Thoughts? Ebike ticketed/conviction upheld (Canada)
- Thread starter zuora
- Start date
I bet there were some people who said if it doesn't look like this:
Then it's not a bicycle and should be illegal, because it's GOT to look like we say it should.
2 equal size wheels and multiple gears? That's not a bicycle it's a cotton gin! No tax stamp either! You shall be banished to Sodom for using that devils device on the public thorofare.
Then it's not a bicycle and should be illegal, because it's GOT to look like we say it should.
2 equal size wheels and multiple gears? That's not a bicycle it's a cotton gin! No tax stamp either! You shall be banished to Sodom for using that devils device on the public thorofare.
markz
100 TW
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Tag+500+ebike&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upsbatterycenter.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F02%2F10181758.jpg
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-electric-scooter-regulations-1.5339070
Posted: Oct 28, 2019
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-electric-scooter-regulations-1.5339070
Posted: Oct 28, 2019
Lessss
1 MW
You should know that listed motor power ratings are virtually meaningless. What's a 500w motor, one that melts down at 501w? If it only gets 500w nominal out of the controller for all intents and purposes it's a 500w motor, at least as configured. It could be the size of a qs273, if it doesn't have the copper fill it can't handle the power. External size is a poor metric to judge by.
Now whether it's getting more than 500 or not is another story altogether.
Now whether it's getting more than 500 or not is another story altogether.
markz
100 TW
https://www.ebikes.ca/learn/power-ratings.html
Lessss
1 MW
yeah look to your S ratings for a true S1 500W S3 motor. That sucker isn't an S1 500W but more like a 3000W S1 as in it could easily handle 9000W at S3 without heating risk.
markz
100 TW
The motors have never been a matter of contention thus far to my knowledge, at least in North America. To date no-one has ever been pinched because their motor didn't melt down and fail when pushed past whatever legal limit was set decades ago. It shouldn't matter anyway. If the hardware powering it is only offering 250w, no one could ever claim it was anything more and get a conviction.
Just because your stock Civic can dyno at 500hp with a 400 shot of nitrous and race gas doesn't mean it has a 500hp motor if you never installed the bottle and are running regular.
Just because your stock Civic can dyno at 500hp with a 400 shot of nitrous and race gas doesn't mean it has a 500hp motor if you never installed the bottle and are running regular.
amberwolf said:
I wouldn't like that. Why have a torque sensor, if you need to do some kind of cadence jump start? According to my reading of the CA 3.1 manual, there's a torque mode with a configurable start level. But that's in "HWatts", which if that means something like "Watts", if I remember my elementary physics means you would indeed have to be moving the crank ... but doesn't the torque sensor measure Force, not Power? Anyway, assuming there are controllers that support torque sensors as they're intended to be used, the BC regulations wouldn't appear to be a barrier as long as you have for example an e-brake that serves as a kill switch.
HK12K said:
Not here. On a level bicycle trail, we will for sure see some riders way in excess of 30kph (19mph), but where the multi-use trails around here have speed limits, it's usually 15mph (25kph), and I believe the majority run around 12-16mph. The fast crowd is naturally limited to more ambitious physical specimens, and speed in general is conditioned by grades etc.
When you put motor powered bicycles in the mix, what changes is not the maximum speed anyone can go - that's what happens when anyone goes down a steep hill - but the routine traveling speed of anyone with one of those bicycles, and that's less sensitive to grades, stop/start effort etc. So where human powered bicycles operate a wide range of speeds, the electric motors need a pretty conservative limit if they are going to behave like traditional bicycles. It might not matter, if they were always out on the road, but since as bicycles they're allowed to use multi-use trails etc., they have to be like bicycles.
So because one didn't earn the physical conditioning to travel at above average pace they should be disallowed from riding at even a snails pace whenever the path points slightly uphill. Gotcha.
