How would you write ideal ebike regulations

[Kingfish]

Responding to the OP and ignoring the distracting rant…

To write laws (which are regulations by a different name) we must first understand the problem at large and it is in two parts: The segregation of pedestrian & motor vehicle classes, and addressing the infrastructure to support a faster mode of assisted cycle travel.

Laws
On Laws and viewpoints, I am aligned for the most part with Dogman as being sensible.

In the State of Washington, the divisions are:

• Bicycle – little restriction other than lights and reflectors.
• Neighborhood Electric Vehicle: These are the little golf cart utility vehicles that apartment managers and service people use. The big restriction here is that they are meant to stay on site.
• Electric Assisted Vehicles: Covers everything from bikes to wheel chairs. In WA-State the power limit is 1000 W. They can use bike lanes and paths unrestricted. Sidewalks are a gray area. Mainly it is left to the LEO to determine if the operator is acting in a malicious manner on or off the road.
  ICE bikes fall into another category; I don’t have the latest knowledge because I don’t care. ICE bikes are called “Motorized Bikes” by Law. These types of bikes are commonly not allowed on bike paths; posted “No Motors”. As an ebike operator, I ignore these postings although a small cadre of unread peoples believe they include ebikes and give me trepidation from time to time.
• Mopeds in WA-State are limited to 30 mph/2 hp. But tell me – when is the last time you saw a moped limited to this range? Not me. Electric or ICE, mopeds on my turf appear to have up to 4 or 5 hp and can easily hold constant 45 mph up a hill. In July of 2012 (or was it ’13?) WA-State repealed registration of mopeds, although the operators and passengers are still required to wear helmets. Mopeds require proper DOE lighting and indicators.
• 5 hp Motor-Drive Cycle: I believe this classification exists as a bridge between mopeds and motorcycles, and yet defines the minimum hp required to access the freeway. When I was young you had to have a motorcycle with 175cc or more to get onto the freeway and it had to hold 65mph. Except for power limits, it duplicates all regs for Motorcycle.
• Motorcycle: Classic definition, with hp rating above 5. They do not care if it’s electric or ICE or stream-powered.

For myself, I am completely illegal with a bicycle that has 2 hp per wheel. Yet I am a bike first - a person that pedals, and an electrified motor-assisted cycle 2nd. Clearly I belong somewhere in the moped to 5-hp class, but so far LE has not caught up with me and my exploits. Knock wood. :wink:

I believe in limits for the sake of public safety. In and around downtown Redmond, the speed-limit on the public bike paths is set to 15 mph. Not because of ebikes, no – but because we had these lycra racers blasting through on the same trail as mothers with prams, little children with training wheels, dog-walkers, skaters, and old people. It was crazy, and I knew it right away – so I moved to the streets and modified my ebike to maintain pace with cars on roads... with or without a shoulder.

In support of Laws, I agree that we should limit common ebikes to 1000-1500 W range. I don’t give a hoot if an assisted bike can go faster than 20 mph; hell I can do that on a normal pedal bike and so can a trained athlete. I do support speed limits on trails/paths. I do support ICE restrictions; no one wants to hear or smell them on a public path. If I had to stake out a claim, Ebikes should be allowed to travel assisted up to 25 mph on public streets. Above that – you’re into moped country.

I strongly believe ebikes in the moped range should be annually inspected for safety: Pay the inspection fee and get the tag. It’s not a license plate replacement. When I was a kid, once a year I’d ride down to the fire station and have the fireman inspect my bike. I think it cost me a buck, maybe two to get the safety tag + they wrote down my frame number into a little book in case the bike got stolen. Why can’t we do the same with mopeds and up-powered ebikes? It’s purely a safety call.

More in a sec... KF

 

[Kingfish]

Infrastructure
Presently the infrastructure in the United States is:

• Dirt path: Unless otherwise designated, free to Mtn Bikes, Assisted, and ICE.
• Sidewalk: Propose a maximum 10 mph limit. I believe sidewalks must have an implied speed limit, and by that implication – be sufficient to govern access, class, and speed of any operated vehicle, manual, electric, or otherwise. I do not support walking bikes across a crosswalk; that’s just stupid.
• Road, Rural or City Street without designated paths: Propose that Default Speed limits apply. Full use of lane up to 25 mph, otherwise move to the right.
• Bike Path in Road: Propose a 25 mph limit (exceptions for special racing events)
• Bike Path: Propose a 15 mph limit. I like the lead that Redmond has taken. These are publically shared multi-use byways. Safety first.
• Highway & Freeway: Wide margins as afforded. Presently Unlimited speed. Suggest no change.
• Highway & Freeway, Limited Access: Public access is not allowed (exceptions for breakdowns). Postings explicitly excludes bicycles. Suggest no change.

