police e-bike crackdown

[wturber]

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.

If speed were the only factor, then that would be less unreasonable. But speed isn't the only factor. But I do agree that it is common for people to look at one narrow statistical bit of evidence and draw their conclusions from just that - ignoring other facts and information.

 

[amberwolf]

But I do agree that it is common for people to look at one narrow statistical bit of evidence and draw their conclusions from just that - ignoring other facts and information.

"Buut..those other facts don't matter because I don't care about those...." We see this frequently. :/

 

[ZeroEm]

Don't know about everyone else but riding for a couple hours is very enjoyable and relaxing. One way for me to get a good night sleep is a nice long ride that day.

Maybe we need to see if lawmakers ever have ridden a Ebike?

While we are cracking down, how about keeping the UFO's out of lower earth atmosphere or at least have them turn off the lights to keep the stir down.

 

[wturber]

Don't know about everyone else but riding for a couple hours is very enjoyable and relaxing. One way for me to get a good night sleep is a nice long ride that day.

Maybe we need to see if lawmakers ever have ridden a Ebike?

While we are cracking down, how about keeping the UFO's out of lower earth atmosphere or at least have them turn off the lights to keep the stir down.

One of the best things about ebike commuting was the lift in mental attitude that it provided. After 50 years of observation, I have no confidence that lawmakers (in general) can be motivated by anything other than money or power and the loss of either.

 

[ZeroEm]

One of the best things about ebike commuting was the lift in mental attitude that it provided. After 50 years of observation, I have no confidence that lawmakers (in general) can be motivated by anything other than money or power and the loss of either.

In my mid to late 60's now. Have decided that I have wisdom. Nothing is more important than happiness and a good mental attitude.

 

[dgc]

ZeroEm, round the local park which is mostly tracks thro' wooded areas and or along the canal / river tow paths, total relaxing, come back home via the local supermarket, great, ready for the day. I do avoid roads as much as possible due to pot holes everywhere. Do have a few more years on you, have been riding for about 65 odd years, but the body is fine, still got beat my father who rode a road bike till 84. It's the "tar bush effect" the police go after everyone on an e-bike, just have to wait until government and police get another bee in their heads.

 

[jonescg]

Oh trust me, the government would rather do nothing at all. And when they do something, it might as well have been nothing

 

[Xana]

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.

Yes let's be crystal clear, you quoted me and made up some stupid stuff about "lawless society" when I very clearly didn't say or imply anything of the sort. Now you're coming at me accusing me of having a beef with you when you're the one who literally quoted me and directed nonsense in my direction while I never singled you out. My original post still stands, I can think our country has some dumbass laws regardless if they're official laws or not.

You should remember who you started "beef" with before you go and accuse them of starting it with you.

 

[Xana]

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.

Failing to realize a motorcycle license doesn't magically make you mature is what is stupid. Everything you just said is easily doable with a regular license.

 

[2old]

It's too personal and past the point of being useful. IMO, either open a large bucket of popcorn or close the thread.

 

[wturber]

Failing to realize a motorcycle license doesn't magically make you mature is what is stupid. Everything you just said is easily doable with a regular license.

As you say, a license does not magically make a person mature. I said that maturity is one of the major issues. So by your own words, everything I said is not easily doable with a regular license.

 

[offGridDownUnder]

a license does not magically make a person mature.

A license is an opportunity for the rest of us to examine if someone is mature. If the current process does not do this well, it's a reason to correct the process so it does.

Licensing is not a failure. Not evaluating properly is a failure, and a stupid one on our part. It's our lives and the lives of our loved ones. We have every business evaluating, and in some cases excluding, potential users of our shared property - the public roads and footpaths.

 

[TPEHAK]

License examines only knowledge, skills and ability. It is not like "I am pretty sure I was below 10 above the speed limit"

 

[wturber]

License examines only knowledge, skills and ability. It is not like "I am pretty sure I was below 10 above the speed limit"

At its best, yes. My first driver's license test at 16 tested knowledge but was a very poor test of ability. The same was true for my motorcycle endorsement which amounted to making a trip around a DMV parking lot.

 

[offGridDownUnder]

License examines only knowledge, skills and ability. It is not like "I am pretty sure I was below 10 above the speed limit"

The licensing process only evaluates knowledge, skills, and ability. This includes the ability to judge your own speed while driving. If you show you can't, the process should include not giving you a license.

If you show that you could, but didn't this time, you lose the license, as you are either unable or unwilling to keep your part of the agreement.

The other part of the approach is that we permit adults (people judged capable of policing their own behavior) to police their own behavior. If there is a failure in evaluating knowledge, skills, or ability, our licensing process needs to be corrected.

If someone signs their license, but does not see to it themselves that they police their behavior properly, then we judge them either incompetent (and perhaps change our licensing process to evaluate that as well or more closely) or they are a liar, and they are treated as a liar who is willing lie to us and endanger us. At a minimum, that's immediate loss of license - that person does not deserve our trust.

I get to walk around unsupervised because I police my own behavior - that's the definition of adult. If I fail at this, I have only myself to blame, and properly so. In most jurisdictions, we presume 'adult' for people past a certain age, and who have not otherwise been declared incompetent. If we need to tighten up those checks, then that's the solution.

