Lines erased E-Bike / E-Scooter / E Motorcycle

benjamin84 said:

A regular cyclist or e-biker will be passed by all the cars he has just ridden by causing lots of potential for an accident.

Click to expand...

I simply avoid those kinds of streets. Whether the higher speed balances out the increased risk from reaction time issues and risk due to higher average kinetic energy when accidents do happen (perhaps typically four times the energy) would be open to debate and speculation since I don't think there are any statistics that are that specific. But it should be noted that simply being passed more frequently is not the only factor to consider.

John in CR said:

This thread might as well be a debate about helmets, with one side being unwilling or incapable of a complete risk assessment that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. Conditions dictate what speed is or isn't safe.

Click to expand...

Sure. But clearly the average condition for a higher speed motorcyclist is a lot less safe. So the question is whether the motorcyclist can or will alter the conditions sufficiently to mitigate that difference. And I agree that such evaluations will be heavily influenced by individual biases.

MadRhino said:

This debate is about fear.

Click to expand...

The debate isn't about fear at all. It is about reasonable expectations and trying to be objective about those expectations. It isn't about whether a person should or should not ride at certain speeds or in a particular manner. It is about what a person can reasonably expect to happen depending on what they choose to do.

MadRhino said:

If the law was really about justice, it is the threat to others that would be regulated.

Click to expand...

Sure. And it is automobile that is much more highly regulated than the bicycle. Manufacturers are regulated. Drivers must be licensed and carry insurance. The vehicle must be registered and in most states inspected every couple of years. Severe fines are being imposed for driving while intoxicated. Perhaps this is not enough from your perspective, but certainly it is way more regulation that is imposed on a bicycle rider - which seems pretty sensible and just to me.

wturber said:

benjamin84 said:

A regular cyclist or e-biker will be passed by all the cars he has just ridden by causing lots of potential for an accident.

Click to expand...

I simply avoid those kinds of streets. Whether the higher speed balances out the increased risk from reaction time issues and risk due to higher average kinetic energy when accidents do happen (perhaps typically four times the energy) would be open to debate and speculation since I don't think there are any statistics that are that specific. But it should be noted that simply being passed more frequently is not the only factor to consider.

Click to expand...

That depends on what bike you have. The GS has linked brakes and and insanely good ABS system. I can stop that thing so hard it hurts by just grabbing as much front brake as I can. An older Harley on the other hand is a completely different story.

I would say though that this all comes down to your riding style as well. I'm an active rider, I keep a keen eye on other drivers and actively make sure I have "escape routes" available whatever I'm trying to do. All of which means more power = more options. I reckon the same is true for e-bikes, it's not like you HAVE to use all the power all the time, but having it there is a good thing

benjamin84 said:

I reckon the same is true for e-bikes, it's not like you HAVE to use all the power all the time, but having it there is a good thing

Click to expand...

Fine, I don't think anyone has said otherwise. How about this: having it there is a good thing, but the less you use it, the safer you are?

donn said:

Fine, I don't think anyone has said otherwise. How about this: having it there is a good thing, but the less you use it, the safer you are?

Click to expand...

Nitpicking from my side this, but I'm not quite sure I agree. If you use the power to keep up with the flow of traffic in a city, that is good, and safer than going slower than the other traffic, regardless of the reduced kinetic energy in a crash simply because it isn't your kinetic energy that matters, it is the weight of whatever bus / lorry that drives over you.

Again I don't think I can remember seeing a serious bicycle accident here that was caused by the cyclist going too fast. It's always the force of the other vehicle that causes the damage by running over the poor chap.

(Note, again this is all related to city riding. Out in the country side going fast = danger, can't argue with that!).

benjamin84 said:

Again I don't think I can remember seeing a serious bicycle accident here that was caused by the cyclist going too fast. It's always the force of the other vehicle that causes the damage by running over the poor chap.

Click to expand...

From behind? Something I wonder a lot about the statistics - how often is it an overtaking vehicle that hits cyclists? Not while executing a turn, entering the road from a cross street or parking lot, just overtaking on the roadway.

benjamin84 said:

That depends on what bike you have. The GS has linked brakes and and insanely good ABS system. I can stop that thing so hard it hurts by just grabbing as much front brake as I can. An older Harley on the other hand is a completely different story.

