Page 68 of 72 FirstFirst ... 18586667686970 ... LastLast
Results 671 to 680 of 717

Thread: e-Bikes - Let's talk

  1. #671
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    1,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post

    ADA lawsuit possibility is interesting. Anyone bringing forward a suit?

    I have successfully submitted an ADA complaint and it was a fairly pleasant experience. It's something on my list to get smarter on because it can be a powerful tool against dangerous infrastructure.

  2. #672
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Alexandria to NOMA
    Posts
    803
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    The status quo is that if a woman biking on her kids on her e-cargo-bike on the MBT gets hit by a woman on a 750W e-bike bike coming the other way who pulled into her lane around a blind curve to pass a jogger, and her bike is totaled and her kids end up in the hospital, she'll probably be on the hook for the entire bill. Are you ok with that status quo?
    This is the same argument, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    That is what seems to be behind the "ban them" argument.
    Well, I can only speak as someone who used to weigh 250lbs, then after almost 10 years of riding bikes regularly, am down to 155. I know firsthand what being fat is. And I know firsthand how awful and hopeless one can feel being obese.

    So, I'll reiterate. This has nothing to do with what you think it does. This argument is about safer utilization of limited resources. Class 3 e-bikes are motorcycles.
    Last edited by Harry Meatmotor; 10-02-2017 at 03:32 PM.

  3. Likes EasyRider liked this post
  4. #673
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    1,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Meatmotor View Post



    Well, I can only speak as someone who used to weigh 250lbs, then after almost 10 years of riding bikes regularly, am down to 155.
    Daaaaaaaaamn! 10 more years and you can get down to 55 pounds. Way to go on the weight loss.

  5. Likes dasgeh, hozn, Harry Meatmotor liked this post
  6. #674
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    2,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    I'm concerned that so many here are willing to draw such a small circle that they are the inside, but so many are left outside. In this area in particular, the difference between inside your circle and outside your circle boils down to fitness: an 110 lb out of shape woman on an ebike weighs less and goes no faster than a 200 lb fit dude on a carbon bike, the only difference is how they got to the speed (as an example). When we're talking about transportation, fitness just absolutely shouldn't matter.

    In other words, I don't think having a trail that serves transportation needs limited to only human power is reasonable (I also don't think it's legal, as it would violate the ADA).





    That is what seems to be behind the "ban them" argument.
    Just to clarify, I meant the weight of the bike.

  7. #675
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Alexandria to NOMA
    Posts
    803
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Judd View Post
    Daaaaaaaaamn! 10 more years and you can get down to 55 pounds. Way to go on the weight loss.
    my W/kg would be off the charts. in actuality, i'd be ded.

    also, at what point does "one less car" jump the shark?
    Last edited by Harry Meatmotor; 10-02-2017 at 05:19 PM. Reason: linx

  8. #676
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post
    Has anyone actually tried studying the impact of speed on bike vs ped collision, the way they have on car vs ped collisions? I guess the limited numbers of bike vs ped collisions and the generally poor data on them (for example estimates of speed) would make such studies difficult.
    A Swedish academic compared speed & collision/injury/fatality data in Sweden for the period 1997-1999 from pedestrians, bicycles, mopeds, motorcycles, cars, and trucks, and with some sophisticated math came up with a model illustrating the effect of % mean speed change on the rate of fatal accidents, see chart on page 76 of Nilsson, G. (2004). Studies of ebike usage in the Netherlands (Schepers, 2014) and Germany (Maier, 2015) recorded a mean average speed differential of 2 kmh between European pedelecs roughly equivalent to US Class 1 ebikes and pedal bicycles, which using Nilsson's model might translate to a 30% theoretical increase in the very low number of fatal bicycle-pedestrian collisions. A recent German study (Schleinitz, 2017) captured real-time riding data over 17,000km using telemetry sensors and cameras on pedelecs and speed pedelecs on road and bicycle infrastructure confirmed a mean average speed differential of 2 kmh between pedelecs and cyclists but 9 kmh between speed pedelecs and cyclists. Another German study (Petzoldt, 2017) using similar data capture technology identified no difference in motor vehicle-bicycle conflict on roads between bicycle types and there is no data to suggest ebikes are more likely to be involved in pedestrian collisions on MUP's. Maier's (2015) study suggests only 5% of self-reported bicycle & ebike accidents are with pedestrians, by far the largest proportion 65% are falls that involve no other individual caused by poor road surface conditions and subsequent wheel lock up, loss of balance, nose over, or collision with an obstacle, I think Maier's study influenced Bosch to introduce ABS to their speed pedelecs this year. Clearly there needs to be more research but I think these studies do support a California style ebike classification and a more nuanced application of the law taking into account the different balance of risks between different ebike classes.

    Sources

    Maier, O., Pfeiffer, M., Wehner, C., & Wrede, J. (2015). Empirical Survey on Bicycle Accidents to estimate the Potential Benefits of Braking Dynamics Assistance Systems. International Cycling Safety Conference 2015, 15-16 September 2015, Hannover, Germany

    Nilsson, G. (2004) Traffic Safety Dimensions and the Power Model to Describe the Effect of Speed on Safety. Bulletin 221, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden.

