police e-bike crackdown

[neptronix]

Those old guys in wigs were pretty allright.

When it comes to ebikes, i've been onboard with this one since forever:



Our system here in the states is far from perfect.

But the more i read offgriddownunder's posts, the more grateful i feel that the wig wearers still have an influence on how law is applied here.

We do have some stinker ebike laws but for the most part it's not really enforced except in the dense part of the coasts.

Nonetheless if you ride respectfully and pedal, the chance of you having a problem in most areas is basically nil.

Even if you actually live a worst case scenario nanny state hellscape, there's always clever solutions..

 

[offGridDownUnder]

if

There is nothing unjust about me keeping my own word to others.

If you don't want to keep your own word about your license, mail it back to the agency with a note that, while you were sincere when you asked for the license, you don't agree with those terms now, and don't agree to follow them anymore.

The people you quote in support of you stood up for what they said. Are you doing that? Maybe you are, I don't know how you drive. Are you really going to call on the Founding Fathers as a justification for not keeping the terms of your own freely agreed Driver's License? That seems a bit too over the top for any sensible person to do.

Here's something that did not happen...
The majority of the automobiles used in the United States (and here in Australia) can reach 100mph. Maybe some of them can only reach 90mph. I would expect that all of them that can meet the safety requirements to be on the road can exceed the speed limit.

However, what did not just happen is that all of the automobiles in the United States (and Australia) did not all drive at 100mph or 90mph or over the speed limit in their last trip on the road. Because the people driving them are perfectly capable of moderating their own driving.

In some cases, they moderated their driving for their own safety. In some other cases, they moderated their driving because of anxiety about receiving attention from law enforcement officers.

But they did moderate their driving. So, we know that they can - that is in no way an excuse. Respect for the promises made to others is a reason to moderate my behaviour, and I can do that.

Trying and failing to keep my own promise is a good reason for me to correct my behaviour. Making excuses is saying that I may lie to others. And others are quite justified in taking note of this, and treating me as someone that is willing to do this to them.

Do you really want to try to suggest that not riding under the speed limit, not being predictable per local laws, not keeping your published agreements with others, is somehow equal to what the Founding Fathers did, and why they did it? That seems a bit... dramatic. Is that really what you want to say in a partly-public forum?

 

[neptronix]

Do you really want to try to suggest that not riding under the speed limit, not being predictable per local laws, not keeping your published agreements with others, is somehow equal to what the Founding Fathers did, and why they did it? That seems a bit... dramatic. Is that really what you want to say in a partly-public forum?

Published agreement with others? Show me where my signature was on that, and what the terms were.

If the agreement is to be limited below road speeds while also being forced into the car lane by lack of bike infrastructure, which is inherently very dangerous and effectively forces me off an ebike and into a car due to our poor infrastructure..

Then no, i don't agree with that.

I am a respectful rider who follows the rules of the car lane when in the car lane, and the rules of the bike lane when there is one.. and no enforcer of laws has decided that me going fast is worth citing me.


You are trying to invent some kind of moral failing on my end for following the spirit but not the letter of the law.

This is a pretty funny tactic though, because if we are using that standard, every American in this discussion is a criminal. You probably are too in your country.

 

[offGridDownUnder]

Published agreement with others? Show me where my signature was on that, and what the terms were.

If the agreement is to be limited below road speeds while also being forced into the car lane by lack of bike infrastructure, which is inherently very dangerous and effectively forces me off an ebike and into a car due to our poor infrastructure..

Then no, i don't agree with that.

I am a respectful rider who follows the rules of the car lane when in the car lane, and the rules of the bike lane when there is one.. and no enforcer of laws has decided that me going fast is worth citing me.


You are trying to invent some kind of moral failing on my end for following the spirit but not the letter of the law.

This is a pretty funny tactic though, because if we are using that standard, every American in this discussion is a criminal. You probably are too in your country.

