Comment by ralusek
4 years ago
> I'm not cool at all with basically motorbikes getting a free pass because they're disguised as bicycles
Why? Seems like a pointless distinction in regards to any sort of rules. Surely where they're allowed to operate, for example, should be based on things like speed and weight, rather than "whether or not the operator is moving their legs in a circular motion."
This. There's an element of snobbery often in this discussion where there's a disdain for people who haven't "worked for" the movement they're getting.
Which seems besides the point. The reason you can't ride a motorcycle in the bike lane isn't because you haven't worked hard enough to deserve it, it's because of the top speeds and mass of the vehicles presenting a danger to others in the lane. It's the same reason cars present such a danger to cyclists - the scale of kinetic energy going around is just too high.
I think fast e-bikes are a technologically interesting thing, but from a regulatory point of view I'm much more mixed. ~30 kph seems eminently reasonable for bike infrastructure, and I'm excited about the ability for that to displace car trips - both from a sustainability perspective and a road capacity perspective. Much faster than that though?
My ebike cuts out the assist around 32kph (20mph) but I apparently hit a max speed of 45kph (28mph) sometimes, so even faster than that must be easily achievable on a much lighter normal bike. So 30 seems too low for a general statement.
Yeah that argument for forcing pedaling to me seems like a way of gatekeeping to keep something a little more "pure" without any actual reason.
On a cargo bike carrying children in a hilly area the throttle is nearly essentially to safely get going from a stop and then to have pedaling take over.
I don't understand this comment. There are tons of non e cargo bikes. Are you saying they're unsafe to use? You could simply walk the bike if the terrain is too steep.
2 replies →
Speaking of gatekeeping...
A lot of people, adults in particular, appear to have an aversion to riding bicycles due to their inability to place both feet on the ground while seated (and I'm speaking here about the standard bicycle geometry, not recumbents, etc.).
It's too bad too because you would love to get more people out of large steel cars and into efficient e-bikes/scooters.
I wish we could lighten up a bit with regard to requiring pedals/pedalling and try saving the planet a little.
Absolutely agree, harping on the specific form of the vehicle rather than just enforcing reasonable safe speed limits for paths that everyone has to follow is maddening. I don't care if someone is more comfortable on a standup scooter, a pedal bike, a recumbent, or even a segway. Just lower the barrier of entry and get more people out and not in their cars.
Not really, without the pedals it's no longer a bicycle but a moped. We have e-mopeds already and there are plenty of rules for those.
Your views are colored by the laws you have dealt with, as are mine. Just because that is the law near you doesn't automatically mean that is the ideal way of regulating society. It is just what you are used to.
2 replies →
I just twigged from this thread that “moped” is motor+pedal.
Now I’m annoyed that in the UK we use “moped” for Vespa style scooters which have no pedals.
(I was already mildly annoyed that we use “scooter” for Vespa style vehicles which you sit on and are entirely motorised, when it really describes the variant skateboard with handlebars you stand on using one foot and ‘scoot’ along using the other foot for propulsion).
1 reply →
Read jacquesm's reply to my comment: there are people hacking their pedelec so that they accelerate without you pedaling and that's illegal. I think it's a good thing it's illegal. I do also believe only pedelec are allowed on bike lane in Belgium/Brussels.
A bicycle which you can use without using the pedals is, to me, not the definition of a bicycle.
> Surely where they're allowed to operate, for example, should be based on things like speed and weight, rather than "whether or not the operator is moving their legs in a circular motion."
speed / weight and acceleration. But I'm still not sure about that. Bicycle lanes were made, at first, for people cycling. In European cities it's part of an overall move to be "greener": what's green about a vehicle with can be used without doing any exercise at all? You basically took the ICE engine of a motorbike and put instead an electric motor.
KTM (motorbike company) is already in to e-bike game. These companies are going to come and game the system as much as they can if limits aren't set: they'll otherwise build ultra light full-carbon e-bike with crazy fast acceleration and the selling point is going to be "It's a motorbike you can use in a bicycle lane".
I do honestly think saying: "if you don't need to pedal at all, it's not a bicycle and hence cannot use the bicycle lanes" (like they're apparently doing in the Netherlands) ain't a bad rule.
> In European cities it's part of an overall move to be "greener": what's green about a vehicle with can be used without doing any exercise at all?
The "green" movement is about the environment, not exercise.
> You basically took the ICE engine of a motorbike and put instead an electric motor.
That's the "green" part. ICE is not "green". Electric is.
> A bicycle which you can use without using the pedals is, to me, not the definition of a bicycle.
My point is what difference does it make? Like I said, if you want to cap weight or speed, or maybe acceleration, within given areas, fine. But who cares whether or not you classify it as a "bicycle." If a person wants to exercise on their way to work or get there in a suit without having to shower, I don't care.
We do have scooters, it's just a different class of vehicle.
That and there are fixed maximum ratios between the pedal input and motor assist.
Why does it matter from a safety perspective if the locomotion is powered by a motor or a combination of a motor plus someone's legs?
(Or if it doesn't matter from a safety perspective, what's the practical need to legislate against it?)
4 replies →