ELF pedal electric car on W&OD

Our Community Forums General Discussion ELF pedal electric car on W&OD

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 377 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1040569
    Vicegrip
    Participant

    Wow. Just looked at his web site. Jackhole is right. In one place touts the law and the 20 mph bit and in another the gearing mods so he can maintain speeds well over.

    #1040572
    mstone
    Participant

    @jabberwocky 127302 wrote:

    This right here perfectly encapsulates why I will forever be opposed to anything motorized on MUPs. Because it’s sold as “it’s basically a bike, hardly any power at all, honest!” And then you get idiots like this guy basically driving their electric SUV down a MUP and claiming “I’m allowed to do this!”

    Yup. We’ve mostly agreed to ignore motors on bikes where you can’t tell there’s a motor, but defining that is so hard that it’s just easier from a practical perspective to ban all motors in order to deal with this kind of idiot.

    #1040573
    Raymo853
    Participant

    As said above, this guy is such a jackball. I wish I had not read his website, it just made me mad at how self focused he is. I have never seen him, but am fantasizing about purposely getting in his way over and over again. Especially after watching his video where he follows a rider and does bad passes with not enough of an opening.

    I do secretly hope he is uploading his rides to Strava.

    Adding my answer to each section:

    W&OD Trail – way out there during off hours
    Key Bridge sidewalk – no
    14th St Bridge path – no way, it is almost too narrow for two way bike traffic
    Mount Vernon Trail – no way, way too curvy and bumpy
    Anacostia River Tributary Trail System – actually it is wide, flat, great sight lines and so lightly used, might be about the best place to drive it over there, ride it and drive it home, plus the adjacent normal road would allow bikes to go elsewhere.
    Penn Ave protected bike lane – no way
    1st St NE protected bike lane – no way
    Rock Creek Trail – yes, but not inside the gates during weekends/holidays
    C&O Canal Towpath – no
    average suburban sidewalk – no
    average city sidewalk – no

    #1040570
    dasgeh
    Participant

    @jabberwocky 127302 wrote:

    This right here perfectly encapsulates why I will forever be opposed to anything motorized on MUPs. Because it’s sold as “it’s basically a bike, hardly any power at all, honest!” And then you get idiots like this guy basically driving their electric SUV down a MUP and claiming “I’m allowed to do this!”

    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.

    #1040577
    jabberwocky
    Participant

    @dasgeh 127311 wrote:

    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.

    Motor limits and speed limits are practically speaking impossible to enforce. It seems we either ban anything motorized (the current rule on the W&OD, whatever “I decide what the rules really are” ELF moron thinks) or we just accept that people are going basically drive electric cars on there, because something something technically ebikes.

    Seems easiest to just flat out ban motorized vehicles. Anything subtle enough to not draw attention to itself (like, what you and most other people on this forum ride) will be fine. People riding electric motorcycles and e-cars and stuff can be dealt with much more easily.

    #1040579
    Starduster
    Participant

    Welcome to the Brave New World of e-assist/electric bikes. As you see, multiple technologies (pedal assist vs straight-up throttle) and some vehicles that challenge all existing legal definitions and boundaries. The higher power e-bikes, both here and in Europe, fall into catagories that require motorcycle-size mirrors, built in lighting (a good idea anyway), and speed-rated tires (marketed by Schwalbe and Continental, amongst others). And the legal quandries are well obvious.

    Bottom line- the e-assist cargo bikes still fit the cycling infrastructure. I DO NOT want to see those banned. Bigger/faster creations like the ELF? Not so much. Our traffic laws will need to adapt to this emerging technology. Also, a recent article raised the question of MTB e-bikes on national park trails. To *that* case, no.

    As Dasgeh mentioned, *behavior* will always trump everything else. The fast road rider hell-bent on running his time trail, other traffic be damned, will always give the rest of us a bad name.

    #1040581
    Vicegrip
    Participant

    @mstone 127309 wrote:

    Yup. We’ve mostly agreed to ignore motors on bikes where you can’t tell there’s a motor, but defining that is so hard that it’s just easier from a practical perspective to ban all motors in order to deal with this kind of idiot.