Click to expand...

That assumes you get the opportunity to dissipate your energy by using your brakes. So it only partly depends on the bike you have. Besides, the whole point of bringing up motorcycle accidents was to use it as a proxy for ebike safety for ebikes travelling at similar speeds. It would be extremely unusual for such an ebike to have the sophisticated ABS system you are talking about.

Here's an interesting article/study that reflects what I'd consider to be mostly pretty obvious regarding route safety.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/10/22/study-protected-bike-lanes-reduce-injury-risk-up-to-90-percent/

The two exceptions are that off street paths (paths separated from streets but still parallel to them) were only a little bit better than un-separated bike lanes and not nearly as safe as completely separated bike only paths.

The other was that downhill routes were much more dangerous. I'm going to attribute that to higher speeds combined with brakes and bike geometry that are not designed (or perhaps maintained) to deal with such speeds.

I'll see if I can dig up some stats on hit from behind accidents for cyclists. Chalo indicated that they incidence is lower than is typically feared. But he didn't cite a source and I haven't seen anyone post even a rough estimate of the relative risk for that.

Of course downhill is much more dangerous. Gravity does require a lot of energy to fight against. That is true uphill and downhill as well. There is a point where you can’t climb anymore, and a point where you can’t stop going down. As good as braking power and cornering traction that you gain uphill, as bad it does become downhill. At 50 Mph down a 30% slope, you better rely on balls than brakes.

I hate to get back on topic (especially a beemer thread on ABS)
BUT the issue is in LEV /definition/certification ,
since bicycles are given a special status, privileges and protections.
Even though they were there first.

We share space with vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists as well less vulnerable cagers.

Regulation in SHARED SPACES is the issue and can have a range of formality, and WE NEED IT.
I see the discussion needing affirmative participation or
we will get the most restrictive generalized intercession in its absence.
This impacts our use of trails, walks and streets, as well as bus & train portage.

The rental scoots are heating things up and injury/liability issues are getting raised

Great ideas being brought out from all directions.
"If you don't like the way I drive, stay off of the sidewalk."

onemorejoltwarden said:

The rental scoots are heating things up and injury/liability issues are getting raised

Click to expand...

Anyone having this experience? In Seattle, "dockless" free range electric powered bicycle rentals are very big. Limebike, very pedestrian cycling experience with a 250W geared hub. As far as I know, there has been little trouble, they haven't even been obnoxious. (The bicycles left laying around are obnoxious, but that isn't particularly an electric motor problem.) Meanwhile, Seattle said no to scooter rentals - either type, the electric foot scooters or the wanna-be motorcycles. (I mean, it's probably legal to rent one, but you'd have to pick it up and return it to the rental shop, I'm only talking about the random location systems, like car2go, that the enthusiasts refer to as "share" though there is nothing like sharing involved.) So I wonder if we actually made a smart move there, staying away from scooters (kind of like a blind hog may occasionally find an acorn), and the bicycle rentals with their feeble electric motors are helping create a tolerant attitude towards the genre?

onemorejoltwarden said:

I hate to get back on topic (especially a beemer thread on ABS)
BUT the issue is in LEV /definition/certification ,
since bicycles are given a special status, privileges and protections.
Even though they were there first.

We share space with vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists as well less vulnerable cagers.

Regulation in SHARED SPACES is the issue and can have a range of formality, and WE NEED IT.
I see the discussion needing affirmative participation or
we will get the most restrictive generalized intercession in its absence.
This impacts our use of trails, walks and streets, as well as bus & train portage.

The rental scoots are heating things up and injury/liability issues are getting raised

Great ideas being brought out from all directions.
"If you don't like the way I drive, stay off of the sidewalk."

Click to expand...

We (powerful ebikes riders) don’t share common space with pedestrians and bicycles, who are using sidewalks and cycle paths. The only occurences are when they cross the street, and that is regulated by trafic laws already. We share common space with cars, trucks, busses and utility vehicles, all of them besides which WE are vulnerable as riders. I don’t know if you ride the sidewalks, but please don’t assume that all other riders are punks and hooligans.

