It's time for DC to rethink its e-bike and scooter regulations

E-bikes are starting to hit the streets in DC in much larger numbers; not just as part of dockless bikeshare, but personally owned bikes too. And with Uber's recent purchase of Jump, it's reasonable to expect the number to increase again if the pilot ends and DDOT allows more.

There are many reasons to support e-bikes; reasons that are similar to the reasons to support regular bikes. Surveys show they encourage people to drive less. They can improve mobility for people, especially in urban areas. They're better for the environment than driving. They're better for health than driving (and possibly using transit). They can reduce congestion. They can save you money. 

For these reasons, and because they've been getting cheaper and more useful over the last 30 years, e-bikes - especially the pedelec types - are taking off, with some touting them as the "vehicle of the future".

Unfortunately, the current regulations and laws in DC are more restrictive than they need to be and largely out of date. At the DDOT budget oversight hearing in February, they mentioned that they're working on new regulations, something the Washington Post reported in April, so now seems like the right time for people to start thinking about them.

Electric bicycles have been around for more than a century, but the pedal assist or pedelec bike really only dates back to 1989, with the first ones going on sale in 1993. By 1997, they were already being seen as the next big thing when Lee Iacocca founded his own e-bike company, EV Global Motor Company. (EV has since gone out of business like so many others).

The current state of regulations and how we got here

First some background. In the US, there are often four classes of e-bikes ranging from Class 1, pedal-assist bikes like Jump Bikes to Class 4, which are mopeds or motorcycles that can go faster than 28mph. However, the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association (BPSA) is promoting a class system with only 3 classes.

1) A “class 1 electric bicycle,” is equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
2) A “class 2 electric bicycle,” is equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
3) A “class 3 electric bicycle,” is equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour, and is equipped with a speedometer.

Under federal law, only class 1 and class 2 are "bikes". Those are the only types that NHTSA does not consider "motor vehicles" (despite having a motor). However the industry promoted rules would allow class 3 e-bikes (which can go up to 28mph) to be treated similar to bikes in a few ways, like being allowed into bike lanes.

In the US, both class 1 and 2 are limited to 20 mph (32 kph) with motor wattage of <= 750 watts, while in the EU, the limit is 15.5 mph (25 kph) with motor wattage <= 250 watts. Canada has split the difference with a 20mph limit and 500 watt limit. 

The distinction between 1 and 2 was first adopted in 2015 by California, and since then elsewhere.  Most states do not regulate class 1 and class 2 differently. The division was put in place so that individual trails and municipalities can regulate them differently if they want.  There was concern that the power of a "throttle" could rooster tail on softer trail material, meaning they might not be appropriate in some places (like the C&O Trail) where Class 1 would be. However, the National Park Service counts e-bikes as motorized vehicles and they are not allowed on the C&O Trail. The BPSA would like to see that change.

The BPSA system also creates rules governing the use of electric bicycles, with safety as the top priority. Class 1 and 2 electric bicycles would be permitted to travel anywhere traditional bikes are permitted, as the maximum assisted speed of these devices is closely aligned with speeds traveled by traditional bicycles. Class 3 electric bicycles could be ridden on streets and roadways where traditional bicycles are permitted, including bicycle lanes, but would be restricted from
slower speed areas such as multi-use paths. Class 3 electric bicycles would also be subject to additional requirements, such as a minimum user age and helmet mandate. Electric bicycles would not be subject to any licensing, registration, or insurance requirements.

The 20 mph cut-off between class 1&2 and class 3 was first codified in the US in the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which defined the Electric Bicycle as "any bicycle or tricycle with a low-powered electric motor weighing under 100 pounds, with a top motor-powered speed not in excess of 20 miles per hour." That law allowed e-bikes on trails and pedestrian walkways. It also instructed the NHTSA to regulate them.  At the time, some European countries already had limits of 25 kph. (The EU wouldn't adopt this limit until 2002). I don't know how US lawmakers settled on 20mph, but my theory is that they were writing a definition to match the European one and they decided to go up to 20 instead of down to 15. 