You are probably right - I don't know that you have a Driver's License. If you don't, then you may not have made any agreement about your use of public paths and roadways. That's my assumption, and I could be wrong.

If you do hold a Driver's License, it applies when you use your bicycle. It's an agreement about using public roads, and the laws specify how bicycles may use those. In that case, the point is that you (and anyone else that signed a Driver's License) has made their own promise about riding a bicycle on public roads and paths.

 

[neptronix]

You are probably right - I don't know that you have a Driver's License. If you don't, then you may not have made any agreement about your use of public paths and roadways. That's my assumption, and I could be wrong.

If you do hold a Driver's License, it applies when you use your bicycle. It's an agreement about using public roads, and the laws specify how bicycles may use those. In that case, the point is that you (and anyone else that signed a Driver's License) has made their own promise about riding a bicycle on public roads and paths.

Nope, that's not in the curriculum for getting one. I have gotten drivers licenses in multiple states and i read. . and if it is a legal ruling it'd be helpful to cite the source.

My guess: you're stretching things

 

[Papa]

If you do hold a Driver's License, it applies when you use your bicycle.

Nope.
A 'bicycle', and Class one, Low speed assisted bicycles (in many/most USA States), is NOT classified as a motor vehicle, and therefore, a driver's license is not only not required, but is completely irrelevant.

 

[The Toecutter]

I'd argue drivers licenses are irrelevant anyway, at least from an ethical/constitutional standpoint. The fact that they've become a means of monetary extraction by corporations, and a means to siphon your personal information to be abused by private corporations/law enforcement/intelligence agencies for their profit at the expense of the public good, all without public input or a vote, has voided any pretense of a social contract outright. The promise doesn't exist. It's built on fraud, coercion, and dare I say extortion.

Until this changes, I'm all for chaos, mayhem, street takeovers, mass illegal vehicles riding in formation, and DIY-types skirting the law. There is no rule of law and never has been: it's just been an unelected ruling class dictating the terms and conditions of everyone else's existence for its own personal gain under the guise of "public safety", and I completely and totally reject this paradigm. Whether I have a license or not, my money helped pay for the roads, and I never got a choice to opt out of the scheme, therefore I should have access to these roads with whatever conveyance I choose, and without some middlemen inserting themselves as a paywall and pointing guns at me to make sure I pay them.

From a practical standpoint, more important than complying with the law is the appearance of doing so, at least for now. My builds do that adequately. Eventually, a critical mass will be reached and those pointing guns at people to enforce laws that no one voted for will either be forced to stop, or have guns pointed back at them. And in either case, I'm all for it. It would only be fair.

I'm literally a threat to no one on the roads where I reside. In any physical encounter with a 6,000 lb rolling codpiece, the laws of physics will dictate that I'm the loser. The authorities would do best to just leave me be. I've been pulled over doing 45 mph in an unmotorized velomobile that was completely in compliance with laws I never voted on or agreed to adhere to, and the cops came out with their guns pointed at me. I could have easily shot them through the body without them even knowing I was armed, but meekly complied, trying to de-escalate. Had they tried to escalate, things might have been different, and I wouldn't have been the initial instigator in the conflict. But it's not as if some biased court system really cares about that detail.

 

[offGridDownUnder]

I'm not writing about what the law says. I'm writing about what you said, when you signed your iicense.

You said it. So do it.

 

[vklurk]

This is why the United States isn't a direct democracy. It is a constitutional federal republic governed by a constitution. What you are describing is what James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.” Where a majority can dictate to the minority how things will be and suppress the basic rights rights of minorities.

What standard do you use to decide when a law you don't like is a tyranny of the majority, and not merely bad or unpopular? What constitutional basis do you have to say the state cannot regulate its own roads? Why does the mere invocation of a social compact immediately make you react that way?

You clearly have a rigid black and white thought pattern, so I won't waste too much more time arguing with you.

This statement is very ironic.

