Hacker News Reader

Comment by kibibyte | Hacker News Reader

They're basically regular bikes, but with an electric motor that helps you with pedaling. Unlike a moped or motorcycle, you still need to pedal an e-bike to get it moving.

The Jump bikes in SF use 250W motors, which, when going uphill, is similar to having an extra person helping you pedal.

People should be a little more careful on these because these bikes can go pretty fast. That said, from my own experience using Jump bikes in SF, people on road bikes still zoom by me regularly on streets.

View on HN

Yeah I get that but where is the line? Can I put a 10hp electric motor on a bicycle and ride it through a park? If so why can't I do that with a small gas motor? Are there actual regulations on this? If they go fast enough that people "need to be careful" where is the line where we ask them to prove they can be careful?

In Seattle you have to wear seatbelts in cars and helmets on motorcycles and bicycles. In the case of bike shares and e-bikes we seem to just ignore those rules. If we can ignore them in one case why not ignore them in all cases?

It strikes me as a double standard that benefits venture capitalists more than the public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle#Legal_status

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle_laws#United_S...

CPSC rules stipulate that low speed electric bicycles are exempt from classification as motor vehicles providing they have fully operable pedals, an electric motor of less than 750W (1 hp), and a top motor-powered speed of less than 20 miles per hour (32 km/h) when operated by a rider weighing 170 pounds

Huh, have to say I'm a bit embarrassed I didn't look that up myself. Thanks for taking the time.

No, you can't. The bike has to be "electric pedal assist" to be street legal. That means it requires more attention and physical effort from the rider than a throttled vehicle. The engines aren't very powerful and the speeds are capped at 20 mph or below.

You're right that Seattle should've taken the time to actually repeal the helmet law. Your comparison of riding helmetless while cycling compared to a motor cycle is a bit much though don't you think? Seat belt laws have much stronger evidence in their favor. Helmet laws are not a panacea for cycling safety and could actually be harmful to both cyclists and to the general population.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/06/02/why-helmets-arent-the...

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/11/10/more-evidence-that-he...

This anti VC angle you're taking is bizarre. How does increased access to transportation not benefit the public?

I’m not anti-VC but if you have followed the development of bike share in Seattle it seems to be more about making businesses work than about making transit work. My problem also has to do with the selective enforcement of the helmet law to enrich investors.

I don’t mind if investors make money. I mind when they circumvent our laws and endanger the public to do so.

I also admit to some ignorance about e-bikes which has now been cleared up by you and sibling commenters.

My comparison to motorcycle helmet laws and seat belt laws was just to reinforce that if we are going to selectively enforce the bicycle helmet law we should just repeal it because it’s clearly not as important as motorcycle helmets or car seat belts.

Point taken. There should not be a double standard. City legislators need to have the spine to change the law.

I have been following the story of bike share in Seattle. It's a shame that Pronto and Motivate lost the contract.

Did you catch the part where the city council member that wanted to bail out Pronto was an investor in Pronto? Fun times.

Indeed. Bike share schemes don't need to be publicly funded if run properly. Citi Bike has been a huge success in NYC without taking a dime from taxpayers. Perhaps an ebike system would have been more economically viable in a hilly city like Seattle.

LimeBike is rolling them out so we will see!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com