police e-bike crackdown

[Papa]

I think your reading comprehension is failing you. I clearly said I was ok with requiring a regular license and insurance so I'm not sure how you got "lawless society" out of that.

I think needing a motorcycle endorsement is stupid and I think treating something like a surron the same as a traditional motorcycle is also stupid.

So you cherry pick what laws you wish to abide by, but call the rest "stupid"?

Lets be crystal clear. Dumb or otherwise, my State's Statutes would label any unlicensed Surron ridden above 28 MPH, on any public roadway... a "motorcycle" (their definition, not mine). So please take your beef to your State's Legislators... NOT me.

 

[offGridDownUnder]

There wasn't an outcry about people (and children) riding un-powered bicycles because it wasn't enough of a problem to attract that attention. If that has changed, then it would need to be addressed.

There is an outcry about powered 'bicycles' because it is a problem. Yes, it can be over-hyped by someone with a personal issue, but it's showing up broadly. The rest of us have every business considering how we want our society to operate, including putting restrictions on the actions of some of us. Yes, doing it stupidly will cost us, but we are not wrong to consider what to do.

Problems with cars should be addressed by restrictions on cars and car operators. There is no reason not to do this. Although we can be stupid about it, that's not a reason not to do it - rather that's a reason not to be stupid about it.

Anyone that signs a driver's license has given their own word about how they will operate on the public roads - including on a bicycle. Anyone that gives their word and doesn't keep it is properly considered either incompetent (not able to fulfill responsibility), or a liar. In both cases the remedy is treat them as a person that does not keep their word, and the license is revoked - you giving your word is our guarantee that you will keep the terms of the license. If you break your word, then I will treat you as someone that breaks their word. It's not complicated.

We don't license people to drink water because drinking water does not cause problems for others in any significant way - we don't need to control it. We license powered vehicles, or are considering it for 'bicycles', because they do cause problems for others in significant ways.

I agree with not legislating some of the proposed limits as a way to try to stop the actual trouble. Having latitude to experiment in a fairly new technology is valuable. The problem is responsibility (to others). Responsibility is always to others - don't lose sight of this or lie about it. Anyone pushing an attitude of "I don't give a damn what others think" deserves our scrutiny and sometimes our sanctions. People with that attitude are the excuse for others wanting to restrict them - unreasonable is unreasonable, inconsiderate is inconsiderate, irresponsible is irresponsible.

If you're not helping us to have a society, what claim do you think you have on the benefits of the society? We're not paying for our roads so you can ignore everyone else and get your rocks off.

 

[Nix Liou]

Problems with cars should be addressed by restrictions on cars and car operators. There is no reason not to do this. Although we can be stupid about it, that's not a reason not to do it - rather that's a reason not to be stupid about it.

In the US at least, cars are and continue to be a way bigger problem, and the thing is nobody seems to be putting any effort into that. One concern is that the availability and usefulness of ebikes is currently offering an alternative to cars that is massively safer for other people. Injuries on bikes and escooters are much more likely to be the rider than injuries in a car accident are to be the driver.

If we focus too much on the much smaller danger of ebikes, then we push people back to cars, and actually cause more harm. This means that there simultaneously has to be increased regulation and standards for cars, if there is going to be regulation that decreases the usefulness of alternatives, or legislation to increase public transport at the very least.

While I think overall it would be good to flesh out regulation, I think it would be quite bad to choose to restrict ebikes as we try and shift away from car dependency. If you directly compare numbers, ebikes and even escooters are quite safe per mile traveled.

I consider myself a reasonably good driver, but I also tend to drive a little fast and a little aggressive. So instead, I bike. If I do something reckless while I'm biking, and I splat against a car, it's unfortunate for me but just a bad memory for everyone else. Much preferred to a car.

This is also why I think some age limits and restrictions would be good. I choose to do something potentially more risky for me because it's less risky for others, and I'm an adult. That choice gets more iffy if it's a child making it, hence maybe class 1 ebikes only for <16yo.

This problem takes a different form in many other countries, and I'm not that familiar with transport in Australia.

tl;dr regulating ebikes without consideration probably results in more consequences for innocent bystanders, and deaths from cars need to be managed a lot more before we need to consider tightening current ebike classifications. Deaths due to transportation would overall go down if ebikes and moped classes were more available and applicable, IMO.

