ELF pedal electric car on W&OD

[SolarBikeCar]

@lordofthemark 127998 wrote:

At what speed can it be ridden on flat terrain?

There are many factors like battery state of charge, tire pressure, etc, that would affect an actual test, but a reasonable estimate from my experience is 19 mph with motor only and 22mph with serious pedal input in addition to motor. Pedal only/no motor is 10 mph.

[dkel]

@SolarBikeCar 127997 wrote:

I give citations to support my legal arguments and technical specs from testing devices to support my facts. Others here have just made up stuff.

So what are you looking for here? Approval? Legal arguments aren’t going to get you that here. Plenty of people on this forum have vast experience riding all over the place, and there is often consensus among these people that though it may be legal to ride some places, it’s not always safe to do so, either for the rider or—in some cases—for those around the rider. The message here: you can quote laws till you’re blue in the face, but just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

[mstone]

@SolarBikeCar 127993 wrote:

Virginia Statutes give electric-assist bicycles riders a “by-right” permission to use multi-use paths that cannot be taken away by local jurisdictions.

You’ve got your interpretation, others have theirs. The only way we’ll know for sure is after you go to court. What I can say for certain is that if you are right and win the right to use the W&OD, it won’t take long for new laws to unambiguously forbid this kind of use, which will end up hurting people whose use is far less egregious. I feel bad for them, but there’s no way the W&OD can support being turned into an expressway for miniature cars and there will be overwhelming legislative support to ensure that doesn’t happen. Enjoy your (potential) Pyrrhic victory, I just hope the resulting bad legislation doesn’t screw things up too badly for the rest of us.

[lordofthemark]

@SolarBikeCar 128000 wrote:

There are many factors like battery state of charge, tire pressure, etc, that would affect an actual test, but a reasonable estimate from my experience is 19 mph with motor only and 22mph with serious pedal input in addition to motor. Pedal only/no motor is 10 mph.

Okay, so 19 MPH with no pedaling, and only half that speed without motor. While that MAY (IANAL) be considered an Electric Assist bike under Va law, it certainly does not seem like what most English speakers would consider Electric Assist. Therefore it is quite possible, as these vehicles become more common, especially on trails closed to motor vehicles, that the Virginia legislature will consider a change to the statute, so that it more accurately reflects what people consider to be an actual electric assist bike.

[SolarBikeCar]

@dkel 128003 wrote:

So what are you looking for here? Approval?

No. I’m here to correct the falsehoods and to prevent attempts to encourage vigilante actions against me. I’m also hoping to foster some understanding and more civil behavior from that one cyclist who screams obscenities at me as we pass.

[hozn]

@SolarBikeCar 128008 wrote:

No. I’m here to correct the falsehoods and to prevent attempts to encourage vigilante actions against me. I’m also hoping to foster some understanding and more civil behavior from that one cyclist who screams obscenities at me as we pass.

Maybe you should take that as a not-so-subtle hint.

No one here is encouraging vigilante actions against you. We’re simply saying that from what we have observed and can deduce from mfr specs and your own posted average speeds, etc. you don’t fit on the trail (your addition needs some checking) and this is too fast/large/heavy a vehicle to safely share the trail. Legality aside, what you’re doing is not only being a complete jackass but needlessly increasing risk for other trail users.

You’ve been banned from the W&OD yet you continue to ride it. I can only imagine how the civil suit would play out when you plow into a cyclist or pedestrian, regardless of who was at fault, when you’re operating your vehicle in violation of [everyone else’s understanding of] the law and the specific directions from W&OD authorities.

[kcb203]

@SolarBikeCar 128008 wrote:

No. I’m here to correct the falsehoods and to prevent attempts to encourage vigilante actions against me. I’m also hoping to foster some understanding and more civil behavior from that one cyclist who screams obscenities at me as we pass.

