Re: New York's Crackdown on Ebikes

NFN Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com> wrote:

There's some good nuance here, important stuff that's often easy to lose
in public debate.
 
Roger Merriman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 5/26/2025 1:15 PM, NFN Smith wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

 

 
Very much depends on the location and situation, the park paths and so on,
I use for the commute differ to the cycleway I use which has occasional
foot traffic, to the newer cycle infrastructure.
 
In terms of expectations and speed etc wildly varying.

 
Very true. For where you are, it appears to be an urban environment, and
where there's a lot of commuting traffic. That's different for where I
am, where it's a mix of suburban and rural.  We're in almost entirely
flat spaces and very straight roads that are spaced exactly one mile a
part, in both directions. When you get closer in to urbanized density,
most roads are 2 lanes in each direction (often 3, for newer roads), and
where there's a dedicated 2-way left turn lane in the center, and
usually a traffic speed limit of 45 MPH. Further out, the roads narrow,
and are not much more than farm roads -- one lane in each direction,
soft, graveled shoulder, and not much more maintenance than road crews
dropping some hot asphalt (about once a year) into places that potholes
have developed, and speed limits of only 25 MPH.

London so urban to Suburban, I’m outer london so mainly suburban, lower
speed limits 20mph is common, almost certainly and reasonably chance of it
being enforced aka speed cameras.

 
We also have several canals (including one right next to my house) that
have dedicated multi-use paths on one side of the canal.  These are more
or less municipal paths, and very much a magnet for recreational use,
ranging from simple pedestrians to serious cyclists. On the other side
of the canal (at least in the space near my house) what's there is
essentially a service road that is owned by the water utility that
operates the canal. In some places, the service road is paved (and also
suitable for cycling, as it's even wider than the multi-use path), but
only a mile in either direction, the surface is gravel.
 

Those are lovely places but not particularly useful for utility purposes as
they are narrow and is limited as to how many can useful use such places.

For the multi-use path, I termed as "mostly" municipal, and that
reflects the governing philosophy of the town I live in. The town tends
to be tax-phobic, and as a result there are a lot of things that other
towns or cities would pay for that they outsource to private entities.
For roads (as noted above), one of the common effects is "scalloping",
where the town doesn't do any serious infrastructure investments.
Instead, they wait for an agricultural plot (typically an alfalfa field)
to be converted to a housing subdivision, and then make the developer
pay for all the improvements in the space directly facing the
subdivision, but nothing more.  Development is often uneven, and as a
result, it's frequent to have a road that is improved with good
pavement, space for at least 2 lanes of traffic in one direction and
space for the common left turn lane, plus curb, gutter and sidewalk on
one side for the quarter mile that faces the subdivision, which turns
back to farm road when the edge(s) of the subdivision are reached, and
farm road on the other side of the road.
 
The handling of the multi-use paths are similar. For the path near my
house, I think it's pretty much completed for the entire length of the
canal. In neighboring cities, the path was done by the relevant
governments, but in my town, where most of the construction is
subdivisions, the town outsourced construction.  In the space near my
house, for some reason, the part of the path was put on neighborhood
property, and where maintenance belongs to the homeowner's association,
rather than being put on the right-of-way that belongs to the water company.
 
About a mile further up, the path was still unimproved (gravel only)
until an apartment complex was built next to it. When that happened,
it's pretty obvious that the developer did the required improvements by
hiring a contractor that normally does sidewalks, and for the quarter
mile in front of that complex, the surface is essentially a sidewalk.
Good, solid concrete, but seams 10 or 12 feet apart, and not really wide
enough for two bicycles to ride abreast. It's tricky to pass when there
are bikes coming from opposite directions.
 
For the path near my house, maintenance by the homeowner's association
is something of an issue, because it's in a place not seen (or used) by
a lot of the residents, and there is something of an "out of sight, out
of mind" attitude. The layout is where the path is lower than the space
next to it (deliberately), and takes a lot of runoff -- thus, problems
with puddles that turn to silt, and infrequent sweeping.  Plus, the
neighborhood has aged enough that there are some number of trees nearby
that have root systems that cause buckles in the surface. Not
necessarily a problem for bicycles with large wheels and soft tires, but
definitely an issue for things like skates and scooters.  Because the
path is on neighborhood property, it's the neighborhood's responsibility
to maintain.
 
