Can Electric Bikes Ever Go Legal?
nymag.com
nymag.com
E-bikes are a practical and cost-effective electric vehicle for the urban masses. The batteries are usually removable and can be charged in an apartment or office. They take up very little room on the road and parked. Replacing a car with an e-bike is a huge win.
E-bikes are a mature product due to the fact that you can't get a license for gas scooters in cities in China, and they have already gone through several product generations in China. They would be a huge improvement over the prevalence of gas scooters in some cities.
I hope they become mainstream in American cities. E-bikes are the best chance for bicycles to become mainstream in city traffic. If they do become a significant part of traffic, they will have a large positive effect on safety for all cyclists.
They take up very little room on the road and parked.
This is my problem. I do not find this to be the case at all. They are becoming more popular in my city, and the people riding them seem to feel the need to take up an entire traffic lane with their bike.
Since these bikes are generally not as fast as a car, and do not accelerate as quickly they end up being a large nuisance to the traffic system and actually prevent things from running smoothly.
In the UK, the highway code indicates that if you're overtaking a bicycle, you should in fact leave as much room as if it was a car; that is, what you're complaining about is intentional in the UK.
I know that many cyclists (in other countries as well) deliberately take up the entire lane for their own safety.
Even if the lane is safe, often times drivers will completely ignore you, blinking safety lights or not. Once, I kindly took the edge of an uphill slope, no bike lane. On my right, parked cars. On my left, cars going up the slope. Half way up the hill, a car literally pressed me up against the parked cars to my right, while in motion. My right leg was forced against the parked cars, my left against his. I could have reached into his window and turned the wheel for him, he was so close. Its the day someone not paying attention almost killed me. I took the lane on that road from then on.
If someone is in the lane, its for a reason. I know it can be a nuisance, but an unsafe biking environment means no one bikes, which means more cars are on the road, which means you'll be more inconvenienced in the long run by worse traffic.
Cycling in the middle of a lane is not dangerous (although annoying to drivers.) Making a swerve into the middle of the lane without checking for overtaking traffic is very dangerous, and is the usual cause of cyclists getting hit from behind.
Cycling around my city in the South, where people tend to think bicycles belong on the sidewalk, the only way I can ensure my safety is to aggressively take the entire lane. It is when I pedal sheepishly on the furthest third of the lane that I have the most issue with cars trying to squeeze past me in an unsafe manner.
I try not to be unreasonable, though. In a one-lane road I will gladly work with the cars behind me and let them pass whenever the distance allows. But two lanes or more? I'm going to err on the side of my own safety and take the lane, as is my legal right as a street vehicle.
Well, where I live bikes must follow the same traffic rules as cars when on the road, so they're entitled to a lane and you deal with it. Thankfully though, we also have many dedicated bike paths which enable commuting from nearly any part of the city, so the only place you ever really encounter cyclists is downtown, where most of them are capable of reaching the speed limit quite easily...
Care to adjust this statement?:
> I do not find this to be the case at all.
I'm a regular bike commuter and bike through Brooklyn and Manhattan daily. While I'm no angel, I tend to follow major traffic laws.
Most of the electric bikes you see on the street are ridden by delivery drivers, who — rightly or wrongly — have gained a reputation for disregarding laws, riding the wrong way on one-way streets, and being a menace to other bicyclists and pedestrians. For New Yorkers, I think this means that electric bicycles have become associated with reckless behavior and a general safety hazard.
But it's still just an assisted bicycle. Before electrical bikes, we had assisted bicycles with a small two-stroke combustion engine, the Spartamet [0]. These were iirc registered in a separate category, 'snorfietsen', which is a class lower than mopeds (TIL those would be called 'mopas') [1], or basically, 'assisted bicycles'. These do need to have an insurance registration plate (number plate) and some visual indications, but a helmet is not required.
[0] http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartamet (Dutch, no English version yet) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped
Depends on the country. In the EU, it can only be assistance (the user must be pedaling at all times), it must cut-off completely at 25km/h and the engine can not produce more than 250W, but that's not the case everywhere.
