ELF pedal electric car on W&OD

[baiskeli]

@mikoglaces 128021 wrote:

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

I mean they’ve settled this debate over whether an ELF can use the trail.

I would think one trip through Falls Church, home of the toughest trail cops on the W&OD, would take care of the the enforcement part.

[americancyclo]

@baiskeli 128035 wrote:

I mean they’ve settled this debate over whether an ELF can use the trail.

I would think one trip through Falls Church, home of the toughest trail cops on the W&OD, would take care of the the enforcement part.

I’d love to see the ELF at the Bikenetic BTWD stop! Cones vs. ELF!

[baiskeli]

@americancyclo 128036 wrote:

Cones vs. ELF!

Would you settle for a cone elf?

[mstone]

@americancyclo 128036 wrote:

I’d love to see the ELF at the Bikenetic BTWD stop! Cones vs. ELF!

Damn the cones, full speed ahead!

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 128025 wrote:

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

Sidewalks are a good point–does anyone think ELFing on a sidewalk is a good idea, regardless of what the law is? As far as policy, I think the real point of this debate is to establish a social norm, which is basically independent of law. Most of us are trying really hard to establish a social norm that this sort of thing belongs in the road, because trying to legislate it is too messy. In general that works, but if people don’t buy into the norm, legislation is the next step–with a lot of potentially bad second order effects. dasgeh has already pointed out that banning all ebikes could adversely affect families, but I guess she also sees the potential abuses that people worry about in an “anything goes” regime. I still think that social normalization is the way to go on this, but I fear that if people decide to push the limits it’s more likely to end in restrictions on bikes than approval of mini cars–which is probably bad for the majority of trail users.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 128020 wrote:

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

To be fair, this doesn’t really settle anything. Local authorities try to ban all kinds of things, like taking pictures in public. Until the courts rule, it’s just so much noise from a legal standpoint. That’s the up side to establishing social norms–we can skip the excruciatingly slow overhead of the legal process. (The down side, of course, is the potential for mob rule. Nobody sensible ever said that managing society was easy.)

[dkel]

@mstone 128046 wrote:

To be fair, this doesn’t really settle anything. Local authorities try to ban all kinds of things, like taking pictures in public. Until the courts rule, it’s just so much noise from a legal standpoint. That’s the up side to establishing social norms–we can skip the excruciatingly slow overhead of the legal process. (The down side, of course, is the potential for mob rule. Nobody sensible ever said that managing society was easy.)

This is precisely why @SolarBikeCar has disregarded the ruling of the park authority, and continues to use the trail. It’s also why this whole conversation has become pointless, as he will do what he wants regardless of what anyone says.

[peterw_diy]

@dasgeh 128019 wrote:

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.

ISTM that NVRPA clearly could ban vehicles wider than 36″. That would still allow the use of traditional adult trikes like those from Workman, box bikes, double child trailers, and even the standard (not wide) Bikes At Work trailers.

It’s true that the ELF motor makes things worse, but the size alone creates safety problems, and I can’t imagine anything near that width being safe to operate on the WOD when others are out.

[Rod Smith]

You might not own one now, but you could buy a pedal assist e-bicycle for use on the MUPs.

[dasgeh]

@peterw_diy 128054 wrote:

ISTM that NVRPA clearly could ban vehicles wider than 36″. That would still allow the use of traditional adult trikes like those from Workman, box bikes, double child trailers, and even the standard (not wide) Bikes At Work trailers.

It’s true that the ELF motor makes things worse, but the size alone creates safety problems, and I can’t imagine anything near that width being safe to operate on the WOD when others are out.

Totally agree. But even in this crowd, the response to “we don’t like the ELF on the W&OD” has been, in part, ban all e-bikes. I proposed ban those wider than X, and still heard “no, ban ebikes”. Grrr.

[kcb203]

@dasgeh 128080 wrote:

Totally agree. But even in this crowd, the response to “we don’t like the ELF on the W&OD” has been, in part, ban all e-bikes. I proposed ban those wider than X, and still heard “no, ban ebikes”. Grrr.