If a car can go 100mph is it then inherently unsafe to operate in a school zone at the speed limit? No, of course not, you slow down and drive as the circumstance dictates. My bike is comfortable at both road speeds as well as walking speeds. It's up to me to use it responsibly. Frankly I've got a better chance of riding like a civilized person than most of the pedal commuters and lycra warriors who absolutely positively must maintain momentum at all times and ride around pedestrians as if they were cones in a slalom. It doesn't kill me to stop and go like it seems to do to them whenever a red light or stop sign pops up ahead either. Point being I'm probably a safer cyclist than many of them are, for myself and others around us as well.
If a car can go 100mph is it then inherently unsafe to operate in a school zone at the speed limit? No, of course not, you slow down and drive as the circumstance dictates. My bike is comfortable at both road speeds as well as walking speeds. It's up to me to use it responsibly. Frankly I've got a better chance of riding like a civilized person than most of the pedal commuters and lycra warriors who absolutely positively must maintain momentum at all times and ride around pedestrians as if they were cones in a slalom. It doesn't kill me to stop and go like it seems to do to them whenever a red light or stop sign pops up ahead either. Point being I'm probably a safer cyclist than many of them are, for myself and others around us as well.
That's how I feel.donn said:
There was a non-public version I was told about by Grin, but which I know of no way to get hold of, that did implement this, but it has never been put in a released version. So it *can* be done.
The one issue with this type of setup, is that if you happen to stand on the pedals at a stop waiting to go (like some trackstand maneuvers can be), you could with some sensors initiate unintended motor start, potentially at a high level if the sensor just detects distortion of the BB spindle from one side to the other. Easy to prevent by holding the ebrake, but the potential is there.
Same thing with some sensors if you climb on the bike by using one foot on a pedal even already at it's bottom downstroke.
Another issue is calibration--torque sensors in general don't stay at exactly the same zero reading, and some fluctuate quite a bit, so the potential for it to power on at a setting that starts the bike going already without being touched exists.*** Or for you to let off the pedals, but it to still think it's detecting torque, and fail to shut off the motor.****
So I can see where it wouldn't be a default mode, and should come with a warning. I can even see where it would be a mode that *requires* enabling it from the computer-side setup software, and is not available in the onscreen menus at all until then. But it should still be an option, for those of us that do need it.
***there is a way around that, and that's to calibrate it at powerup, just like other torque-based systems do, some of them by displaying a message to remove feet from pedals, then press a button, wait a second, and then it would be zeroed for the moment.
****there could also be a user-calibration like the throttle has, that provides a range of minimal torque sensing input that is classed as a deadzone, where no response will occur until output goes outside that range.
Yes, that is all basically how it works.
If you have a CA and torque sensor already, you can find out the minimum level of torque it requires on your system to start. There are ways to "trick" it into workign "better", but I haven't found a way that does it like I want it to. I would prefer pure torque up until some speed, and then cadence can take over. So, until that kind of mode is available, or I can make electronics to reroute and convert signals***** from the PAS/torque sensor, I live with the way I have it now.
***** basically it'd take the torque sensor signal itself and convert it into a throttle voltage, and then feed that into the Throttle In of the CAv3, and the torque sensor wouldn't even connect to the CA Torque sensor input at all. It would also implement both of the above *** and **** operations. The only practical way to do this is via an MCU, which I have very little idea how to program, which is why I haven't done any of this yet. (and I've been hoping Grin would release a CA version that does this so I won't have to
). The cadence sensor would also be routed to an input of the unit, and come unaltered from an output of the unit to the CA's cadence input, but the unit would mask that input except beyond whatever limit was set in it. FWIW, you can actually have a pure-torque system if you like, by creating something to make a pulsetrain into the CA's cadence input that "enables" the torque sensor all the time, and then setting up the CA so it's response is essentialy only based on the torque input level. Not sure what settings you'd need to do that, but it should be possible, based on some of the things discussed in the CAv3 beta thread with Teklektik and Justin_LE, etc., a few years back when I first started trying ot setup the trike for torque control.
