e-Bikes – Let’s talk

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 167664 wrote:

1. you did not answer my question. Do you support baninning all ebikes (including class 1s) from PBL’s and other bike lanes?[/quote]
No, I think they’re great on roads or dedicated cycle facilities. My main concern is mode separation with pedestrians.

Quote:

2. My point about non enforcement against human powered bikes was to suggest that its a fantasy to think there will be LE patrolling the trails to chase down people on ebikes if all ebikes are banned from trails.

I’m pretty sure I’ve repeatedly not said that there would be patrols. It’s a tool which might be used to handle specific egregious cases. Just like they can trot officers out every so often because someone’s complained about stop signs, but they’re never in a million years going to universally enforce stop signs. (I’ve also stipulated that it’s a crappy solution that depends on selective enforcement, but I’d rather have a bad tool than no tool until someone comes up with something better.) Again, this is so that when a bunch of little old ladies or the jogger stroller moms or some other sympathetic group goes to complain about the specific guy with the short black hair and van dyke on the red electric thing that scares the heck out of them at 7:30 every morning, the police have a tool to do something. They wait for the guy with the black hair and the van dyke on the red electric thing to come along, and ticket him for having an electric thing while telling him not to scare the little old ladies and the soccer moms and letting him know he’s attracting attention by being outside the acceptable norm. It’s in no way going to stop all problems or provide any proactive solution.

Quote:

3. As for the bike dorks, that was in response to your point about norms. I am presuming norms will only matter to people deep into the bike community. I don’t imagine the question of norms is terribly relevant to people who have never ridden a bike before. Where do you expect they will get their norms from?

Norms matter to everyone. People get their norms from following other people. If someone walks or drives past a trail every day and sees electric things, then they know electric things are ok there. (They might not be able to tell what class the electric thing is, but I think a lot of people are smart enough to know that the guy going really fast in street clothes with no visible effort must be using one of those electric things.) Norms tell people how fast they can drive, and when they need to stop, and whether they can park in a bike lane, and which side of the escalator to stand on, and all kinds of things. People know how to follow norms much more than they know how to follow laws, that’s why the norms matter and the regulations about classes of electric things frankly don’t.

[lordofthemark]

No, I think they’re great on roads or dedicated cycle facilities. My main concern is mode separation with pedestrians.

So you want to allow electric motorcycles of any speed on the PBLs? Not limit it to 750 watts and 28MPH max as under the California law? Because otherwise, you need some way to distinguish different classes.

Again, this is so that when a bunch of little old ladies or the jogger stroller moms or some other sympathetic group goes to complain about the specific guy with the short black hair and van dyke on the red electric thing

So now we are expecting little old ladies to be able to ID an Ebike?

but I think a lot of people are smart enough to know that the guy going really fast in street clothes with no visible effort must be using one of those electric things.

Quite frankly, I don’t think they are. I don’t think they can really tell how fast riders are going, I don’t think they have any idea that there is a functional reason to wear kit (from all the comments suggesting that people wear kit because they are “lance armstrong wannabes”). As for visible effort, assuming many or most of the ebikes are going to be pedal assist, I don’t think that will clue them in either. Assuming they even think to look at the pedals when being passed. I think non cyclists are far more oblivious to details of cycling (other than being passed too closely) than you think. Also, not seeing people riding ebikes, assuming they realized that was going on, would not I think lead them to believe that there is a norm against it. They might just think that ebikers prefer roads, or that there are not many ebikers. I am pretty sure most folks haven’t seen an elliptical on the trail, many have never seen an e assisted mobility device on the trail, etc, but I don’t think that leads people to think there is a norm against it. This would be especially true if, under your suggestion, we actually wink at ebike usage and just have occasional enforcement campaigns against particular egregious behavior by ebikers (as for those occasional campaigns, they are less simple than you envision – an occasional stop sign campaign does not require LE to have different equipment or training than normal). I mean there is a norm within the bike community to Idaho by treating stops as yields, while yielding ROW to cross traffic and especially pedestrians – but AFAICT most non cyclists just think cyclists ignore all traffic control devices – subtle norms among riders, especially non-universal ones, are simply not going to be visible to non cyclists.

[huskerdont]

@lordofthemark 167671 wrote:

subtle norms among riders, especially non-universal ones, are simply not going to be visible to non cyclists.

Truer words never spoken. As I’ve roughly said before, the sins of the eBikers will be seen as the sins of all cyclists. If we don’t get this in order, the blame will fall on all of us. (And we won’t get this in order.)

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 167671 wrote:

No, I think they’re great on roads or dedicated cycle facilities. My main concern is mode separation with pedestrians.

So you want to allow electric motorcycles of any speed on the PBLs? Not limit it to 750 watts and 28MPH max as under the California law? Because otherwise, you need some way to distinguish different classes.[/quote]

I don’t see that as a problem worth trying to solve. The width and layout of the lane makes it pretty self-limiting for trying to go significantly over a reasonable speed. I know if I was trying to go 50 or 80MPH on a motorcycle I wouldn’t want to do it in a narrow lane between flexposts where pedestrians will randomly step out.

Quote:

Again, this is so that when a bunch of little old ladies or the jogger stroller moms or some other sympathetic group goes to complain about the specific guy with the short black hair and van dyke on the red electric thing

So now we are expecting little old ladies to be able to ID an Ebike?

Nope, I mostly expect them to complain and for the police to find something to charge him with when they catch him.

Quote:

but I think a lot of people are smart enough to know that the guy going really fast in street clothes with no visible effort must be using one of those electric things.

Quite frankly, I don’t think they are.

Well, we can agree to disagree.

[Dewey]

@huskerdont 167673 wrote:

If we don’t get this in order…

After yesterday’s election results it’s likely the Democrats will take the Virginia state House in November 2018, maybe WABA can help VA House delegates introduce but reword the People for Bikes model ebike classification system to cover kit motors, keep VA’s 1,000w power rating, and fund the necessary regulatory/IT/education changes necessary to implement enforceable class verification, remove contributory negligence in bicycle-car collisions like DC but include Class 1 pedelecs to protect all cyclists and encourage non-riders to use ebikeshare schemes, fund bicycle infrastructure to widen trails, mode separation on existing trails, experiment with cargo ebikeshare etc.

[lordofthemark]

@Dewey 167740 wrote:

After yesterday’s election results it’s likely the Democrats will take the Virginia state House in November 2018, maybe WABA can help VA House delegates introduce but reword the People for Bikes model ebike classification system to cover kit motors and fund the necessary regulatory/IT/education changes necessary to implement enforceable class verification, remove contributory negligence in bicycle-car collisions like DC but include Class 1 pedelecs to protect all cyclists and encourage non-riders to use ebikeshare schemes, fund bicycle infrastructure to widen trails, mode separation on existing trails, experiment with cargo ebikeshare etc.

I think VBF’s number one priority will be “due care” legislation, which failed last session, in part due to a controversy with LE and the Commonwealth’s attorneys about the wording. Ending contributory negligence would be huge, but is a big lift, as it will be fought by the insurance industry. Smaller things that have been chatted about would be clarifying the right of localities to set speed limits below 25MPH, and expanding the rights of localities on automated traffic enforcement. Another thing that would seem to not be too radical would be to allow people on bikes to proceed on a Leading Pedestrian Interval, as is allowed in DC.

Note also, while there has been some partisan split on biking (and bike/ped) issues, NoVa Republicans have generally been more friendly to the VBF agenda (well maybe not Bob Marshall or Jim LeMunyon? But David Albo was, I am pretty sure) – the real problem has been Republicans from outside NoVa, esp from rural areas.

[Dewey]

Thanks Lordy for your summary of the VBF’s legislative agenda, sensible incremental improvements are achievable, I hope delegates will continue listen to local concerns brought forward by VBF, WABA, etc. and balance them against our likely opponents (AAA, insurers, etc). I mentioned outside forces in a previous post and given the ebike industry is pushing the People for Bikes model ebike class legislation I expect after the mid-terms they will be knocking on doors in Richmond, I recognize there won’t be many legislative opportunities in any one session to move forward the cycling agenda.

[dasgeh]

@mstone 167668 wrote:

No, I think they’re great on roads or dedicated cycle facilities. My main concern is mode separation with pedestrians.[/quote]

So you are advocating for a total ban of all ebikes on all trails, right? How do you reconcile that with the reality that most routes (in NoVa, at least) involve some trail riding (where ebikes would be banned) and some street riding (where lots of people would want the eassist to feel safe)?

@mstone 167668 wrote:

Again, this is so that when a bunch of little old ladies or the jogger stroller moms or some other sympathetic group goes to complain about the specific guy with the short black hair and van dyke on the red electric thing that scares the heck out of them at 7:30 every morning, the police have a tool to do something. They wait for the guy with the black hair and the van dyke on the red electric thing to come along, and ticket him for having an electric thing while telling him not to scare the little old ladies and the soccer moms and letting him know he’s attracting attention by being outside the acceptable norm. It’s in no way going to stop all problems or provide any proactive solution.