I don’t think 46-2-904 means what you think it means. Which paragraph removes the ability of a local government to ban some of the listed modes of transportation but not others? It’s not there. The first paragraph allows for bans on certain modes of transport on sidewalks. Paragraph 2 says to yield to pedestrians. Paragraph 3 allows for bans where there’s a traffic control device. Paragraph 4 is about crosswalks. Again, where does it say that a municipality or other local government can’t ban just some of the items listed?

The General Assembly passed a bill several years ago that specifically inserted the phrase “electric power-assisted bicycle” in a bunch of different sections where the Code previously said “bicycle.” What conspicuously, and we must assume intentionally, did not change was the definition of “shared use path” in 46.2-100 that still specifically requires transport on such trails to be “nonmotorized.” This term is not defined in Virginia law, so we’ll presume it means its ordinary meaning, as in “doesn’t have a motor.” Your car has a motor. Exemption from regulation as a “motor vehicle” does not place anything that is not a motor vehicle into the category “nonmotorized.”

I don’t know if the W&OD is part of the statewide system of trails under 10.1-204. But if it is, the limitation to nonmotorized bicycles is explicit . Section E allows for the inclusion of electric wheelchairs and similar devices for the disabled, but I don’t think you’re claiming the ELF is an electric wheelchair.

One more thing: your ELF is not a electric power-assisted bicycle under Virginia law anyway. 46.2-100 states: “”Electric power-assisted bicycle” means a vehicle that travels on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground and is equipped with (i) pedals that allow propulsion by human power and (ii) an electric motor with an input of no more than 1,000 watts that reduces the pedal effort required of the rider. For the purposes of Chapter 8 (§ 46.2-800 et seq.), an electric power-assisted bicycle shall be a vehicle when operated on a highway.”

Note that the word is “reduces,” not eliminates. My understanding is that the most popular electric assisted bikes do not have the motor kick in unless the rider is pedaling. I understand the ELF to allow it to operate solely based on electric power without any pedal input. Is that correct? If the legislature intended that to be covered by the rule, they would have said “reduces or eliminates.” When you’re operating solely on electrical power, there is nothing “reducing” your pedal effort. Your pedal effort is eliminated.

[dplasters]

Arguing the law with scoff law cyclists. He must not know what a hard@$$ group we are. Odds are solid, we aren’t the cyclist yelling obscenities at you. We have as much control over their behavior as we have over yours. You’re welcome to take your complaints to the NVRPA.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]10093[/ATTACH]

[mikoglaces]

Interesting thread. I haven’t formed an opinion for sure, though I lean to the anti-argument. I’d really like to see this in action but it seems it is on the trail during my morning commute when I am not in that area and not on weekends when I am.

I am a lawyer but reading these legal arguments like this makes my head spin. Legal arguments are only that–arguments. And park and law enforcement authorities can make their own decisions on what the law allows, which decisions can then be challenged in court. If the ELF is not allowed on the trail, then the legality will be tested if and when a law enforcement agency issues a ticket. If no ticket is ever issued, then as a practical matter it’s allowed.

It does seem to me that the laws were created with other types of vehicles in mind, not the ELF. It isn’t clear to me at all that a court would clearly rule one way or the other.

[SolarBikeCar]

@kcb203 128010 wrote:

..When you’re operating solely on electrical power, there is nothing “reducing” your pedal effort. Your pedal effort is eliminated.

I am never operating the elf solely on electrical power. If I wanted an electric car I would have bought one. The whole purpose is to get exercise and you can’t get exercise by not turning the pedals. You’d have to prove the pedals are a sham to support an argument that it isn’t electric-assist.

[dasgeh]

This discussion seems to have really gotten under some people’s collars. If I may offer suggestions: SolarBikeCar – can you at least minimize your use of the trails? Look honestly at your alternatives and use safe roads as much as possible?

For everyone else: Can we recognize that SolarBikeCar isn’t going to stop using the WO&D, but has committed to using it more safely? Can we take him at his word, and see if that helps at all?

