Page 87 of 96 FirstFirst ... 37778586878889 ... LastLast
Results 861 to 870 of 952

Thread: e-Bikes - Let's talk

  1. #861
    dasgeh's Avatar
    dasgeh is offline Queen of Family Biking & All Things Kidical
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,178
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huskerdont View Post
    With Class 3 especially, the capacity to sin is greater, and the harm that can be caused is potentially greater, so the users will all have to be angels. I don't see this as likely. Those that I've seen on Class 3s to this point have been acting about like I would expect them to. I suppose that with greater numbers of them more could act more responsibly, but I doubt it.
    The vast majority of "sins" are things that have nothing to do with e-assist: running reds, running stop signs, passing too close or when it's not safe (e.g. blind corners). If anything, having e-assist (and more assist, like Class 3) makes people less likely to do these things, because getting back to speed is easier, so scrubbing speed doesn't seem as sad. In other words, with eassist, and Class 3 in particularly, there is less incentive to commit most of the "sins", and only increased "capacity" to commit one sin (speeding).

    Quote Originally Posted by huskerdont View Post
    "if that were reality, would you then support ebikes on trails?"

    I never said I didn't. In fact, I said that I largely do, but not Class 3s and motorcycle-ish things. For some reason, you seem to think that everyone who posts here with any concerns or suggestions on limitations is against eBikes in general.
    Look, this is a forum and not everyone types every comment to be 100% clear and complete. We use shorthand, understanding that there are earlier posts to provide context. Yes, I realize you only support banning some ebikes from trails. So a more correct comment would have been "would you then support ALL ebikes on trails". Can't you just read that in to the post and advance the conversation?

    If you expect perfection in every post, then you will be forever frustrated here.

  2. #862
    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
    3,321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    ... and some street riding (where lots of people would want the eassist to feel safe)?
    I'd like to -- genuinely -- understand this idea better, since it seems to be the basis for why we need to allow 28mph e-bikes on the trails. Why do people feel safer riding at 28mph on our roadways? This is still significantly slower than any traffic, in my experience. And the risks to the rider are exponentially greater than if they were riding at 15mph.

    I think we should all agree that a cyclist shouldn't have to ride 28mph on a street in order to feel safe. I'd hope one way to improve cyclist safety on roads is by getting more cyclists riding 15-20mph on those roads. That would make the roads safer for everyone, not just those that can afford to pay used-car prices for a class-3 e-bike.
    Last edited by hozn; 11-08-2017 at 01:38 PM.

  3. Likes scoot, Sunyata, huskerdont, Tania liked this post
  4. #863
    mstone is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,911
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    So you are advocating for a total ban of all ebikes on all trails, right? How do you reconcile that with the reality that most routes (in NoVa, at least) involve some trail riding (where ebikes would be banned) and some street riding (where lots of people would want the eassist to feel safe)?
    That we really need to come up with better infrastructure if the ebike dreams are to be realized. Making it even harder to be non-motorized by eliminating the last non-motorized infrastructure isn't the solution. I'd expect that making it safer/easier to use existing roads will be an easier lift than trying to improve the trail infrastructure, but I'm open to either.

    But what if ebikers sin less? I think this is likely, though I freely admit it's only a theory: people who are willing to ebike but not bike are more risk-adverse that current biking population
    I think that's delusional. People suck at assessing risk, and I think the ebike pool will draw from the same pool as motorists--who aren't known for their saintliness or ability to assess risk.

    No one is advocating for anything that can go 50-80mph on trails. No. one.
    You lost track of the thread, that was in response to the question of how we could possibly ban high speed ethings from bike lanes if we don't have classes. (With my response basically being that I don't see that goal as sufficient reason to justify the class system because I don't think it's likely to be a big problem.)

    But doesn't your argument translate to allowing ebikes that can go 28mph on trails?
    No, because 1) the delta between reasonable maximum and practical maximum in a bike lane is less than the reasonable maximum and practical maximum on a trail (If I was only interested in my own safety I'd actually feel more comfortable about going at a crazy high speed down the middle of a lot of stretches of the W&OD than most of the bike lanes I've seen) and 2) I've already explained why I think this clunky "classes of bikes that can only do Xmph" is fantasyland so I don't think the premise makes sense.
    Last edited by mstone; 11-08-2017 at 02:10 PM.