In 2001, Congress passed a law that defined electric bikes so that they could be regulated as Consumer Products by the CPSC.  It leaned heavily on the definition from the 1988 law, as noted in the committee report, and defined a low-speed electric bicycle as "a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a  motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph."

Here again, it's unclear why they increased the power to 750 watts from the European limit of 250. Maybe it was because 1 h.p. seemed like a nicer number, but it's probably because 250 watts wasn't providing enough power. The original pedelec bike had a maximum power output of 235 watts and the UK already limited electric bikes to 200 Watts, so 250 likely seemed reasonable at first. But later people began to recognize that with older, weaker or larger riders; on hilly terrain, or with a large cargo bike; 250 watts wasn't quite enough power and so manufacturers began making more powerful bikes for consumers.

The committee report for the 2001 US law stated the reason for the law was to create more reasonable regulations.

If NHTSA were to enforce its regulations on low-speed electric bicycles strictly, the bikes would be required to have  a number of safety features, such as brake lights, turn signals, automotive grade headlights, rear view mirrors, and license plates, that are prohibitively costly, unwieldy, or consume too much power for a low-speed electric bicycle. It is estimated that the application of motor vehicle regulations to power-assisted bicycles would increase the retail price of these bicycles by at least $200-$300 and make them less manageable and more unwieldy for consumers.

Of course, CPSC can only regulate bikes that are sold as electric bikes but a 2014 study out of Portland State discovered that

52 percent of e-bike owners converted their standard bicycle to an electric-assist bicycle (MacArthur, Dill & Person, 2014). These e-bikes were first purchased as a bicycle and later outfitted with an electric motor. Thus, CPSC is limited in its capacity to regulate the technology

That number is likely to have changed quite a bit in the last five years. 

DC Regulations

DC doesn't have a definition for "e-bike" and doesn't distinguish between the classes. Nor does it have a special category for scooters. In addition, there's some poor language that means they could reasonably meet multiple definitions and some regulations that don't make a lot of sense.

In DC, an e-bike could be a "motorized bicycle" which is "a vehicle with a post mounted seat or saddle for each person that the device is designed and equipped to carry; two (2) or three (3) wheels in contact with the ground, which are at least sixteen inches (16 in.) in diameter; fully operative pedals for human propulsion; and a motor incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than twenty miles per hour (20 mph) on level ground." Motorized bicycles are not allowed in bike lanes or on the sidewalk, except to park. This is what DDOT says an e-bike is.

But, it could also be a "Personal Mobility Device" which is a motorized propulsion device designed to transport one person or, basically, a segway. That's a terrible definition because many things, including a motorcycle with only one seat, could qualify. [It would be easy to fix though by adding text so that it reads "...device, without a post mounted seat or saddle, designed..."] PMDs are allowed everywhere bikes are and nowhere they aren't, but you need to be 16 to ride one, they have to be registered, they can't go faster than 10mph, you can't ride with just one hand and you can't wear headphones in both ears when you ride them. So trying to call an e-bike a PMD would get most cyclists in trouble unless it was registered and they rode slow (which defeats the purpose a bit).  The new e-scooters are defined as PMDs, which means if they aren't registered, they're illegal. 

A class 3 e-bike is not a motorized bicycle in DC, as it is too fast. It could be a PMD (again, the bad definition) or a "motor-driven cycle", which is how DDOT said they would consider them. Motor-driven cycles are treated much more like motorcycles than motorized bicycles are. They require inspections, insurance, registration and helmets; and they aren't allowed on sidewalks, trails, or in bike lanes. The registration fee is half that for a car for the first two years. 

In Maryland, they have a separate definition for an "electric bicycle", but they treat it exactly like a regular bicycle as long as it has pedals, the top powered speed is 20mph and the maximum power is 500W. There is no license requirement, no registration, no minimum age and no helmet requirement. They can be ridden on bike paths, but not sidewalks. 