IIRC, the UK has a lower power output (200W) but allows power-on-demand, and in the US the top speed is 32km/h (20mph), up to 750W, and and AFAIK they don't require pedaling either.
The 25km/h and 250w limit is what is preventing me from getting one. I don't really see the point when I can reach that with human energy.
That is, in fact, exactly the point.
That is why they are bicycles, not electric mopeds or scooters. The point is to do the same thing you could do before on your own, except with less sweat and fatigue through electrical assistance.
Is there actually any evidence of this? Anyone have any links or details about increased rates of accidents, etc. having to do with e-bikes?
I can accept the premise if there's data supporting it. Otherwise this sounds suspiciously like "This sounds different/risky, therefore I don't like it."
This is something that'll be tackled as soon as electric cars start being common place, though.
J-walking is illegal in NYC as far as I know.
Shoes don't jaywalk, people jaywalk...
Hence: shoes are legal.
Edit: For example, riders of a motorcycle or moped must carry insurance and wear a helmet. Anything over 50cc and you need to pass a training course to teach the rules of the road and basic manoeuvres. Cyclists do not need to pass anything (or pay vehicle tax...). I'm unsure about my opinion on making human powered vehicles abide by licensing/insurance requirements, but powered vehicles really should do.
In Finland a bicycle must be equipped with (among other things) two reflectors on each pedal, on the front face as well as on back. Unless it's daylight and the bike weighs less than 10 kilos and has at least N (can't remember the exact number) gears.
My bike is a fixed gear and I use clipless pedals. Even if it were technically feasible to mount reflectors on the pedals, it'd be pointless because the shoe snaps on to the pedal, hiding it almost entirely.
My bike is therefore illegal.
> You can use a hand-operated throttle or, on higher-end
> models, a power-assist function that kicks on the
> electric motor when you start turning the pedals.
(Also, maybe the maximum wattage of power assistance should be capped to keep it within the range possible from healthy humans.)
US fed law allows power-on-demand, 32km/h (20mph) and 750W blocks. That's closer to a slow scooter than a bike.
Are the EU regulations good at bringing power-assist bicycles back into the normal operating rages for regular bicycles? Or is rider behavior still very different?
I can kinda see where it might be a problem in NYC because it is really easy to overvolt electric bikes, a 20-25mph model can become a 30+ mph flying machine that never gets tired.
But why not allow electric assisted 3-wheel vending carts? Or electric 3-wheel taxis.
It's not that people cannot judge speed, but there seems to be an uncertainty principle at play that is created by the assumptions of the person.
The key assumption is: "It's a bicycle and therefore moving at barely above walking speed.".
So the 50ms glance is not repeated and no actual attempt is made to assess the speed (and direction - must be the predictable one parallel to the road!) of the cyclist.
Using lights changes this.
By making oneself more visible, even in bright daylight, to the point that the light catches the attention. Then the person looking will look for a longer period of time and get a sense of speed and direction.
It's important not to use flashing lights as people tend to be crap at determining your location accurately and that throws off any calculation about speed and direction.
As a cyclist the effect is very noticeable. Cars no longer pull out from side roads in my line of travel, and pedestrians wait where they previously would've thrown themselves into the road.
I don't see why NY couldn't just mandate that all electric-assist bicycles be fitted with non-flashing lamps that must be permanently lit whilst the electric assist is activated.
It is possible to, you know, perceive speed. It happens when people hit and catch balls in sports. This is a criticism of people, not your idea.
What does the data say, I wonder? All I've seen here on HN are anecdotes. There is research supporting lights aiding visibility in cars. Are there numbers for the increased risk with electric bikes?
The problem isn't that people don't know how to judge speed, it's that judging the speed of something moving directly at you is very hard.
The size of the object doesn't change until it's pretty much right upon you, and the cyclists tend to blend into chaotic backgrounds, making them nearly invisible. Having something that doesn't move as you expect it to makes it even harder.
