e-Bikes - Let's talk

[hozn]

Yeah, it's impossible to over-state the value of the advocacy that Gillian does for our community. I am extremely grateful to her for that work, as I benefit from it everyday. And love that she wants to get more people on bikes.

While I disagree with the idea of accommodating CA class-3 e-bikes on multi-use paths, I certainly think encouraging e-bikes in general is a great way to get more people on bikes. I can certainly appreciate that not everyone wants to change into lycra for their ride to work. I do think that the perspective is different for someone that sees electric bikes at work out in the 'burbs where there intent is clearly to just move someone faster for a greater distance vs. use of these bikes in the closer-to-the-city parts of the trail.

In general, I'd like to see bike sales shift to focus on lower-speed bikes because
(1) I don't think 28mph bikes on trails is good for the riders or other users. We all agree on that. And while having a class-3 e-bike isn't going to make you ride that fast, it certainly opens that up to a much larger % of the cycling population. That is going to increase injury rates.
(2) I really despise the marketing campaign that is pushing the idea of increasing speed to get places faster. We really don't need faster lives. (I think the focus should be on getting to work without sweating.)
(3) I think e-bikes do the most for cyclists if they're out riding at normal-cyclist speeds, not moped speeds. E.g. I want more cyclists, but I want cars to get used to slower-traffic cyclists (and hopefully slow down).

While I agree that enforcement of a class system is unlikely to be effectively implemented, I would hope that having clear rules about classes on trails would push the sales of the explicitly legal bikes. I think the shops do have responsibility to inform their customers where they can and can't ride. -- Especially once this is clarified and hopefully made a little more consistent across these jurisdictions.

Anyway, that's my reasoning. In the end, I think it would be great to let e-bikes be explicitly allowed and if it were only all or nothing, I suspect I'd vote "all". It would be nice if there were some accountability or enforcement for those that ride like jackholes -- e-bike or not. Perhaps increasing the number of Trail Patrols -- especially east of Falls Church (seems like I only ever see trail patrols west of Vienna) -- could help provide some education / constructive criticism for this reckless riding.

[Harry Meatmotor]

If Dasgeh were to state "I fully encourage folks who are unsure of their skills, abilities, and/or sense of safety, to ride a C1/C2 e-bike," and encourage folks in the legislature to pursue a CA-style legislative agenda, rather than a "C-3/AliExpress 3000+Kw free-for-all, and sort out the 'casualties,' after we've got some self-reported data about folks riding semi-illegal contraptions," I'd be fully on board.

Gillian does great work and I admire and thank her for her tenacity and her work so far in her position; I agree she advocates largely for the benefit of the cycling community, however, to advocate simply for increased speed as a means to ensure safety of new riders, or to merely increase ridership is negligent of the fact that riding faster no matter the infrastructure class the is not inherently safer. I'm not going to waste any time pulling numbers from survey-based research when the negative effects are intrinsic and based simply on physics. I'm begging her to be honest about the behaviors of cyclists that are "newly gifted" with extra-human abilities when mixed with the general cycling/pedestrian populace.

But, so far she's been trying to connect personal experiences on her bike specifically to the group at-large; anecdotes with conclusions that I feel are at the least dangerous, and at most (considering her position, electively representing ALL cyclists in ArlCo), disingenuous. Increased speed capability isn't an answer to infrastructure problems. I can't help but be reminded of the [butchered] saying, "with great [pedaling] power comes great responsibility."

There's no saltiness, I assure you; merely a mild contempt for the concept that pure speed, at any cost, is somehow a right that affords increased safe ridership.

In terms of affordance, I just don't buy it.

[streetsmarts]

http://bit.ly/2mYy1Wn

BMW wants to build elevated bike lanes in congested cities...only for e-bikes etc.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[streetsmarts]

http://bit.ly/2mYy1Wn

BMW wants to build elevated bike lanes in congested cities...only for e-bikes etc.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I don't know how to post links...

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[cvcalhoun]

(2) I really despise the marketing campaign that is pushing the idea of increasing speed to get places faster. We really don't need faster lives. (I think the focus should be on getting to work without sweating.)

I would disagree on that. Right now, I work 12.5 miles from my home. I'm slow, so it is an hour and twenty minutes for me to get to work, and two hours to get home. That's borderline practical as it is. If I worked 20 miles from home, I would see an e-bike as not so much an alternative to a regular bike, but as an alternative to the car I'd otherwise have to drive to make my daily commute manageable.

[mstone]

I would disagree on that. Right now, I work 12.5 miles from my home. I'm slow, so it is an hour and twenty minutes for me to get to work, and two hours to get home. That's borderline practical as it is. If I worked 20 miles from home, I would see an e-bike as not so much an alternative to a regular bike, but as an alternative to the car I'd otherwise have to drive to make my daily commute manageable.