    Petzoldt, T., Schleinitz, K., Heilmann, S., Gehlertb, T. (2017). Traffic conflicts and their contextual factors when riding conventional vs. electric bicycles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 46(Part B): 477-490. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2016.06.010

    Schepers, J., Fishman, E., den Hertog, P., Wolt, K. K., & Schwab, A. (2014). The safety of electrically assisted bicycles compared to classic bicycles. Accident Analysis And Prevention, 73: 174-180. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2014.09.010

    Schleinitz, K., Petzoldt, T., Franke-Bartholdt, L., Krems, J., & Gehlert, T. (2017). The German Naturalistic Cycling Study – Comparing cycling speed of riders of different e-bikes and conventional bicycles. Safety Science, 92: 290-297. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.027
    Last edited by Dewey; 10-03-2017 at 12:56 PM.

  9. Likes dasgeh, Harry Meatmotor, hozn, LhasaCM liked this post
  10. #677
    dasgeh's Avatar
    dasgeh is offline Queen of Family Biking & All Things Kidical
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,135
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    The status quo is that if a woman biking on her kids on her e-cargo-bike on the MBT gets hit by a dude on a carbon bike coming the other way who pulled into her lane around a blind curve to pass a jogger, and her bike is totaled and her kids end up in the hospital, she'll probably be on the hook for the entire bill. Are you ok with that status quo?
    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post
    1. Personally I would like to see Virginia change to a comparative negligence standard from contributory negligence. That would not only largely resolve the issue above, but would address a wider range of injustices that won't be solved by changing the NPS rule on the MVT (what happens on the MBT is up to DC and I have no position on it)
    Note that my example was in DC. Because a woman on an ebike where ebikes are banned would be breaking the law, she would be liable under comparative negligence. So while I agree Virginia should change the contributory negligence, it would not at all resolve the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by mstone View Post
    Exactly that. I don't think "severity of injury in collision with bike at 30MPH vs severity of injury in collision with bike at walking speed" is something that even needs serious study. The basic physics involved are so straightforward that to question the relationship between speed and outcomes is ridiculous. (Even calling for a study of something that fundamental smacks of classic NIMBY delaying tactics more than serious inquiry.) Now, there aren't enough instances to make any kind of valid local study of comparative outcomes, and that will remain true as long as the number of fast bikes on the trails continues to be limited. When that will change is after the trails have reached/passed their capacity, at which time it will be difficult or impossible to put the genie back in the bottle and ban large numbers of people already on the trails. We're pretty close to capacity on the more popular trails during peak hours now, and unless bags of money fall from somewhere I don't see how we get useful mode separation on the current infrastructure. We already know that best practices (from places that do trails well) indicate that the trails we have now are doing it wrong. We've gotten away with having cyclists and pedestrians and dogs and chickens and whatever all mixed up on the trails mainly because the utilization is so low--but we know that the current designs are suboptimal, and there is no way that adding large numbers of faster users can make the situation better. We don't need to study our trails to death, because other places have already shown that outcomes are improved when you separate fast & slow trail users.
    The question is whether ebikes will lead to much more serious injuries than regular bikes. That deserves study, in my opinion, as it's a function of both how often collisions happen and the injury resulting from collisions. While it may be obvious that the latter would be worse, it's reasonable to think that collisions will go down as more "normal people" ride bikes.

    As far as being close to capacity on trails - which are you talking about? The only I can think of is the MVT, and honestly, that's not close to capacity. People can easily avg the speed limit (15mph) over a trip even during rush hour.

  11. #678
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    2,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    Note that my example was in DC. Because a woman on an ebike where ebikes are banned would be breaking the law, she would be liable under comparative negligence. So while I agree Virginia should change the contributory negligence, it would not at all resolve the issue.
    Maybe I don't understand comparative negligence well enough (IANAL) but I thought that under it, the woman on the bike would be liable only to the extent her behavior contributed to the damage. So if it could be shown that her riding an ebike (instead of a regular bike) contributed 20% of the fault, while the Fred doing the bad pass contributed 80%, she could still collect 80%. If she were riding under 15MPH, I suspect it would be difficult to establish that she was mostly at fault.

  12. Likes Judd liked this post
  13. #679
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    1,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post
    Maybe I don't understand comparative negligence well enough (IANAL) but I thought that under it, the woman on the bike would be liable only to the extent her behavior contributed to the damage. So if it could be shown that her riding an ebike (instead of a regular bike) contributed 20% of the fault, while the Fred doing the bad pass contributed 80%, she could still collect 80%. If she were riding under 15MPH, I suspect it would be difficult to establish that she was mostly at fault.
    This is my understanding as well, but it appears to vary by jurisdiction. In Illinois a jury is not allowed to award damages unless it determines that one party is at least 51% at fault.

  14. #680
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Alexandria to NOMA
    Posts
    803
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    it's reasonable to think that collisions will go down as more "normal people" ride bikes.
    You keep saying these things along the lines of "more people on trails = safer," when you really mean "more people riding bikes = easier to point at larger or smaller numbers in non-representative European data about a foreign population with different norms, rules, and laws, to suit a specific local advocacy issue". You should be more honest about the statistics.

    We get that you're a vocal cycling-as-transportation advocate. And you need numbers to throw at Arlington to "prove" a position during BAC meetings. But reading/regurgitating a handful of surveys about why people don't like riding bikes up steep hills doesn't change the physics of collisions or accidental crashes.

    And who are "normal people" riding bikes? What's the demographic composition of the class/strata of "normal people" riding bikes? Or are normal people simply "not Freds that ride carbon bikes"? Is it simply "skinny people" that ride bikes that you don't like? Or is it just men that ride too fast?

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
  •