e-Bikes – Let’s talk

[huskerdont]

@dasgeh 167766 wrote:

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).

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.

It’s not relevant whether I am frustrated or not, although it is an odd statement. But it is relevant if you choose to misrepresent information in an effort, I suppose, to have no rules or restrictions on eBikes on trails at all? I really don’t know what the endgame here is from misrepresenting any reasonable opposition, as you have done other times as well, as complete opposition to all eBikes. So I don’t think it was shorthand; I think it was deliberate. Few here oppose all eBikes on the trails, yet you continue to act as if they do. That kind of misrepresentation undermines credibility.

[Dewey]

@lordofthemark 167770 wrote:

The ruling class will generate whatever justification is necessary for the class system.

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses

And I too would like to see more data, observational studies of rider behavior, etc.

[jabberwocky]

@dasgeh 167766 wrote:

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).

This flies in the face of what we know people do in powered vehicles every day. People will still do those things, because people are impatient no matter what vehicle they are operating, they will just have more power and therefore higher speeds behind them while doing so.

[Dewey]

@lordofthemark 167771 wrote:

I will note that the new Alexandria Vision Zero draft plan includes some asks of the legislature – including the legalization of automated speed enforcement.

I see signs indicating the City of Falls Church uses cameras to enforce their 25mph speed limit and for the most part it does make me keep an eye on my speed when driving down Broad Street/Rt 7. Much of Old Town’s street plan is inherited from the days of the horse and cart so a 25mph speed limit seems appropriate, but city-wide implies a 25mph limit on streets like Duke, Braddock Rd, Seminary Rd, etc. can it be made to apply just in Old Town?

[lordofthemark]

@Dewey 167781 wrote:

I see signs indicating the City of Falls Church uses cameras to enforce their 25mph speed limit and for the most part it does make me keep an eye on my speed when driving down Broad Street/Rt 7. Much of Old Town’s street plan is inherited from the days of the horse and cart so a 25mph speed limit seems appropriate, but city-wide implies a 25mph limit on streets like Duke, Braddock Rd, Seminary Rd, etc. can it be made to apply just in Old Town?

Ah, you saw that in the VZ plan?

25MPH has already been applied to select arterials outside Old Town – King from the metro to Quaker. Quaker from King to Duke. Seminary from I395 to Quaker.

Some of the roads are over designed for 25MPH, so traffic calming changes might be needed. I note that the VZ draft only suggests studying a 25MPH city wide speed limit (obviously excluding highways not controlled by the City). I would also note that the highest rates of KSI’s are on arterials with speed limits over 25MPH. I cannot at this time say anything here about BPAC’s response to the VZ draft plan.

Note, I can say, that for Old Town, there has been talk about lower speed limits than 25MPH. I think that would fall under the “neighborhood slow zones” envisioned in the plan. Those would have to be requested by the neighborhood in question. I have little doubt OTCA would be interested in one for Old Town, and I think its clear many other people, some of whom have not always seen eye to eye, with OTCA, might well join them in support.

[Vicegrip]

This is the kind of thing I think is going to be bad for E bikes in general. People will take these where only bikes should be. There is no place for this on a MUP or MTN bike trail.

https://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/bik/d/electric-fat-tire-stealth/6378792175.html

[Dewey]

@lordofthemark 167783 wrote:

Ah, you saw that in the VZ plan?

Note, I can say, that for Old Town, there has been talk about lower speed limits than 25MPH. I think that would fall under the “neighborhood slow zones” envisioned in the plan. Those would have to be requested by the neighborhood in question. I have little doubt OTCA would be interested in one for Old Town.

Yes, I did a quick Ctrl-F search for “speed” and saw the proposed city-wide limit. Speed cameras in Old Town put me in mind of the mirrors some women in the past would mount above an upper storey window so they could look down on visitors/callers below and decide whether or not to admit them, some of the historic houses in Old Town have them.

[Dewey]

@Vicegrip 167784 wrote:

There is no place for this on a MUP or MTN bike trail.