20 miles on a bike is such a niche that it's not worth spending public policy time on it because the number of people that will ever do that is insignificant. Making it easier to bike short distances in places where there's enough density to achieve reasonable mode share is a much better use of public resources (including policy proposals, hearings, etc).

[cvcalhoun]

20 miles on a bike is such a niche that it's not worth spending public policy time on it because the number of people that will ever do that is insignificant. Making it easier to bike short distances in places where there's enough density to achieve reasonable mode share is a much better use of public resources (including policy proposals, hearings, etc).

Yes, but the same principle applies to shorter rides. People generally decide whether to bike based on time it takes, not distance. So a faster bike is likely to convince more people to ride.

And the "life is too fast paced" argument is beside the point. For someone for whom biking is transportation, making the commute faster may well give them more time at home to smell the roses (or spend time with family, pursue hobbies, etc.). Making them choose between spending more time or driving to work is not going to make their lives any less fast paced.

[jabberwocky]

I don't think anyone really cares about the speed issue on roads. We already have cars and motorcycles, so if someone wants to get their electric motorbike mojo on, well, go to it. I leave the line between motorcycle/moped and "electric assist" to the powers that be (which is really only an issue for "where the line that requires a class m license, insurance, etc." is).

When we are talking about non motorized infrastructure like MUPs and bike lanes, I don't really give a shit if e-bikes are going to get more people "cycling" if its because it lets them go sooper fast and get to work quicker. I'd honestly rather people drive than ride their e-motorcycle down the W&OD at 30+mph.

[lordofthemark]

I do want to ask LE, etc to go easy on people who forget they are using an ebike.

For example take the case of an experienced rider, one familiar with all the issues raised in this thread, who, with his daughter, who only bikes on occasion, finds himself in downtown Baltimore, where the bikeshare stations have class 1 pedal assist bikes mixed in with human powered bikes. Though neither he nor his daughter realizes this, and neither notices the lightning bolt on the back fender of one bike. They take bikes out, and fortunately, she takes the one with the lightning bolt. "Daddy, I think this is electric". After a bit of riding around on streets and bike lanes, they are on their way to Cross Street Market, he is determining the route (both because of biking experience, and because he knows Baltimore a lot better than she does. He ALMOST takes them into a park, the start of the Gwyns Falls Trail - but then is unsure if that really goes where they want, and he decides on an in street route instead. Having totally blanked out on the possibility that taking an ebike onto the trail might be an issue. Fortunately it was (he is sure) a Class 1, and his daughter did not ride THAT fast on it (she sure could beat him up hills, but then he was riding a human powered BIKE SHARE bike) but he really doesn't know what the rules in Baltimore are.

[lordofthemark]

Yes, but the same principle applies to shorter rides. People generally decide whether to bike based on time it takes, not distance. So a faster bike is likely to convince more people to ride.

And the "life is too fast paced" argument is beside the point. For someone for whom biking is transportation, making the commute faster may well give them more time at home to smell the roses (or spend time with family, pursue hobbies, etc.). Making them choose between spending more time or driving to work is not going to make their lives any less fast paced.

For short rides, though, the time to get ready to ride, put a helmet on, unlock, find a place to lock up, lock up, take the helmet off, etc reduces the significance of actual speed - which I suspect leads many short distance transportation riders to make different choices of route, of type of bike, etc than longer distance ones generally do. For them the main benefit (and its potentially very big) of ebikes is the ability to ride in "regular" clothes, and lesser need to shower/freshen up at the end of the ride. But a class 1 or 2 ebike easily gets them that.

To the extent that we add more bikes to the trails that enable more long distance riders to ride faster than current average trail speeds, I suspect the less attractive we make the trails to shorter distance riders (and also to pedestrians, though I guess most of those on most trails are recreational), whether human powered, or cautious users of class 1 and 2 ebikes. OTOH very short distance riders may be less likely to rely on trails, simply because going a mile out of your way to get to a trail is more of an issue for them.

OTOH, note also, when you are off trail, if you are even halfway lawful, the stop signs and traffic signals are going to be enough of an issue that a higher maximum speed will be less of an issue. If you are doing a short commute that will be particularly important. As for someone like CvaCalhoun, with a 12.5 mile commute down a MUT, an ebike that enables an average speed of 14MPH (no higher than 15 on the CCT, of course ) would do pretty much what she wants. I think the combo of Hozns and MStone's points therefore stand - not that the existence of ebikes is a problem, but that the marketing of them around speed does us as advocates more harm than good.