In Virginia, an e-bike would be an "Electric Power Assisted Bicycle" which again is treated very much like a regular bicycle as long as it has pedals, the top powered speed is 25mph and the maximum power is 1000W. There is no license requirement, no registration, a minimum age of 14 and no helmet requirement. They can be ridden on bike paths or sidewalks. 

How should we regulate these bikes and scooters?

As the Washington Post reported in April, Washington, DC "and other Washington-area jurisdictions are among those taking steps to modernize and streamline policies advocates say are outdated, set unrealistic restrictions and confuse riders of bikes that can be run on electric power as well as by pedaling."

In the District, transportation officials say they are drafting rules to allow the pedal-assist bikes on trails and possibly sidewalks outside the downtown area, where conventional bikes are allowed. Montgomery adopted park rules last year that give the county discretion to open trails to e-bikes on a case-by-case basis, and Montgomery’s Parks and Planning departments are set to begin that process on less-used trails this year, moving gradually to the most popular ones, such as the Capital Crescent Trail.

Arlington does not have a policy regarding the use of e-bikes, but it is researching the subject.

The Fairfax County Park Authority said e-bike riders have asked for the policy to be changed to allow them on popular commuting trails. The authority is reviewing the pros and cons of the change and the possible conflicts with other trail users, spokeswoman Judy Pedersen said.

Jenny Anzelmo-Sarles, a spokeswoman for the National Park Service, said the agency is tracking what surrounding jurisdictions are doing.

(PG County is not pursuing changes right now). There are some good ideas in there, and everyone should be looking at what rules will best meet regional goals of safety and mobility. 

A recent report on e-bikes by the National Institute of Transportation and Communities discusses the various regulations for e-bikes in North America and is a good source for those who want to learn more. 

Here are some changes I'd recommend,

First we need to rework our definitions

1. We should fix the definition for a PMD as noted above by defining it as something without a post mounted seat or saddle
2. DC, VA and MD should institute the BPSA-recommended 3 class system noted above. Yes, it is coming from the industry, meaning we should be skeptical, but it matches up with current regulations at the federal level and other states and doesn't seem unreasonable.
3. We could leave the definition of "motorized bicycle" in place to cover non-electric, motorized bikes. If so, we should remove the part about the tire diameter lest people start putting gasoline motors on their Bromptons and terrorizing the good people of Cleveland Park. Leaving motorized bicycles only makes sense if we think we should regulate gas-powered bikes differently than electric powered bikes (and I think maybe we should). 
4. While we're at it, we should remove the definition for a "sidewalk bicycle" which is a bike with small tires. This was meant to be a way to allow kids to ride on the sidewalk downtown and keep them off the roads, but it also applies to people on folding bikes, like the Brompton. So we should just nix it, and say that children under 16 (or some other age) and their accompanying parents are allowed on the sidewalk in the CBD. I let my kids ride their "sidewalk bicycles" in the road, and so I'm not sure we need to ban them there. (If so, every bike to school day I've been involved in has been a rolling caravan of scofflaw cycling). 

Once we have these new definitions, here's how I'd regulate them

1. PMDs - I'd leave them mostly unchanged. I'd allow their use everywhere bikes are used and nowhere they aren't. I'd restrict them to those over 16 (though I'm open to a lower age if people who know more about segways and scooters show what the limit should be). I'd put in place the same helmet requirements as for bikes. If we're going to keep the speed limit - and that could be revisited too - then set the fine to $25, which is what the ticket is for speeding on a bicycle. I'd get rid of the registration requirement, and at least look at the two hand and no headphone rules (again, I'd want to hear from PMD-users/experts)
2. I'd treat class 1 and class 2 e-bikes exactly like bikes, with the exception of disallowing class 2 e-bikes on unpaved trails. 
3. I'd treat motorized bicycles exactly like bikes, except that I would disallow them on all trails and sidewalks (for noise reasons I'd keep them separate from pedestrians).
4. I'd treat class 3 e-bikes as California does, for lack of a lot of knowledge. That means mandatory helmets, disallowed on trails and sidewalks and no riders under 16 years old. 

