[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.

[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.

[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…

[dasgeh]

@zsionakides 187356 wrote:

I agree that 20mph is not fast in certain sections, but the policy discussion is about making a uniform speed limit on the trail. If NOVA Parks isn’t going to sectionalize the speed limits, then the overall speed limit should be 15mph.

The policy discussion is about whether to allow ebikes on the trail, and if so, what the assist should be limited to. Bikes can go as fast as the user gets them going.

[dasgeh]

@DrP 187354 wrote:

Trollheim very icy this morning, other wooden bridges icy too.

Trollheim was totally non-icy by the 9am shift

[dasgeh]

There’s a lot of pearl clutching about dangerous riding on trails. But when we look at the numbers of when trail users are getting seriously injured or killed, we find that generally, a car is involved. Anecdotally, I think most people would agree that the scariest part of the trail experience is when trails cross streets and we have to interact with cars.

Ebikes have a real potential to decrease the number of car trips. Yes, that comes with increased volume on trails, which alone has its drawbacks, and which will likely lead to jerks on trails (see increased volumes). But given the greater good of reduced car trips, I think it’s totally worth it.

[dasgeh]

@zsionakides 187167 wrote:

I would be ok with class 1 e-bikes on trails if they were limited to 15mph for pedal assist. I think 20mph is a little high safety wise – for reference in the Netherlands I believe e-bikes are limited to 30kph (18mph) on bikeways.

Class 2 and 3 e-bikes should be illegal on all trails and class 3 illegal on all 2-way cycletracks and PBLs.

We’ve gone over why speed is better set at 20mph (to keep up with traffic for the inevitable times when ebikes are on roads; also, it’s super easy for an adult to clear 20mph even on a CaBi on a downhill). But 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.

[dasgeh]

@huskerdont 187144 wrote:

the increased dangers from them on trails not designed for them are being willfully and selfishly discounted or ignored

I disagree that the trails are not designed for ebikes, or at least beyond the fact that trails aren’t designed for bikes, really, or designed for the volume they often see (and are likely to see as ebikes increase in popularity).

The ebikes I’ve ridden have all functioned just like the corresponding analog bikes would ride if ridden by a much stronger person. CaBi+’es have the same turning radii, the same wheel base, and the same other attributes that would affect the design of trails meant for them. Yes, pluses can go faster, and noticeably so on the uphills, but a super strong rider on a normal CaBi (CaBi-?) can out ride a plus.

Strong riders can get road bikes going much faster than the legal top speed of any e-assist. In other words, trails should be designed for speeds higher than the e-assist limit (they probably aren’t but that’s as more of an issue for the roadies cruising at 25mph than the ebikes maxing out at 20mph).

Trails aren’t designed for long wheel base bikes, or bikes towing trailers, but that’s an issue whether the bike has e-assist or not.

There is a valid point to be made that ebikes are likely to bring much more volume to trails than trails are currently designed for. But that’s a feature, not a bug, because it means much fewer car trips. And it also translates to more advocates for more bike infrastructure. I would love to see a day when there are so many people biking (with and without assist), that we transfer serious amounts of roadway from cars to bikes. Then we can talk about banning ebikes from trails (or those with a parallel safe route).

[dasgeh]

@zsionakides 187137 wrote:

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.

The question is what are you studying. In this case, it’s not “do ebikes make any given rider faster” but “would allowing ebikes on trails* increase speeds of all bikes on trails.” The reason behind why or why not speeds would increase is irrelevant (i.e. if the population of folks who ride ebikes ride them more slowly because they are more risk adverse, because they are less “protective” of their speeds, because they don’t have the ability or whatever).

*I read VA law to say ebikes are allowed on trails.

[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.

[dasgeh]

Oh, right. I’ll fix that

[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.

[dasgeh]

Not really a missed connection, but

Me: biking eastbound in the [horrible, terrible, no good, very bad] L street “PBL”, approaching the non-protected part in front of the Red Lion hotel
You: Black Uber car, mostly blocking the green painted bike lane (which is pulled a car’s width away from the curb there), but also close enough to the curb that a bike won’t fit to the right.
Me: Stopping because you’re an Uber and I don’t see anyone getting out so maybe someone just got in and you’re about to pull away…
You: still stopped
Me: thinking you’re just waiting, check that it’s clear to go around you in the travel lane, then slowly pull around and start to turn back into the protected part as my front tire is clearly past your bumper
You: starting to roll forward
Me: Yelling my head off surprised that you would go when a bike is right in front of you
You: Stopping after you hit my rear wheel.

Yeah, that sucked, but at least you stopped before making it worse. Yeah, “tapping” a bike is still hitting it. No, it was not an accident or an act of God that your car started moving forward – you took your foot off the brake. No, I was not in your blind spot, I was in front of you; you were just looking backwards for a gap in traffic.

At least you waited around to file the police report so we have another data point on how awful the L St PBL is.

[dasgeh]

@josh 186949 wrote:

Washington Blvd is definitely the way to go, detour or no detour. Rolling hills so it’s not that bad to keep your speed up, and the sections without bikelanes are generally the downhills. It is a pain how you have to bounce back and forth when you lose the bike lane, but merging back into traffic has never been problematic for me.

Do drivers ever get frustrated where there’s no bike lane and you take the lane?

[dasgeh]

@Steve O 186944 wrote:

I contacted the project manager who told me that the reason they selected N. Manchester was because work vehicles, etc. will be using N. Madison, and that she was familiar with the hill. I suggested to her that after about one time using the signed detour and walking their bike up the hill, most people riding bikes will figure out that N. Madison is much better. Hence she should make sure the workers and drivers are aware that most people will ignore the official detour.

I definitely recommend the N. Madison St. route during all non-work hours, including weekends, when presumably there will be no conflicts with workers or work vehicles.

If you ride by here on the W&OD/Custis, take a quick look for yourself and try out the two options. It’s a pretty big discrepancy.

I would say they should still sign the detour to Madison. The detour signs also make drivers aware that they need to expect an increased volume of cyclists, and since that volume will likely come on Madison, that’s where the signs should be.

[Author]

Posts