That being all good and said, let me tell you how China does it:

• There are no Motorcycles in the cities; they are illegal.
• Mopeds are not allowed on limited access Highways/Tollways/Freeways. However I have seen special moped bypasses parallel to freeways when crossing over rivers and railroads, etc.
• Mopeds are limited to about 60 kph (about 37 mph).
• Most major city roads in industrialized cities have the following lane structure, starting at the centerline:
  • Two or more vehicle lanes, physical separation abut one lane wide (fence/curb, planters, trees, street lights), a single wide lane for mopeds and bicycles, wide public promenade set with stone pavers. An infrastructure such as this supports both heavy motor traffic, light electric personal transportation, and the walking public. China is in a mad dash to upgrade every highway in this manner.
• Limited access roads, such as Highways, Tollways, and Freeways are built above feeder roads. It’s awe-inspiring and intelligent use of limited space. My only negative comment is the relatively slow speed limit. Also there is the organic problem of yielding during merge.
• Roundabouts: A great concept, but he Chinese people fail at the organic level because they do not understand how to yield.

The single biggest problem in China is the yield thing. Intersections of major roads are an unmanaged dodge at best. It is no wonder China bans motorcycles in the cities, although my sources tell me they are allowed in rural areas.

There are many things I like about the China Model, and obviously things I don’t like.

• Western Civ could learn from China and adopt partially at the very least special access across bottlenecks where lesser-powered riders are not allowed. The I-90 Floating Bridge over Lake-WA in Seattle is an example of poorly executed public access having a narrow multi-use bike lane that’s as smooth and level as colonial cobblestone.
• I cannot see how we could go about ripping up Old Town to lay down the promenade-style civil works like China, however new construction could benefit. Then there’s the limited access elevated road above the feeders: Perhaps a modified version would work.
• Elevated roads 2 or more lanes per side could handle heavy traffic (motorcycles too), and feeders could be one lane for vehicles + one lane for mopeds. Sidewalks would remain untouched. The center part beneath the elevated roadways could be for parking as I’ve seen them used here in China.

Without a combination of solutions, laws alone will only stifle civil development. Our modal society is constantly changing. The city streets and highways today were just horse & buggy trails 100 years ago when speed limits probably meant no horse racing through town.

China in my mind has correctly identified and promoted personal transportation, segregated from heavy vehicle traffic for the health and welfare of society albeit with tightly constrained freedom of access. The rules that govern ebike speed need liberalization to widen convenience and practicality up to a point. More powerful ebikes need to be grouped into the moped/5-hp class and licensed for safety (or perhaps to support a national recharging infrastructure). I am not against fees applied for a positive purpose. I am for public safety. I am for limiting access of ebike to pedestrian byways.

All of these goals are reachable. Laws can be made practical and workable with intelligent conversation. Activism occurs through participation, and through activism we can reach our government representatives, or become them to affect positive changes in policy, funding, and enforcement.

Just my ½ W, KF

 

[danielrlee]

I have been reading this thread since its inception with great interest and it's taken me a while to work out my opinion on the matter.

Safety, as far as I'm concerned, isn't about limiting my movement in terms of power or speed. It's a matter of integration with the flow of traffic in which I am travelling at any given moment. I feel much safer travelling on, say a 30mph street, at the same 30-35mph speeds as the traffic both in front and behind me. Being limited to an arbitrary speed of 15 or 20mph with vehicles whizzing past me every few seconds is most definitely NOT my definition of safety.

This leads me to think that we should be limited by the same local speed limits as other traffic. If this required some sort of registration and annual safety check involving a nominal fee, I would be all for it. Of course, living in the UK and being controlled by the EU, such common sense is never likely to prevail.

EDIT: I do understand that most e-bikes aren't of the higher powered/speed variety and therefore maybe a two-tier system is required. What I cannot accept though is that (in the UK at least) anything over 15mph or 250w should be classed as a motorcycle and therefore lose all the rights of access and non-regulation that a regular bicycle user enjoys.