The reason we disagree is because we disagree on the essential purpose of a trail like the W&OD.

Is this 86 mph human powered fully faired recumbent bike OK? I could get from Vienna to Hunter Mill Road in 2 minutes!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]10099[/ATTACH]

How about an electric motorcycle with no pedals at all but electronically limited to 20 mph? How about a moped–a gas engine with pedals–but also limited to 20 mph? Huge pedicab? How about this pedal powered bus?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]10100[/ATTACH]

Some are objecting to the ELF’s size, and other to its ability to be powered solely by electricity and others by the fact that it can be powered in part by electricity. We seem to be united, however, that it’s a step too far but can’t agree whether that last step is because of its size or method of propulsion. Why are small electric motors OK but gasoline ones are not, even if less powerful? Noise?

I personally think that the W&OD should be for solely human-powered activity with an exception for electric wheelchairs/scooters for the physically disabled. But I say that in part as a healthy, (relatively) young adult who both uses the trail for athletic training and commuting. I may have a different opinion in 20 years.

[hozn]

@kcb203 128086 wrote:

Some are objecting to the ELF’s size, and other to its ability to be powered solely by electricity and others by the fact that it can be powered in part by electricity. We seem to be united, however, that it’s a step to far but can’t agree whether that last step is because of its size or method of propulsion. Why are small electric motors OK but gasoline ones are not, even if less powerful? Noise?

I think that it’s a bit of both (size/weight & speed), maybe weighted a bit against speed. For example, I don’t think anyone has problems with typical recumbents (granted they are not as wide), as they’re typically just cruising slowly along the trail. Similarly, I don’t have a problem with the park service vehicles, as I realize they have a right to be there and they are always extra careful to stop for cyclists and ensure they are pulled to the side of the yellow line (and other wheel off the trail, obviously). Cyclists that move at similar speeds (we’ll say averaging 19mph which is damn fast on a MUP) do present a danger on the trail too — and we tend to be most annoyed by people out doing their triathlon training on the MVT because it’s so narrow. But obviously a cyclist is going to be able to maneuver with more agility, fit between other trail users (should the need arise), and stop a lot faster and incur far less damage than a 300+lb ELF (w/ driver). The W&OD may be wider than the MVT but it is not empty between Vienna and Reston (nor is it empty between Reston and Ashburn) even at very off-hours — and the times I have seen the ELF are at peak commute times.

[Anonymous]

slippery slope problem. today someone’s driving an elf on the trail …next thing you know, people will be driving their picnic tables out there…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/17/guys-riding-streets-on-motorized-picnic-tables-unamusing-to-australian-cops/

:p;)

[JimK]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]10109[/ATTACH]

[SolarBikeCar]

Virginia Code (§ 46.2-100. Definitions.)

“Shared-use path” means a bikeway … [implicit in describing it as a bikeway is that it accommodates all bicycles including electric-assist ones]
“Shared-use paths may also be used [in addition to bicycles] by pedestrians, skaters, users of wheel chairs or wheel chair conveyances, joggers, and other nonmotorized users.”

“Nonmotorized users” does not apply to or describe bicycles users, skaters or wheel chairs. It only applies to users that were not already enumerated. Therefore motorized skateboards, wheelchairs and bicycles are permitted on shared-use paths.

Note that this law does not permit mopeds or Segways as they are motorized and are not otherwise enumerated as legal for a shared-use path.

Continuing on through 46.2-100 definitions, this section is of note: “Except as otherwise provided, for the purposes of this title, any device herein defined as a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, or moped shall be deemed not to be a motor vehicle.”

Those that want to creatively interpret Virginia’s definition of an electric-assist bicycle as requiring constant pedal action should know that that interpretation is prohibited by federal law as it nullifies the federal definition of an electric-assist bicycle.

“[Federal regulations] shall supersede any State law or requirement with respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law or requirements.” [HR 727]

[Author]

Posts