There are also some other changes necessitated by e-bikes, or that would be otherwise useful

1. All provisions dealing with parking a bicycle also apply to parking a "motorized bicycle." This means that if you lock a Jump bike to a parking meter or bike rack for longer than 12 hours, you're violating the law.  ["A person may secure a bicycle to a stanchion for a period of not more than twelve (12) consecutive hours, by means of a lock or similar device"] We need to be able to remove abandoned bikes, but otherwise I'm not sure I understand the utility of this rule. I'd recommend extending the time a bike can be parked in one place, perhaps as long as 30 days. Jump "touches" their bikes pretty frequently and can move them around when they do if that's important, though I'd probably just exclude bikeshare from this rule entirely. 
2. The Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act of 2016 creates a limitation to the contributory negligence rule, stating that "The negligence of a pedestrian, bicyclist, or other non-motorized user of a public highway involved in a collision with a motor vehicle shall not bar the plaintiff's recovery in any civil action unless the plaintiff's negligence is a proximate cause and greater  than the aggregated total amount of negligence of all of the defendants that proximately caused the plaintiff's injury." "Non-motorized user" means an individual using a skateboard, non-motorized scooter, Segway, tricycle, and other similar non-powered transportation devices. Ignoring that a segway is powered, it doesn't specifically talk about "motorized bicycles." I would change the definition of "Non-motorized user" to include individuals on PMDs and class 1-3 e-bikes.  

This list may not be exhaustive, and it will likely need to be reviewed once we know more about e-bikes; but I think it represents some common-sense fixes and removes regulations that limit e-bike use with little to no benefit. 

Comments

[Russell]

I'm a DC resident and cyclist and also ride a electric skateboard. MPD has pulled me over for riding the skateboard in the street but it goes 20mph so the demand to ride on the sidewalk seems unsafe. I'd like to see the law pertaining to PMDs updated to match the speed limits of bicycles if they are going to be operated in mixed traffic with cyclists. I'd also like to see the rules around "hands" nixed as my board doesn't have handlebars of any kind. Perhaps the remote control counts as a "hand"?

[Beltsville]

I like the point Russell brings up. This isn't just about cycling. This is really about all forms of transportation that don't involve protecting yourself in a 4,000 lbs tank propelled by 200 horses.

[washcycle]

Russell, you bring up some good points and ones I would not have thought of, which is why I wanted to hear from PMD users. Riding a skateboard on the street is illegal in DC, but oddly enough I think a e-skateboard is legal. The law is just a mess and has not kept up with technology.

[washcycle]

Richard B, add one more trolling comment and I'll block you from commenting. If you have something constructive to add, that's great, but if all you're doing is trying to incite a response than you need go elsewhere.

[Richard Bike Troller - I am literally trolling you]

Let's say some e-bike riders do try to get the changes you proposed through. Since the e-bike community will have developed so much animosity in the general public from having broken rules for such a long time that the politicians aren't going to want to stick their necks out for these rule changes. Heck most regular bikers are probably going to dislike them too boot since they are going to be much faster on the trails than your average biker and will be creating their own havoc. So then they will have the same built up political winds facing them that the regular biking community has created for themselves when it comes to getting sensible changes made.

[Richard B]

I am pretty sure e-bike riders are just as capable of ignoring existing laws as regular bike riders are - so why do you need to change the rules, that's too hard anyway.

[Richard B]

I am pretty sure e-bike riders are just as capable of ignoring existing laws as regular bike riders are - so why do you need to change the rules, that's too hard anyway.

[Richard B]

I am pretty sure e-bike riders are just as capable of ignoring existing laws as regular bike riders are - so why do you need to change the rules, that's too hard anyway.

