NOVA Parks Hearing in e-bikes

[Dewey]

@dasgeh 187311 wrote:

why not treat class 2s like class 1s? They have the same speed limitations as class 1, the only difference is the throttle. Throttles are super important for those carrying heavy loads (aka parents) and people with disabilities (who can’t always pedal or have a hard time balancing to start). I don’t know of anywhere in the U.S. that treats class 1s differently than class 2s.

This morning on my walk to Metro a Dad on a RadCity (a Class 2 ebike) with a child seat on the rear rack pulled up in front of me. The intersection had cars blocking his view on both sides so he used his throttle to slowly move forward to look both ways to get a better view without having to worry about losing his balance with the weight of his son on the back (toddlers move around shifting weight), then when the way was clear he used the throttle to complete his left turn and they were on their way with Dad pedalling. That’s how I use the throttle on my Class 2 ebike when I tow my daughter in the trailer. For low speed manouvering a throttle is very helpful for cargo bikes, towing a trailer, people with knee or balance issues, filtering past stationary traffic to avoid a pedal strike against kerb stones, and hill starts on a heavier ebike when facing uphill. Ebike brand owner Tora Harris listed other use cases for a low speed throttle here on another forum. Personally I’d accept if trail managers decided to impose a low speed requirement on Class 2 throttles as in Europe where I think the cut off is 6kmh/4mph, because this can be easily programmed into an ebike controller and it’s at low speed where throttle assistance is most needed.

[Steve O]

@zsionakides 187395 wrote:

15mph is the speed limit on the CCT and MVT. It’s not unreasonable for the W&OD which is full of people walking, kids learning to ride bikes, and people’s pets around.

As long as they apply the 12mph buffer given to people driving cars before issuing tickets.

[sjclaeys]

@zsionakides 187396 wrote:

You can do a hell of a lot more damage at 28mph on a 50+ lb e-bike than at 12mph on a 20lb regular bike.

E-bikes should be encouraged for road use by building appropriate biking (and scooter) lanes and cycle tracks within the current roadway structure. Those facilities are appropriate for the higher speed traveling that e-bikes encourage.

Good luck here with that argument. People say they support science, but not when it is the physics involved with e-bikes.

[lordofthemark]

You can do a hell of a lot more damage at 28mph on a 50+ lb e-bike than at 12mph on a 20lb regular bike.

I wish I had a 20 lb regular bike. In fact I ride a bike closer to 30lbs and most of my miles I am riding with a backpack carrying clothes, and sometimes lunch, and sometimes papers. Though I guess differences in rider weight matter more. Unless there is a new physics where only the weight of the bike itself matters.

E-bikes should be encouraged for road use by building appropriate biking (and scooter) lanes and cycle tracks within the current roadway structure. Those facilities are appropriate for the higher speed traveling that e-bikes encourage.

have you ever actually done advocacy for a new cycle track? One that involves either taking away a genral travel lane, or parking? here are some quotes

We are not a quaint village where everyone can bike to work and shopping centers.

Seminary is a major hub to not only the highway, but to the hospital and the Mark Center, all of which are economic drivers for the city and we ant to stifle that for a couple of yuppies that want to show off their $5k bianchi bicycles…

It looks like we are devoting a lot of resources to bike lanes, while almost no one appears to be commuting by bike in hilly West Alexandria.

If I had a dollar for every time someone mentioned the lack of riders as a reason to oppose complete streets (even when the road diet would largely improve safety for walkers and drivers) I would be well on my way to that 20 lb Bianchi.

We need more folks in the bike lanes we have. More acoustic bikes, more ebikes, more scooters, more hoverboards, whatever. And if that means ALSO allowing them on trails, so be it. I will listen to advice from people on the need for more bike lanes for ebikes (while banning them from trails) from folks who have been in the trenches fighting for bike infra.

[dasgeh]

@zsionakides 187396 wrote:

You can do a hell of a lot more damage at 28mph on a 50+ lb e-bike than at 12mph on a 20lb regular bike.

E-bikes should be encouraged for road use by building appropriate biking (and scooter) lanes and cycle tracks within the current roadway structure. Those facilities are appropriate for the higher speed traveling that e-bikes encourage.

By this logic, should we ban cat 2s who weigh more than 250lbs? They are far faster and weigh more than 30 lbs more than me on my road bike…

[josh]

@dasgeh 187431 wrote:

By this logic, should we ban cat 2s who weigh more than 250lbs? They are far faster and weigh more than 30 lbs more than me on my road bike…

How common are those? Looking at a height/weight table for cyclists on this page, and it claims a 6’4″ sprinter should be between 169 and 198 pounds. Conor Dunne is 6’8″ and 194 pounds according to Wikipedia, although he’s better than a cat 2.

[Steve O]

@josh 187433 wrote:

Conor Dunne is 6’8″ and 194 pounds according to Wikipedia, although he’s better than a cat 2.

Ban him!! Imagine the damage he could do on the MVT at full speed.

[dasgeh]

@josh 187433 wrote:

How common are those? Looking at a height/weight table for cyclists on this page, and it claims a 6’4″ sprinter should be between 169 and 198 pounds. Conor Dunne is 6’8″ and 194 pounds according to Wikipedia, although he’s better than a cat 2.