  5. #864
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    2,561
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mstone View Post
    (With my response basically being that I don't see that goal as sufficient reason to justify the class system because I don't think it's likely to be a big problem.)
    The class system is generated by different relationships to the means of production, obviously. The ruling class will generate whatever justification is necessary for the class system.

    Sorry, just had to say it

    I am just going to say, to add to Dasgehs point (without, I think, agreeing with her in substance) the threeway debate here - ban ebikes from trails, ban none that are under 28MPH, and ban some - with added confusion about the Ca cut points among classes vs other cut points - has just gotten terribly confusing. All I can say is that I do not find the argument for class 3 on the trails compelling. For reasons I have explained. Nor do I find Mstones arguments about enforcement and norms compelling (BTW, if people are going to ride 50MPH on the MVT, quite a few of them are going to end up in the Potomac River, IMO )

    At this point I am less interested in more speculation (which is mostly what we have here) and more interested in actual observations - data or even anecdotes - about how the laws in California, other states, even Europe are working out.

    Meanwhile there really are more urgent advocacy issues - City of Alexandria just released their draft Vision Zero plan, and there is a lot of interest there.
    Last edited by lordofthemark; 11-08-2017 at 02:28 PM.

  6. #865
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    2,561
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dewey View Post
    Thanks Lordy for your summary of the VBFs 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 wont be many legislative opportunities in any one session to move forward the cycling agenda.
    To clarify, I am not directly involved in VBF and don't know what their agenda is for this session - I am going more on the basis of things I have heard talked about in BPAC. I will note that the new Alexandria Vision Zero draft plan includes some asks of the legislature - including the legalization of automated speed enforcement.

  7. #866
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    The vast majority of "sins" are things that have nothing to do with e-assist: running reds, running stop signs, passing too close or when it's not safe (e.g. blind corners). If anything, having e-assist (and more assist, like Class 3) makes people less likely to do these things, because getting back to speed is easier, so scrubbing speed doesn't seem as sad. In other words, with eassist, and Class 3 in particularly, there is less incentive to commit most of the "sins", and only increased "capacity" to commit one sin (speeding).

    Look, this is a forum and not everyone types every comment to be 100% clear and complete. We use shorthand, understanding that there are earlier posts to provide context. Yes, I realize you only support banning some ebikes from trails. So a more correct comment would have been "would you then support ALL ebikes on trails". Can't you just read that in to the post and advance the conversation?

    If you expect perfection in every post, then you will be forever frustrated here.
    It's not relevant whether I am frustrated or not, although it is an odd statement. But it is relevant if you choose to misrepresent information in an effort, I suppose, to have no rules or restrictions on eBikes on trails at all? I really don't know what the endgame here is from misrepresenting any reasonable opposition, as you have done other times as well, as complete opposition to all eBikes. So I don't think it was shorthand; I think it was deliberate. Few here oppose all eBikes on the trails, yet you continue to act as if they do. That kind of misrepresentation undermines credibility.

  8. Likes dkel liked this post
  9. #867
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Dewey; 11-08-2017 at 02:47 PM.

  10. #868
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, VA
    Posts
    1,397
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    The vast majority of "sins" are things that have nothing to do with e-assist: running reds, running stop signs, passing too close or when it's not safe (e.g. blind corners). If anything, having e-assist (and more assist, like Class 3) makes people less likely to do these things, because getting back to speed is easier, so scrubbing speed doesn't seem as sad. In other words, with eassist, and Class 3 in particularly, there is less incentive to commit most of the "sins", and only increased "capacity" to commit one sin (speeding).
    This flies in the face of what we know people do in powered vehicles every day. People will still do those things, because people are impatient no matter what vehicle they are operating, they will just have more power and therefore higher speeds behind them while doing so.

  11. Likes Sunyata, mstone, sjclaeys liked this post
  12. #869
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post
    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?

  13. #870
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    2,561
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dewey View Post
    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?
    Ah, you saw that in the VZ plan?

    25MPH has already been applied to select arterials outside Old Town - King from the metro to Quaker. Quaker from King to Duke. Seminary from I395 to Quaker.

    Some of the roads are over designed for 25MPH, so traffic calming changes might be needed. I note that the VZ draft only suggests studying a 25MPH city wide speed limit (obviously excluding highways not controlled by the City). I would also note that the highest rates of KSI's are on arterials with speed limits over 25MPH. I cannot at this time say anything here about BPAC's response to the VZ draft 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, and I think its clear many other people, some of whom have not always seen eye to eye, with OTCA, might well join them in support.

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
  •