MadRhino said:

We (powerful ebikes riders) don’t share common space with pedestrians and bicycles, who are using sidewalks and cycle paths. The only occurences are when they cross the street, and that is regulated by trafic laws already.

Click to expand...

In the USA, bicyclists are entitled to the lane, and usually prohibited from the sidewalk. Some assert their right to the lane and others don't, but the right exists either way.

Chalo said:

In the USA, bicyclists are entitled to the lane, and usually prohibited from the sidewalk. Some assert their right to the lane and others don't, but the right exists either way.

Click to expand...

You like to assert this despite a lack of facts. First, Cyclists "entitlement" to the lane is a matter of state and local laws, there is no "USA" generalization that applies. Second, this is false for the very city and state in which you live. Texas does not allow for the unconditional right to the lane by cyclists. Lastly, cyclists aren't prohibited from using the sidewalks where you live either.

Relevant Texas code regarding "right to the lane":

Sec. 551.103. OPERATION ON ROADWAY.
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:
(1) the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
(2) the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;
(3) a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or
(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
(B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.
(b) A person operating a bicycle on a one-way roadway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of the roadway.
(c) Persons operating bicycles on a roadway may ride two abreast. Persons riding two abreast on a laned roadway shall ride in a single lane. Persons riding two abreast may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the roadway. Persons may not ride more than two abreast unless they are riding on a part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles.

In Texas, the right to the lane is conditional based on specific safety concerns or a need to make a turn; cyclists are NOT simply "entitled to the lane". Perhaps, Chalo, you should learn the laws for cyclists where you live before you tell everyone else how it is.

craigsj said:

shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway

Click to expand...

This is broadly interpreted.
It empowers the rider to make the determination and supports their use of the whole lane, with the listed concerns.
It's rights and responsibilities and that is stated in the unquoted parts of the statutes.

Back to the topic

We are inviting the impact of poorly worded, restrictive legislation based on this topic.
It does not take many scofflaws to tar the group. Injuries are attracting attention.
How many RickyRacers had to speed to get that issue noticed?
Thus, in the absence of active self definition and discussion, and it becomes more reasonable to have delegation to a less informed and more restrictive set of regs.
Cases in point : The rental scooters caused exclusion of ALL EV (including mobility vehicles) from Dallas parks .
NYC delivery boys riding on the sidewalk caused its Draconian response.
The Santa Monica ban.
I am belaboring this because ES is the most prominent and indexed source of national discussion on the topic and IS seen.
EV's are achieving prominence, and the laws often were written when there were only gas mopeds and bikes powered by lead car batteries. When they are rewritten, our discussion will matter.

onemorejoltwarden said:

This is broadly interpreted.
It empowers the rider to make the determination and supports their use of the whole lane, with the listed concerns.
It's rights and responsibilities and that is stated in the unquoted parts of the statutes.

Click to expand...

I have cited actual code, not interpretation. The code attempts to be clear and unambiguous, specifically that the "right to the lane" is not unconditional but quite the opposite. Chalo is fond of saying that the right to the lane is an entitlement and is unconditional. Nothing could be further from the truth and the code I cited proves it.

What you are speaking of is the manner in which the code is enforced; that's different. As with all traffic laws, the operator is "empowered" to make determinations so you aren't adding anything that's not already well known. The fact that a cyclist is unlikely to be cited for unjustified use of a lane doesn't alter what the law says and it doesn't make Chalo right.

It should also be mentioned that, at least in Texas, the manner in which people claim to operate their (oxymoronic) "high power e-bikes" is illegal no matter how you look at it. First, their "high power e-bikes" aren't e-bikes at all per the Texas code but are illegal, unlicensed vehicles of another class, and second, their use of them in traffic operating above legal e-bike speeds and in the lane is a testament to the fact that their vehicles are not e-bikes. They are neither e-bikes per code or behavior. These laws exist for a reason.

