e-Bikes – Let’s talk

[TwoWheelsDC]

@dasgeh 168250 wrote:

The guy I pass most often wearing a full face helmet is riding a regular ol’ mountain bike – no e assist.

I see this dude fairly regularly on the Custis (and almost always in the same spot, oddly enough). There are a couple of other people that I’ve seen on multiple occasions with full face helmets, even in the summer, riding just regular bikes.

[EasyRider]

@dasgeh 168250 wrote:

But we’re talking about where people riding these bikes should be allowed to go.

I forget, did we ever address the issue of electric motorcycles? The lines between “e-bike” “e-scooter” and “e-motorcycle” are going to be blurry; even classes of current ebike are not very distinct.

Should any of the above be allowed on paths, assuming they observe speed and safety norms — even though they be capable of highway speeds? They are “perfectly capable of slowing down to the fit conditions”, right?

[Harry Meatmotor]

@dasgeh 168250 wrote:

You sound like all the naysayers who spoke against Capital Bikeshare. The evidence has not born you out here. More and more people are riding bikes, and they are not dying in droves.

CaBi is great!

Motorcycles on MUTs are not.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@EasyRider 168257 wrote:

The lines between “e-bike” “e-scooter” and “e-motorcycle” are going to be blurry;

No they aren’t. Existing laws cover these distinctions quite well. They could be better refined on the low end of the power spectrum (i.e. potentially lowering the power/assist threshhold in the definition of e-bikes, or more explicitly defining e-bike classes), but the legal distinctions between e-bikes and scooters/mopeds/motorcycles (regardless of power source) are very clear.

@EasyRider 168257 wrote:

Should any of the above be allowed on paths, assuming they observe speed and safety norms — even though they be capable of highway speeds? They are “perfectly capable of slowing down to the fit conditions”, right?

There is zero ambiguity about this in current law.

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 168255 wrote:

I don’t however think they should be ridden on roads by the kinds of riders who find riding on a road like Quincy or Key at 20MPH to be so intimidating that they would need to take a MUT instead, which is a big part of the case you have presented for allowing class 3 ebikes on MUTs’

Just clarifying my argument, because you’ve misstated it: I think there are people who are uncomfortable on roads at slower speeds, but comfortable at higher speeds. Thus, there are routes that involve stretches of street that they would take on a class 3 but not on a class 1/2 ebike [assuming we end up with California classifications] and, given the realities of routes in our area, stretches where trail riding is necessary. Thus, if we don’t allow Class 3 ebikes on trails. Those people will take the car for those trips.

For example, if someone wants to get from near Virginia Highlands Park (near Pentagon City) to the State Department, they would need to go on Joyce or Eads and some trail. You could see how someone would want speed to keep up with traffic on those streets, but need to take a trail to get where they’re going.

And for the up-teenth time, I’m cool with this being a time limited thing, until we can build out infrastructure and get better data.

[EasyRider]

I’m talking about ambiguity in practice, not in law, and there is plenty of it.

Of course advocates would like to call a vehicle with pedals that goes 28mph unassisted or with minimal rider input a bicycle. But if we’re honest with ourselves, ebikes have as much or more in common with a scooter or moped as they do a pedal-powered bicycle, and in fact that’s a large part of their appeal. It’s the motor, but instead of using that word, we use an ambiguous abbreviation, “e”.

But to Dasgeh’s point, if the heart of the matter is responsible users, what is the rationale for allowing Class 3 ebikes but not say, an e-scooter or motorcycle equivalent to say, 150cc or 350cc? Assuming they all operated “safely” (whatever that means), what’s the problem?

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 168285 wrote:

Just clarifying my argument, because you’ve misstated it: I think there are people who are uncomfortable on roads at slower speeds, but comfortable at higher speeds. Thus, there are routes that involve stretches of street that they would take on a class 3 but not on a class 1/2 ebike [assuming we end up with California classifications] and, given the realities of routes in our area, stretches where trail riding is necessary. Thus, if we don’t allow Class 3 ebikes on trails. Those people will take the car for those trips.

For example, if someone wants to get from near Virginia Highlands Park (near Pentagon City) to the State Department, they would need to go on Joyce or Eads and some trail. You could see how someone would want speed to keep up with traffic on those streets, but need to take a trail to get where they’re going.

And for the up-teenth time, I’m cool with this being a time limited thing, until we can build out infrastructure and get better data.