 

[Risky Rob]

Police in Switzerland confiscate 68 mph standup e-scooter.

https://x.com/i/status/2014994610771177774

 

[RunForTheHills]

What standard do you use to decide when a law you don't like is a tyranny of the majority, and not merely bad or unpopular? What constitutional basis do you have to say the state cannot regulate its own roads? Why does the mere invocation of a social compact immediately make you react that way?


This statement is very ironic.

We elect representatives that pass most of these laws. Some of them are challenged in court and may get struck down if they don't comply with the Constitution. In the United States, the Constitution and the courts decide if a law violates the rights of the minority.

offGridDownUnder was stating that traffic laws need to be obeyed 100% of the time or you should mail your driver's license back to the DMV. I disagreed with that and gave some examples where law enforcement may have some flexibility on enforcing those laws. I am not sure where you see the irony in that. There are laws that I disagree with, but I follow them anyway. However, I have gotten a few traffic tickets in the nearly 50 years that I have been driving. Never once did I consider surrendering my driver's license because of that and the California DMV has never asked me to. You're welcome to give up yours if you can't meet offGridDownUnder's impossible standard.

 

[The Toecutter]

Those representatives we "elect" are bought and paid for by private for-profit interests(this is called "lobbying" in the USA, but bribery in most of the rest of the world), and the elections themselves have the candidates' ballot presence and debate presence filtered by the same private for-profit interests. Candidates disfavored by these private for-profit interests are generally neither seen nor heard by the voting public, and that is intentional. The result is an outcome that is generally pre-determined regardless of who you vote for, an outcome that those living under said "representative" "democracy" are generally never given the choice to vote against. We've had over a century of activism of the peaceful sort in attempt to change this, but it was largely neutered before it began.

The question one must ask about New Jersey's new e-bike law is how many people actually wanted it? If this were a casino, I'd bet lots of money that it was only a small minority of the population. We're being forced to abide by rules that not only did society as a whole never ask for, but were written by and for the benefit of private for-profit interests.

 

[vklurk]

We elect representatives that pass most of these laws. Some of them are challenged in court and may get struck down if they don't comply with the Constitution.

True, and of course those elected representatives in New Jersey have passed this law. I wish I saw an obvious legal or constitutional basis to challenge it, but I simply don't. My point in arguing about this is not merely a political argument - this isn't really the forum for that - it's to argue that, as a practical matter, we, the community of makers and riders of ebikes, should take a pragmatic approach to regulation instead of a dogmatic one. Rather than hoping for courts to save us, we should consider the possibility that we'll need to try getting new laws passed, that are more protective of our rights but meet or blunt the concerns of the rest of the public.

In the United States, the Constitution and the courts decide if a law violates the rights of the minority.

(This is a highly simplistic explanation - while it's true that the 14th amendment's guarantee of the equal protection of the laws has often been interpreted quite broadly, it's not true that every minority is a 'protected class', and the process by which these issues are decided is hardly free from politics)

Are bicyclists are protected minority? We are a minority, certainly; and one can make an argument that we are oppressed - but then, despite its promises of equal protection, oppression under the color of law is hardly a new phenomenon in the United States.

offGridDownUnder was stating that traffic laws need to be obeyed 100% of the time or you should mail your driver's license back to the DMV.

That is not the point of what offGridDownUnder was saying. There's this literalism that gets applied in these sorts of internet debates that sucks all of the nuance and deeper meaning out of arguments. (offGridDownUnder, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, and I apologize for the presumption of speaking for you)

The actual point, as I understand it, is that you and I are a part of a society, whether we like it or not, and that society has rules, whether we like them or not, and that when we use the group's space and resources we are making an implied contract with everyone else to do so respectfully. It is of course true that people who repeatedly and regularly violate traffic laws may be required to surrender their licenses, and true that offGridDownUnder has stated we should make it easier to require this - that we should accept that they have shown us that they can't be trusted with motor vehicles.

