Page 3 of 35 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 341

Thread: ELF pedal electric car on W&OD

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    374
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Welcome to the Brave New World of e-assist/electric bikes. As you see, multiple technologies (pedal assist vs straight-up throttle) and some vehicles that challenge all existing legal definitions and boundaries. The higher power e-bikes, both here and in Europe, fall into catagories that require motorcycle-size mirrors, built in lighting (a good idea anyway), and speed-rated tires (marketed by Schwalbe and Continental, amongst others). And the legal quandries are well obvious.

    Bottom line- the e-assist cargo bikes still fit the cycling infrastructure. I DO NOT want to see those banned. Bigger/faster creations like the ELF? Not so much. Our traffic laws will need to adapt to this emerging technology. Also, a recent article raised the question of MTB e-bikes on national park trails. To *that* case, no.

    As Dasgeh mentioned, *behavior* will always trump everything else. The fast road rider hell-bent on running his time trail, other traffic be damned, will always give the rest of us a bad name.

  2. Likes dasgeh liked this post
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Falls church
    Posts
    1,227
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mstone View Post
    Yup. We've mostly agreed to ignore motors on bikes where you can't tell there's a motor, but defining that is so hard that it's just easier from a practical perspective to ban all motors in order to deal with this kind of idiot.
    The elf is near the bottom of the slippery slope. I wish people did not push things beyond common sense as Elf-man is doing. For the most part electric bikes make anyone fit. I feel lucky that I am fit and all my limbs work as intended. I don't need a boost to get around reasonable distances at reasonable speeds. I can see where a booster motor on an otherwise normal bike or recumbent would simply level the playing field and offer up access to cycling rather than letting in an unintended format such as the Elf. It is guys like him that screw it up for all the physically less advantaged people that simply want to do what most of us take for granted. He shaves rules minimizes details and twists thing around to make his CAR seem to be OK. One example, "It is XX wide wheel to wheel..." OK. now add in the fenders and mirrors and it is wider than 1/2 of the trail. How can Elf-man think that is OK to drive and safe for others?

    Political spin format. Cue the ominous down sliding background music, slide the croma to black and white and point to the gravel voice guy. "He is risking access for disabled vets and putting retires, children and commuting workers in harms way so he can take more than his share of a local treasure."
    Last edited by Vicegrip; 11-04-2015 at 11:01 AM.

  4. Likes dasgeh liked this post
  5. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    West McLean
    Posts
    835
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Has anyone left a comment on that guy's page? There is a section for comments on the right-hand nav.

  6. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Loveland, CO
    Posts
    858
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subby View Post
    Has anyone left a comment on that guy's page? There is a section for comments on the right-hand nav.
    I see there are some showing up. He also has a section and is prompting using a twitter hashtag of #SolarBikeCar Was planning to tweet something about my feelings on this.

  7. #25
    mstone is online now I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,932
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vicegrip View Post
    The elf is near the bottom of the slippery slope. I wish people did not push things beyond common sense as Elf-man is doing.
    And yet they do, pretty consistently. It goes both ways: for now I'm happy with just leaving the "no motors" rule for expediency, but if we actually saw signs that this was being abused for harassing enforcement then I'd be much more interested in trying to come up with a more complex rule (as there'd be evidence that the effort was worthwhile). Until something changes, the status quo of "be reasonable and nobody cares" seems the optimal route. (And until we see some sign that the motor rule is enforced even on a flagrant violator like this guy, the whole argument is a waste of air.)

  8. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Loveland, CO
    Posts
    858
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    There is an article on the Catholic Herald, about him and his ELF titled "Biking for God’s creation " I will paste in one quote: “I get a lot of thumbs-up from people while driving down the bike path."

    http://www.catholicherald.com/storie...creation,29561

  9. Likes hozn liked this post
  10. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    407
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jabberwocky View Post
    Seems easiest to just flat out ban motorized vehicles. Anything subtle enough to not draw attention to itself (like, what you and most other people on this forum ride) will be fine. People riding electric motorcycles and e-cars and stuff can be dealt with much more easily.
    As one of the ebike rule breakers, I'd be okay with this being our preferred approach if it weren't for the issue of liability in the event of a crash. Here's my nightmare hypo: I'm riding my ebike from DC over to Crystal City at ~15mph to go to the dentist. Near Gravelly Point I'm approaching a runner and the opposite lane is clear for me to pass. I move over and ring my bell at ~30 feet back and then again at ~10 feet. The runner is wearing headphones, does not hear me, Crazy Ivans, and we collide. We both fall and suffer significant injuries or, worse, one or both of us is killed by a head injury.