That is the same argument you made before. We are going in circles. This is getting silly. Most people don’t live near trails. People settle for getting places by taking the lane on 25MPH streets, using infra that you consider unsafe (like the Eads St PBLs), going well out of their way, or taking a sidewalk. There are certainly people unwilling to do ANY of those things who are interested in riding. But many or probably most would not be willing to take a lane of an busy 25MPH or higher road because they could ride a class 3 ebike instead of a class 1 ebike. And of those, how many are going from Va to DC (the only place where you really have to go on a trail to get to, again assuming you won’t take the lane on the Memorial Bridge)? How does that weigh against the real costs of allowing class 3 ebikes on the MUTs (which I have yet to see you acknowledge at all) ?

As for temporary, why not get more info on how the Ca law is working in Ca and other states. Or adopt the Ca law here as a temporary thing? If the goal is getting more riders, is it so essential we get them now, rather than in two or three years?

Why should we prioritize something that goes beyond what other states are doing, beyond what the EU does, beyond what the manufacturers call for, over all the other things we want out of Richmond?

[Harry Meatmotor]

@dasgeh 168285 wrote:

For example…

Is there any example other than your personal issues with the current infrastructure?

So far we’ve heard:

Heavy bikes are hard to ride up hills, therefore, Class-3 e-bike panacea.

You are entitled to travel at unsafe speeds on MUTs just like FREDs do, therefore, Class-3 e-bike panacea.

Its difficult to keep up with your racer husband, therefore, Class-3 e-bike panacea.

Riding on surface streets for some portion of your commute is the only way for you to commute by bike, therefore, Class-3 e-bike panacea.

Your friends would totes stop driving cars if they could go 25+ mph on heavy use transportation infra that’s already a mess, therefore, Class-3 e-bike panacea.

What else?

How ’bout you stop advocating for the NorthArl BMW crowd and their $5k e-bikes and instead, continue advocating for better infra?

[AFHokie]

@Harry Meatmotor 168299 wrote:

Is there any example other than your personal issues with the current infrastructure?

So far we’ve heard:

Heavy bikes are hard to ride up hills, therefore, Class-3 e-bike panacea.

You are entitled to travel at unsafe speeds on MUTs just like FREDs do, therefore, Class-3 e-bike panacea.

Its difficult to keep up with your racer husband, therefore, Class-3 e-bike panacea.

Riding on surface streets for some portion of your commute is the only way for you to commute by bike, therefore, Class-3 e-bike panacea.

Your friends would totes stop driving cars if they could go 25+ mph on heavy use transportation infra that’s already a mess, therefore, Class-3 e-bike panacea.

What else?

How ’bout you stop advocating for the NorthArl BMW crowd and their $5k e-bikes and instead, continue advocating for better infra?

[ATTACH]15747[/ATTACH]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930AZ using Tapatalk

[Dewey]

@Harry Meatmotor 168299 wrote:

the NorthArl BMW crowd and their $5k e-bikes and instead, continue advocating for better infra?

Gillian leads family bike rides and invests time working to improve bicycle infrastructure for residents across Arlington county not just those who live north of route 50, I am grateful for all she and everyone who volunteers on local government bicycle advisory committees does for the local cycling community.

There’s a wide range of prices for motor kits and complete ebikes, I live in Arlington but earn well below the median, we have a 10 year old Subaru bought used last year. I got into ebikes because after 10 years of taking Metrorail I was out of shape and wanted the pedal assist to get up hills after work. Last fall I spent $1500 to convert a bicycle I already owned with a Class 1 pedelec motor kit after a few false starts trying out then returning different motors and batteries, if I’d waited until I learned more I could have done it now for $750, there are cheaper complete ebikes but I like my sturdy steel bike and while I can do some of the motor/electrical maintenance myself, I rely on Papillon for servicing the bicycle components. I joined WABA and took a City Cycling Class, which I needed because I’m slow but I’m grateful the instructor didn’t mind I was riding a pedelec and just asked me to turn off the motor during the drills, I’m riding a couple of times a week which for me is the most I’ve ridden in years, although I’m a bad weather wimp I like being above ground out in the fresh air, I think my bike is starting to forgive me for 21 years of mostly sitting in sheds, for me it’s all about the pedal assist and utility cycling – it’s been really useful to be able to tow my daughter to class, the library, church, shopping, run errands, and I appreciate being able to get a little exercise pedalling around getting stuff done. I charge the battery for 2-3 hours every 20 miles or so, I’m asking Santa for a spring tune up, I find running an ebike to be quite economical, and a life changer.