Many of our laws are bad and dumb. That does not make them not laws. We can argue about civil disobedience or difficulties with enforcement but I think it's counterproductive for our community to focus our outrage on "they have no right to do this" instead of "they are using their power and authority badly and it will hurt us and we should do X, Y, and Z to both reverse the damage and to prevent future copycats".

When it comes to ebikes, i've been onboard with this one since forever:

View attachment 383650

This is sensible until one's pride and joy gets confiscated and destroyed. I think your stealth approach has more merit than open defiance, particularly if it's one's sole means of transportation.

I often wonder what will happen if some over-eager cop sees the thick hub of a Rohloff or other IGH and thinks it's a hub motor and won't take "you're wrong" for an answer.

But the more i read offgriddownunder's posts, the more grateful i feel that the wig wearers still have an influence on how law is applied here.

It will never stop disappointing me how scary the idea of a social compact is to my fellow Americans. We can be the best people in the world until someone dares to suggest that maybe having such a standard of decency should in some limited cases be compulsory, and the result is always that a handful of fools get to ruin things for everyone else.

We do have some stinker ebike laws but for the most part it's not really enforced except in the dense part of the coasts.

"We have some bad laws but they are mostly enforced where most people live" is probably not a good sign for how things are going and will go.

Nonetheless if you ride respectfully and pedal, the chance of you having a problem in most areas is basically nil.

This is probably true, especially if your bike looks very "bike" like.

 

[RunForTheHills]

New Jersey passed the law and the outgoing governor signed it. I don't think it is unconstitutional either. Our system isn't perfect. The majority of people in the US drive cars and have very little tolerance for sharing the road with any kind of bicycle. We are definitely in the minority. This law won't get the Surrons off the road because they are already illegal in most places. Enforcement will get them off the road and Surrons are getting confiscated in some communities. The New Jersey law needs to be repealed, but time will tell if e-bikes are now popular enough and e-bike owners are vocal enough to lobby their representatives and get the law changed. It is currently unenforceable because bicycles do not have VIN numbers and there is no insurance company writing the kind of policy they are requiring e-bike owners to buy. Or if they do enforce it after the grace period, assuming they can't fix those problems, then it will just have the affect of banning all e-bikes.

 

[neptronix]

I'm not writing about what the law says. I'm writing about what you said, when you signed your iicense.
You said it. So do it.

I said no such thing about what i would do with my bicycle.

The actual point, as I understand it, is that you and I are a part of a society, whether we like it or not, and that society has rules, whether we like them or not, and that when we use the group's space and resources we are making an implied contract with everyone else to do so respectfully.

You won't get any disagreement from me on this, i advocate for being respectful to others on a bike at all times.

This is sensible until one's pride and joy gets confiscated and destroyed. I think your stealth approach has more merit, particularly if it's one's sole means of transportation.

I often wonder what will happen if some over-eager cop sees the thick hub of a Rohloff or other IGH and thinks it's a hub motor and won't take "you're wrong" for an answer.

See, i have never once been worried about this.
Here's my closest encounters since 2011:
- once i was testing out a very high power ebike that had no pedals at the time. At a stop light, a cop rolled down the window and made a joke about me being lance armstrong.
- once i was climbing a hill at 40mph in the bike lane while pedaling. cop took a pause but decided to not bother me.

There are also numerous high power gas and electric powered bikes in my area. I see and hear them on trails. 99.9% of people ride respectfully here.

We have just as restrictive as laws on the books as anyone else here, but no actual enforcement, except imagine that in the most extreme cases, maybe someone's been busted here downtown for something very unhinged.

It will never stop disappointing me how scary the idea of a social compact is to my fellow Americans. We can be the best people in the world until someone dares to suggest that maybe having such a standard of decency should in some limited cases be compulsory, and the result is always that a handful of fools get to ruin things for everyone else.

Sometimes the social compact is dead wrong, in addition to the law. Many times the social compact is a result of the law.

