce 15MPH. The feasibility of doing that is a subject for discussion. And as we see in this discussion, not all riders agree on the desirability of that – many do seem to believe that riding 20MPH, but doing so correctly, can be safe, and not only at completely uncrowded times (I assume there would be no enforcement on trails at uncrowded times, but I can’t be sure, and then there remains the problem of contributory negligence)

[vern]

@EasyRider 167191 wrote:

I don’t know that class 3 distinction is of great importance. Seems to me that speed limits are the real hangup for e-bike advocates, and 20mph (class 2) is still faster than 90% of trail traffic. I think that establishing even modest limits on trails — say, 15mph limits during peak weekend and commuting hours – would really dampen the market for ebikes. I think most people will obey speed limits even if they can’t be enforced, because they understand they exist for public safety reasons. I also think that they would therefore think twice about spending $2,000 on a bike that they can’t in good conscience take above 15mph. If you’re able bodied and in reasonably good shape, it’s not that hard to go 12-14mph, which gives the ebike an edge of just a few mph. Speed sells.

If I go 55 on the beltway (posted speed limit) I get blow away by virtually every other driver. So why do you think that mentality wouldn’t carryover to a speed limit on the trails? Public safety reasons? In a better world, maybe, but this ain’t it. I think the only thing that would keep most from surpassing a posted speed limit on the trails is the limits imposed by their own quads.

[LhasaCM]

@lordofthemark 167193 wrote:

2. I am not sure why California chose 20MPH as the cutoff point rather than 15MPH. IIUC at least some European countries make 15 (the metric equivalent, rather) the cutoff – not sure of the full range in all Euro countries. Not sure if it would be viable for Va to establish a different standard (and I strongly think it would be good if at least Va, Md, and DC had common classifications). Note also, the classification does not only impact the question of legality on trails – at least in California class 3 ebikes are not allowed to be ridden by riders under 16, and helmet use is mandatory for adults riding them – which is not the case for class 1 and 2, which are treated more like bikes in those regards.

The 15MPH limit in most European countries is tied to a EU directive that defines an e-bike as a pedal-assist, maximum 250W motor, and limits the assist to 25kph (roughly 15.5mph); the motor cuts out after that speed is attained.

CA and most other states that have done something here tie to the federal Consumer Product Safety Act, which defined a “low speed electric bicycle” as having a maximum 750W motor and the bike is only capable of 20mph when powered solely by the motor. To be more stringent than that speed standard at the state level probably wouldn’t be realistic.

[Zack]

Riding in this morning, I was very politely passed by an ebike. She waited until a pedestrian passed, then called her pass and off she went. A model cyclist and e-cyclist!

Also saw an xtracycle with pedal assist too!

[LhasaCM]

@vern 167196 wrote:

If I go 55 on the beltway (posted speed limit) I get blow away by virtually every other driver. So why do you think that mentality wouldn’t carryover to a speed limit on the trails? Public safety reasons? In a better world, maybe, but this ain’t it. I think the only thing that would keep most from surpassing a posted speed limit on the trails is the limits imposed by their own quads.

Quads and brains. As a “non-roadie” but numbers nerd – especially for my morning commute to school (where pacing myself for a longer ride isn’t an issue and we’re often cutting it close on time), I go as fast as I reasonably can given the conditions and congestion. Most of my morning commute is on the MBT. When there aren’t a lot of people out (as happened to be this morning) and things are clear and dry, even with my heavy bike and my daughter on the trailercycle, I can get through the MBT Sector 1 (between Franklin and the zigzag at R) averaging 19-20mph thanks to it being downhill. Even my median effort in 400 attempts is an average of around 17mph; my average speed for that sector is below 15mph (the nominal speed limit) only 10% of the time and were almost all when (1) I was on a CaBi or (2) my wife was on a CaBi and was with us.

On the flip side – the “MBT: Lane Switchin With The Sweat Drippin” segment that is going up the hill – I’ve cracked an average of 15mph once in 360 tries and that was the last time I went solo with the goal of going as fast as I could for those few minutes. I consider it a success (especially with daughter in tow) when I break 10mph on that segment heading home, so the speed limit wouldn’t impact me at all.