But isn’t a total ban the same thing?

@lordofthemark 167671 wrote:

I think non cyclists are far more oblivious to details of cycling (other than being passed too closely) than you think.

This. E.g. when we were in NY, we were in a taxi with friends, and passed a bunch of throttle-assisted bikes. The taxi-driver commented “I don’t know how they can go so fast without pedaling!”.

@huskerdont 167673 wrote:

Truer words never spoken. As I’ve roughly said before, the sins of the eBikers will be seen as the sins of all cyclists. If we don’t get this in order, the blame will fall on all of us. (And we won’t get this in order.)

But what if ebikers sin less? I think this is likely, though I freely admit it’s only a theory: people who are willing to ebike but not bike are more risk-adverse that current biking population, so more willing to follow the rules. So by allowing ebikes, we’d make the general population of “people biking” more rule-abiding. — if that were reality, would you then support ebikes on trails?

@mstone 167676 wrote:

I don’t see that as a problem worth trying to solve. The width and layout of the lane makes it pretty self-limiting for trying to go significantly over a reasonable speed. I know if I was trying to go 50 or 80MPH on a motorcycle I wouldn’t want to do it in a narrow lane between flexposts where pedestrians will randomly step out.

No one is advocating for anything that can go 50-80mph on trails. No. one.

But doesn’t your argument translate to allowing ebikes that can go 28mph on trails?

[dasgeh]

@Dewey 167740 wrote:

After yesterday’s election results it’s likely the Democrats will take the Virginia state House in November 2018, maybe WABA can help VA House delegates introduce but reword the People for Bikes model ebike classification system to cover kit motors, keep VA’s 1,000w power rating, and fund the necessary regulatory/IT/education changes necessary to implement enforceable class verification, remove contributory negligence in bicycle-car collisions like DC but include Class 1 pedelecs to protect all cyclists and encourage non-riders to use ebikeshare schemes, fund bicycle infrastructure to widen trails, mode separation on existing trails, experiment with cargo ebikeshare etc.

I would love to see more comprehensive legislation to address vulnerable road users — e.g. clear up the crosswalk language, fix due care, fix contrib (using DC as a model, being clear we’re talking about the limited case of vulnerable road users). We shouldn’t forget the context of the attack in NY — vulnerable road users are targets, and deserve protection.

[huskerdont]

@dasgeh 167757 wrote:

But what if ebikers sin less? I think this is likely, though I freely admit it’s only a theory: people who are willing to ebike but not bike are more risk-adverse that current biking population, so more willing to follow the rules. So by allowing ebikes, we’d make the general population of “people biking” more rule-abiding.

With Class 3 especially, the capacity to sin is greater, and the harm that can be caused is potentially greater, so the users will all have to be angels. I don’t see this as likely. Those that I’ve seen on Class 3s to this point have been acting about like I would expect them to. I suppose that with greater numbers of them more could act more responsibly, but I doubt it.

“if that were reality, would you then support ebikes on trails?”

I never said I didn’t. In fact, I said that I largely do, but not Class 3s and motorcycle-ish things. For some reason, you seem to think that everyone who posts here with any concerns or suggestions on limitations is against eBikes in general.

[dasgeh]

@huskerdont 167765 wrote:

With Class 3 especially, the capacity to sin is greater, and the harm that can be caused is potentially greater, so the users will all have to be angels. I don’t see this as likely. Those that I’ve seen on Class 3s to this point have been acting about like I would expect them to. I suppose that with greater numbers of them more could act more responsibly, but I doubt it.

The vast majority of “sins” are things that have nothing to do with e-assist: running reds, running stop signs, passing too close or when it’s not safe (e.g. blind corners). If anything, having e-assist (and more assist, like Class 3) makes people less likely to do these things, because getting back to speed is easier, so scrubbing speed doesn’t seem as sad. In other words, with eassist, and Class 3 in particularly, there is less incentive to commit most of the “sins”, and only increased “capacity” to commit one sin (speeding).

@huskerdont 167765 wrote:

“if that were reality, would you then support ebikes on trails?”

I never said I didn’t. In fact, I said that I largely do, but not Class 3s and motorcycle-ish things. For some reason, you seem to think that everyone who posts here with any concerns or suggestions on limitations is against eBikes in general.

Look, this is a forum and not everyone types every comment to be 100% clear and complete. We use shorthand, understanding that there are earlier posts to provide context. Yes, I realize you only support banning some ebikes from trails. So a more correct comment would have been “would you then support ALL ebikes on trails”. Can’t you just read that in to the post and advance the conversation?