USA has a long history of having citizens decide they are not putting up with crooked laws, resisting, and then winning.
Over 70% of the people who live here have have some noble lawbreaker to thank for becoming a big enough of a pain in the ass, that the laws and the social compact end up getting reworked.



This cultural thread goes back to out founding fathers, plus the fact that most of America's population is made up of people who got tired of being abused by their government or their society.

I'm saying that the law is unreasonable, unjust, and designed to force people to use cars for transportation by making the maximum ebike speed lower than the average road speed.

This is a consistent thread with the law; for example, in NYC, due to the density, you have very low road traffic speeds. A legal ebike could keep up with those speeds in the road. But recently they lowered the maximum ebike speed even more, essentially to force ebikes off the road.

In fact in NYC the govt does a number of things to screw even pedal bicyclists over in the same way. You get continually forced into situations where you could get fined and don't have a legal alternative. Casey Neistat has published a number of videos on this.

There are so many cases in the USA where the law as written is designed to prevent people from using efficient transport for anything other than sporting purposes. You'd think that the oil companies write them.

Here in Utah, the infrastructure for pedal bicycles is mostly non existent. You will continually be forced into a car lane, a dirt road, or the sidewalk while riding, and bike lanes appear and disappear with no rhyme or reason. The sidewalk part is illegal. The part where you are in a car lane creating a road hazard, strangely, is not.

That makes everyone who rides a pedal bike a sufficient distance a lawbreaker.

I have a fast ebike for these scenarios where i am forced into the road with no other option. This is for safety. In the bike lane, i typically ride legal ebike speeds or below.

I think these laws are unjust, oppressive, and very poorly thought out. If i don't have to follow them because they aren't enforced, i won't.

And there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is operating your vehicle in a reckless way, and harming others as a result.
..but we already have laws for that, so..

 

[dgc]

I'm UK-based and find the laws revolving around e-bikes ill-thought-out.

"what isn't fine is having 10-15 years olds on 100kph surrons without license registration and insurance driving around without knowing basic traffic laws."

I totally agree, but what the authorities in the UK have done is tarred all ebike users with the same brush, these laws need a massive overhaul. In my case & many others I find this degrading.
I've had a full bike licence for 45-50yrs, I can buy a motorbike that can do 200mph, but ebike wise I'm limited to 15mph....!!!

In my opinion the way forward, as mentioned above, will be to have bike licences for e-bikes that are over the 15 mph limit along with the relevant insurance.

I've written to my local MP about this, but as usual you get a muted response; it's certainly not liebours top priority, so the problem will go on.

What makes me smile is kids riding around the streets on adult e-scooters with 350 - 750w motors, one kid had to stretch to reach the handlebars.

 

[harrisonpatm]

Many of our laws are bad and dumb. That does not make them not laws. We can argue about civil disobedience or difficulties with enforcement but I think it's counterproductive for our community to focus our outrage on "they have no right to do this" instead of "they are using their power and authority badly and it will hurt us and we should do X, Y, and Z to both reverse the damage and to prevent future copycats".

I agree with this and the general principle of "social contract" the most in this thread.

I think these laws are unjust, oppressive, and very poorly thought out. If i don't have to follow them because they aren't enforced, i won't.

@neptronix , if they start getting enforced, hypothetically, what would your response be?

 

[vklurk]

What makes me smile is kids riding around the streets on adult e-scooters with 350 - 750w motors, one kid had to stretch to reach the handlebars.

I probably should have a safety fret - I'm sure the lawmakers of New Jersey would like that - but heck, that image is adorable.

Tbh, I am in no way convinced of the "kids have no business on ebikes" argument as an absolute. A very small motor, imagine a "class 0.5" on a kids utility ebike could be a great way to get kids more autonomy and outdoor time, which are real issues in our society.

New Jersey passed the law and the outgoing governor signed it. I don't think it is unconstitutional either. Our system isn't perfect. The majority of people in the US drive cars and have very little tolerance for sharing the road with any kind of bicycle.

