Last September, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law SB-1271, which redefines and adds to several electric bicycle regulations in…
Perhaps an unpopular opinion but I think that if it has a throttle and goes faster than 15mph (25kph) then it belongs on the road with cars.
I find it so weird that some people are fine with vehicles going faster on bicycle lanes (and even worse with pavements for countries that allow that, which I also find weird, where is the pedestrian supposed to go in these cases ?). These fast vehicles make it so annoying and unsafe for other users.
I agree with you that if people want to go fast, well we already have roads for that.
Yeah, I don’t think anyone would be advocating for allowing gas powered mopeds traveling at 40kph (25mph) on the sidewalk but when it’s electric they somehow feel differently about it. Where ever we draw the line is going to be arbitrary but it needs to be drawn somewhere. I think 25kph (15mph) is a good limit as it’s about the speed you can comfortably maintain with an acoustic bike as well. Me plus the bike is around 120kg (250lbs). That’s a lot of energy hitting a pedestrian even at 15mph. It’ll definitely cripple a grandmom.
Yeah, I don’t think anyone would be advocating for allowing gas powered mopeds traveling at 40kph (25mph) on the sidewalk but when it’s electric they somehow feel differently about it.
I hear the gas powered moped coming.
Where ever we draw the line is going to be arbitrary
Where you draw the line is arbitrary. We can instead use facts and reason.
I didn’t draw that line - the European Union did. They probably have their facts and reasons for that but please, enlighten me about how combining pedestrians and fast moving vehicles is more reasonable.
please, enlighten me about how combining pedestrians and fast moving vehicles is more reasonable
I’ve made no claims except that I can hear a gas powered moped coming. The burden isn’t upon me to explain.
They probably have their facts and reasons
Appeal to authority. Instead, explain why they reached their conclusions.
I would even say that a normal bike with a >25km/h drive does not belong in public traffic. You can only put a certain amount of breaking power on a bike.
My radwagon motor tops out at 32kph, I can pedal it up to about 40kph. At 40kph I can stop in 3m on dry tarmac, about 6m in snow.
For comparison, the cars I’m forced to ride with have a 24m braking distance at 40kph, but let’s be honest, there’s usually doing over 50kph despite the limit, so it’s more like 38-55m
I see where you’re coming from, but we also need to consider the mass of these vehicles, not just their speed. Person+bike at 50km/h vs pedestrian at rest means a roughly 1:1 split on the inertia after impact, and a pedestrian accelerated to 25km/h. Car at 50km/h vs person+bike at rest is a 1:10 or 1:20 split in inertia after impact, and rider accelerated to very nearly 50km/h.
IMO sharing a space with pedestrians is the lesser harm outcome if we cannot provide safe infrastructure which separates such vehicles from both cars and pedestrians.
In the Netherlands we have quite good infrastructure for bikes, but e-bikes/scooters going >25kph really fuck up the safety.
I’m with OP, if you want to go that fast you should be in the road.
I do not understand why this is being implemented, after reading the article. What’s the safety gain to be had here?
I imagine it’s to stop them being used like motorcycles? Can’t say why, maybe it’s for registration / taxation purposes?
Ok, but they really can’t be used as motorcycles, regardless. You’re pedalling 99% of the time, and to have any respectable range your legs are providing the majority of the power.
Electric vehicles with a throttle (what the law is targeting) can absolutely be used as motorcycles. Hence why CA feels motorcycle-like vehicles need to be reclassified. What the law is targeting are functionally motorcycles/mopeds with pedals attached.
I have one of those and have thousands of miles recorded on it. It’s been my primary method of commuting to work for the past 1.5 years. For the battery to last the 40 mile round trip, my legs are the primary driver.
They don’t really work as motorcycles because the throttle cuts off at 20 mph. Short of adding more heavy batteries (thereby requiring a beefier motorcycle motor), they don’t have the range to be a motorcycle.
If your legs are the primary driver then you do not have the type of vehicle the law is targeting.
The throttle is a key feature to stay safe in busy intersections. That and super steep hills are the only reason to use it.
Legally, the throttle turns off once you hit 20mph. It’s not for going fast, just for quick acceleration when you need it to be safe around cars.
Getting rid of the throttle is only going to make e-bikes more dangerous and less appealing for adoption.