@kcb203 128010 wrote:

My understanding is that the most popular electric assisted bikes do not have the motor kick in unless the rider is pedaling. I understand the ELF to allow it to operate solely based on electric power without any pedal input. Is that correct? If the legislature intended that to be covered by the rule, they would have said “reduces or eliminates.” When you’re operating solely on electrical power, there is nothing “reducing” your pedal effort. Your pedal effort is eliminated.

It’s not that simple. There are “pedal-assist” systems, which kick in only with pedaling and “throttle-assist” systems, which have a throttle or button to turn on the motor, no pedaling required. Many systems, including what I believe is the most popular (Bionx) are hybrids, in that they have both pedal-assist and throttle-assist modes. The federal-definition allows for both pedal- and throttle-assist (and hybrids).

As others have pointed out, whether he is currently legally allowed to use the trail isn’t clear cut. The risk, however, that trying to more clearly ban him from the trail could ban a lot of us, notably families using e-assist cargo bikes, and we don’t want that to happen.

[baiskeli]

@hozn 128009 wrote:

You’ve been banned from the W&OD

If that is the case, it seems this has already been settled by the authorities.

[mikoglaces]

@baiskeli 128020 wrote:

If that is the case, it seems this has already been settled by the authorities.

Not really. Not unless the authorities act to enforce. Seems like they haven’t done so.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 127311 wrote:

You realize this is exactly the same argument opponents of good bike infrastructure make: there are some cyclists who run red lights/terrorize pedestrians/pass too closely and too fast on trails/are generally jack*holes and therefore we shouldn’t do anything to make cycling safer!

There are two very easy lines to draw with respect to e-bikes on trails: 1) measurable limits, like the current ebike standards, possibly adding a maximum width for all bikes on trails (that yes, in practice only get enforced when there is another violation or collision, but can be enforced nonetheless) and 2) regulate behavior: speed limits on trails, etc. The issue is not that normal ebike that the pregnant lady or kid-hauling dad is using on the trails, it’s the crazy person riding a bike that’s too big for the infrastructure and riding too fast/unsafely for conditions WHATEVER BIKE THAT CRAZY IS ON.

Sorry to bring up something so old, but it brings up an interesting policy question.

The fact is that absent cyclists, much of the regional trail network would not have been built, and it would be far harder to support/benefit-cost justify its maintenance and expansion. The pedestrians and joggers need us, just as we need them.

That is almost certainly not the case for the ELF, unless the policy response to lots of ELFs is going to be a much wider regional trail network to accommodate them (perhaps starting with widening existing MUTs) – but ELFs can probably be better accommodated with on street bike infra (and from what I can gather, most here are supportive of allowing them in on street bike infra) and traffic calmed roads, better street grids, etc.

A better parallel might be biking on sidewalks. Which in fact is illegal in downtown DC, and on a few blocks in Old Town Alexandria. And which we all accept and live with.

[kcb203]

@SolarBikeCar 128018 wrote:

I am never operating the elf solely on electrical power. If I wanted an electric car I would have bought one. The whole purpose is to get exercise and you can’t get exercise by not turning the pedals. You’d have to prove the pedals are a sham to support an argument that it isn’t electric-assist.

I didn’t question how you choose to ride. I questioned whether the ELF can be operated without pedaling. The ELF website says: “You can maximize your calorie burn by just using the pedals, stay cool and comfortable by letting the motor do all the work, or any combination of the two. It’s up to you!” As I said above, that’s not reducing, it’s eliminating. The fact that you choose to always pedal is immaterial.

I love the ELF. I think it’s a fantastic idea. I’d love to see them all over the roads. I just don’t think it belongs on a narrow multi-use trail. It’s an electric car with optional pedal assist. I think that the NVRPA has made that clear to you. I think their position is legally correct. I don’t like that you choose to ignore that based on a crabbed reading of Virginia law.

[Author]

Posts