[dasgeh]

Some have asked why would you would want an ebike that can assist higher than 15mph on trails (let’s call that the speed cap). The answer is that an ebike, and it’s speed cap, don’t only travel on trails. On streets, it is very helpful to have the assist up to 20mph and even higher. Most streets have a 25 mph speed limit, so if a bike can go that fast they can (generally) keep up with traffic.

In fact, having a lower speed cap for trail-legal ebikes could make trails more crowded. For example, in Rosslyn/Courthouse, the Custis Trail parallels Lee Hwy. Westbound, Lee has 3 lanes, and never much traffic, but a speed limit of 35/40mph. It has a bike lane starting at the top of the hill. Taking the right lane up hill at 10-25mph is not all that unpleasant. Right now, plenty of riders on non-ebikes who can manage 20mph up that hill take the trail (at reasonable speeds) then take Lee instead of the trail when the trail is crowded. At 15mph it would not be fun. To get to/from the Custis/Lee from the DC, one must ride on a trail. So if you were to restrict trail access to ebikes that are capped at 15mph, those ebikes allowed to go to DC would not be comfortable taking Lee – i.e. you’d be guaranteeing they stay on the trail. If you allow the higher speed cap on the trail, more people would ride bikes generally (good thing) but then choose Lee when the trail is crowded (also good thing).

Also, there’s a confusing discussion on these last 2 pages about a speed limit on trails — I fully support having reasonable speed limits on trails for all users (ideally context dependent). But it seems people are talking about the cap on the assist for the ebike, which isn’t called a “speed limit” because “speed limits” are clearly understood to be something else. I’ve seen them called a speed cap or the setting of the speed limiter, but that’s confusing.

@lordofthemark 167159 wrote:

Right now, as far as I can tell, the very wide semi consensus among bike advocates I know in Va is that before we do anything, we need the General Assembly to establish a classification like that in California, possibly even copying the Ca legislative language, which would enable localities to allow class 1 and 2 ebikes on trails, while banning class 3 ebikes.

Is anyone here advocating for allowing class 3 ebikes on trails?

I would allow them. I would regulate the behavior (i.e. put on clear speed limits), and allow any battery-powered mobility assist device on the trails, at least for now.

I still haven’t heard a reasonable argument why you would want to ban an ebike that is able to go 25mph on the flat but not a strong rider who can go 25mph on the flat.

[secstate]

@dasgeh 167204 wrote:

I still haven’t heard a reasonable argument why you would want to ban an ebike that is able to go 25mph on the flat but not a strong rider who can go 25mph on the flat.

Perhaps because we may soon have many, many more e-bikes than strong riders on the trails. 25mph speeds are now the exception but may soon be fairly normal. It’s not clear that we want that.

Your points about higher speeds being useful in traffic are well-taken.

[Judd]

@dasgeh 167204 wrote:

I still haven’t heard a reasonable argument why you would want to ban an ebike that is able to go 25mph on the flat but not a strong rider who can go 25mph on the flat.

Reasonable argument: hozn and I ride the same frame size and I’d like to continue buying a used bike from him once a year or so.

So, we can’t ban hozn from the trails.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 167204 wrote:

I still haven’t heard a reasonable argument why you would want to ban an ebike that is able to go 25mph on the flat but not a strong rider who can go 25mph on the flat.

2 reasons.

1. Under the California legislation Class 3 tops out at 28MPH, not 25MPH. So unless you want to allow 28MPH ebikes, we would need to establish a different classification in Virginia. Since one goal of such legislation is to get manufacturers to agree to make the bikes easily visibly distinguishable, I would think that adds to the usual reasons for consistency among state laws

2. I am not sure how you determine who is a rider capable of going 25, or for that matter, 28MPH. Its not practical. Whereas its easier for a bike. That is without going into the question of how many riders can do those speeds.

I will note no one in the discussion I was party to wanted class 3 ebikes on the trails. We are divided into a majority who like the california law, and a minority who are skeptical of allowing ebikes on the trails at all. Note well, ALL the skeptics are primarily pedestrians – that is where the resistance is coming from, not from fast riders/MAMILs defending their primacy on the trails.

[Author]

Posts