[Richard B]

I will agree that if you leave the existing comments up I will not repost the much snarkier one.

[elizqueenmama]

Can someone please explain to me the animosity towards pedalec bicycles by some in the cycling world? I genuinely do not understand.

The two primary arguments I have heard include:
1) They're too fast! (Where? In bike lanes? On trails? All cyclists should ride to the conditions and surroundings - whether assisted or not. Often the scariest cyclists are MAMILS on bikes to fancy for their skills. Why are ebike riders being singled out?)
2) Those are not 'real bikes'! (Well, OK, why not? You balance, you pedal, you get threatened every day by drivers...same as a regular bike.)

Context: I ride a carbon road bike periodically for fun long rides. I ride a steel road bike often for fun and to get places on my own. I ride a pedalec longtail cargo bike daily to commute with my kids, grocery shop for a large family, and just generally get around to places with stuff not in a car. Three bikes, used for different reasons at different times.

[Richard B]

@elizqueenmama

I personally wasn't trying to single out e-bike riders as being a negative thing per se, just point out that changing rules often gets hampered when the majority of the community (or a particularly noticeable minority) decides to treat existing rules in a negative fashion by ignoring or flauting them.

[washcycle]

Here's MCA on why he is a skeptic. He thinks they're basically scooters and no one wants more of those. He thinks they're unsafe. They aren't green (but they are). No one will ride them. People who do ride them won't get as much of a health benefit. He's basically opposed to anything that isn't a human-powered bicycle.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/02/the-e-bike-sceptic.html

[elizqueenmama]

@washcycle: MCA's perspective is certainly not full throated support. But it also isn't as aggressively 'anti' as I've heard from others. (though he does focus on speed - something that annoys me greatly as a rule - since these arguments always seem to assume that folks on assisted bicycles are ALWAYS riding at TOP POSSIBLE SPEED. Hint: we're not.)

I guess I'm looking at it from a particular perspective - I live in hilly DC and use a large heavy cargo bike so that I can carry kids and lots of stuff, so I have an e-assist.

But I would also love to understand the folks who get vitriolic in their anti-ebike rhetoric. I want someone to tell me something other than 'They can go too fast' (so can a roadie) or 'They're not getting the health benefits' (so what? transportation is transportation. And trust me when I'm not riding my ebike regularly during the depth of winter I most certainly notice my weight gain!)

I just don't get the hatred.

[DE]

Many of you probably know that one of the longest and most contentious threads on the Washington Area Bike Forum involves e-bikes and whether they should be allowed on multi-use paths, but for those of you who don't, the link to that thread is below.

Someone has made remarkably similar posts to elizqueenmama's on that forum, and they have been addressed by several people from many angles. No one there that I've seen opposes e-bikes in general. There are many who oppose them, or some classes of them, on crowded multi-use paths (very similar to WashCycle's proposals in 2, 3, and 4 above), for various safety reasons. Yet that poster continues to pretend that they are opposed in all areas and contexts by other cyclists when that argument simply isn't being made. The poster's regular methodology then is to misrepresent others' opinions and argue against those instead of what really has been proposed.

Whatever the decisions made are, I believe we do need rules to catch up with technology, if only for liability reasons. I don't care very much which way the law goes since even banning them from trails won't stop people from using them there, but liability is still an issue.

http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?851-e-Bikes-Let-s-talk

[Crickey]

I'm fine with ebikes. In fact, there should be more of them. That said, there are real issues with them that cannot be so easily dismissed. Speed is a big factor. Yes, a non-assisted bicycle can go as fast. But not many, and the riders who can do that (1) have usually years of riding many, many miles and so are aware of what kind of behavior is unacceptable and (2) don't ride on casual use trails at those speeds. Most of the ebike riders I see are fine. But there are far, far too many who--as one did on the CCT last night--blow by me (a pretty fast rider) going at least 10 mph faster and with zero audible warning. That kind of behavior will get e-bike riders banned, and rightly so.