Have you been to a race? There are plenty of racers who aren’t skinny.

My point is that if we ban people according to the danger they pose when maxing out their ABILITY, and we think ebikes going 20mph (class 1 and 2s) is past that line, then there are a whole lot of people that would also need to be banned on the lightest bikes.

[mstone]

@zsionakides 187395 wrote:

Witnesses can also see the difference between a rider going 12 and 22mph.[/quote]

I’m sure a defense attorney would love to cross examine a witness who says they can tell how fast someone was going by looking at them.

Quote:

15mph is the speed limit on the CCT and MVT. It’s not unreasonable for the W&OD which is full of people walking, kids learning to ride bikes, and people’s pets around.

Sure it is, as explained before. The W&OD is 45 miles long, and in the western stretches often completely empty with long sight lines. Telling people to go 15MPH is asinine. On the flip side, in vienna on a warm Saturday afternoon, telling people to go 15MPH is negligent. So you’ve managed to decide that the proper speed is one that is both too slow and too fast.

The other trails also have speed limits that are stupid, luckily we have their example to show why doing the same thing on the W&OD is a bad idea–no need to guess!

[zsionakides]

@lordofthemark 187424 wrote:

You can do a hell of a lot more damage at 28mph on a 50+ lb e-bike than at 12mph on a 20lb regular bike.

I wish I had a 20 lb regular bike. In fact I ride a bike closer to 30lbs and most of my miles I am riding with a backpack carrying clothes, and sometimes lunch, and sometimes papers. Though I guess differences in rider weight matter more. Unless there is a new physics where only the weight of the bike itself matters.

E-bikes should be encouraged for road use by building appropriate biking (and scooter) lanes and cycle tracks within the current roadway structure. Those facilities are appropriate for the higher speed traveling that e-bikes encourage.

have you ever actually done advocacy for a new cycle track? One that involves either taking away a genral travel lane, or parking? here are some quotes

We are not a quaint village where everyone can bike to work and shopping centers.

Seminary is a major hub to not only the highway, but to the hospital and the Mark Center, all of which are economic drivers for the city and we ant to stifle that for a couple of yuppies that want to show off their $5k bianchi bicycles…

It looks like we are devoting a lot of resources to bike lanes, while almost no one appears to be commuting by bike in hilly West Alexandria.

If I had a dollar for every time someone mentioned the lack of riders as a reason to oppose complete streets (even when the road diet would largely improve safety for walkers and drivers) I would be well on my way to that 20 lb Bianchi.

We need more folks in the bike lanes we have. More acoustic bikes, more ebikes, more scooters, more hoverboards, whatever. And if that means ALSO allowing them on trails, so be it. I will listen to advice from people on the need for more bike lanes for ebikes (while banning them from trails) from folks who have been in the trenches fighting for bike infra.

The issue with only focusing on increasing usage of the existing trails is they don’t go anywhere near enough places to bump up the biking percentage of commuters, even throwing e-bikes in the mix. We need to build a lot more safe, separated on-road biking facilities to get anywhere with increasing bike usage.

I fully agree that the pushback to bike facilities is relentless, but on the advocacy side the proposals are way too tepid. There are lots of places that cycle paths could be built that would have trivial effects on driving or parking. However when you go into documents such as the new Arlington Bike Master Plan, it basically advocates for minimal facilities, though the county could be cris-crossed with cycle paths with a little outside the box thinking.

[lordofthemark]

@zsionakides 187455 wrote:

The issue with only focusing on increasing usage of the existing trails is they don’t go anywhere near enough places to bump up the biking percentage of commuters, even throwing e-bikes in the mix. We need to build a lot more safe, separated on-road biking facilities to get anywhere with increasing bike usage.

I fully agree that the pushback to bike facilities is relentless, but on the advocacy side the proposals are way too tepid. There are lots of places that cycle paths could be built that would have trivial effects on driving or parking. However when you go into documents such as the new Arlington Bike Master Plan, it basically advocates for minimal facilities, though the county could be cris-crossed with cycle paths with a little outside the box thinking.

The trails matter to increase the number of commuters because PARTS of the trails are key PARTS of commutes.

I live in NW Alexandria and work in SE DC near the Navy Yard. The first mile of my commute (to Shirlington) is streets. The last two miles or so are streets and in street bike lanes (and recently a sidewalk adjacent PBL). But the largest piece of it is the 4MRT and the MVT. There is a kinda sorta alternative to the MVT – Eads Street – though even that requires getting on the MVT to access the bridge – but no great (IMO) alternative to the 4MRT (lets not talk about Army Navy right now).

And there are definitely places where MUTs are MORE central to finding a low stress route than in the case of my commute.

If you have good suggestions for new MUTs or Bike lanes (not sure what you mean by cyclepaths?) please share them. At least in Alexandria T&ES with the help of BPAC has been good at finding low hanging fruit. The obstacles we find are not only parking, but resistance to road diets that remove travel lanes, and, in the case of off street infra, issues with cost and land. Again, could you tell me about your actual experience doing advocacy? I mean attending BAC meetings, talking to govt officials both elected and staff, etc, not posting things in bike forums.