 

[greenspark]

Pedal bikes follow motor vehicle rules in operation most places when on the road. Flying through stop lights or signs will get you busted and points added to your licence in many places.

Have a look at http://www.wnyc.org/story/285662-european-cities-allowing-bikes-to-run-red-lights/ http://bicyclelaw.com/articles/a.cfm/legally-speaking-stop-as-yield1. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/03/news/la-ol-cycling-collisions-20131002.

Round hole/square peg problem. Bikes need momentum because they run with limited energy, even ebikes. The reason for rules about full stop at stop signs and stoplight is that cars are huge amounts of weight and bulk that cosset the driver and need strict separation to prevent collisions. Bicycles have very limited weight, a small footprint, extreme maneuverability, and the rider is intimately aware of what is around him/her. Start/stop/wait for green is not necessary on a bike. Slow, look around, weave around and if necessary stop until it is safe to proceed is smarter and better. Thus, before we press for "follow the law", make sure the law is not a hammer when we need a scalpel.

Back to the original subject. I am realising that Americans on this forum press for higher power limits in part because they have huge, straight roads where the engineering limits of bike brakes, tyres and suspension are not pressed. In contrast much of the rest of the world has tighter margins where powerful motors can move the average rider into a danger zone. The risk to ebike enthusiasts is reactive regulation.

Make no mistake about it, if the danger zone is too close to the average rider, REGULATION WILL COME. Our role as "experts" is to make sure the danger zone is far enough out that those who venture into it and are injured/killed are written up by the pundits as idiots rather than have the pundits blame a safe form of transport.

It will come because the technology is improving, and more people will get on bikes. Not our typical forum member whose motto is have soldering gun, will travel, but the middle-aged and older men and women in street clothes who are fed up with crawling in a traffic jam, likes the idea of getting a bit of exercise, and realises they can ride an ebike in office clothes and arrive smelling good and feeling dry.

So far, most folks on this forum seem to favor a riding-under-power speed limit, probably a controller setting like in Europe. Not sure if that is enough. But it does seem to point to controller settings rather than motor wattage, battery voltage, etc.

Can anyone write a clear set of controller specs that might easily be measurable by an enforcement agency?

Or is their a reliable external measurement that would be street measurable? For example, full throttle for X seconds on 0 degree grade will not go more than x distance. Then the bike test is a couple lines of chalk on the pavement and a stop watch. And if such a test is made, does it properly translate to gradients and real world running (since we really don't want to measure drag racing zero to X acceleration, but want motors that are outside the danger zone when riding up hills, against the wind and when one is tired and needs a bit of help)?

 

[LockH]

Can anyone write a clear set of controller specs that might easily be measurable by an enforcement agency?

+1 on that. "Enforcement agency" currently is race mgmt. for uphill bicycle race.
L

 

[cal3thousand]

Can anyone write a clear set of controller specs that might easily be measurable by an enforcement agency?

I don't think this is going to be easy by any means. That's the reason that automotive rules aren't written under the same premise. The testing equipment needed,would place a ridiculous burden on the law agency in terms of cost and convenience.

That's like requiring every car that "seems" to violate a certain power level to be dyno tested.

I'd like to reiterate in other terms that the only REAL common denominator between ALL these conveyances is SPEED! The only easily measured and comparable "Apples-to-Apples" metric when referring to transportation is speed.

Power always has other factors involved in the math that aren't "Apples-to-Apples": weight, coefficient of drag, slope, drive-line losses.

Tell me how you would measure a system if I had a bike with 1,000 V of potential. What kind of equipment would you need? Would I be exempt from testing since your equipment isn't going to handle the job?

 

[danielrlee]

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but most of what I'm reading here is post after post of long lists of overly bureaucratic rules, limits and regulations. Why can't e-bikes simply fit into existing regulations? Obviously using footpaths should be out of the question and shared paths need some kind of limit, but most of my usage is on the road. Why can't I follow the same laws and constraints as ICE powered vehicles? These limits have been in place in some form or other for what must be nearing a century and are accepted without question. Pedestrians are, on the whole, happy to go about their everyday lives without questioning multi-tonne vehicles whizzing by. Why should I, on my 25kg bike be an exception to this? I understand that rules are also in place for our own safety, as well as those around us, but surely we are no more vulnerable than somebody riding a motorcycle and I sure as hell don't do anything approaching motorcycle speeds.

Ultimately, all we need are two laws:

1) Don't ride over the speed limit.
2) Don't ride like a dick.