    The elf is near the bottom of the slippery slope. I wish people did not push things beyond common sense as Elf-man is doing. For the most part electric bikes make anyone fit. I feel lucky that I am fit and all my limbs work as intended. I don’t need a boost to get around reasonable distances at reasonable speeds. I can see where a booster motor on an otherwise normal bike or recumbent would simply level the playing field and offer up access to cycling rather than letting in an unintended format such as the Elf. It is guys like him that screw it up for all the physically less advantaged people that simply want to do what most of us take for granted. He shaves rules minimizes details and twists thing around to make his CAR seem to be OK. One example, “It is XX wide wheel to wheel…” OK. now add in the fenders and mirrors and it is wider than 1/2 of the trail. How can Elf-man think that is OK to drive and safe for others?

    Political spin format. Cue the ominous down sliding background music, slide the croma to black and white and point to the gravel voice guy. “He is risking access for disabled vets and putting retires, children and commuting workers in harms way so he can take more than his share of a local treasure.”

    #1040582
    Subby
    Participant

    Has anyone left a comment on that guy’s page? There is a section for comments on the right-hand nav.

    #1040584
    Raymo853
    Participant

    @Subby 127321 wrote:

    Has anyone left a comment on that guy’s page? There is a section for comments on the right-hand nav.

    I see there are some showing up. He also has a section and is prompting using a twitter hashtag of #SolarBikeCar Was planning to tweet something about my feelings on this.

    #1040585
    mstone
    Participant

    @Vicegrip 127320 wrote:

    The elf is near the bottom of the slippery slope. I wish people did not push things beyond common sense as Elf-man is doing.

    And yet they do, pretty consistently. It goes both ways: for now I’m happy with just leaving the “no motors” rule for expediency, but if we actually saw signs that this was being abused for harassing enforcement then I’d be much more interested in trying to come up with a more complex rule (as there’d be evidence that the effort was worthwhile). Until something changes, the status quo of “be reasonable and nobody cares” seems the optimal route. (And until we see some sign that the motor rule is enforced even on a flagrant violator like this guy, the whole argument is a waste of air.)

    #1040587
    Raymo853
    Participant

    There is an article on the Catholic Herald, about him and his ELF titled “Biking for God’s creation ” I will paste in one quote: “I get a lot of thumbs-up from people while driving down the bike path.”

    http://www.catholicherald.com/stories/Biking-for-Gods-creation,29561

    #1040588
    83b
    Participant

    @jabberwocky 127315 wrote:

    Seems easiest to just flat out ban motorized vehicles. Anything subtle enough to not draw attention to itself (like, what you and most other people on this forum ride) will be fine. People riding electric motorcycles and e-cars and stuff can be dealt with much more easily.

    As one of the ebike rule breakers, I’d be okay with this being our preferred approach if it weren’t for the issue of liability in the event of a crash. Here’s my nightmare hypo: I’m riding my ebike from DC over to Crystal City at ~15mph to go to the dentist. Near Gravelly Point I’m approaching a runner and the opposite lane is clear for me to pass. I move over and ring my bell at ~30 feet back and then again at ~10 feet. The runner is wearing headphones, does not hear me, Crazy Ivans, and we collide. We both fall and suffer significant injuries or, worse, one or both of us is killed by a head injury.

    Despite the runner having been the proximate cause of the crash, what effect does my being on a (technically) illegal vehicle on the trail have on my potential liability and my ability to recover for my own injuries? The current rules give a motivated insurance defense or plaintiff’s attorney lots of arguments to make against me. E.g., (1) I was on an illegal vehicle and so should be fully/partially faulted; (2) my illegal bike surely moves faster than is safe, making me fully/partially at fault; (2) my illegal ebike is heavier than a normal bike, making everyone’s injuries more severe.