People are not machines or animals. They are people, and they can decide their own behavior. If their decision is to lie, then we should take them at face value and treat them as liars. It is no one's job but their own to police their own behavior and to keep their own word.

Just like politicians or police who take oaths.

 

[TPEHAK]

Do you need a license to walk around the people safely and handle a heavy weight around the people? No, because of existing laws are enough to regulate how people walk around and how they handle heavy weights and bringing licensing system for the walking process and handling heavy weights process will cause more harm then good. Same is applicable for the electric bicycles. For the cars it is different story for a bunch of reasons.

 

[dgc]

Gents, we have given the subject a good chewing over, we will not win, us humans do what we want to do, mind you I do have friends that do need a license for farting in confined spaces.

 

[offGridDownUnder]

we have given the subject a good chewing over

I'm concerned that I misread your message. I'll leave the rest as I think it has some merit.

Ah, we can't continue our discussion, to possibly reach consensus, or alternatively to surface issues that concern us, to hear other points of view, to consider our position and responses, to learn of aspects and approaches we had not thought of, to hone our own messages?

Having the broader public permit us to ride our ebikes is certainly major factor in our enjoyment - I would say a fundamental factor - we need good will. We will have this discussion in other arenas whether we like it or not - I have no problem having it here with a population of people invested in ebikes - a not-quite-unique opportunity, but a valuable one.

The matter needs resolution in our lives, and that may proceed from discussion, why not here?

We need the good will of everybody (or a majority of them, at least).

Following along isn't required of anyone. Participation in society's decisions about ebikes is required - society will see to that.

 

[JackFlorey]

Looking on this chart it looks like we need to limit the cars top speed to 20mph.

Or only allow them to drive at high speeds on fenced, protected roads where speed limits are higher, signage/visibility is ensured and pedestrians are not allowed. (And of course everyone is licensed and insured and driving tested-good cars.)

There is no necessity in licence, or you have to license everyone who uses the roads, including acoustic bicycles and pedestrians.

?? You just said above that speed determines the risk they pose. I don't know of any pedestrians who can hit even 28mph.

 

[TPEHAK]

?? You just said above that speed determines the risk they pose. I don't know of any pedestrians who can hit even 28mph.

Yes, but pedestrians can cause accident other ways. Like walking on the red light for instance. Or abruptly jumping under the car.

 

[offGridDownUnder]

For the cars it is different story for a bunch of reasons.

I think I agree with your point, although I think there is reason to draw the line (that distinguishes) differently.

Due the the lack of outcry about acoustic bicycles (and I know there is some in specific places - say New York City, and maybe Sydney) I don't see licensing bicyclists generally - although if the evidence is actually there, I can be persuaded. But I want to see the evidence.

I do agree that anyone who has otherwise gained their road license can face the penalty for not keeping their word - even if they are on an acoustic bicycle. How much we should invest in this is a separate discussion - show me the evidence.

I do propose that a sensible way to reduce problems from ebikes in public spaces is to require a road license to use an ebike in public spaces. The road license is about maturity - by your signature you pledge to police your own behavior. I see this as an existing, low cost, widely understood way we already have serious investment in to weed out riders we can't trust to handle a powerful machine. Even the 250w machines are powerful.

If the evidence supports it, I'd consider exempting the 'class 1' ebikes, although not all jurisdictions make this distinction. But I would maintain the minimum age - that's about maturity in all cases, and need.

I think the errors from this approach are less than the errors from other approaches. Pointing out that it is not perfect isn't a useful argument - perfect is not available and we can not waste time on that.

I don't see any substantial benefit for giving powered vehicles to children, apart from those who happen to be children as well as disabled. Children by definition are not mature, and their health is improved by using their bodies. Adults who give powered vehicles to children are not thinking straight about the child's welfare. Show me the evidence - I've seen plenty of articles quoting opinions from health professionals about this point already, and they are quite in agreement.

Children can ride acoustic bicycles. There is no compelling harm done by that. Let them have the benefits of using their bodies while those bodies need to grow.

 

[neptronix]

It's too personal and past the point of being useful. IMO, either open a large bucket of popcorn or close the thread.

Yeah it's cool to run an international forum and get contact with the world of ebikes and ebike people.
But the American in me is groaning reading some of these statements which are clearly from the other side of the pond.

Wish people put location in their profile, missing geographical context ensures that no agreement could ever be had here.

 

[JackFlorey]

Yes, but pedestrians can cause accident other ways. Like walking on the red light for instance. Or abruptly jumping under the car.

Sure. But in a a pedestrian vs car accident (or a pedestrian vs anything really) the pedestrian loses. And while it's sad when anyone dies - people who do stupid things and kill themselves are more acceptable than people who are killed by other idiots.

 

[TPEHAK]

This is one of the scenarios. Another scenario is when the driver reacts on the pedestrian and loses control and hits someone or something else who is not responsible for the accident.

 

[yooper2001]

Gen z has no concept of driving around ebikes.. ignored my signal light and brake light..and tried to pass me on the left, while I was turning left at a 4 way stop. Then had the gumption to tell the police officer who was behind him...that it was all my fault. Luckily I have a mirror and glanced before I turned. It's these people who want ebikes banned