Done.

 

[amberwolf]

and the rider is intimately aware of what is around him/her.

I wish that was true, but many, perhaps most, of the riders around here are no more aware of their surroundings than the pedestrians are, perhaps even less. I'm surprised there are not more bicycle-riders run over and killed here in Phoenix; it isn't because the riders avoided the collision in most cases, it's either dumb luck or that the other potential collisionee avoided the problem. On my own bicycles, including CrazyBike2, I've been hit by other cyclists that just rode right into me, usually from behind while I was stopped at a light or stop sign.

(not the same, but also have had pedestrians either step off the curb and almost get run over by me--if I wasnt' watching specifically for them then they would have been. Heck, during a walkathon, some walked straight into me while I was stopped on the very right edge of a wide path, even though they were looking directly at me/my huge bike and trailer with the St Bernard in it!)

So far, most folks on this forum seem to favor a riding-under-power speed limit, probably a controller setting like in Europe. Not sure if that is enough. But it does seem to point to controller settings rather than motor wattage, battery voltage, etc.

I don't think it needs to be something limited in the hardware--it should be something the user simply obeys by choice, just like they do (or should) in any other type of vehicle. That's the way it works for me, and I stay under that >20MPH limit here wherever I am, except for the few instants in heavy traffic when someone else on the road does something that requires me to go faster for just a bare moment to get out of their way, because braking would only get me run over from behind, or would not allow me to avoid the collision. If I were actually hardware limited to that speed, I would have probably been killed already.

Can anyone write a clear set of controller specs that might easily be measurable by an enforcement agency?

Or is their a reliable external measurement that would be street measurable? For example, full throttle for X seconds on 0 degree grade will not go more than x distance. Then the bike test is a couple lines of chalk on the pavement and a stop watch. And if such a test is made, does it properly translate to gradients and real world running (since we really don't want to measure drag racing zero to X acceleration, but want motors that are outside the danger zone when riding up hills, against the wind and when one is tired and needs a bit of help)?

I'm not sure there's any way to do a controller specification that could be measured, because it would depend on the motor and transmission system, if any, as to what any controller actually behaved like. It would also depend on the battery as for whether it could actually output as much as the specification dictated, but that part isn't relevant to the test proposed, AFAIK.

External street-measurable test? I guess something like you describe might work well enough for a "quick check" roadside test. If it "fails" the test I guess they could have an actual dyno setup at a testing station that you'd have to report to within some specified time limit.

But I don't see how a power limit would be helpful to those of us with greater need of power (other than forcing us into either building illegal vehicles, or into some higher level of vehicle regulation that might preclude some from using anything but dealer-supplied cars or trucks instead; or force us to rely on others for our transport needs instead of doing for ourselves). I suppose you could specify a 10KW limit and that'd probalby do for almost anything I could imagine myself needing here in relatively-flat Phoenix, AZ, but some of the stuff I'd want to be able to haul around may not safely be possible in a place like San Francisco or Seattle with such a limit; I haven't calculated it out).

Remember that extra power is not only used for speed--it's also used for maintaining a normal speed with a heavy load on a hill, or for being able to safely accelerate that load up to a normal speed from a stop, with impatient drivers behind you who thnk that just because you're not trapped in a car like they are, you shouldn't be in their way.

 

[LockH]

Obviously using footpaths should be out of the question...

HUH??? So, half-dead old guy can't use the path (2 lane paved road) out 5km offshore Lake Ontario (air doesn't stink of car exhaust quite so bad usually). I mean, I *could* get off my trike and stagger around maybe (then they will drag up some nurse to say my "plumbing" works just fine - I knew I'd regret that thingee). Maybe I could have a D" for disabled brand somewhere eg on my forehead (easy to spot/plus might be handy going out.) Sooo... Nobuddy on "footpaths", all over the Netherlands, etc.?

 

[greenspark]

Why can't e-bikes simply fit into existing regulations?

Motorbikes

• Registration
• Insurance
• Special drivers license
• Inspections
• Stop lights, mirrors, special brakes, tires, etc
• discourages riding

Bicycles

• In some places helmets
• No license, no reg, no inspect, no insure, simple equipment
• encourages riding

Ebikes

• Prefer bike rules to motorbikes
• Threat: that regulators will start applying motorbike rules

 

[zener]

I like danielrlee, amberwolf and cal3thousands point of views the best.