I don’t understand how it is a safety issue. Plenty of people ride bikes just fine without a throttle, and if you can’t get started from a stop then the bike is too heavy for your skill level.
And that’s the entire problem with the throttles. They are precisely what is enabling this trend towards bigger and heavier bikes in the first place, and that is blurring the line between bikes and mopeds in ways which are inviting unwanted regulations. Ban the throttles and the ridiculous fat tire mopeds will go away.
Sure, I can ride the bike without it, but I wouldn’t go on the same roads or through the same large/busy intersections if I didn’t think I could react to cars being cars.
Right, the entire point of an ebike is that you ride it like a bicycle, not a motorcycle, so that it can safely interact with pedestrians like a bicycle, not a motorcycle. A vehicle with the performance characteristics of a moped is not safe around pedestrians.
On my bike when I want to go faster I pedal harder. I legitimately do not even understand how throttle alone can be faster than assist unless it is being used to start a bike which is too heavy to start otherwise.
Pedalling through an intersection or through a turn or while doing hand signals (not both hands on the handlebars) is dangerous when in traffic. The throttle allows you to focus on your surroundings and still accelerate when in tight situations such as a busy intersection with cars around.
The throttle doesn’t get you to go faster than pedalling with assist - the throttle cuts out at 20mph. Pedalling with assist is what brings you to top speed. High top speed is what’s dangerous around pedestrians. Getting rid of the throttle won’t make the bike safer around pedestrians.
The throttle is NOT for faster, it’s for finesse and for speed maintenance. It’s for being precise and technical in close quarters around cars. It’s for boosting up a particularly steep hill so you don’t slow down near hilltops when there are cars around that can’t see over that hill.
Not having a throttle makes these bikes much more dangerous.
I legitimately do not even understand how throttle alone can be faster than assist
That’s because it very much isn’t. The throttle is for high torque situations, and cuts off at high rpm (as it should to not give the bike a moped’s characteristics so the bike stays safe around pedestrians).
I’m sorry I have been riding bicycles and now ebikes for 30 years, with 20 years of urban commuting, and none of this makes sense to me. By this description a throttle seems worse for ergonomics because it requires you to keep your hand in a single spot. Hand placement is an important part of balance and riding dynamics. I can lane split just fine with pedals and I would argue that if you cannot then you are riding beyond your skill, which is a major issue with throttle bikes.
Again, unless you are riding a moped which is significantly heavier than a bike so the riding dynamics are more like a moped. Which is the thing we are specifically trying to prevent.
By this description a throttle seems worse for ergonomics because it requires you to keep your hand in a single spot. Hand placement is an important part of balance and riding dynamics.
Ergonomically, my bike makes it very easy to operate both the throttle and brakes with my hands balanced on the handlebar. I’d hope that’s true for all bikes, since you don’t want braking to fuck up your ability to maintain balance. Bikes are designed such that you can use the handlebars and finger-accessible controls simultaneously,
Foot position and pedal rotation is ALSO an important part if balance and riding dynamics, especially when turning through intersections at 20 mph. Instead of managing gyroscopic forces and compensating my balance, the throttle means I can lock my feet in place, stand up, look around, get better visibility, and be in better control with better awareness in high-traffic areas. All of these things make me safer, and keeps me aware of e.g. pedestrians who this bill supposedly benefits.
I am not familiar with urban commuting, as I’ve never lived in an urban area, so I can’t comment on that specifically. I regularly cross busy 2-3 lane highways with 55 or 65 mph speed limits, with sometimes only a stop sign to help me do so. There are two big ones that I cross in each direction of my commute, or four per day. Depending on where I’m going and the weather, I take different crossings with different risk levels. In fact, 80% of my commute is along roads with 55+ mph speed limits; many of those roads include sections with steep, hilly terrain. Having a throttle to go from a standstill and quickly cross gaps in traffic, or to keep my speed up when fast-moving cars have low visibility in the hills, is a huge safety boon in my commute. It keeps me and those around me safer.
Ok, then you want a moped. And that’s fine. But you need to understand why there are many people who want to preserve the distinction here for some very real reasons, largely involving how dangerous these vehicles have become in densly populated areas. Nobody is saying you can’t have a throttle driven moped. You just cannot also have all the privileges of a bicycle at the same time.