HK12K said:
I don't think you "got" me, though to be honest I can't make any sense out of this. No one anywhere is "disallowed from riding at even a snails pace", whatever that would mean. Perhaps it doesn't warrant pursuing.
But that isn't how we regulate motor vehicle traffic. We post speed limits. In practice, those become lower limits - all traffic goes that fast or faster, within what they believe to be tolerated actual limits. In principle, we're supposed to reduce speed below the posted limits when conditions are suboptimal, but that rarely happens.
Bicycle traffic on the other hand is not subject to any speed limit on the multi-use trails in my jurisdiction. (Though the same trails are limited to 15mph in adjoining municipalities.) Cyclists travel at a wide variety of speeds, according to their ambition and physical condition.
So what about motor bicycles? The situation I just described reflects a significant intrinsic difference between human powered and motorized vehicles. When you can just twist a knob or something and go faster without any great exertion, you'll do it, every time. So we have a bunch of compromise alternatives, if we're going to have bicycles with motor. We can ban them from non-motorized multi-use trails and make them get out there with the cars. We can institute speed limits and start patrolling the multi-use trails. Or we can require the motors to be limited to some fairly moderate speed. It's annoying, I suppose, but at least it isn't as stupid as limiting the power rating.
This is why I liked the original AZ law, which simply required that the assisted bike be "operated at less than 20MPH", leaving everythign up to the operator just like any other form of transportation.
Sorry I misread what you said about the speeds people tend to ride in your area on MUP's and it all went sideways from there. I believe we're on the same page regarding unreasonable power limitations.
To keep things short, I'd rather see them institute a reasonable speed limit on MUP's and use the posted speed limit on surface streets rather than nerf the entire segment because some people might not be capable of behaving. Deal with the reckless but don't preemptively punish the rest of us would be my sentiment.
To keep things short, I'd rather see them institute a reasonable speed limit on MUP's and use the posted speed limit on surface streets rather than nerf the entire segment because some people might not be capable of behaving. Deal with the reckless but don't preemptively punish the rest of us would be my sentiment.
I like the simplicity, but this 20mph limit many areas seem to have settled on seems unnecessarily slow and arbitrary to me, especially when mingling with traffic. Pretty sure all of those people stuck lining up behind me on narrow 2 lane roads wished I were going faster, or dead, or just out of their way. :lol:amberwolf said:
Here we are again, at the "bicycle or motorcycle" grey area, this time on the other end.
The legislators that have to sort this out don't usually appear to be very sympathetic to any high performance ambitions, and that kind of makes sense because, again, they aren't crafting a full new regulatory framework for this mode. They're just making rules that allow them to call them bicycles. We're just lucky to have fairly loose constraints in the US, where it could easily have gone the way of England and Australia, limits that work for a typical rental ebike at most.
In a couple generations, we may have figured out how to accommodate light hybrid motor/human powered vehicles in the road network, and hopefully the whole business will make more sense.
The legislators that have to sort this out don't usually appear to be very sympathetic to any high performance ambitions, and that kind of makes sense because, again, they aren't crafting a full new regulatory framework for this mode. They're just making rules that allow them to call them bicycles. We're just lucky to have fairly loose constraints in the US, where it could easily have gone the way of England and Australia, limits that work for a typical rental ebike at most.
In a couple generations, we may have figured out how to accommodate light hybrid motor/human powered vehicles in the road network, and hopefully the whole business will make more sense.
I concur, they don't seem to look fondly upon high performance e-bikes. A distinction worth noting however is that the bike which spawned the thread, the XMR, is the polar opposite of a high performance bike. It looks like a mini sport bike, but that's about where the similarities end.
It's almost like charging someone with driving an illegal racecar on the street simply because their Smart Car has racing stripes.
Don't judge a book by it's cover. :wink:
It's almost like charging someone with driving an illegal racecar on the street simply because their Smart Car has racing stripes.