But ebikes can't fit in existing catergories becouse they can more and they are lighter so it needs a cetegory for itself it must get a bonus over the ICE vehicles to make the public WANT to ride a ebike.

 

[greenspark]

Remember that extra power is not only used for speed--it's also used for maintaining a normal speed with a heavy load on a hill, or for being able to safely accelerate that load up to a normal speed from a stop, with impatient drivers behind you who think that just because you're not trapped in a car like they are, you shouldn't be in their way.

I know, that is why I am asking (err challenging) folks to come up with a rule that gives us what we want but keeps normal riders outside the danger zone. The editorial replies about "should" are of no use. So maybe I should ask it differently:

When is an ebike dangerous for the average rider? What makes it dangerous and how could this be specified in a rule so that the average rider is in the safety zone, but the utility of the bike is not compromised? Remember that we are talking about bikes designed to be human powered and we are then retrofitting kits on them. There are bikes sold that are legal, but lack moped brakes, shocks, grunty frames, and we want to draw a line in the sand that says how close they can get to moped performance before they get into the danger zone.

Remember that the criteria has to be for national conditions, not airport-runway-wide roads in flat Kansas. Think hills, curves, narrow roads, gravel on paved roads, potholes, etc.

 

[LockH]

I say again:
1)Intensive training (learning) for ALL wannabe motorized vehicle drivers on all sorts of vehicles BEFORE they get a license.
2)Rude and graduated penalties for misbehaving.

 

[speedmd]

"I know, that is why I am asking (err challenging) folks to come up with a rule that gives us what we want but keeps normal riders outside the danger zone. The editorial replies about "should" are of no use. So maybe I should ask it differently:

When is an ebike dangerous for the average rider? What makes it dangerous and how could this be specified in a rule so that the average rider is in the safety zone, but the utility of the bike is not compromised? Remember that we are talking about bikes designed to be human powered and we are then retrofitting kits on them. There are bikes sold that are legal, but lack moped brakes, shocks, grunty frames, and we want to draw a line in the sand that says how close they can get to moped performance before they get into the danger zone.

Remember that the criteria has to be for national conditions, not airport-runway-wide roads in flat Kansas. Think hills, curves, narrow roads, gravel on paved roads, potholes, etc."



Do we include snow and ice? Why is it that we would default and require rules of law to protect folks from themselves when common sense is not working. Humans (most fit adults on a standard road bike) can pedal at speeds up to a bit over 30 miles per hour. Why would there be any laws that would prohibit e-bikes for those same speeds? Maybe if they were not structurally sound, or had inadequate brakes, but to require they don't enter a danger zone is a fantasy. 10 miles per hour will kill you if you trip over a dog or sufficient road hazard and land on your head wrong. Others suggested having routine inspections, registrations and added safety equipment and I don't disagree if your running on highways at highway speeds but find it is just silly argument for bicycle speeds. Is it suggested that they have certain styles / sizes of tires that can work well in all types of terrain and weather conditions? Require suspensions? Out law light weight bicycle wheels? What about fat asses that are clearly overloading their bikes. I am not sure where we are going with this. Strikes me a bit like some think we need a nanny.

 

[greenspark]

Do we include snow and ice?

Only fools ride motorbikes and mopeds on busy streets in snow and ice.

You're making this too difficult.

 

[speedmd]

Your missing my point. It is not foolish to ride year round with the proper equipment and experience. Studded tires make it perfectly stable to ride in snow and ice. Would you suggest that bikes not be allowed to be used in normal winter weather due to performance variations? Just because it may be out of some folks comfort zone does not make it a fools mission.

 

[greenspark]

Your missing my point. It is not foolish to ride year round with the proper equipment and experience. Studded tires make it perfectly stable to ride in snow and ice. Would you suggest that bikes not be allowed to be used in normal winter weather due to performance variations? Just because it may be out of some folks comfort zone does not make it a fools mission.

No, I'm not focused on riding in snow and ice. I'm focused on the line that separates a bicycle, with all the freedom that comes with virtually no regulation, and the moped that is considered a motor vehicle. When electric motors were a rarity, the law just said they are considered bicycles until they exceeded a certain power rating or speed capability. However, with the rapid change by which technology advances are resulting in much better batteries, controllers and electric motors, the electric assisted bicycle will become mainstream and the nanny state will be sorely tempted to regulate it, especially kits that can go on almost any bike stuffed in the back of the garage.