    Despite the runner having been the proximate cause of the crash, what effect does my being on a (technically) illegal vehicle on the trail have on my potential liability and my ability to recover for my own injuries? The current rules give a motivated insurance defense or plaintiff's attorney lots of arguments to make against me. E.g., (1) I was on an illegal vehicle and so should be fully/partially faulted; (2) my illegal bike surely moves faster than is safe, making me fully/partially at fault; (2) my illegal ebike is heavier than a normal bike, making everyone's injuries more severe.

  11. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Loveland, CO
    Posts
    858
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 83(b) View Post
    As one of the ebike rule breakers, I'd be okay with this being our preferred approach if it weren't for the issue of liability in the event of a crash. Here's my nightmare hypo: I'm riding my ebike from DC over to Crystal City at ~15mph to go to the dentist. Near Gravelly Point I'm approaching a runner and the opposite lane is clear for me to pass. I move over and ring my bell at ~30 feet back and then again at ~10 feet. The runner is wearing headphones, does not hear me, Crazy Ivans, and we collide. We both fall and suffer significant injuries or, worse, one or both of us is killed by a head injury.

    Despite the runner having been the proximate cause of the crash, what effect does my being on a (technically) illegal vehicle on the trail have on my potential liability and my ability to recover for my own injuries? The current rules give a motivated insurance defense or plaintiff's attorney lots of arguments to make against me. E.g., (1) I was on an illegal vehicle and so should be fully/partially faulted; (2) my illegal bike surely moves faster than is safe, making me fully/partially at fault; (2) my illegal ebike is heavier than a normal bike, making everyone's injuries more severe.
    Your scenario is so highly restrictive. Let me give another two:

    1. Some one on an e-Bike is in a crash on the WO&D with a non e-bicycle rider. Neither party can be definitely confirmed as being the more at fault. The bicycle would sue based on the e-Bike being on that corridor illegally. The e-Bike's lawyer will suggest settling for a few 10 thousands dollars since the fight would cost about the same and not have a definite outcome.

    2. Some one on an e-Bike is in a crash on the WO&D with a non e-bicycle rider. The bicycle rider admits right after the crash in conversation it was his fault for turning without signalling. He later changes his story. The bicycle would sue based on the e-Bike being on that corridor illegally. The e-Bike's lawyer will suggest settling for a few 10 thousands dollars since the fight would cost about the same and not have definite outcome.

  12. Likes 83(b) liked this post
  13. #29
    dasgeh's Avatar
    dasgeh is offline Queen of Family Biking & All Things Kidical
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,179
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 83(b) View Post
    As one of the ebike rule breakers, I'd be okay with this being our preferred approach if it weren't for the issue of liability in the event of a crash. Here's my nightmare hypo: I'm riding my ebike from DC over to Crystal City at ~15mph to go to the dentist. Near Gravelly Point I'm approaching a runner and the opposite lane is clear for me to pass. I move over and ring my bell at ~30 feet back and then again at ~10 feet. The runner is wearing headphones, does not hear me, Crazy Ivans, and we collide. We both fall and suffer significant injuries or, worse, one or both of us is killed by a head injury.

    Despite the runner having been the proximate cause of the crash, what effect does my being on a (technically) illegal vehicle on the trail have on my potential liability and my ability to recover for my own injuries? The current rules give a motivated insurance defense or plaintiff's attorney lots of arguments to make against me. E.g., (1) I was on an illegal vehicle and so should be fully/partially faulted; (2) my illegal bike surely moves faster than is safe, making me fully/partially at fault; (2) my illegal ebike is heavier than a normal bike, making everyone's injuries more severe.
    I have two nightmare scenarios: 1) I'm crossing legally in a crosswalk on my cargo ebike with my kids. A car makes a right turn, not properly yielding and strikes me. I'm held responsible because, technically, ebikes weren't allowed.
    and 2) A police officer decides that he is sick of my trying to improve ACPD's traffic enforcement efforts, and singles me out for enforcement. Or singles out a family of color because of their race. Or singles out an hispanic family because he's anti-immigrant.

    Ok, that's a lot more than 2. Face it, the problem with the Elf-guy isn't his motor. There are plenty of folks on this forum and in this world who could pilot a non-motorized version of the Elf in such a way to terrorize people on the trail. If the vehicle is too wide, and if it's operated in an unsafe way (e.g. speeding), that's the problem. Ban those things. They are easy to measure and enforce.

    BTW, since when is speed hard to measure?

  14. Likes 83(b) liked this post
  15. #30
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manassas, VA
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    If this is allowed, maybe I can buy a Smart Car or original Mini Cooper and use those on the trails too? I'll shut the engine off on the downhills, and occasionally I'll open my door and kick with my feet so that it's a Human/Gravity/gas assist vehicle...

  16. Likes hozn, Raymo853 liked this post
    ELITE GovernorSilver ELITED this post

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
  •