    #1040592
    Raymo853
    Participant

    @83(b) 127327 wrote:

    As one of the ebike rule breakers, I’d be okay with this being our preferred approach if it weren’t for the issue of liability in the event of a crash. Here’s my nightmare hypo: I’m riding my ebike from DC over to Crystal City at ~15mph to go to the dentist. Near Gravelly Point I’m approaching a runner and the opposite lane is clear for me to pass. I move over and ring my bell at ~30 feet back and then again at ~10 feet. The runner is wearing headphones, does not hear me, Crazy Ivans, and we collide. We both fall and suffer significant injuries or, worse, one or both of us is killed by a head injury.

    Despite the runner having been the proximate cause of the crash, what effect does my being on a (technically) illegal vehicle on the trail have on my potential liability and my ability to recover for my own injuries? The current rules give a motivated insurance defense or plaintiff’s attorney lots of arguments to make against me. E.g., (1) I was on an illegal vehicle and so should be fully/partially faulted; (2) my illegal bike surely moves faster than is safe, making me fully/partially at fault; (2) my illegal ebike is heavier than a normal bike, making everyone’s injuries more severe.

    Your scenario is so highly restrictive. Let me give another two:

    1. Some one on an e-Bike is in a crash on the WO&D with a non e-bicycle rider. Neither party can be definitely confirmed as being the more at fault. The bicycle would sue based on the e-Bike being on that corridor illegally. The e-Bike’s lawyer will suggest settling for a few 10 thousands dollars since the fight would cost about the same and not have a definite outcome.

    2. Some one on an e-Bike is in a crash on the WO&D with a non e-bicycle rider. The bicycle rider admits right after the crash in conversation it was his fault for turning without signalling. He later changes his story. The bicycle would sue based on the e-Bike being on that corridor illegally. The e-Bike’s lawyer will suggest settling for a few 10 thousands dollars since the fight would cost about the same and not have definite outcome.

    #1040593
    dasgeh
    Participant

    @83(b) 127327 wrote:

    As one of the ebike rule breakers, I’d be okay with this being our preferred approach if it weren’t for the issue of liability in the event of a crash. Here’s my nightmare hypo: I’m riding my ebike from DC over to Crystal City at ~15mph to go to the dentist. Near Gravelly Point I’m approaching a runner and the opposite lane is clear for me to pass. I move over and ring my bell at ~30 feet back and then again at ~10 feet. The runner is wearing headphones, does not hear me, Crazy Ivans, and we collide. We both fall and suffer significant injuries or, worse, one or both of us is killed by a head injury.

    Despite the runner having been the proximate cause of the crash, what effect does my being on a (technically) illegal vehicle on the trail have on my potential liability and my ability to recover for my own injuries? The current rules give a motivated insurance defense or plaintiff’s attorney lots of arguments to make against me. E.g., (1) I was on an illegal vehicle and so should be fully/partially faulted; (2) my illegal bike surely moves faster than is safe, making me fully/partially at fault; (2) my illegal ebike is heavier than a normal bike, making everyone’s injuries more severe.

    I have two nightmare scenarios: 1) I’m crossing legally in a crosswalk on my cargo ebike with my kids. A car makes a right turn, not properly yielding and strikes me. I’m held responsible because, technically, ebikes weren’t allowed.
    and 2) A police officer decides that he is sick of my trying to improve ACPD’s traffic enforcement efforts, and singles me out for enforcement. Or singles out a family of color because of their race. Or singles out an hispanic family because he’s anti-immigrant.

    Ok, that’s a lot more than 2. Face it, the problem with the Elf-guy isn’t his motor. There are plenty of folks on this forum and in this world who could pilot a non-motorized version of the Elf in such a way to terrorize people on the trail. If the vehicle is too wide, and if it’s operated in an unsafe way (e.g. speeding), that’s the problem. Ban those things. They are easy to measure and enforce.

    BTW, since when is speed hard to measure?

    #1040594
    Lt. Dan
    Participant

    If this is allowed, maybe I can buy a Smart Car or original Mini Cooper and use those on the trails too? I’ll shut the engine off on the downhills, and occasionally I’ll open my door and kick with my feet so that it’s a Human/Gravity/gas assist vehicle…

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 377 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.