Indeed, or anywhere not private land, note the mention of a 20mph speed limiter for “legal road use” but it cannot be registered at the DMV so it is an illegal electric motorcycle. A minority of enthusiasts advocate for these motorcycles but they aren’t legal ebikes and as far removed from a Class 1 pedelec as my daughter’s red tricycle is from a Hayabusa.

[dasgeh]

@hozn 167767 wrote:

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.

I 1000% agree with your last sentence. I just don’t know how to get there. For now, most streets in Arlington have a speed limit of 25mph, and enough stops that average speed is probably around there. So wanting to go 28mph makes perfect sense to me. I can also say from experience that going around 22mph on Lee (where I’d guess average speed is 30-35mph) is much, much more comfortable than going 15mph.

@jabberwocky 167779 wrote:

This flies in the face of what we know people do in powered vehicles every day. People will still do those things, because people are impatient no matter what vehicle they are operating, they will just have more power and therefore higher speeds behind them while doing so.

Fair enough. But even so, you don’t address the fact that these “sins” don’t have anything to do with speed and e-assist (except that e-assist may make folks less likely to commit, because they can get back to speed faster).

@huskerdont 167773 wrote:

It’s not relevant whether I am frustrated or not, although it is an odd statement. But it is relevant if you choose to misrepresent information in an effort, I suppose, to have no rules or restrictions on eBikes on trails at all? I really don’t know what the endgame here is from misrepresenting any reasonable opposition, as you have done other times as well, as complete opposition to all eBikes. So I don’t think it was shorthand; I think it was deliberate. Few here oppose all eBikes on the trails, yet you continue to act as if they do. That kind of misrepresentation undermines credibility.

No, this is your assumption, repeated many times on this thread. You jump on any shorthand, any missed word that I write. I assume it’s because you just have a picture of me in your head, so you jump to those conclusions every time you see a post by me. I honestly don’t pay enough attention to your posts to know whether you do it with everyone or just me. Whichever, it’s not helpful to the conversation. I can only assure you that I do not chose to misrepresent information. I do use shorthand.

[dasgeh]

@Vicegrip 167784 wrote:

This is the kind of thing I think is going to be bad for E bikes in general. People will take these where only bikes should be. There is no place for this on a MUP or MTN bike trail.

https://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/bik/d/electric-fat-tire-stealth/6378792175.html

Yeah, even I don’t think that belongs on trails.

[mstone]

@Dewey 167774 wrote:

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses [/quote]
My power is based on a watery tart throwing a sword at me.

Quote:

And I too would like to see more data, observational studies of rider behavior, etc.

If there were compelling data I’d certainly reevaluate my position. In the absence of data I’ll continue to advocate slow rolling with the status quo.

[Dewey]

Wash cycle blog reported ebikeshare Jump are holding a launch party tonight at 6:30pm at 641 S St NW, RSVP Linkie.

I can’t go as my wife is doing yoga so I’ll be looking after the little one, but if you do go to try out riding a pedelec, please report back on the quality of their shwag.

[Harry Meatmotor]

@dasgeh 167792 wrote:

Yeah, even I don’t think that belongs on trails.

What would you do if one showed up at your next Kidical Mass ride?

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 167801 wrote:

If there were compelling data I’d certainly reevaluate my position. In the absence of data I’ll continue to advocate slow rolling with the status quo.

Given the likely chaos in the upcoming session of the General Assembly, I expect we will all have another 14 months at least to examine data from California, etc.

[huskerdont]

I assumed an advocate would value precision of language.

I am not an advocate, just a chump on a forum, but when the time comes to contact my delegate/county board/park service, I will ask that the more powerful eBikes to be banned from the trails because of the behavior I’ve seen with just a few out there not mixing well with crowded trails. (I have seen no serious arguments that with a few of these already acting unsafely, when many more come it will somehow become safer.) If that solution is not considered workable by rulemakers, then I would state that a complete ban is the next best solution. Those who ride responsibly would do what most of us do now, which is fly under the radar, but if someone does behave irresponsibly and hurts someone, the fact that they were breaking the rules would make it easier to establish fault.

A long thread that has covered just about everything three times over until further info becomes available.

[Author]

Posts