Because everyone knows what bike and ebike mean and no one knows what "pedalist" means.John in CR said:I don't know why pedalists continue to try to claim the words bike and ebike.
Because everyone knows what bike and ebike mean and no one knows what "pedalist" means.John in CR said:I don't know why pedalists continue to try to claim the words bike and ebike.
OK. I understand now what you intended. Unconditional as in "no prerequisites."Chalo said:wturber said:Also, the right to use a lane in Arizona is hardly "unconditional." I don't know, but I suspect this kind of condition is common.
Everybody has rules of the road to follow. But a cyclist has no preconditions to being able to use the road, where a motorist usually must be
- licensed (both driver and car)
- registered
- insured
- inspected
- using an approved vehicle type with VIN
Right, and also points to how the origin of a bicyclist's right and lack of any prerequisite precedes the paving of any road. That right actually come from common law and our fundamental rights as human beans to travel. Before the automobile that meant by foot, horse, carriage, etc. There is no registration prerequisite because the risks and potential harm to others from such travel is so low as to be negligible. Cars initially had no such requirements either and some people argue that Constitutionally they still do not. And this, of course is where the variants in e-bikes legislation comes in. Nobody knows when the potential likelihood to harm is enough to justify licensing and so forth. So we are now experimenting and trying to figure out where, how, and if to draw such lines.Chalo said:before even being present on the roadway. Given the relative risks imposed by motorists versus bicyclists, this is all good and appropriate.
Chalo said:But it's weird when motorists seem to think that cyclists have lesser rights to use the road (or none at all), when in fact the cyclists are allowed by default, and motorists are allowed only if they meet a fistful of specific criteria. That's apart from the historical fact that cyclists got us pavement and motorists only hogged it.
It is not about the law. It is about being conscious of other users of the street. On 2 wheels if you are not paying attention, your riding career is likely to be very short. No law can help.onemorejoltwarden said:...
We need regulation that is mindful , but are headed toward a more "Mad Max" like
with its empowerments but also its treatment of the vulnerable
Rhino, your post is a metaphor, too, when you think that the cager that almost hit you, drives the law like they drive the cage,
with the same intelligence and attention. And you are the cager to the pedestrian.
LockH said:"larger"
"bikes" can have lots of KE. :wink:
lots of kinetic energy on ebikesChalo said:More kinetic energy
MadRhino said:The safe usage of the streets is regulated by speed limits
Why should it be different for bikes?
MadRhino said:Bikes are vehicles just like any other. Some cars are low performance, some are racing machines, they are all regulated by the same street speed limitations. Telling the smaller he has to be slower, is to make sure the bigger can run him over?
biggy said:If you've ever watched a bicycle road race on TV and looked at the miles per hour that those guys are going then you know a man powered bicycle is very capable of high speeds.
wturber said:... The laws aren't designed for their exceptional performance and tolerating their rare exception is no great burden on traffic or society. But if you suddenly have many thousands riding at those speeds, the complexion of things changes.
wturber said:biggy said:If you've ever watched a bicycle road race on TV and looked at the miles per hour that those guys are going then you know a man powered bicycle is very capable of high speeds.
Sure. But how often does that occur among the general population while commuting or riding for sport? Almost never.