A bit of objectivity goes a long way, and that starts by knowing what the law actually says. I didn't know what the law said, either, until I decided to commute by e-bike and thought it would be important to know the actual law rather than talk out of my butt as is on display in this thread.

onemorejoltwarden said:

We are inviting the impact of poorly worded, restrictive legislation based on this topic.
It does not take many scofflaws to tar the group.

Click to expand...

I'd argue if we have a problem with restrictive legislation, then we may rather be talking about good and bad scofflaws. Because the legislation is typically already too restrictive. I mean, I think there's some consensus here that a motor watt restriction - whether it's 250W or 500W or 750W - is somewhat misguided for various reasons, and certainly on the low end of that range it's quite unsatisfactory. So by quietly ignoring those limits, and yet staying out of trouble, we pile up practical experience in our communities. Gradually it becomes simply a fact of life that there are bicycles out there with more substantial HP, and as long as they aren't creating problems, that should quickly lead to legislative change - because the legit industry will want in on the market for these hotter configurations. Laws model the society that creates them.

I think this discussion thread has been in its rambling way trying to do what needs to be done, to sort out what "stay out of trouble" means, in a way that we can put into practice.

My personal feeling is that "bicycle" has some upper limit, after which we're talking about a different thing - scooter, motorcycle, I don't know - that really is built for speeds that are faster than a bicycle ever goes, including ordinary downhill grades. That distinction would have meaning in terms of what's allowed - for example, something built for very high speeds probably doesn't need to be allowed on, and shouldn't be allowed on, multi use trails.

craigsj said:

Chalo said:

In the USA, bicyclists are entitled to the lane, and usually prohibited from the sidewalk. Some assert their right to the lane and others don't, but the right exists either way.

Click to expand...

You like to assert this despite a lack of facts. First, Cyclists "entitlement" to the lane is a matter of state and local laws, there is no "USA" generalization that applies. Second, this is false for the very city and state in which you live. Texas does not allow for the unconditional right to the lane by cyclists.

Click to expand...

How far to the right is "as far to the right as practicable" is my own call as a cyclist. And it implies that I'm in the lane, like I said I was entitled to be.

Cyclists' right to the road predates cars. You can imagine it doesn't exist, but you'd be wrong. If it makes you feel better, there are a lot of cops who also don't know this aspect of the law.

In Texas, horseback riders also have the right to use the lane. Oddly, recent court precedent has determined that you can be found guilty of DWI for being drunk in the road on a horse, but not if you are riding a mule.

donn said:

I mean, I think there's some consensus here that a motor watt restriction - whether it's 250W or 500W or 750W - is somewhat misguided for various reasons, and certainly on the low end of that range it's quite unsatisfactory.

Click to expand...

There is no such restriction. You can have as much power as you want. But if you exceed those values which differ by location, then it's not a bicycle anymore for administrative purposes, and other rules apply. It's really not hard to understand or to comply. Exceed the defined limits (which aren't restrictions) and you become obligated to abide by the rules for mopeds or motorcycles as applicable. Fair's fair. The definitions have been there all along.

Chalo said:

You can have as much power as you want. But if you exceed those values which differ by location, then it's not a bicycle anymore for administrative purposes, and other rules apply. It's really not hard to understand or to comply. Exceed the defined limits (which aren't restrictions) and you become obligated to abide by the rules for mopeds or motorcycles as applicable. Fair's fair. The definitions have been there all along.

Click to expand...

Semantics. My bicycle might or might not be acceptable under my jurisdiction's requirements for a moped, but here in "E-Bike General Discussion" we're talking about bicycles, and my jurisdiction imposes restrictions in those terms. I don't care if it qualifies as a moped. It isn't built like a moped, and I have no intention of registering it or operating it like a moped.

My hope is that folks around here will eventually see, as they become more familiar with electric powered bicycles, that the wattage doesn't determine how fast an e-bike goes, any more than human leg power determines how fast a classic bicycle goes. (Think about that, how fast does a bicycle go?) And that this knot-headed regulation gets in the way of what can be useful transportation. (In today's paper, we learn that UPS is planning to use electric assisted tricycles for urban deliveries, with 400 lb loads in trailers.)