[Bob Roberts]

@DE

I think what is being point out by the previous commenter is not that pedalec bikes use is a problem. The problem is that if they are not allowed to be used under circumstances then don't use them in such situations until the rules are changed. If the rules should be changed then get the City Council to change them. Doing otherwise will just lead to greater backlash. Doing in the other direction just makes it all that much harder since you wind up with editorialists, politicians, and many of their constituents all working to oppose the rule changes.

P.S. And who cares if you don't get as much of a workout on a pedalec, do you get a workout in a car?

[washcycle]

Bob,

I see what you're saying, but....

currently it's illegal to ride a brompton or other folding bike with small wheels anywhere other than the sidewalk. And you can ride one on the sidewalk in the CBD.

Do you think cycling and bike advocacy would be better off if this was how they actually behaved until they could get the law changed?

[DE]

"That kind of behavior will get e-bike riders banned, and rightly so."

I dunno, Crickey. I'm sympathetic since I've had that fast sudden uphill pass happen to me on the Custis. (I'm not too slow so rarely get passed there, and never that fast, so it's a bit surprising and not safe because of its unexpectedness.) But that argument is similar to the one that some motorists make against cyclists--that since a minority run traffic lights, they all should be punished.

[Bob Roberts]

@washcycle

Yes. I believe that cycling and bike advocacy would be better off if there was a greater willingness to not shirk the law until it was changed.

It is so much easier to get a politician to do something if it can happen "under the table" and if you wait until you have large number of angry constituents on the other side against you then progress is going to grind to a halt.

[washcycle]

"Yes. I believe that cycling and bike advocacy would be better off if there was a greater willingness to not shirk the law until it was changed."

You're answering in the general, but I'm asking you about the specific.

Should adult cyclists on small-wheel folding bikes ride exclusively on the sidewalk, including in the CBD, because that's what the law says? Would that be better for bike advocacy?

[DE]

RichardB, regarding general-public animosity toward e-bikes, I doubt that most of the general public can differentiate (or cares to) between e-bikes and regular bikes, so that animosity will, in general, just go toward cyclists in general. If you're walking down a sidewalk and an e-bike almost runs into you, you're likely just thinking "jerk cyclist." Which is unfortunate, but reality.

[Bob Roberts]

Specifically then, they shouldn't buy the things until the rules are worked out allowing them to ride on the road and in bike lanes in the CBD. Plain and simple. Outside of the CBD, ride on the sidewalk, nothing wrong with that as long as you are respectful to pedestrians and give them the right-of-way.

There are plenty of other options available to them to use to get around (I assume most folding bike users are people coming in on VRE, MARC, etc): CaBi, all the stationless bikes (some of which has e-assist), a beater bike locked at their metro station of choice, metro train, the bus, walking.

[DE]

...and this is why people break the law. When laws are nonsensical, no one respects them.

[drumz]

Speeding used to never be a problem on a bike. Now it is thanks to e-bikes and the general popularity of biking and exercise in general (putting more people onto trails).

But if you want to curb speeding you ought to curb speeding. The person using some mechanical help to pull their kids is far less of a risk than someone looking to take over Strava segments.

If we want truly nothing "mechanical" on sidewalks, bike lanes, or trails then we're gonna run into problems because bikes themselves are mechanical machines and while I'm fine with their prohibition on say, the Appalachian trail, I'd like to keep my options open for getting around town.

[Bob Roberts]

@DE

... and then the entrenched interests that don't want the rules changed to benefit you have rhetorical fodder to keep the rules the current nonsensical state. They cycle continues (pun intended).

[Crickey]

My issue is that ebike run into the law of instrument. If you make a device that makes it easy to go at illegal/unsafe speeds quietly, then that is what people will do.

[washcycle]

"they shouldn't buy the things until the rules are worked out allowing them to ride on the road and in bike lanes in the CBD."

Why not? They can currently use them on the sidewalks in the CBD. Why should they not buy them and ride them exclusively on the sidewalk? That's 100% legal.