Don't judge a book by it's cover. :wink:
John in CR
100 TW
20mph just makes you a slow moving object that impedes traffic or is forced to the side for a far more dangerous ride. Posted speed limits should apply and since power limits apply to no other vehicles it is nonsense to single out electrics.
For the first time in history people are able to quite easily build their own reliable basic transportation tailored to meet their specific needs. Ebikes are a good thing and the world would be a better place if a significant percentage of people used them, so their use should not be discouraged by over-regulation. For some performance similar to HPV's is sufficient, but the majority of those already use bikes, so there's not much to gain. Of course high performance ebikes will need registration, insurance, etc as the market matures, but in the meantime don't let prejudiced people craft rules that discourage use and suppress innovation.
For the first time in history people are able to quite easily build their own reliable basic transportation tailored to meet their specific needs. Ebikes are a good thing and the world would be a better place if a significant percentage of people used them, so their use should not be discouraged by over-regulation. For some performance similar to HPV's is sufficient, but the majority of those already use bikes, so there's not much to gain. Of course high performance ebikes will need registration, insurance, etc as the market matures, but in the meantime don't let prejudiced people craft rules that discourage use and suppress innovation.
HK12K said:
No. But it’s illegal to do it without license, registration, and insurance.
I find it laughable, the mental acrobatics folks will resort to to avoid admitting that their mopeds and motorcycles have responsibilities attached.
They cannot be registered or insured at all here. Whatsoever. They're not classified as motor vehicles and don't fit the definition of a LSV (Low Speed Vehicle) either.
Who is harmed by allowing these things to be used as clean alternative transportation? No one. It's just the self serving among us who jump on the ban-it-bandwagon. Afraid that one day they'll lose their ability to skirt having to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars more per year in fees to satisfy some manufacturered legal requirement which serves no practical purpose aside from appeasing the whining minority who loudly complain.
Should old man McGillicuddy get his walker seized and a bunch of fines rammed up his ass too? It's got wheels and he's even using it on the sidewalk. It's not a bicycle. Or how about the disabled guy on the handicapped scooter driving in the bike lane? That's not a bike either. Is he really disabled or just lazy? Should we shove him off and make him crawl until he can prove it? Maybe give it back to him after he comes up with a couple grand in fines? I guess recumbents and velomobiles should be illegal as well while we're at it then, eh? They don't look anything like bicycles either and are both faster than you. Better lock them up!
The xmr has got 2 wheels, pedals, claimed 500w nominal, limited to 32. It fits within the definition of the law as written. It takes some impressive mental gymnastics to claim only you and your bike should be allowed.
Who is harmed by allowing these things to be used as clean alternative transportation? No one. It's just the self serving among us who jump on the ban-it-bandwagon. Afraid that one day they'll lose their ability to skirt having to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars more per year in fees to satisfy some manufacturered legal requirement which serves no practical purpose aside from appeasing the whining minority who loudly complain.
Should old man McGillicuddy get his walker seized and a bunch of fines rammed up his ass too? It's got wheels and he's even using it on the sidewalk. It's not a bicycle. Or how about the disabled guy on the handicapped scooter driving in the bike lane? That's not a bike either. Is he really disabled or just lazy? Should we shove him off and make him crawl until he can prove it? Maybe give it back to him after he comes up with a couple grand in fines? I guess recumbents and velomobiles should be illegal as well while we're at it then, eh? They don't look anything like bicycles either and are both faster than you. Better lock them up!
The xmr has got 2 wheels, pedals, claimed 500w nominal, limited to 32. It fits within the definition of the law as written. It takes some impressive mental gymnastics to claim only you and your bike should be allowed.
Lessss
1 MW
No it's those of us realising what these yahoo's are doing will eventually lead to more restrictions on actual ebike possibly even requiring insurance. They are going to frock it up for everyone.
