Cheh introduces new e-bike and e-scooter bill with some good things and some bad ones

I contributed to a blog post over at GGW, so you should read that first. But here's stuff that was too in the weeds for that post. 

The bill starts by defining new classes of devices. There are "electric scooters" which have handlebars, an electric motor and a maximum speed of 15mph, but don't meet the definition of motorized bicycles. If you currently have a device like that - that goes faster than 15mph -  then it is a Personal Mobility Device and you're still allowed to ride it, but not faster than 10mph, which doesn't really make sense.

There are also "battery-assisted bicycles" which are bicycles that have a battery that assists the rider up to 20mph. A battery-assisted bicycle that goes faster than that would be a motor-driven cycle (same as now). And then the bill creates a third category, consisting of both electric scooters and battery-assisted bicycles called "Electric Mobility Devices" (EMD). It also defines operators of fleets of these devices and the permit they need to operate. 

It calls on the DDOT Director to create rules on the permitting of EMD fleets and then sets up some of its own rules for the permitting - like mandating that all fleets have a permit, allowing the Director to enforce proper parking, etc... And it requires operators to give data to the District on use and complaints. 

It requires operators to maintain a fleet of fewer than 600 vehicles per type, to start with 10% of them in each Ward every day, operate a 24-hour phone number, keep vehicles out of the public way between 10pm and 4am, reposition illegally parked EMDs in a timely manner, maintain them to national standards, to educate users of certain laws and rules, and require users to show a photo ID before renting an EMD.

Most troublesome, it bans fleet e-scooters between 10pm and 4am. Personal scooters would still be legal at this time as would all e-bikes. I can't even guess what the reason for this is. It's likely the worst part of the bill. The bill also limits advertising on EMDs.

Oddly, it sets rules as to when operators can expand (when they have more than 2 trips per vehicle per day) and when they must contract (when they have fewer than 1 trip per vehicle per day). Why not let the operators decide? We don't tell McDonald's when they can open or must close stores.

It caps the total number of EMDs in the District at 15,000. I don't see a reason for this especially if vehicles need to show a 2 tpvpd usage in order to expand. If lots of people are using them, maybe we need more.

It requires all EMDs to have headlights and tail lights and all e-scooters to have speedometers. Even privately owned vehicles will have these requirements. I'm not sure if that's intended, but it seems odd since the law doesn't require segways or e-bikes to go slower than 7mph on the sidewalk or to have speedometers. Why just scooters?

It requires e-scooter riders to use the bike lane whenever one is present.  This is a bad idea for all the reasons that requiring cyclists to use the bike lane is a bad idea.

One good change is that it raises the speed limit for e-scooters to 15mph on the road or trail and 6 mph on the sidewalk (but then it only says that speeding may result in a fine. No fine is created at this time). 

It restates existing rules like how many people may be on an e-scooter and it defines legal parking, including no parking on federal land. Here again, the rules apply to personally owned EMDs as well, meaning no one can't park a privately owned e-bike at a bike rack on NPS land. It means State Department employees can't park their own vehicles at work. That must be a mistake. 

It creates an E-scooter parking pilot which will set aside space for e-scooter parking.

Some of this stuff is good - like raising the speed limit and allowing e-bikes on trails and sidewalks - and some is fine, like the permitting requirements, but other parts are bad or sloppy

For example, the bill creates a new definition for battery-assisted bicycles, but are they still motorized bicycles too? It's not clear, but I think the intent was to make it separate. They need to clean up the definition for motorized bicycles then. But really there's almost no reason to break battery-powered and non-battery powered motorized bicycles into two categories with two separate sets of rules. There's an environmental argument for e-bikes, but there is no safety reason to allow e-bikes on sidewalks but not gasoline-powered motorized bikes.

 

Unfortunately, this bill doesn't simplify how we define, group and regulate slow-speed mobility devices. It complicates it. The bill carves out two new groups and then combines them in some places.  Scooters come out of PMDs and e-assist bicycles come out of motorized bicycles. Instead, as the BAC has advocated, the District should create two classes based on top speed and engine size. Everything with a top speed of 20 mph and maximum 750W engine is Class II PMD and is also allowed everywhere a bicycle is (but we can cap scooters operated by a fleet operator at a top speed of 15mph). Top speed of 30mph is a Class II PMD and governed by current Motorized Cycle rules. That makes it all very simple and safer. Without a power limit, there's no weight limit. Under the current bill you can get a 3 wheel e-bike of any size you want and drive it down the sidewalk, as long as it won't go faster than 20mph. 

 

Why are we putting more onerous restrictions (no night time use, mandatory contraction if business is bad and mandatory high-use to expand, etc..) on these devices than we do car-sharing? We don't limit the number of Zipcars in the city or ban them from the road at midnight. Or for Capital Bikeshare for that matter.

 

In an odd bit of rule making a battery-assisted bicycle is defined as something that provides no assistance at more than 20mph. But then later the bill declares that a battery-assisted bicycle shall not provide assistance at more than 20mph. Which is of course impossible. By definition, anything that provides assistance at more than 20mph ceases to be a battery-assisted bicycle. It becomes a motor-driven cycle. Do they mean they don't want bicycles with battery assist that go faster than 20mph on the street? I certainly hope not.  

Comments

[Steve Palincsar]

Is that a Moulton TSR with an electric rear hub motor?

[Adam]

What is a "2 tpvpd usage"?

[washcycle]

2 trips per vehicle per day

[Dewey]

The wording defines what are sold elsewhere as Class 1 and 2 ebikes as "Battery assisted bicycles" which are further defined as a type of "electric mobility device" which are to be permitted to ride on sidewalks outside the CBD. Good.

There was an opportunity missed here to require ebikeshare operators Uber, Lyft, and Lime, to share safety data. Earlier this year CaBi+ pedelecs were withdrawn for the same brake issue that led Uber to modify their 1st gen JUMP bikes, but Uber apparently didn't share this information with Motivate/Lyft.