Tragically true, and while I overall hate this law I have read that it preempts efforts of some towns and counties to do complete ebike bans, which is nice.

The New Jersey law needs to be repealed, but time will tell if e-bikes are now popular enough and e-bike owners are vocal enough to lobby their representatives and get the law changed. It is currently unenforceable because bicycles do not have VIN numbers and there is no insurance company writing the kind of policy they are requiring e-bike owners to buy. Or if they do enforce it after the grace period, assuming they can't fix those problems, then it will just have the affect of banning all e-bikes.

This is sort of what I'm getting at about being proactive. Setting my outrage and fear of overregulation to the side - since it's clear regulation is coming - I am genuinely unsure if the best approach for us would be to try to attack the new law, or to reform it. It's not like the three-class system is some sort of holy thing, and there are plenty of issues we in the electric bike space have with it already.

To whit: maybe it would work better to try and carve-out class 1s, or to push for a registration system that is effectively nominal, just a verification that the bike is in fact a class 1 and no DOT helmet is required, vs. trying to get the thing repealed. If we frame it as helping, since after all ebikes have no VIN number, maybe we can get some control over things.

In my own state I am thoughtful about whether we should consider trying to carve out further protections for and distinctions between class 1 and 2. I like a throttle myself - it's helpful if you obey stop signs and are bad about shifting - but it's clear the presence of a throttle tends to change a lot of behavior. Maybe if we want to keep the existing structure, we should demand tighter legal definitions on what a bicycle is, electric or no. So we can keep throttles but the pedals need to be not only connected to the drivetrain, but actually working, which a lot of the e-motos don't really do.

I said no such thing about what i would do with my bicycle.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I will ask you this question: if you found out that someone got drunk before operating their private yacht, or flying their private plane, wouldn't you at least worry about them on the road? There is an argument for character and decision-making.

I think bicycles should be given a lot more leeway both because the dangers are mostly to the rider and because access to some form of transportation is and should be a right - whether or not in law, than certainly in morality. I don't actually think would unreasonable for the government to put points on a license or whatever if someone behaves truly egregiously on their bike in a way that injures others, but I think as a matter of law you're probably correct at least here in the states.

You won't get any disagreement from me on this, i advocate for being respectful to others on a bike at all times.

See, i have never once been worried about this.
Here's my closest encounters since 2011:
- once i was testing out a very high power ebike that had no pedals at the time. At a stop light, a cop rolled down the window and made a joke about me being lance armstrong.
- once i was climbing a hill at 40mph in the bike lane while pedaling. cop took a pause but decided to not bother me.

There are also numerous high power gas and electric powered bikes in my area. I see and hear them on trails. 99.9% of people ride respectfully here.

Absolutely, if I ride on a shared path or the sidewalk I always think of myself as a guest, and I find that makes most interactions quite positive. That said, there's always that one kid eager to remind teacher to assign homework - or, to use a more apt metaphor, the one person fond of writing the HOA.

We have just as restrictive as laws on the books as anyone else here, but no actual enforcement, except imagine that in the most extreme cases, maybe someone's been busted here downtown for something very unhinged.

My concerns with relying on non-enforcement are just two: the first, that you're also more likely to draw enforcement if you're a certain type of person, and that can really suck (as your reference to segregation illustrates); and the second, which is the voice in my mind that asks "what will the other guy's lawyer make of this if I get hit and hurt".

I'm saying that the law is unreasonable, unjust, and designed to force people to use cars for transportation by making the maximum ebike speed lower than the average road speed.

I agree that the law is unreasonable and unjust, and I agree it's designed to force people to use cars. I kinda think that high speed is the real enemy, though? Like at some point a cycle that keeps up with the road speed is just a motorcycle. To me, the moral argument for ebikes is that it's perfectly legal for Lance Armstrong to put out 1000 watts and ride on the road, and it should be legal for me to have a system that gets me to Lance's level, so that I can also enjoy the benefits of active transportation despite living in a semi-rural area.