 

[wturber]

I have been riding under the "electric assisted bicycle" banner for over 1/4 century now, and experienced absolutely NO conflicts, what-so-ever, with LEO's, pedestrians, fellow road users or private property owners. It is difficult to exceed 28 MPH on my home-brew rig because that's the maximum speed it was intentionally geared for. Frankly speaking, I was 'tickled pink' to be able to haul groceries, gofer hardware necessities, yard sales, or just plain ride with no rhyme or reason beyond simply unwinding on an otherwise hectic day. I tell those that ask... "it's my transportation freebe". I am damn serious and have always treated my privage with utmost respect... because I never wanted to risk losing it. Unfortunately....

I now harbor the constant fear of losing my 'free ride ticket', because ignorance and egotistical stupidity is running amuck... and Legislators are carving fresh 'pot holes' in my roadway to freedom... just because, I too ride (what they blindly perceive) as a potential problem. This is utter bullshit. We already have more than enough laws already on-the-books to curb the obvious problem.

In my, not so humble opinion....

If caught riding faster than 28 MPH, with or without functioning pedals, and/or no valid license plate on public asphalt, you should be cited (or have your pride'n joy conficated) for riding an unlawfull "motorcycle" on public asphalt.... because that's exactly what it is. If the rider is under the age of obtaining a legitimate driver's license to legally and safely operate said vehicle, then his/or her parents need to yank the kid's wheels... and "pay the piper".

Most Class 3 rules allow you to ride faster than 28 MPH. You just aren't allowed to do so while having the motor assist you. I used to routinely exceed 35 mph on my ebike while commuting to work because I had some fairly short and steep downhill sections that I would not brake on while descending. The accumulated speed and momentum was a nice aid in getting to the top of the hill that would come after.

 

[wturber]

A lot of Karen's in here

Kids are dumb but that shouldn't ruin it for others. Moped laws are currently old and stupid and should be updated. Calling a 150lb surron that hits 40mph out of the box a motorcycle is also stupid. Needing a motorcycle endorsement to ride a bike that is super easy to ride as it has no clutch or foot brake is stupid.

Cars don't have power limits so why should bikes? It's stupid. Require a drivers license and insurance then leave people alone. No stupid speed and power limits. Follow the speed limit of the road.

Mechanical ability to operate the vehicle is seldom the issue. The issue is mostly the maturity (or lack thereof), knowledge and good sense to operate such a vehicle wisely in traffic. Failing to realize this is what is stupid.

 

[wturber]

The NJ State Legislature Bill S4834 passed the Senate with a unanimous vote. Amends existing legislation to require vehicle registration , operator license , and several insurance coverages . NJ Legislature

I didn't read the entire bit of legislation, but I searched around enough that I'm fairly certain that the age and license requirements apply to Class 3 ebikes and motorized (non-electric) bicycles that can travel up to 25 mph with assistance. The Class 1 and 2 ebikes are considered to be "low speed electric bicycles" and do not have those requirements.

"Motorized bicycle" means: a pedal bicycle having a helper motor characterized in that either the maximum piston displacement is less than 50 cc. or said motor is rated at no more than 1.5 brake horsepower; or [is powered by an electric drive motor and said bicycle is capable of a maximum speed of no more than 25 miles per hour on a flat surface or a pedal bicycle having an electric motor that is capable of propelling the bicycle in excess of 20 miles per hour with a maximum motor-powered speed of no more than 28 miles per hour on a flat surface] a pedal bicycle with fully-operable pedals and an electric motor that can provide assistance when the rider is pedaling or that, through the use of a throttle, can be used to exclusively propel the bicycle. This term shall not include a [low-speed electric bicycle, or] low-speed electric scooter as defined in this section.

 

[Papa]

Most Class 3 rules allow you to ride faster than 28 MPH. You just aren't allowed to do so while having the motor assist you.

Possibly.
The catch is,.. I think you'd be hard pressed to convince a magistrate that you using legs only... the precise moment you were snagged on radar. Especially when riding a beast that is packin' 15 pounds of electrons between the tubes. Ya think?

 

[amberwolf]

The problem with all the laws and regulations is they only work for those that will follow them.

Those people wouldn't have been causing the problems that the laws were created for in the first place.

The ones that won't follow them just do what they want anyway; if a law is too restrictive for them or they dont' like it, then as with some of the posters in this thread they'll just disobey that so that they can continue doing whatever it is they were doing that caused the laws to be made in the first place.

That then aggravates the lawmakers (or the public who then pester the lawmakers) into making even more restrictive laws, that also won't be obeyed by the problem people, but will take away the ability of the ones that were already obeying the existing laws to do the things they needed to be able to do.


So it doesn't matter what the "good" people do, the assholes will continue to do whatever they want, and prevent the rest of us from being able to do what we need to.