[lordofthemark]

Henry IV, Part 1

My liege, I did deny no prisoners.
But I remember, when the fight was done,
When I was dry with rage and extreme toil,
Breathless and faint, leaning upon my sword,
Came there a certain lord, neat, and trimly dress’d,
Fresh as a bridegroom; and his chin new reap’d
Show’d like a stubble-land at harvest-home;
He was perfumed like a milliner;
And ‘twixt his finger and his thumb he held
A pouncet-box, which ever and anon
He gave his nose and took’t away again;
Who therewith angry, when it next came there,
Took it in snuff; and still he smiled and talk’d,
And as the soldiers bore dead bodies by,
He call’d them untaught knaves, unmannerly,
To bring a slovenly unhandsome corse
Betwixt the wind and his nobility.
With many holiday and lady terms
He question’d me; amongst the rest, demanded
My prisoners in your majesty’s behalf.
I then, all smarting with my wounds being cold,
To be so pester’d with a popinjay,
Out of my grief and my impatience,
Answer’d neglectingly I know not what,
He should or he should not; for he made me mad
To see him shine so brisk and smell so sweet
And talk so like a waiting-gentlewoman
Of guns and drums and wounds,–God save the mark!–
And telling me the sovereign’st thing on earth
Was parmaceti for an inward bruise;
And that it was great pity, so it was,
This villanous salt-petre should be digg’d
Out of the bowels of the harmless earth,
Which many a good tall fellow had destroy’d
So cowardly; and but for these vile guns,
He would himself have been a soldier.
This bald unjointed chat of his, my lord,
I answer’d indirectly, as I said;
And I beseech you, let not his report
Come current for an accusation
Betwixt my love and your high majesty.

[dasgeh]

@zsionakides 187455 wrote:

I fully agree that the pushback to bike facilities is relentless, but on the advocacy side the proposals are way too tepid. There are lots of places that cycle paths could be built that would have trivial effects on driving or parking. However when you go into documents such as the new Arlington Bike Master Plan, it basically advocates for minimal facilities, though the county could be cris-crossed with cycle paths with a little outside the box thinking.

Please, SPEAK UP. What outside of the box thinking is missing from Arlington’s draft Bike Element? Is it more trails? Because the “environmental” lobby is already gearing up to fight any new trail and any trail widening. Is it more PBLs on the major arterials (Lee, Mason, Glebe, Wilson)? Because County staff fought against this (because parking) and what’s in there (building bike facilities that meet NACTO guidelines) is the best we could get — unless the public will stand up and say they want better. What else?

If you speak up here, people who VOLUNTEER THEIR TIME to work on these sorts of things are listening and will take suggestions back. If you write in, your comments will be included in the summaries and taken into consideration.

If you stew silently about how you have better ideas, nothing will happen.

[zsionakides]

@dasgeh 187461 wrote:

Please, SPEAK UP. What outside of the box thinking is missing from Arlington’s draft Bike Element? Is it more trails? Because the “environmental” lobby is already gearing up to fight any new trail and any trail widening. Is it more PBLs on the major arterials (Lee, Mason, Glebe, Wilson)? Because County staff fought against this (because parking) and what’s in there (building bike facilities that meet NACTO guidelines) is the best we could get — unless the public will stand up and say they want better. What else?

If you speak up here, people who VOLUNTEER THEIR TIME to work on these sorts of things are listening and will take suggestions back. If you write in, your comments will be included in the summaries and taken into consideration.

If you stew silently about how you have better ideas, nothing will happen.

I submitted comments to the master plan, and submit comments on other projects as well. Most of my comments on the master plan were around the types of facilities being proposed, as very few of them actually meet NACTO guidelines. There are better designs used in other countries that could be adopted and provide safer bike facilities without sacrificing auto mobility and parking. The use of sharrows and narrow striped lanes next to park cars should not be endorsed by any advocacy group and should not be put on maps as “safe” bike routes, when they are not safe for the majority of citizens. The only way to get bike share up in any significant amount is end to end protected facilities for cyclists of all ages and abilities; not just trails, and not bike lanes to nowhere.

[SolarBikeCar]

@zsionakides 187396 wrote:

You can do a hell of a lot more damage at 28mph on a 50+ lb e-bike than at 12mph on a 20lb regular bike.

E-bikes should be encouraged for road use by building appropriate biking (and scooter) lanes and cycle tracks within the current roadway structure. Those facilities are appropriate for the higher speed traveling that e-bikes encourage.

If conservation of energy is the point of this quoted comment, why be concerned about the difference between bike and ebike riders (50#x16mph=800) and suggest the solution is to mix e-bikers up with cars where the difference is 4000#x35mph=140,000.

F=MA so yes, a heavier bike at a higher speed is going to require more force to stop or project more energy onto another moving object. The relative difference in force required to stop different riders at twice the speed is the same as twice the mass. For safety we should weigh each cyclist and restrict their speed accordingly?

[Author]

Posts