At present, in New Zealand, the rule says defines a no-regulation ebike as "A pedal cycle to which is attached one or more auxiliary propulsion motors having a combined maximum power output not exceeding 300 watts." Since no one knows what maximum output means (at the tyre, at the motor shaft, at the controller?) it needs updating. If it said manufacturer's rating of 250W or 350W (since no one makes a 300W as mainstream standard), then at least we would know were we stand. However, we also know that manufacturers lie - badge engineering, so this is probably not the best way to go. My Mac 350W will eat my Cute100F 350W for lunch, and if I pop a 50V battery on it, the Mac won't even consider the Cute to be an appetizer.

So I put out a simple question. What should it say so that it stays out of the danger zone, is easy to measure, easy for manufacturers to comply, easy for buyers to know they are legal, and is easy for police to enforce?

The fact is that police generally won't enforce until there is a crash, whereupon they will throw the book at the cyclist if it tests beyond the limit. Down here, they will charge the cyclist with operating without registration, plates, lights, horn, brake lights, the appropriate drivers license and probably the D.A. will throw in a charge of driving a weapon of mass destruction to get a plea bargain... all because the test pushed it over an arbitrary standard that is sufficiently vague that the judge will probably toss the case out, but not until the cyclist has been put through the wringer.

I'm not interested in snow, fat people, the speed of pedal bikes without motors, riders who crash into each other because they are not looking, vigilantes protecting their footpaths or many of the other off topic replies. What I was asking for was a simple way to classify a an electronically assisted bicycle so that it still has all the privileges of pedal bikes. The closer we get to moped territory, the less likely the nanny state will give ebikes a free pass.

So far, the main answer is to adopt part of the European rule that sets a speed limit in the controller that gradually cuts power as it approaches the maximum allowed speed limit.

 

[LockH]

Might others here at least agree that the safety of others is more important than the safety of ones self???

 

[dogman dan]

The only thing law enforcement can do easily, is enforce reasonable speed limits. Let the debate for what reasonable is begin.

I just don't see myself how limiting an ebike to 25kph is reasonable if the thing is traveling on a street cars can travel 70 kph on. 25kph may be too fast for some multi use paths, but it's definitely bogus to limit ebikes to 25 kph on a street with cars overtaking at 3x that speed. I also don't call an ebike that can go 70 kph a "bike". But a 25 kph limit is just too slow for safe in that place. Perhaps an ebike should not be on that road? But if pedal bikes can, then ebikes should be allowed too. Some US roads such as freeways are barred to mopeds, bikes, and pedestrians. In my area, cops will overlook this law in some places where the freeway is the only road.

I think many could live with a speed limit for ebikes at 30-40 kph. (25 mph). That is, the motor device shall not be able to propel a 150 pound rider faster on a flat road, bla bla bla. Like typical US moped laws. That of course, will never be tested much. Cops will rely on simply ticketing you for exceeding a regular speed limit. They might call you in for a test later if they see you exceeding the device limit. But they won't bother much with that, since you will trot in for the test with your 10 amp controller on it.

Why would that speed (40kph-25 mph) be so unsafe for bike riders, if the cars are allowed 40 kph in the same place? If the road is that bad, then post the slower speed limit for all in that area. Then, of course, bikes, cars, and even horses an buggies are all limited to that slower speed. In the USA, that would be primarily school zones that are posted slower than 25 mph.

 

[LockH]

Getting OT for a sec...

Current article seen online here:
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/gear-shed/cycle-life/Why-E-Bikes-Are-Terrible-For-You.html

Why E-Bikes Are Terrible for You
(Subtitled "Your e-bike is a trail menace, and it’s making you lazy.")

The "author" (so-called) summarises:

But the biggest flaws with e-bikes are physical and psychological. The bicycle is meant to be an endorphin-multiplier. In my mind, bike commuting's big draw is burning calories on the way to your destination. Yes, an e-bike is better for the environment than your car, but in the end, you forgo a crucial part of the experience. You make yourself better, and stronger, when you ride a real bike.

("Real"? In his words...)

Anybuddy catch one maybe fatal flaw in the writers argument? (Hint: Commonly caused by applying heat to anything.) That there may be waaay better wayz to "exercise" ones brain and body... and to tire oneself out?

But I digress...

So folks on the Alt. Planet might actually agree on something???

HURRAY!!!