[hozn]

Yeah, it’s impossible to over-state the value of the advocacy that Gillian does for our community. I am extremely grateful to her for that work, as I benefit from it everyday. And love that she wants to get more people on bikes.

While I disagree with the idea of accommodating CA class-3 e-bikes on multi-use paths, I certainly think encouraging e-bikes in general is a great way to get more people on bikes. I can certainly appreciate that not everyone wants to change into lycra for their ride to work. I do think that the perspective is different for someone that sees electric bikes at work out in the ‘burbs where there intent is clearly to just move someone faster for a greater distance vs. use of these bikes in the closer-to-the-city parts of the trail.

In general, I’d like to see bike sales shift to focus on lower-speed bikes because
(1) I don’t think 28mph bikes on trails is good for the riders or other users. We all agree on that. And while having a class-3 e-bike isn’t going to make you ride that fast, it certainly opens that up to a much larger % of the cycling population. That is going to increase injury rates.
(2) I really despise the marketing campaign that is pushing the idea of increasing speed to get places faster. We really don’t need faster lives. (I think the focus should be on getting to work without sweating.)
(3) I think e-bikes do the most for cyclists if they’re out riding at normal-cyclist speeds, not moped speeds. E.g. I want more cyclists, but I want cars to get used to slower-traffic cyclists (and hopefully slow down).

While I agree that enforcement of a class system is unlikely to be effectively implemented, I would hope that having clear rules about classes on trails would push the sales of the explicitly legal bikes. I think the shops do have responsibility to inform their customers where they can and can’t ride. — Especially once this is clarified and hopefully made a little more consistent across these jurisdictions.

Anyway, that’s my reasoning. In the end, I think it would be great to let e-bikes be explicitly allowed and if it were only all or nothing, I suspect I’d vote “all”. It would be nice if there were some accountability or enforcement for those that ride like jackholes — e-bike or not. Perhaps increasing the number of Trail Patrols — especially east of Falls Church (seems like I only ever see trail patrols west of Vienna) — could help provide some education / constructive criticism for this reckless riding.

[Harry Meatmotor]

If Dasgeh were to state “I fully encourage folks who are unsure of their skills, abilities, and/or sense of safety, to ride a C1/C2 e-bike,” and encourage folks in the legislature to pursue a CA-style legislative agenda, rather than a “C-3/AliExpress 3000+Kw free-for-all, and sort out the ‘casualties,’ after we’ve got some self-reported data about folks riding semi-illegal contraptions,” I’d be fully on board.

Gillian does great work and I admire and thank her for her tenacity and her work so far in her position; I agree she advocates largely for the benefit of the cycling community, however, to advocate simply for increased speed as a means to ensure safety of new riders, or to merely increase ridership is negligent of the fact that riding faster no matter the infrastructure class the is not inherently safer. I’m not going to waste any time pulling numbers from survey-based research when the negative effects are intrinsic and based simply on physics. I’m begging her to be honest about the behaviors of cyclists that are “newly gifted” with extra-human abilities when mixed with the general cycling/pedestrian populace.

But, so far she’s been trying to connect personal experiences on her bike specifically to the group at-large; anecdotes with conclusions that I feel are at the least dangerous, and at most (considering her position, electively representing ALL cyclists in ArlCo), disingenuous. Increased speed capability isn’t an answer to infrastructure problems. I can’t help but be reminded of the [butchered] saying, “with great [pedaling] power comes great responsibility.”

There’s no saltiness, I assure you; merely a mild contempt for the concept that pure speed, at any cost, is somehow a right that affords increased safe ridership.

In terms of affordance, I just don’t buy it.

[streetsmarts]

http://bit.ly/2mYy1Wn

BMW wants to build elevated bike lanes in congested cities…only for e-bikes etc.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[streetsmarts]

@streetsmarts 168637 wrote:

http://bit.ly/2mYy1Wn

BMW wants to build elevated bike lanes in congested cities…only for e-bikes etc.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I don’t know how to post links…

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[cvcalhoun]

@hozn 168306 wrote:

(2) I really despise the marketing campaign that is pushing the idea of increasing speed to get places faster. We really don’t need faster lives. (I think the focus should be on getting to work without sweating.)

I would disagree on that. Right now, I work 12.5 miles from my home. I’m slow, so it is an hour and twenty minutes for me to get to work, and two hours to get home. That’s borderline practical as it is. If I worked 20 miles from home, I would see an e-bike as not so much an alternative to a regular bike, but as an alternative to the car I’d otherwise have to drive to make my daily commute manageable.

[Author]

Posts