This is a consistent thread with the law; for example, in NYC, due to the density, you have very low road traffic speeds. A legal ebike could keep up with those speeds in the road. But recently they lowered the maximum ebike speed even more, essentially to force ebikes off the road.

That's an interesting argument, though most cyclists would kill for bike lanes as numerous and high quality as NYCs. That's damning with faint praise, I know, but praise it remains. I do think both this law and NJ are a reminder of this curiously American dynamic of hating and resenting service workers: we want our DoorDash but boy do we not want to share the road with them.

In fact in NYC the govt does a number of things to screw even pedal bicyclists over in the same way. You get continually forced into situations where you could get fined and don't have a legal alternative. Casey Neistat has published a number of videos on this.

Thank you for the video - I haven't watched yet, but I will. I do know that the NYPD is a notoriously bad department on cycling.

There are so many cases in the USA where the law as written is designed to prevent people from using efficient transport for anything other than sporting purposes.

Amen!

Here in Utah, the infrastructure for pedal bicycles is mostly non existent. You will continually be forced into a car lane, a dirt road, or the sidewalk while riding, and bike lanes appear and disappear with no rhyme or reason. The sidewalk part is illegal. The part where you are in a car lane creating a road hazard, strangely, is not.

That makes everyone who rides a pedal bike a sufficient distance a lawbreaker.

I have a fast ebike for these scenarios where i am forced into the road with no other option. This is for safety. In the bike lane, i typically ride legal ebike speeds or below.

I do this too, and part of the reason I despair so at the Surrons of the world is they've taken the little loophole that people like you and I were using responsibly and blown it wide open and created a mess that is more likely to draw scrutiny to us. It's frustrating to be following the spirit, if not the letter, and to be making a good-faith effort to behave well and to see it under threat because of a bunch of clowns with ugly-ass dirt bikes.

I think these laws are unjust, oppressive, and very poorly thought out. If i don't have to follow them because they aren't enforced, i won't.

And there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is operating your vehicle in a reckless way, and harming others as a result.
..but we already have laws for that, so..

I agree with all of this, and I hope you are successful.

 

[The Toecutter]

What makes me smile is kids riding around the streets on adult e-scooters with 350 - 750w motors, one kid had to stretch to reach the handlebars.

Where I live, the kids ride unregistered dirt bikes, ATVs, motorcycles, go-karts, and fast Surron-style ebikes in the street. Often the kids are armed, too. And I wouldn't have it any other way. They need to get around somehow because these streets are dangerous(higher recorded homicide rate than the favelas of Rio De Janeiro), public transit is a joke, and their parents are often too poor to afford to operate cars. And because of repeated incidents of police brutality and corruption, people often like to shoot the police without regard for legal consequences, so unless a helicopter can be called out the police generally leave them be because they know people aren't just going to meekly comply with police orders! It's far from an ideal situation, but it isn't entirely unpredictable or unjustified either. You'd think this was a 3rd world country, but nope, this is right here in America's heartland. I've posted photos of the area:

Some pics of a ride around my neighborhood

Although my vehicles are well capable of exceeding the 28 mph/750W class 3 limit(and in the case of the velomobiles, even with the motor disabled purely using leg power), I often cruise around 28 mph anyway. I'll turn the limiter off when I have the road to myself and no one is looking. Before class 1/2/3 was enacted into law, I used to cruise 45 mph on state highways with electric assist and there was nothing the cops could do. The new law didn't magically make exceeding 28 mph any more dangerous for me or others than before the law was passed, and abiding by it actually makes things more dangerous for everyone because the speed limit is often 45 mph when the car traffic wants to do 50-60 mph.

 

[dgc]

One problem there is a lot of people who have common sense when riding around then you have the ones with no sense, no idea or do not care.

 

[neptronix]

@neptronix , if they start getting enforced, hypothetically, what would your response be?

