Likes Likes:  1,107
Dislikes Dislikes:  11
ELITE ELITE:  42
Page 65 of 128 FirstFirst ... 1555636465666775115 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 650 of 1274

Thread: e-Bikes - Let's talk

  1. #641
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Madison Manor
    Posts
    1,213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    But ebikes aren't guns. Ebikes get people places. And don't kill people.
    But cars aren't guns. Cars get people places. And don't kill . . .

  2. #642
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Madison Manor
    Posts
    1,213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    So let Cat 3 use the trails for now and only ban them if we see a problem with Cat 3 ebikes causing collisions/injuries/near misses with others.
    Interesting approach to assessing the risk of a vehicle or any product, do nothing until someone gets hurt. Reminds me of the neighbor against traffic calming measures because no kids had been yet hit by a car. So that we know when any mitigating measures should be taken, how many injures will be required?

  3. #643
    hozn's Avatar
    hozn is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    3,698
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I think the TN laws seem like a good starting point. https://www.tn.gov/tdot/article/bikeped-bikelaws

    Banning class-3 from MUPs as a general rule (assuming I read that right) seems perfectly fine to me. Does the trail needs class-3 e-bikes?

  4. #644
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Alexandria
    Posts
    825
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sjclaeys View Post
    Interesting approach to assessing the risk of a vehicle or any product, do nothing until someone gets hurt. Reminds me of the neighbor against traffic calming measures because no kids had been yet hit by a car.
    Worse than that, it reminds me of Federal Highway Administration standards for traffic controls.

    Warrant 7: "Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash"

    FIVE crashes at the same intersection in ONE YEAR! WTF?

    https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4c.htm

    Anybody here watch the old John Corbett TV show "Lucky"? This rule reminds me of Vincent and Buddy's pedestrian crash scam. Want a stop sign? Just go jump in front of moving cars... FIVE TIMES.

  5. #645
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Sterling, VA
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hozn View Post
    Banning class-3 from MUPs as a general rule (assuming I read that right) seems perfectly fine to me. Does the trail needs class-3 e-bikes?
    A directly observable fact (e.g. Speed) is better than a conjecture (potential to speed) or checking stickers on bicycles. We don't prohibit vehicles on the parkway based on whether they have speedometers with numbers higher than 120 mph. We set a speed limit and apply it to all vehicles. Instead of banning class-3 e-bikes, ban speeds of more than 20 and apply to all users without regard to vehicle. Otherwise you are going to repeat this discussion for unicycle hover boards and jet powered skates, etc.

  6. #646
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolarBikeCar View Post
    A directly observable fact (e.g. Speed) is better than a conjecture (potential to speed) or checking stickers on bicycles. We don't prohibit vehicles on the parkway based on whether they have speedometers with numbers higher than 120 mph. We set a speed limit and apply it to all vehicles. Instead of banning class-3 e-bikes, ban speeds of more than 20 and apply to all users without regard to vehicle. Otherwise you are going to repeat this discussion for unicycle hover boards and jet powered skates, etc.
    That's a ridiculous answer, speeds in the range appropriate for a trail aren't enforceable. 20 is too high much of the time, and really means 30 (which is way too high). The real answer is for people to be considerate of others, but that's not going to work either. (As has been amply demonstrated by those who already think the rules don't apply to them.)

  7. #647
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    70
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I know right. Just ask the officer on foot with the radar gun on the CCT. I've never seen him stop anyone, but I don't see how that would work without really creating some safety issues.

    The trails weren't designed for high speeds at high volumes, but that's where we seem to be heading.

  8. #648
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    2,008
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyRider View Post
    Good luck with that. Does ANYBODY on this thread actually support "banning" e-bikes from MUPs and existing bicycle infrastructure? I'm among the skeptical voices about e-bikes and I don't; I just think there should probably be speed limits during rush hour. Response when I floated the idea here? Crickets.

    BTW, that Post editorial recently linked to here didn't call for "banning e-bikes" either. It called for requiring A BELL on all bicycles, and mentioned that it would be especially welcome on heavy bikes that go fast (e-bikes).
    Maybe no one on this thread does. But they already got banned on the CCT, so apparently someone does.
    Last edited by cvcalhoun; 09-30-2017 at 11:03 PM.

  9. #649
    TwoWheelsDC's Avatar
    TwoWheelsDC is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Navy Yard
    Posts
    3,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cvcalhoun View Post
    Maybe no one on this thread does. But they already got banned on the CCT, so apparently someone does.
    DC law is pretty poorly worded in such a way that it bans e-bikes on all trails (“motorized bicycles” are prohibited, and the definition of “motorized bicycle” includes any type of motor, no matter how powerful). Was that actually in response to an e-bike incident or some kind of e-bike panic?

  10. #650
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Sterling, VA
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mstone View Post
    That's a ridiculous answer, speeds in the range appropriate for a trail aren't enforceable. 20 is too high much of the time, and really means 30 (which is way too high). The real answer is for people to be considerate of others, but that's not going to work either. (As has been amply demonstrated by those who already think the rules don't apply to them.)
    "Considerate of others" is so corrupted by bias that it can't be a rational rule. Do we have to be considerate of people who hate purple and not buy a purple vehicle? The only rules that matter are the ones that improve safety outcomes enough to offset the social cost of enforcing the rule. If 20 is too fast for the trails why do non-ebike riders consistently pass me on the downhills at speeds much closer to 30? Attempting to apply a speed limit to e-bikes that you don't want applied to everyone exposes the bias--just be honest that you hate e-bike riders more than roadies.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •