Paul Basken's Washington Post article (and his follow up here) calling for a ban on e-bikes on multi-use trails continues a conversation that cyclists have been having for some time now about what is and isn't a bike and who should and should not be allowed on trails and other facilities. Much of the bicycle advocacy world is coalescing around the position that low-speed electric assist bikes should be treated like purely human-powered bicycles, but there are those, like Mr. Basken, who are concerned that this will bring along changes too unpleasant to be lived with. I don't think that position is very strong or well-reasoned, and such a policy stands in the way of better bicycling and better transportation policy.
Our transportation policy should be built around the goal of creating a system that moves people easily, equitably and with the least amount of damage. This is why bicycles are so great in the first place. Bicycles can move people quickly, cheaply, safely and cleanly and are especially useful in urban environments where travel distances are short, congestion is high and parking is at a premium. And on top of that, cycling has public health benefits. All of these benefits can be found with e-bikes, even if they're less pronounced.
From a purely selfish standpoint, more trail users and cyclists (e or otherwise) means there is a larger constituency for trails and more bikes on the road, bringing greater political influence and safety in numbers.
E-bikes result in positive mode shifts, making transportation cleaner, healthier, safer and more efficient
In most ways e-bikes are like regular bikes. E-bikes cause no more congestion than regular bicycles - which means they cause far less than cars - and require no more public space for parking. And "e-bike riders exhibit nearly identical safety behavior as regular bike riders" meaning that like an e-bike will cause fewer injuries and deaths than an automobile will.
The key difference, that they make biking easier via a battery-powered motor, means that they compare somewhat poorly to traditional bikes for health or environmental benefits but significantly better than automobiles and transit. Where e-bikes have been used they have led to mode shifting away from automobiles and transit, with people who have access to an e-bike biking more, for longer distances and as a larger percentage of their trips. Surveys show they could increase bike trips in the Netherlands by between 4-9%. Even at this early stage, e-bikes represent the largest adoption of an alternative fuel vehicle in history. Despite the fact that they're motorized, the low-power and human-power assistance means that they're significantly more energy efficient than others modes. When people move from automobiles - or even transit - to e-bikes it means they're making the total transportation system cleaner.
With public health, again, the benefits of e-biking are less than cycling, but because the rider is still pedaling they're still significantly better than more sedentary modes.
From a transportation standpoint, they also bring transportation diversity and equity because they're able to make biking available to people who otherwise would not ride. Studies in Europe have shown that the earliest adopters of e-bikes in Europe have been the elderly, and that women are much more likely to buy e-bikes than men. And once women have e-bikes they will also use them more. E-bikes serve people with longer commutes, people with cargo bikes and those who don't want to or can't shower at work.
So, making it easier for people to switch to e-bikes for their transportation is something we should pursue, just as we strive to make it easier for people to switch to traditional bikes. And one way to make it easier is to improve their utility. Allowing e-bikes onto trails will, by definition, improve their utility, which will result in more mode shift; bringing all the environmental, health, congestion-relief and land use benefits such a shift would create.
The concerns are based exclusively on unfounded fear
While Basken seems to accept that this mode shift would have environmental and health benefits, he nonetheless opposes allowing them on trails and states three reasons for doing so. He fears that allowing e-bikes on trails will scare ordinary cyclists away, thus offsetting the benefits described above. He claims that many bicyclists and pedestrians believe there should be a place for people who want some kind of pavement without any motorized vehicles. And he at least implies that allowing e-bikes on trails will have negative impacts on safety.
Basken's concern that e-bikes will scare away traditional cyclists isn't particularly developed and is only hinted at once, but suffice it to say, he offers no proof that this is true. The evidence we do have indicates otherwise. Minnesota has allowed e-bikes on trails since 2012, and yet bike counts at 7 trail locations in Minneapolis are up 15% from 2012 to 2016. Most of Europe allows e-bikes on trails and has for several years and yet there has been no backlash or movement to ban them, nor has there been any drop in biking. If traditional cyclists are being driven away, it is a very small number.
His second claim about the attitudes of bicyclists and pedestrians is more clearly stated, but like his earlier claim bereft of any evidence. The only survey of attitudes he cites shows that most think that e-bikes should be allowed on trails and is immediately denounced by him. But that survey shows more than he indicates. While it's true that 25% of the respondents owned an e-bike, they broke respondents into two groups, league members and non-league members. Though the ownership rate in the 2nd group was more than 50% higher, the opinions of the two groups was nearly the same - indicating that ownership isn't the main driver of opinion. Furthermore, the Canadian run Electric Bike 2000 Project found that 95% of cyclists, when given exposure to an e-bike, felt that e-bikes should be allowed on shared-use paths. And in Minnesota, where they've been legal on trails, Dorian Grilley, executive director of the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota said "There are certainly some purists out there who don't think they should be on the Greenway, but I think they're in the minority." While it may be true that many would like to keep e-bikes off of trails, the evidence shows that most would not.
His third claim is that we don't really know if adding bikes onto trails is safe, and he strongly implies that it is not, again without evidence. But here again, a study of comparative safety shows that e-bike cyclists "exhibit nearly identical safety behavior as regular bike riders" and that on shared use paths "speeds of e-bike riders (11.0kph) were lower than regular bicyclists (12.6kph)." And this was not a one-off as other studies also show that e-bike speeds do not differ much from bicycle speeds and when they do, it is primarily because they don't spend as much time at slower speeds, not because they go a faster top speed. Basken tries to argue that the 20mph top speed of a legal e-bike is far outside the norm and does so by showing Strava data from the Capital Crescent Trail. But he chose an uphill segment on a trail with a 15mph speed limit. Naturally the speed will be slower there. On a flatter section of a trail with no speed limit, around half of all cyclists top 20mph. If weight is a concern, there is already no weight limit on trails and the e-bike shown above weighs ~20% less than a Capital Bikeshare does.
If the concern is that e-bike riders will go too fast or ride too recklessly, well we already have rules against that. As WABA said "the best way to keep our trails as pleasant places is not by excluding different kinds of riders, it’s by practicing courtesy and common sense." Basken says these rules don't work because they are widely ignored by riders and never enforced by police. This is an odd position for someone to take when they're arguing in favor of a rule. Rules are what we're relying on to keep dangerous behavior off the trail, let's focus on making them work.
Allowing e-bikes on trails will increase their utility. This should result in more mode switching from cars to e-bikes, bringing with it a host of benefits. Most people are fine with e-bikes on trails and e-bike riders don't behave any differently than regular cyclists do. So why let unsubstantiated fear of "motors" keep them off? After all, we already allow motors on the Capital Crescent Trail in the form of Electronic Personal Assistive Mobility Devices (EPAMD). If tax-paying, freedom-cherishing bicyclists and pedestrians are looking for a place with some kind of pavement without motors on it, they're already going to have to look for some place else. Meanwhile there are a lot of parents buying bikes like this:
Do we really need to ban this family from the Capital Crescent Trail?
This is not the face of e-biking that Basken wants you to see, but it is far closer to the truth. He showed 4 scary images of the what e-bikes could look like. Of them, one is a bicycle that you can already ride on the trail. The other three have motors and speeds that exceed the limits to be considered a class I or class II e-bike. Throughout the articles he conflates the e-bikes I've shown above with automobiles by calling their users "motorists"; the trail a "respite from motoring", and writing about the "clear dangers" a letter-to-the-editor writer who wrote about not wanting to ride next to cars "properly associates with motors." But it's ridiculous to claim that people are afraid of motors. It's like saying someone who doesn't want a tiger living with them is scared of cats.
We can safely allow low-speed e-bikes on our trails, and doing so will make us all better off. That's something we should advocate for.
Recent Comments