Why pay taxes to someone who oppresses me over such a small thing? Firstly i wouldn't live in a place like that to begin with.
If that fails, i'd lose all interest in electric bikes, become less healthy due to less physical activity, and build an e-scooter.

I agree that the law is unreasonable and unjust, and I agree it's designed to force people to use cars. I kinda think that high speed is the real enemy, though? Like at some point a cycle that keeps up with the road speed is just a motorcycle. To me, the moral argument for ebikes is that it's perfectly legal for Lance Armstrong to put out 1000 watts and ride on the road, and it should be legal for me to have a system that gets me to Lance's level, so that I can also enjoy the benefits of active transportation despite living in a semi-rural area.

At what point do we become a motorcycle?

All my ebikes are designed to do a little above 35mph. That is the minimum road speed on 90% of the roads. The capability to take the road means that when a bike lane disappears without warning, i can flow with traffic. I can also get from point A to B with little adjustment to the route.

Speed kills. But in the era of the unattentive driver on their cell phone, speed differential is just as dangerous. Drivers are expecting the things around them to be moving at approximately the same speed since they looked down at their cell phone. And generally that's true until we throw a faster or slower moving vehicle into the mixture. And that's a major ingredient in how road pizza is made.

Otherwise i tend to travel at 25-28mph when given a bike lane. That is a nice speed if you are not in a rush and you can still contribute an OK % to the power with your legs.

What i am describing is a hybrid of moped and pedalbike use.

I think of a motorycle as:
- it has a motorcycle chassis
- no pedals
- no bike parts whatsoever
- designed for mid ( 30-50mph ) to high ( 60-150mph ) speeds
- has a clear legal requirement to register and insure it

I do this too, and part of the reason I despair so at the Surrons of the world is they've taken the little loophole that people like you and I were using responsibly and blown it wide open and created a mess that is more likely to draw scrutiny to us. It's frustrating to be following the spirit, if not the letter, and to be making a good-faith effort to behave well and to see it under threat because of a bunch of clowns with ugly-ass dirt bikes.

These kinds of vehicles have the shape, intended use case, capabilities, and function of a motorcycle.
Any lawmaker attempting to cross associate ebikes with emotorcycles is in the wrong.

 

[neptronix]

Toecutter, i see your perspective better now, having seen those pics.
I would consider that an anarchy zone.
I would definitely strap up and also have a vehicle capable of fleeing hoodrats if i lived out there.

My part of Utah is an anarchy zone but it is a nice one. I just have awful infrastructure to deal with.

Before class 1/2/3 was enacted into law, I used to cruise 45 mph on state highways with electric assist and there was nothing the cops could do. The new law didn't magically make exceeding 28 mph any more dangerous for me or others than before the law was passed, and abiding by it actually makes things more dangerous for everyone because the speed limit is often 45 mph when the car traffic wants to do 50-60 mph.

Damn, you have it more difficult than me.
I can wind through residential areas, and manage to stay below 35.

The primary reason i don't want to go too fast is that i've already been flung off an ebike at 20mph. If i could not reliably find 35mph and under roads, i'm forced off a fast ebike until i can figure out some way to make it safer in the event of a crash.

 

[RunForTheHills]

We are getting a little off topic, but honestly, my strategy is to avoid cars not try to keep up with them. I pick a route to where I am going to avoid traffic as much as possible. And if I can take a MUP, I do even if I have to ride 15mph and get there a little slower. The fatality rate for motorcycles is 31.39 per 100 million vehicle miles or 28 times that of cars. It is a fallacy to believe that speed will make you safe. Motorcycles are not safe.

 

[TPEHAK]

Speed might not make us safe, mut it makes us safer. Limiting the ebike power and speed makes us less safe.

 

[vklurk]

Speed might not make us safe, mut it makes us safer. Limiting the ebike power and speed makes us less safe.

Why? You've just been given clear evidence to the contrary. Just because it feels safe to keep up with traffic doesn't mean it is. Driving feels safer than flying, but the numbers are unambiguous on which is the more deadly.