How would you write ideal ebike regulations

[greenspark]

If we, as the forum, were to formulate a simple set of regs that were measurable, and begin a drive to have them be global, that's how we get what we want. Problem is to ask "what should it say?" That's step one. Step two is to form, or find a global organization, that becomes the advocate. Members lobby the EU, the 50 American states (you in AZ lobby your AZ legislators), etc. Unless there is vested interest seeking to sell something (like bike helmets), the lawmakers don't care. They will adopt what is popular.

But the time to do it is now, not after the papers feature horrific crashes because idiots doing stupid things were described as having done it because they were on an ebike. Thus, to start, we need to define the safe ebike, and what the envelop of safety is. And lobby that safe ebikes are free, meaning no registration, inspections, licensing, titles, insurance, etc. All there are is a set of limits, easily enforceable by police. Speedometers are cheap - require they have them. Exceed the speed under power (but not when going down steep hills) and you are busted.

So, what would the definition say?

 

[amberwolf]

Why should we be any different than a car? They are regulated on their size, weight, and speed.

They are not regulated on how fast they are capable of going. (unless the limit is >150MPH )

The roads have speed limits to restrict how fast *any* vehicle can go, at maximum, on those specific roads or sections of them.

I haven't finished searching the AZ DOT regulations yet, but I havent' found any size or weight limits on a car yet. There appear to be some on large trucks meant to transport cargo containers, but that appears to have to do with the damage they would cause to the roads and streets and bridges, rather than anything else. There are also roads/etc that don't allow those trucks on them because of that (they aren't built to withstand it).

 

[Eclectic]

My point about size and weight is similar to the distinction between cars and trucks and how they often have different speed limits and safety regulations.

I think I agree in general with amberwolf. This is what I was typing up when I noticed the last couple of posts...

Both cars and bicycles have always (both) been considered vehicles. Bikes have remained relatively unregulated while cars have been massively regulated. I have always assumed that the reason that bikes have remained unregulated is because of their speed, weight and size; they are assumed to be relatively harmless.

Recent technological advances have allowed bikes (human-powered or hybrid) to go fast enough that they are beginning to be seen as a potential safety hazard.

Trying to regulate speed by regulating power is a very difficult, inaccurate and indirect method. Does it not make sense to just regulate the speed (an operator behavior) rather than blaming the vehicle and regulating it?

The maximum power or type of power of a car is not regulated in an attempt to limit its speed, why should a light vehicle be any different? In my mind, the question is what is the maximum speed, weight and size of a light vehicle so it can be considered a non-safety hazard?

I think the definition should be very simple. If you stay within the definition of a light vehicle, then you remain unregulated because you are not a safety hazard:

The standard I think is appropriate is 20mph (32kph) and 350lbs (160kg) gross vehicle weight (vehicle + operator + cargo). Maybe even different speed limits for different weights. 15mph (24kph) @ 750lbs (340kg) and 10mph (16kph) @ 1000lbs (450kg).

 

[zener]

Does it not make sense to just regulate the speed (an operator behavior) rather than blaming the vehicle and regulating it?

Well, this is the most genius question from all in this thread. I would give you the nobel price for it if i could. :wink:

 

[Eclectic]

One thing I would like to make clear. The standard that I am talking about is only valid if light vehicles (LV) have their own infrastructure.

As long as light vehicles are thrown in with heavy vehicles to mix it up, then the whole safety dynamic changes. Because LVs do not have physical mass and steel to protect them, it is up to the law to help protect them. This would require significant exemptions from the standard definition of a LV just to level the safety playing field a little. The inverse is true when pedestrians are thrown in with LVs.

The point I am trying to make is that there are at least three distinct environments that we operate in. Mixed use heavy vehicles and light vehicles, light vehicles only and light vehicles mixed with pedestrians. Each one of these environments has a different set of requirements to safely operate in.

I you try make this about ebikes only, then any regulation will probably tend to lean towards protecting the existing majority which is the cars, trucks and pedestrians.

The short term goal of trying to keep from being regulated out of existence is very important; but I believe there is a more important long term goal. That goal is convincing politicians, legislators and the general population that the use of LVs in an urban environment can be extremely beneficial to individuals and society as a whole. What is required to gain this benefit is not more laws but it is infrastructure.

The reason that anyone is looking to hobble ebikes in the first place is probably because we are thrown in with pedestrians (and cars). If we had infrastructure for LVs, I doubt if we would even be noticed.

 

[liveforphysics]

So, what would the definition say?

That electric assist bicycles are bicycles and treated as such. That's typically already also the 'law' most places, not that someone else's delusion seems to have much (any?) effects on what ebikes are built and enjoyed.


Think about speeding. Has the act of writing tickets stopped it?

Think about the current ebike laws, already all defacto-ignored by both sides of the blue line.

Make a law, create a new criminal. Unneeded foolishness.

 

[Eclectic]

That electric assist bicycles are bicycles and treated as such.

I would prefer that there is no distinction between a pedal powered bike, an electric assisted bike or any other vehicle that can be seen as a relatively harmless vehicle. As such please do not regulate me, just tell me what I have to do to keep from being regulated.

Think about speeding. Has the act of writing tickets stopped it?

No it doesn't stop it but it does set an expectation for behavior that 99% of the population generally tends to follow. I keep going back to the potential for destructive energy. The simplest way to estimate that is speed and weight.

Think about the current ebike laws, already all defacto-ignored by both sides of the blue line.

I believe that the OP's concern is that situation will not last very much longer and when it changes, it will happen very quickly. The question is do you want to be Proactive or Reactive?

Yes, there are too many laws but that seems to be the way it works. I would prefer to be left alone but I'm not sure that will last forever. My thing is I believe that the real societal benefits come from acceptance and infrastructure so that is where I tend to push. The fear I have is that we may be regulated out of existence before we get to prove our worth.

 

[deronmoped]

I wonder if E-bikes will go the way of the moped.

Mopeds where regulated out of usefulness, for the very people that saw a advantage to riding one. There is no real reason to use one, using a motorcycle or even a E-bike makes more since.

Right now E-bikes have their advantages, the more they regulate them, the less people will ride them.

 

[veloman]

Mopeds are not a popular choice since here in TX they require reg, insurance, Moto license (no safety class needed), and limited to 30mph. There is practically no advantage over a motorcycle.

I'd like to see the ebikie community agree and stand behind a set of limits. But only announced as a response to defend ebikes against new restrictions. until that day, ebikes should be seen as bicycles everywhere.

 

[John in CR]

If we, as the forum, were to formulate a simple set of regs that were measurable, and begin a drive to have them be global, that's how we get what we want. Problem is to ask "what should it say?"

If it was for a global push, then it should be no stinkin rules, and the most I'd sign off on is a driver's license requirement to keep inexperienced kids off the roads with ebikes. If they want to charge some kind of road tax for being able to use the roadways I'd be hard pressed to argue against it as long as it's minimal, because they don't damage the roads. Any rules beyond those that any vehicle is subject aren't justifiable, and any rules supposedly in the interest of safety is absurd, since in this country over half of roadway fatalities are pedestrians. Motorcyclists I'm sure are a large chunk of the remainder, and they have specific regulations that do absolutely nothing to prevent people from riding them like idiots and getting splattered by cars. Education is the only truly effective safety effort, not rules or regulations beyond basic traffic controls already in place.