[Dewey]

@lordofthemark 168149 wrote:

A. Legalize them ONLY on the bridge trails, and the minimum needed trails to access the bridges.

Last week David Alpert reported the ebikeshare company “JUMP would like to see DC amend its rules to allow at least “class 1″ e-bikes on trails, where they are now prohibited.” Maybe this will find its way into feedback on the DC dockless bikeshare trial when it wraps up in spring next year. On the recent Kojo show on the topic of permitting ebikes access to trails, at the 26’30” mark Greg Billing described WABA has not advocated on behalf of ebikes but for one letter sent to Maryland in the past five years. I’m unsure who, how, and when 18 DCMR §§ 1201.18 should be amended/changed to permit ebikes on DC bridge bicycle infrastructure. In the WABA member survey I filled out I suggested WABA advocate for change but am unsure if this will happen.

[Dewey]

@dasgeh 167752 wrote:

2) What sources of information ACPD looks at in developing incident reports — sounds like the victim here had Strava and ACPD never even asked for that information.

Can you also ask about the status of evidence from camera recordings, telemetry data from phone apps other than Strava, from fitness devices, from GPS bike computers like Lezyne, e-bike controller speed limit settings.

Cheers!

[Dewey]

@secstate 167108 wrote:

UPS is making its love affair with bike lanes official (at least in Portland)

Also now in Pittsburgh

[IMG]https://i0.wp.com/usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/11/UPS-bike-pittsburgh.jpg?w=800&ssl=1[/IMG]

[Dewey]

What a pain in the proverbial. AU and NIH have implemented it and I had gotten consideration on the agenda of the next budget meeting of our HR Benefits people.

[Dewey]

WABA’s Greg Billing took some photos at tonight’s JUMP ebikeshare launch.

[Dewey]

Wash cycle blog reported ebikeshare Jump are holding a launch party tonight at 6:30pm at 641 S St NW, RSVP Linkie.

I can’t go as my wife is doing yoga so I’ll be looking after the little one, but if you do go to try out riding a pedelec, please report back on the quality of their shwag.

[Dewey]

@Vicegrip 167784 wrote:

There is no place for this on a MUP or MTN bike trail.

Indeed, or anywhere not private land, note the mention of a 20mph speed limiter for “legal road use” but it cannot be registered at the DMV so it is an illegal electric motorcycle. A minority of enthusiasts advocate for these motorcycles but they aren’t legal ebikes and as far removed from a Class 1 pedelec as my daughter’s red tricycle is from a Hayabusa.

[Dewey]

@lordofthemark 167783 wrote:

Ah, you saw that in the VZ plan?

Note, I can say, that for Old Town, there has been talk about lower speed limits than 25MPH. I think that would fall under the “neighborhood slow zones” envisioned in the plan. Those would have to be requested by the neighborhood in question. I have little doubt OTCA would be interested in one for Old Town.

Yes, I did a quick Ctrl-F search for “speed” and saw the proposed city-wide limit. Speed cameras in Old Town put me in mind of the mirrors some women in the past would mount above an upper storey window so they could look down on visitors/callers below and decide whether or not to admit them, some of the historic houses in Old Town have them.

[Dewey]

@lordofthemark 167771 wrote:

I will note that the new Alexandria Vision Zero draft plan includes some asks of the legislature – including the legalization of automated speed enforcement.

I see signs indicating the City of Falls Church uses cameras to enforce their 25mph speed limit and for the most part it does make me keep an eye on my speed when driving down Broad Street/Rt 7. Much of Old Town’s street plan is inherited from the days of the horse and cart so a 25mph speed limit seems appropriate, but city-wide implies a 25mph limit on streets like Duke, Braddock Rd, Seminary Rd, etc. can it be made to apply just in Old Town?

[Dewey]

@lordofthemark 167770 wrote:

The ruling class will generate whatever justification is necessary for the class system.

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses

And I too would like to see more data, observational studies of rider behavior, etc.

[Dewey]

Thanks Lordy for your summary of the VBF’s legislative agenda, sensible incremental improvements are achievable, I hope delegates will continue listen to local concerns brought forward by VBF, WABA, etc. and balance them against our likely opponents (AAA, insurers, etc). I mentioned outside forces in a previous post and given the ebike industry is pushing the People for Bikes model ebike class legislation I expect after the mid-terms they will be knocking on doors in Richmond, I recognize there won’t be many legislative opportunities in any one session to move forward the cycling agenda.

[Dewey]

@huskerdont 167673 wrote:

If we don’t get this in order…

After yesterday’s election results it’s likely the Democrats will take the Virginia state House in November 2018, maybe WABA can help VA House delegates introduce but reword the People for Bikes model ebike classification system to cover kit motors, keep VA’s 1,000w power rating, and fund the necessary regulatory/IT/education changes necessary to implement enforceable class verification, remove contributory negligence in bicycle-car collisions like DC but include Class 1 pedelecs to protect all cyclists and encourage non-riders to use ebikeshare schemes, fund bicycle infrastructure to widen trails, mode separation on existing trails, experiment with cargo ebikeshare etc.

[Dewey]

@lordofthemark 167601 wrote:

Does anyone know if California is putting in a “crapton” of effort?

Has rider behavior changed on paved bike paths in California in the two years since the classification system was put in place with the passage of A.B. 1096? Do the statistics show an increase in the number of bicycle accidents or liability cases? Hopefully someone will be doing the research.

[Dewey]

@mstone 167583 wrote:

I’d expect a testing/registration scheme to cost hundreds per year, looking at how much it costs for cars and taking into account the (lack of) economies of scale.

Not trying to play down your concerns but one of the DC ebike shops lists a service charge of just $25 to check/change motor controller settings. Adding a field to a DMV database and the ability to check it on a police computer requires a little programming. Your last point is why I was interested in what the CPSC and state AG’s had to say about enforcement on the supply end, I feel that must surely be as important.

[Dewey]

@mstone 167574 wrote:

I continue to believe that the ebike class system will have no practical effect on what kind of ebikes show up on trails

I agree a classification system on its own is toothless and open to abuse without an easy way for LE to verify an ebike is appropriately power/speed limited, as looks can be deceiving and police officers aren’t ebike technicians it might be something like the class registration decal provided for under the People for Bikes model legislation, however that model as currently worded is flawed because it may be interpreted as restricting ebike class registration to complete ebikes when there also needs to be some way for DIY kit motor owners to obtain such verification, preferably from a local bike shop that sells and services legal ebikes. Making the registration decals secure/chipped and for the registration to be renewable and logged in a DMV database should help in the event of a crackdown/enforcement action.

[Author]

Replies