[Beltsville]

Sometimes playing by the rules will only get you ignored. Quite frankly, that's how we got into this mess. Now, because of the popularity of MPDs and the like, and the fact that the rules are pretty freaking stupid, people aren't playing by them. Only now that there is an issue are things actually changing (maybe? hopefully? at least being reviewed?). This is a good thing and is only happening because people are NOT playing by the rule of law (because in this case, it's stupid, have I mentioned that?)

[elizqueenmama]

I feel like I may have seen that ebike thread on bikearlington a few years ago, but genuinely spend almost no time on that forum. Thank you for sharing.

(Sidenote: I'm not sure if @DE is trying to imply that I am the one making those posts or not. But just to be clear, I'm not.)

I guess I've just run into more than a few virulently anti-ebike folks, and am asking why.

re: argument around current legal status vs real usage: I'm clearly one of the folks that 'breaks the rules'. I ride in bike lanes. I ride on local trails. And I'm always getting passed by folks on 'regular' bikes. Seriously, I got passed by someone on a 'regular bike' today. That was in the city, in a bike lane, and I was on my way to pick up my kids so didn't actually have any cargo. I guess my point is that the 'ebikes are too fast and therefore are dangerous' argument is analogous to 'cyclists run stops signs and are therefore dangerous' - it brings focus to a few people being dumb instead of the majority of folks out there. I truly believe that, again like drivers who only 'see' the badly behaved cyclists out there, many regular cyclists only see the badly behaved ecyclists out there.

And in the end we're our own worst enemy here - because I can guarantee that drivers don't differentiate between ebikes and other bikes - they just see bikes. (What kind of interactions with drivers do you think I would have if I rode up 15th St in a primary traffic lane, next to the protected bike lane, on my cargo bike with a kindergartener on the back, at 12 mph? It is laughable to think I wouldn't be run off the road.

So I would argue that rather than restricting access to trails and bike lanes, we should welcome all comers, and argue for more protected bike lanes, more and wider trails, etc.

[fongfong]

The hatred is the same hatred that car drivers have when bikes are better able to get through traffic. There is something about human beings (mostly men ?1?) that makes them competitive when it comes to most things, and transportation is no exception. So car drivers hate bike riders who are able to make it though narrow spots and, as a matter of physics, have what is perceived as an unfair advantage.

I dare say that the fella who was "startled" that an ebike would be able to pass him on the uphill on Custis legitimately believed that this person was "cheating" him because until that moment he had been the biggest and best Strava guy heading up that hill. Nobody beat him ever, so he was "startled" to see someone do that. So unfair. Wait until Ebike riders start using Strava and imagine the backlash there! Come to think of it .....

I have an ebike too to tote kids and groceries and sure I am cheating, if I was on a race! But not all bike riding is a race, so I got over it, just as I get over it when the 20 year old on a carbon bike crushes me or the ebike rides past me up the hill.

It is this smugness factor from cyclists that cause the hatred, and if anyone else is not as athletic or trained or whatever as I am is not worthy. I think in the future, I will make sure to light a cigarette while on my Xtracycle Ebike, just to rub in how unworthy I am.

[Bob Roberts]

@washcycle

I personally think its bad mojo to ride any bike on the sidewalk in the CBD and would not recommend it, even if it is legal in this case. But there isn't anything unethical with it since it is legal so people can go to town.

[washcycle]

If you can't ride a brompton on the street in the CBD and you shouldn't ride on the sidewalk in the CBD, this is basically saying that you don't think Brompton's belong in downtown.

Now I'm fairly certain that this was not the intent of the law, and so this is where we differ on ethics. Ethically, I think it's OK to ignore silly, counter-productive or immoral laws (throughout the whole history of the Civil Rights movement in the US there has been a battle between those leaders who argued that if blacks could follow the law, get educated, pay taxes and be good citizens they would eventually be given the rights they deserved, and those who argued that they should willfully break the immoral laws and force America to give them their rights. I think I know which side was proven right).