 

[wturber]

Possibly.
The catch is,.. I think you'd be hard pressed to convince a magistrate that you using legs only... the precise moment you were snagged on radar. Especially when riding a beast that is packin' 15 pounds of electrons between the tubes. Ya think?

Why? Even the NJ legislation I quoted mentions riding on a flat surface as a condition of the speed limitations. "... with a maximum motor-powered speed of no more than 28 miles per hour on a flat surface." All you have to be able to do is show you were going downhill. Heavier bikes tend to go even faster downhill than otherwise similar lighter weight bikes. So it shouldn't take much convincing at all. OTOH, If you were on flat ground or going uphill, you almost certainly are not going over 28 mph on your own power on a Class 3 ebike. Maybe wind aided. But that would be harder to substantiate since wind varies far more than does terrain. Terrain is easy to demonstrate in court. And the cop will likely even aid you by documenting your location. Of course, I suggest taking a photo during the hypothetical stop.

 

[wturber]

So it doesn't matter what the "good" people do, the assholes will continue to do whatever they want, and prevent the rest of us from being able to do what we need to.

Pretty much correct. On the way home tonight I saw three kids on what were likely e-motos - riding right past City Hall and the Sheriff's Office. If they would crack down on e-motos, I think it would relieve the political pressure being put on Class 3 ebikes.

 

[Papa]

Why? Even the NJ legislation I quoted mentions riding on a flat surface as a condition of the speed limitations. "... with a maximum motor-powered speed of no more than 28 miles per hour on a flat surface." All you have to be able to do is show you were going downhill. Heavier bikes tend to go even faster downhill than otherwise similar lighter weight bikes. So it shouldn't take much convincing at all. OTOH, If you were on flat ground or going uphill, you almost certainly are not going over 28 mph on your own power on a Class 3 ebike. Maybe wind aided. But that would be harder to substantiate since wind varies far more than does terrain. Terrain is easy to demonstrate in court. And the cop will likely even aid you by documenting your location. Of course, I suggest taking a photo during the hypothetical stop.

I'm wildly speculating, but I believe nearly everything you stated is circumstantial. Circumstantial doesn't give the magistrate conclusive evidence of yea or nay. But really... it's not a concern for me personally either way as I've gotten used to restricting myself at the 28 or so limit on descents. This eliminates the typical "probable cause", or even "reasonable suspicion" necessary for a justified detainment. I have more important matters to contend with than spending even 10 minutes of my time, and wasting the officer's precious time, haggling over trivial shit.

 

[wturber]

I'm wildly speculating, but I believe nearly everything you stated is circumstantial. Circumstantial doesn't give the magistrate conclusive evidence of yea or nay. But really... it's not a concern for me personally either way as I've gotten used to restricting myself at the 28 or so limit on descents. This eliminates the typical "probable cause", or even "reasonable suspicion" necessary for a justified detainment. I have more important matters to contend with than spending even 10 minutes of my time, and wasting the officer's precious time, haggling over trivial shit.

No. I'm just talking about basic facts and evidence and the letter of the law. It doesn't get much more straightforward than that.

 

[TPEHAK]

Let's hope we wont see this legislative nonsense here in the Pacific Northwest. Police couldn't care less here about even gangs riding Surrons and other sketchy electric stuff on the streets. We want to keep it this way.

 

[2old]

They don't call it the Wild West for nothing. Constables are worried enough about other matters here and only check on "e" activity when there's a newspaper article in it.

 

[ZeroEm]

Built my trike around the 28mph rule. Yes it's still a rolling violation. But don't think anyone has looked at my trike and thought it was illegal. Always mention wounded warriors.

Auto's almost get a free pass. The last ten years we have had speed bumps in my area. Few years ago then removed them and that lasted for about two years and now we have more. Cars not wanting to stop at red lights were going as fast as they could. It was crazy can only guess at the speeds 50-80mph. you were in danger of backing out of the driveway. Not once did I think a ebike was going to hit me.

 

[wturber]

Built my trike around the 28mph rule. Yes it's still a rolling violation. But don't think anyone has looked at my trike and thought it was illegal. Always mention wounded warriors.

Auto's almost get a free pass. The last ten years we have had speed bumps in my area. Few years ago then removed them and that lasted for about two years and now we have more. Cars not wanting to stop at red lights were going as fast as they could. It was crazy can only guess at the speeds 50-80mph. you were in danger of backing out of the driveway. Not once did I think a ebike was going to hit me.

We live in a sorta-democratic society and that means that large groups tend to have influence and that influence often dictates law. Reasonableness is seldom the main motivator. Sometimes through great influence, reasonableness can be exerted. But it is hardly automatic. This, I believe, is why driver's get a relatively free pass on the damage that they do and the risk they impose. It's mostly about the numbers of them.