So watt... Perhaps we might call this the FIRST LAW OF TRAVEL (suitable for travel by all wheeled, etc. vehicles underwater, on land and in the air? Not sure watt other options might be available on other planets. But given we creatures exist in sorta a chemical soup... lets just say any gas or solid "environments".)

RULE ONE: (Above all others) DO NO HARM TO OTHERS.

Yet to be determined, watt is meant by the english language word "others"?

Gawds know how many other creatures I have injured and killed in my short, miserable life. Anybuddy here EVer "hit" (run into) a large animal, such as a "moose"? (Or a "giraffe", etc.)?

And were *their* lives "worth" any less than yours? How about other animals (besides "humans"), like a "dog" (or a "cat")?

If so, how much "less" exactly (aka "worthless")?

But again, for travel:
RULE ONE: DO NO HARM TO OTHERS.

Hurray!
L

 

[LockH]

RULE ONE: DO NO HARM TO OTHERS.

RULE TWO (maybe): NEVer TRUST OTHERS.

(EVer seen snow blow across a road, to form a "drift"? Or plant leaves "ditto"? How `bout some human creature, maybe "speeding" their vehicle, because they might be late for work, or a party, or to "catch those specials on sale, etc, etc.)

 

[Falco]

The only way I see ebikes continuing to develope and become better is with no regulation. Regulation only limits our cause. It Prevents advancements in technology and leaves us needing bigger and more costly transport needs.
Lets make it as simple as possible. You can do what ever you want as long as you bear 100% responsibility for your actions.
If your not prepared to do that then its pretty simple in that you never interact with a ebike.
But really this should apply to everything. ie. Cars, motorbikes, planes, boats and trains and even bicycles.
Regulations only limit us. They dont help us in any way.

 

[speedmd]

Why would that speed (40kph-25 mph) be so unsafe for bike riders, if the cars are allowed 40 kph in the same place?

Agree, and why should we introduce equipment speed control equipment laws on one type of vehicle and not the other. 25 mph is too slow IMO, and would be like the days when we had a 55 mph max highway speed that no one paid attention to. It was counter productive, and traded fuel economy for a wider mix of vehicle speeds and all the problems that caused.

It is also the Same argument governments made for years limiting motor HP etc etc.. Makes absolutely no sense. Its a slippery slope argument to legislate equipment rather than behavior. Limiting power would have a non linear response also, and hurt larger riders and folks with hilly rides or folks relying on the e-bike for shopping etc. I would allow any power within reason assuming there was some throttle control that would prevent it flipping or throwing riders off the back easily. Maybe limit power to the wheel above 25 mph and allow it to top out with city traffic (30-35 mph) if your in a hurry and can add sufficient pedal power (200 + watts) to help make it go that fast. If your just sitting and being taken for a ride, I could deal with lower speed cut off, but not at the expense of being able to stand up and get out of harms way when you see it coming.

 

[LockH]

Lets make it as simple as possible.

Ummm... I thought we were? (Good point though.)

Re RULE TWO. Probably should shorten that to NEVER TRUST!

I mean, I know some rules are "meant for OTHERS" (Hehe... Talking here to you rebels on the Alt. Planet of ES.)

... But I don't trust MYSELF much of the time (OH, LOOK! Another hottie! - likely not in the direction of forward travel.)

So, so far we have:
RULE ONE: Never do harm. (To others, but also to yourself, at least not TOO badly.)
RULE TWO: Never trust.

And the THIRD RULE (maybe)?

RULE THREE: Never travel fast. (Faster than one can slow down and stop the vehicle due to unexpected circumstances.EG, see "hottie", above.)

 

[Ykick]

See plenty of "average riders" who have no business and/or approproate training to be riding any two-wheeler on a secluded road/trail. Nevermind a fast moving roadway with large hurtling machinery.

Speed limits based on road/path along with bike size & weight (assisted or not) is probably the most workable method to police, if you must.

Powered or not, 500lbs of long cargo bike with rider probably have no business doing much above 20MPH on many road surfaces. I've yet to see a frame, brakes, wheels and tires capable of safely handling that level of stress.

Roadside electrical qualification is simply too complicated and expensive to pursue. It's mostly an operational "judgement call" by citing behavior and not the make, model and somewhat "elusive" specifications of equipment.

Perhaps if you can pedal your contraption 100 feet in so many seconds with power disconnected? Of course, then we shift into physical disabilities, etc.

There's not one simple, easy solution IMO.