If you expect perfection in every post, then you will be forever frustrated here.

[hozn]

@dasgeh 167757 wrote:

… and some street riding (where lots of people would want the eassist to feel safe)?

I’d like to — genuinely — understand this idea better, since it seems to be the basis for why we need to allow 28mph e-bikes on the trails. Why do people feel safer riding at 28mph on our roadways? This is still significantly slower than any traffic, in my experience. And the risks to the rider are exponentially greater than if they were riding at 15mph.

I think we should all agree that a cyclist shouldn’t have to ride 28mph on a street in order to feel safe. I’d hope one way to improve cyclist safety on roads is by getting more cyclists riding 15-20mph on those roads. That would make the roads safer for everyone, not just those that can afford to pay used-car prices for a class-3 e-bike.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 167757 wrote:

So you are advocating for a total ban of all ebikes on all trails, right? How do you reconcile that with the reality that most routes (in NoVa, at least) involve some trail riding (where ebikes would be banned) and some street riding (where lots of people would want the eassist to feel safe)?[/quote]
That we really need to come up with better infrastructure if the ebike dreams are to be realized. Making it even harder to be non-motorized by eliminating the last non-motorized infrastructure isn’t the solution. I’d expect that making it safer/easier to use existing roads will be an easier lift than trying to improve the trail infrastructure, but I’m open to either.

Quote:

But what if ebikers sin less? I think this is likely, though I freely admit it’s only a theory: people who are willing to ebike but not bike are more risk-adverse that current biking population

I think that’s delusional. People suck at assessing risk, and I think the ebike pool will draw from the same pool as motorists–who aren’t known for their saintliness or ability to assess risk.

Quote:

No one is advocating for anything that can go 50-80mph on trails. No. one.

You lost track of the thread, that was in response to the question of how we could possibly ban high speed ethings from bike lanes if we don’t have classes. (With my response basically being that I don’t see that goal as sufficient reason to justify the class system because I don’t think it’s likely to be a big problem.)

Quote:

But doesn’t your argument translate to allowing ebikes that can go 28mph on trails?

No, because 1) the delta between reasonable maximum and practical maximum in a bike lane is less than the reasonable maximum and practical maximum on a trail (If I was only interested in my own safety I’d actually feel more comfortable about going at a crazy high speed down the middle of a lot of stretches of the W&OD than most of the bike lanes I’ve seen) and 2) I’ve already explained why I think this clunky “classes of bikes that can only do Xmph” is fantasyland so I don’t think the premise makes sense.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 167768 wrote:

(With my response basically being that I don’t see that goal as sufficient reason to justify the class system because I don’t think it’s likely to be a big problem.)

The class system is generated by different relationships to the means of production, obviously. The ruling class will generate whatever justification is necessary for the class system.

Sorry, just had to say it

I am just going to say, to add to Dasgehs point (without, I think, agreeing with her in substance) the threeway debate here – ban ebikes from trails, ban none that are under 28MPH, and ban some – with added confusion about the Ca cut points among classes vs other cut points – has just gotten terribly confusing. All I can say is that I do not find the argument for class 3 on the trails compelling. For reasons I have explained. Nor do I find Mstones arguments about enforcement and norms compelling (BTW, if people are going to ride 50MPH on the MVT, quite a few of them are going to end up in the Potomac River, IMO )

At this point I am less interested in more speculation (which is mostly what we have here) and more interested in actual observations – data or even anecdotes – about how the laws in California, other states, even Europe are working out.

Meanwhile there really are more urgent advocacy issues – City of Alexandria just released their draft Vision Zero plan, and there is a lot of interest there.

[lordofthemark]

@Dewey 167746 wrote:

Thanks Lordy for your summary of the VBF’s legislative agenda, sensible incremental improvements are achievable, I hope delegates will continue listen to local concerns brought forward by VBF, WABA, etc. and balance them against our likely opponents (AAA, insurers, etc). I mentioned outside forces in a previous post and given the ebike industry is pushing the People for Bikes model ebike class legislation I expect after the mid-terms they will be knocking on doors in Richmond, I recognize there won’t be many legislative opportunities in any one session to move forward the cycling agenda.

To clarify, I am not directly involved in VBF and don’t know what their agenda is for this session – I am going more on the basis of things I have heard talked about in BPAC. I will note that the new Alexandria Vision Zero draft plan includes some asks of the legislature – including the legalization of automated speed enforcement.

[Author]

Posts