The position of both MPD and DDOT on some of these laws is that yes, they need to be changed, but until then, cyclists can "rely on non-enforcement." That's at-least unofficial policy as stated to me by DC officials in open public meetings. So, keep on riding your sidewalk bikes in the street or you class-1 e-bikes across the 14th Street bridge. That's illegal but ethical.

To ask people to avoid using new means of getting around "until the rules are changed" is absolutely nonsense and so much so that I think everyone sees it as such immediately. Let us not be slaves to our rules.

[oboe]

It's not something I get worked up about particularly, and most of the folks I've met who ride e-bikes are lovely, law-abiding people. But as regional traffic gets inevitably worse, two things are going to happen: First, the bike infrastructure is going to get more congested, making good behavior even more important; Second, an ever-increasing number of "normals" are going to ditch their cars for high-performance e-bikes in order to minimize their commute times.

These are *not* going to be people who have cultural connections to bike culture, but people for drawn by the idea of riding a cheap motorcycle on non-gridlocked infrastructure.

Again, not anywhere near a hill I'm willing to die on, but it seems pretty obvious to me where this is heading.

[oboe]

BTW, if I were Emperor of the Universe, e-bikes limited to pedal-assist up to 12 mph would be legal on bike infrastructure and sidewalks--but anything over that would need to be in street.

[washcycle]

My hope is that as more people transition, it will create a political environment with more support for building bus/bike lanes. I think e-bikes would do very well in such lanes. It may be we'll have to evaluate if e-bikes belong on trails in the future, but right now I'm not worried about them. I think we've locked ourselves in to 20mph (it's been 20 years now) or at least 15.5, though if the market gets larger, and the need arises, maybe we can force a market for 12mph capped bikes.

[ACyclistInThePortCIty]

12MPH does not make sense IMO as the universe of people who can ride a human powered bike at 12MPH + is very, very, large. It looks like, as Wash says, we stuck with 20MPH as the dividing lane between class 1 and class 3 ebikes. Most of Europe uses 15 (15.5?), which might better. I am actually fine with Class 3's in in-street bike lanes, where the conflict is with slow bike riders, and which tend to be underutilized anyway. I am more concerned about conflict on MUT's, where there are slow and clueless pedestrians. But I think Class 1's are going to be legal on the trails. Mostly for the good, though with some problems.

[DE]

"I dare say that the fella who was "startled" that an ebike would be able to pass him on the uphill on Custis legitimately believed that this person was "cheating" him because until that moment he had been the biggest and best Strava guy heading up that hill. Nobody beat him ever, so he was "startled" to see someone do that. So unfair."

Late to reply b/c out of town, but you "daresay" incorrectly. I don't mind being passed. I don't even mind not getting a warning in most cases because people are people. But if you are passing someone uphill at 25 mph, you really should give a warning b/c most people will not be expecting that kind of speed up a hill. I always look over my shoulder before turning, but many people don't, and not giving a warning in that situation is simply unsafe.

So your assumptions are simply shite.

[oboe]

12MPH does not make sense IMO as the universe of people who can ride a human powered bike at 12MPH + is very, very, large.

Sure, I tried to make that point by saying "pedal-assist up to 12 mph". That means you can go as fast as your legs can carry you--just not with motor assist. And that your cargo bike could put out as many watts as you like. Like I said, though, this is like #283 on the list of things I care about.

[ACyclistInThePortCIty]

Oboe

My point was that in a world where most people can ride at 13MPH, it does not make sense to ban class 1 ebikes BECAUSE they enable people to go 13MPH with pedal assist. The argument against ebikes is they will mean more fast riders on the trails, and that is a problem. the definition of where they become a problem has to be faster than the average human powered bike, at a minimum. 12MPH is laughably too slow to be the max speed with assist. I think we will be okay with 20MPH, though I can see the case for 15.5mph