These things should be registered like any other motorized vehicle and have a license plate.
Punish the crime of running people down, not of people wanting an alternative form of transport.
Also, I'm dubious that the purported problem is a big enough problem to society that it outweighs the benefit (healthier populace, reduced traffic, reduce pollution).
Do you plate requirements also apply to rollerbladers? They go at least as fast, don't even have brakes, and are much more likely to be found up on the sidewalk than any electric bike will ever be (sidewalks are annoying, they're full of these obstacles called pedestrians - much better to ride on the road where the obstacles move faster than you for the most part).
All I knew was that it was a blue sports car with a white dude, probably a Camaro. But a bystander was able to jot down most of the license plate, and the police found the guy. Because it was an accident, my parents health insurance wouldn't cover the ER visit, but the guy's auto insurance company did.
If this happened to you today, and you were hit by an unregistered vehicle, it's far more likely that the operator will get away. There's no license plate, and it's much more difficult for the cops to find a bike than a car. And there's no insurance, so accident liability is a bigger issue as well.
As you pointed out, you need to draw the line somewhere, I'm not sure where that line lies.
I think NYC law here is seriously misguided
Ebikes (limited to 20 mph) aren't usually the fastest bikes on the road
Anecdotally, I am a reasonably fast commuter cyclist and have been passed by ebikes many times. I have overtaken an ebike exactly never.
My experience is as an ebike rider on a long flat bike trail; while I did pass 90%+, I also couldn't keep up with many serious cyclists.
I still think NYC's push to keep them outlawed is ridiculous and counterproductive.
But my model is like 5 years old.
I saw a modern electric bike the other day and you'd never know, except the person is going as fast as Armstrong on steroids without breaking a sweat.
Apparently they have new brushless motors that fit into the rear hubs that can do 30+ mph. Beyond that it is only a wind resistance problem. There are hobbyists with 50mph electric bicycles which sounds crazy.
Public Law 107-319 defined "low-speed electrical vehicles" and altered the motor vehicle safety standards to make these low-speed vehicles not considered motor vehicles. Low-speed electrical vehicles are defined as:
1. two- or three-wheeled
2. fully operable pedals
3. less than 750 watts (1hp)
4. maximum speed (power-on-demand) of 20mph on a level surface with a rider of 170 pounds
If it goes at 50mph, it's an electric motorcycle.
The selling point for me (or rather, why I built it) is that I can do my 40 mile round trip every day of the week. If I try to use my road bike alone I am burning 2+ hours a day commuting and fatiguing before the end of the week.
I will say, this thing would be lethal in the city. I commute on country roads and probably the single most important point - it's safer.
My motercycle is the safest, cars do not pass me, reduced 'collision opportunity'. My road bike is my most dangerous mode of transport. Cars constantly pass me as I do 20mph. Either cutting right in front of me or veering way to far out.
The ebike is somewhere in between and I have not been fitter since starting to use it.
I'm not touching the legality debate with a barge poll.
The one I saw was way smaller than that. Must be some kind of motor evolution.
The problem with going that fast is you better be looking way in front of you because things come up fast.
It also appears you do not have disc brakes which is dangerous not to have at those speeds.
Not necessarily.
> why not just require that the peddles turn at a speed proportional to the power output of the motor?
EU laws require exactly that, and that's what the "pedelec" sub-category of e-bikes do: pedaling assistance rather than power-on-demand (note: there's also the s-pedelec sub-category, which also only does assist but has a more powerful engine and maximum assisted speed than allowed for the "bicycle" status in the EU, they are thus classified as mopeds if not motorcycles)
Not necessarily. Depends if its a pedelec or if it has power-on-demand. In the first case, it can only do assistance while the user is pedaling. It is a less tiring bike. In the latter, it is a slow moped (the pedals should remain functional at all time, so you can use it as a bike if it's out of batteries).
> Doesn't an e-bike defeat the purpose of a bike?
Not if you consider the purpose of a bike to be moving around.