And apart from whether it's an appropriate thing to limit or not, it seems that a wattage rating for an e-bike has some technical flaws as a concept.

donn said:

I don't care if it qualifies as a moped. It isn't built like a moped, and I have no intention of registering it or operating it like a moped.

Click to expand...

One of the qualities of the law is that it is indifferent to your intentions. You are free to think of your e-bike as a bicycle (or a witch's broomstick, or whatever.) But when its power or speed capabilities-- not operations-- exceed the limits stipulated for a bicycle, then according to the law it isn't a bicycle, and thus doesn't enjoy the same rights and privileges as a bicycle. And that's okay, as long as you meet the duties and responsibilities for whatever category of vehicle your e-bike fits into.

These rules aren't meant to serve you specifically. They are for keeping the peace and representing the interests of the public. Keeping the streets free of unregulated, uninspected, non-engineered, improvised homemade motor vehicles is in the public interest-- mine and yours, too.

craigsj said:

onemorejoltwarden said:

This is broadly interpreted.
It empowers the rider to make the determination and supports their use of the whole lane, with the listed concerns.
It's rights and responsibilities and that is stated in the unquoted parts of the statutes.

Click to expand...

I have cited actual code, not interpretation. The code attempts to be clear and unambiguous, specifically that the "right to the lane" is not unconditional but quite the opposite. Chalo is fond of saying that the right to the lane is an entitlement and is unconditional. Nothing could be further from the truth and the code I cited proves it.

Click to expand...

Well, not quite. I made a similar point in the past. And if I recall correctly, Chalo's clarification was that cars and drivers have specific pre-conditions such as registration, insurance and driver's license in order to operate legally on the roadway. Bicycles and bicycle riders have no such pre-conditional requirements. And in that sense, a bicyclist has an unconditional right to occupy a lane in the roadway while a driver does not.

Chalo said:

donn said:

I mean, I think there's some consensus here that a motor watt restriction - whether it's 250W or 500W or 750W - is somewhat misguided for various reasons, and certainly on the low end of that range it's quite unsatisfactory.

Click to expand...

There is no such restriction. You can have as much power as you want. But if you exceed those values which differ by location, then it's not a bicycle anymore for administrative purposes, and other rules apply. It's really not hard to understand or to comply. Exceed the defined limits (which aren't restrictions) and you become obligated to abide by the rules for mopeds or motorcycles as applicable. Fair's fair. The definitions have been there all along.

Click to expand...

In Texas, the main restriction is on speed. The other restrictions is on the bike's weight (100 lb max). I actually like the Texas ebike law better than what is typically put forth with the three classes that are being pushed by People for Bikes. My one complaint is that I think the max motor assisted speed should be 25 mph, not 20 mph. I like the simple unambiguous nature of the Texas ebike laws

Chalo said:

How far to the right is "as far to the right as practicable" is my own call as a cyclist.

Click to expand...

No it's not. That's like saying how much is justifiable is your right as a murderer. As a cyclist you must make judgements, but that doesn't mean laws don't apply. For example, if another cyclist can ride between you and the right then you are not "as far to the right as practicable". This would easily be the case if you "took the lane" as evidenced by the code referencing riding two abreast in a single lane.

Chalo said:

Cyclists' right to the road predates cars. You can imagine it doesn't exist, but you'd be wrong.

Click to expand...

The "right" to kill predates murder being illegal as well. Your assertion that cyclists cannot be regulated on the road is trivially disproven. For example, you have no "right" to ride your bicycle on the freeway at all. Square that with your "right" to the lane that predates cars. You realize that laws change, right?

Chalo said:

In Texas, horseback riders also have the right to use the lane. Oddly, recent court precedent has determined that you can be found guilty of DWI for being drunk in the road on a horse, but not if you are riding a mule.

Click to expand...

Does this somehow add to the topic? It says nothing about the code I have cited that specifically applies to you and your claims. It would appear that you deny the state's right to make laws pertaining to the use of its own roads, and considering that you know nothing of the code that actually exists, it's clear you're uninformed.