 

[offGridDownUnder]

This, I believe, is why driver's get a relatively free pass on the damage that they do and the risk they impose. It's mostly about the numbers of them.

I can agree with this.

I am proposing that changing the message to 'did you keep your word?' is a useful lever to get past this. People who won't face that question lose credibility quickly. I think this is one aspect of why that approach is practical, and it's why I keep mentioning it.

When that is the question you are asked by a police officer, by a judge, by opposition in a civil suit in court, it's very difficult to hide. Making this the criterion removes the arbitrary aspects that people like to hide behind, and puts the responsibility to others front and centre.

 

[TPEHAK]

Looking on this chart it looks like we need to limit the cars top speed to 20mph. Licenses, insurances and existing laws are certainly not enough to reduce the 85% fatality rate in case of 40 mph collision. It looks like physics does not care about licensing. I guess this is the kind of the logic some people use to defend limiting the electric bicycles speed and power and to bring licensing in this area.

 

[Papa]

I guess this is the kind of the logic some people use to defend limiting the electric bicycles speed and power and to bring licensing in this area.

Not quite.
One of the concerns is bozo's running rampant well over 28 mph... under the guise of being an "electric assisted bicycle." There is valid reasons for the restrictions on electric assisted bicycles. I also oppose licensing.
Nearly any other ebike/motorcycle category legally allows (state dependent) whatever speed (and horsepower) they wish... up to the posted speed limit,

 

[Epithemeus]

If we don't enforce a speed limit on ebikes and just say "Yup, you can go the speed of traffic" you're setting the expectation that one must keep up with traffic and pressuring people to go speeds they may not be comfortable with.

Here in BC we have the "Limited Speed Motorcycle" category (Have to have drivers license but not motorcycle license, must be registered and insured, up to 70kph) which is so close to having that wonderful missing middle ground we need. Issue is it's a hard and obscure process to register a diy vehicle. It is doable technically, but good luck finding the requirements or any information. Also the insurance cost while massively cheaper than a car, is still quite expensive.

 

[TPEHAK]

No, thank you, we do not want it here.

The persons can not keep up with traffic for whatever reason can ride nice and slow on the sidewalk, or in the bike lanes, or on the curb, or with the traffic if they want to just like the acoustic bikes do.

 

[Epithemeus]

The persons can not keep up with traffic for whatever reason can ride nice and slow on the sidewalk, or in the bike lanes, or on the curb, or with the traffic if they want to just like the acoustic bikes do.

Almost like there should be different categories for the groups that can "Keep up with traffic" or the groups that want "Nice and safe and slow" ;P (Then we could add licensing for the people who can keep up with traffic to ensure they know how to follow the rules of the road, and then liability insurance to represent the extra risk the faster heavier vehicles represent aaaaand voila we end up with the limited speed motorcycle category)

 

[TPEHAK]

There is no necessity in licence, or you have to license everyone who uses the roads, including acoustic bicycles and pedestrians. Liability ensurance is not mandatory too, even for motorcycles it is not mandatory, and motorcycles are way heavier and more dangerous for the surrounding than electrical bicycles. If you want to have liability ensurance for something can not deal big damage and has very little probability of an accident then go ahead and purchase it for yourself, it is a personal choice.

You may not be aware, but that mandatory liability ensurance for cars serves completely different purposes than you might think of, and that purpose is not applicable for electric bicycles. It is not applicable even for motorcycles.

 

[jonescg]

We've had several inquiries here in Oz about e-rideables, and to the WA Government's credit, they did not come out and say "Ban 'em!" like many in the peanut gallery had hoped. What it did highlight is the regulatory blank spot between compliant e-bikes and e-rideables (generally 250 W, and/or 25 km/h top speed without pedaling) and mopeds or motorcycles (those capable of a top speed of 50 km/h+). Mopeds and motorcycles need to be registered, licensed and carry compulsory third party insurance. It's not expensive, but you do need a roadworthy bike. The rider must wear a full face helmet and have a motorcycle license of the appropriate standing.

These bikes that slip between the cracks can do say, 40 km/h. They are not licensed, nor do they require the rider to have any license. They are illegal to operate on shared paths AND public roads. So one idea is to register them as a one-off, typically point of sale) and require the rider to at least have a motorcycle learner's permit. That way there's some modicum of road sense implied.

Appropriate regulation is fine. Its either that, or try to ban them. And banning fun stuff has a long history of failing.

 

[TPEHAK]

Several injuries are not enough for spending money on such regulations, the existing laws are enough already, or you have to regulate a lot of other things such way.