NOVA Parks Hearing in e-bikes

[zsionakides]

@Judd 187057 wrote:

According to the meeting materials observed speeds of people on e-bikes is lower than those on regular bikes.

I’d love to know the research basis for that claim. From my experience, I almost never pass e-bikes, but see e-bikes zoom by me and others all the time.

The 20mph proposed speed limit is a little concerning, as it’s pretty high for that busy a trail that has people walking and running on. I think other trails with speed limits have it at 15mph, which is more reasonable.

[mstone]

@zsionakides 187063 wrote:

I’d love to know the research basis for that claim. From my experience, I almost never pass e-bikes, but see e-bikes zoom by me and others all the time.

The 20mph proposed speed limit is a little concerning, as it’s pretty high for that busy a trail that has people walking and running on. I think other trails with speed limits have it at 15mph, which is more reasonable.

All trail speed limits are stupid and impractical. I hope they don’t actually waste time and ink on one.

[Judd]

@zsionakides 187063 wrote:

I’d love to know the research basis for that claim. From my experience, I almost never pass e-bikes, but see e-bikes zoom by me and others all the time.

The 20mph proposed speed limit is a little concerning, as it’s pretty high for that busy a trail that has people walking and running on. I think other trails with speed limits have it at 15mph, which is more reasonable.

I would too, but from a sample size of me and at the risk of turning this in to a repeat of the e-bike thread: I compared my CaBi average speeds to my CaBi Plus average speeds and I tend to ride a Plus slightly slower than an acoustic CaBi.

[n18]

It looks like no special treatment for the ELF, and it would be treated as an E-Bike. It’s about 4 feet; 0.25 Inches wide according to the manufacturer. I could live with a 3 feet wide bicycle, but not 4.

[dasgeh]

@n18 187095 wrote:

It looks like no special treatment for the ELF, and it would be treated as an E-Bike. It’s about 4 feet; 0.25 Inches wide according to the manufacturer. I could live with a 3 feet wide bicycle, but not 4.

As someone who writes rules for a living, it’s generally not a good idea to write rules that affected thousands based on one.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 187098 wrote:

As someone who writes rules for a living, it’s generally not a good idea to write rules that affected thousands based on one.

It’s also good to use current examples to test whether the rules are sufficient.

[zsionakides]

@Judd 187069 wrote:

I would too, but from a sample size of me and at the risk of turning this in to a repeat of the e-bike thread: I compared my CaBi average speeds to my CaBi Plus average speeds and I tend to ride a Plus slightly slower than an acoustic CaBi.

For your Cabi example, you’d need to compare the average speeds on the same routes under the same conditions.

My gut, without being able to review the study itself, is that the study wasn’t controlled or they aren’t measuring the same activity that someone is doing on an e-bike vs a regular bike. The population of riders on regular bikes vs riders on e-bikes are generally not the same people. If they are measuring a bunch of fit riders on regular bikes and a bunch of unfit to normal riders on e-bikes, or if regular bikes are naked while the e-bikes are outfitted for commuting, it’s quite possible they could see regular bikes with higher speeds.

[dasgeh]

@zsionakides 187125 wrote:

For your Cabi example, you’d need to compare the average speeds on the same routes under the same conditions.

My gut, without being able to review the study itself, is that the study wasn’t controlled or they aren’t measuring the same activity that someone is doing on an e-bike vs a regular bike. The population of riders on regular bikes vs riders on e-bikes are generally not the same people. If they are measuring a bunch of fit riders on regular bikes and a bunch of unfit to normal riders on e-bikes, or if regular bikes are naked while the e-bikes are outfitted for commuting, it’s quite possible they could see regular bikes with higher speeds.

But they studied who was using the trail. It’s irrelevant _why_ they were using the trail.

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 187127 wrote:

But they studied who was using the trail. It’s irrelevant _why_ they were using the trail.

It’s relevant that they have a controlled population for the study, particularly if they are going to draw an unexpected conclusion.

I’ve seen plenty of e-bikes on the trails around and it’s rare that they are going slower than regular bikes. If we’re going to write policy based on that study, it better be really well done, and stand up to scrutiny. I know personally if I rode an e-bike my average speeds on anything that was uphill or flat would be higher than a similar regular bike in identical conditions.

[huskerdont]

@Judd 187069 wrote:

at the risk of turning this in to a repeat of the e-bike thread

I hope you’re proud of yourself.

[n18]

I’ve read the study’s report, which is only 5 to 6 pages long, and it seems that they only browsed the web, looked up statistics, to come up with their conclusion, but I could be wrong.

[lordofthemark]

@zsionakides 187128 wrote:

It’s relevant that they have a controlled population for the study, particularly if they are going to draw an unexpected conclusion.

I’ve seen plenty of e-bikes on the trails around and it’s rare that they are going slower than regular bikes. If we’re going to write policy based on that study, it better be really well done, and stand up to scrutiny. I know personally if I rode an e-bike my average speeds on anything that was uphill or flat would be higher than a similar regular bike in identical conditions.

What is the relevant fact for policy though? “Ebike riders are on average faster than the entire population of regular riders” is almost certainly true. But “many ebike riders ride at a safe speed” is also probably true, and “many regular bike riders exceed the speed of a major chunk of ebike riders” is also probably true.

Since, Dasgeh will likely point out, there are significant policy gains from allowing ebikes on trails, and since the model califorina law allows class 1 ebikes on trails, it seems like showing that there is a significant group of ebike users who ride relatively slowly is worth knowing.

[lordofthemark]

@zsionakides 187125 wrote:

For your Cabi example, you’d need to compare the average speeds on the same routes under the same conditions.

My gut, without being able to review the study itself, is that the study wasn’t controlled or they aren’t measuring the same activity that someone is doing on an e-bike vs a regular bike. The population of riders on regular bikes vs riders on e-bikes are generally not the same people. If they are measuring a bunch of fit riders on regular bikes and a bunch of unfit to normal riders on e-bikes, or if regular bikes are naked while the e-bikes are outfitted for commuting, it’s quite possible they could see regular bikes with higher speeds.

Is that not relevant for policy? I mean I don’t intend to buy an ebike until I am far less fit than I am now. If the population of ebike riders is heavily older less fit folks, or folks schlepping kids (despite the marketing about a new paradigm for ebikes), then does that not suggest that the negative impact of allowing them on trails is less, and the gains more? Its not worth comparing apples to apples if what we are going to allow is mostly oranges.

[Judd]

@huskerdont 187130 wrote:

I hope you’re proud of yourself.

Risk has become issue. I did not implement a proper risk management strategy which in this case should have been avoid but I encourage everyone to copy and paste their posts and provide official feedback to NOVA Parks.

[zsionakides]

@lordofthemark 187133 wrote:

Is that not relevant for policy? I mean I don’t intend to buy an ebike until I am far less fit than I am now. If the population of ebike riders is heavily older less fit folks, or folks schlepping kids (despite the marketing about a new paradigm for ebikes), then does that not suggest that the negative impact of allowing them on trails is less, and the gains more? Its not worth comparing apples to apples if what we are going to allow is mostly oranges.

The population is relevant for a study, and the study is being used to justify policy. You can’t draw accurate conclusions where two different sample groups are used as extraneous variables could be the actual cause. To do a proper study, you’d need to hold steady external variables such as fitness (e.g. FTP), time of day, and weather conditions between the two sample groups.

I don’t agree that the e-bike population is heavily older, less fit folks or folks schlepping kids. Most the e-bikes I see while commuting (and even during recreational times) are healthy aged individuals using a vehicle that is faster than a regular bike and doing so to save time/energy on their trip.

[Author]

Posts