I reported the issue with uneven surface to the homeowners' association
management, and it took a little bit to establish with the current
manager that despite the public right-of-way, the path is on
neighborhood property, and not the responsibility of the city, even if
it's a publicly-accessible thoroughfare.  In the process, they
discovered that the condition of the path was also in violation of the
Americans With Disabilities Act.  The neighborhood wasn't happy about
putting out nearly $25,000 for repairs, but it is a legal requirement.
It's also not an abstraction, as there's another neighborhood a few
miles away, where there are outstanding claims of $3.1 million following
a crash by a teenager on a similar surface (with buckles) on a motorized
scooter.  I don't remember if the claims are against the neighborhood
(and their insurance) or against the town.  However, what our
neighborhood paid in preventative repairs was a small fraction of what
is being claimed on the other crash.
 

 
I’d again say you get what you design for.

 
That's really the crux of the issue -- there are multiple design
agendas, and they're sometimes in conflict with each other. It doesn't
help when the people who make decisions aren't the the actual users, and
often, where they're projecting their own stereotypes, based on either
minimal personal experience, or the more abstract objectives of urban
planning, where there's a lot of "what should be" or what is envisioned,
rather than what actually is.
 

 

I've found that even
multi-use paths are frequently not a good place for serious riding,
because of the speed differential between a bicycle and a pedestrian.

 
Yes. I've heard the term "pathlete" applied derisively to bicyclists
doing speed work on multi-use paths.

 
An interesting term.
 

 
I’ve not really noticed that, but UK and London is lot more accessible for
bicycling than the US, more some runners who are using somewhat
inappropriate places, or times of day etc.

 
I can imagine.  I've spent time in London, although only as a tourist,
and not really seeing how bicycles fit into the landscape.
 

 

And there's even an in-between space for things like unpowered scooters
or roller blades that are faster than pedestrians but slower than bikes.
 
However, with ebikes (and for that matter, powered scooters) when you
add powered propulsion, then you're adding an extra measure of speed,
including that too many ebikes are capable of speeds in excess of what
is possible than for all but the fastest fitness riders.

 
And it's been pointed out that to ride at 20 mph, most people require
years of training. They start slow and tend to make most of their
mistakes at slow (less dangerous) speeds. But ebikes allow total novices
to ride faster than most experts.

 
This I’d and UK law would class as a moped and should be considered as
such, at that point particularly with a throttle! It fails the does it walk
and talk like a duck? Which the pedal assist 15mph cut off do.

 
I think that's the critical point. Although there's a measure of
difference between a traditional human-powered bicycle and pedal assist
bikes, the real problem is with the fully motorized bikes. Throttle is a
good differentiator, but it's also the question of both max speed and
sustained speed, and entirely incompatible with foot-based pedestrians
and vehicles whose speed is less than 5 MPH.
 

 

I'm fully of the opinion that any bike should be regarded as a vehicle,
and generally, ridden on streets, where it's understood by both the
rider and motorists that the bike is subject to all the rules of the
road, both rights and responsibilities.  Yet at the same time, I
recognize there are combinations of road and bike (and rider) that are
incompatible with each other.  It's not unlike trying to drive a Ferrari
in a school zone, or taking an antique Model-T Ford out onto a freeway.
 
However, the issue with the ebikes is the question of speed, as well as
the understanding of the rules of the road.  With a motorcycle, it's
normally necessary to have licensing, both for the bike and the
operator. Somehow, it seems to have not occurred that just because the
propulsion system of an ebike is electrical rather than an internal
combustion engine that the ebike should not be subject to the same rules
as the motorcycle, rather than being regarded in the same light as an
unpowered bicycle, simply because it has two wheels.

 
All true. Regarding the "somehow" - the crazy legal situation arose, as
I understand, from intense lobbying by bicycle industry lobbyists. They
always need "the next big thing" to save their industry, and they
realized that if ebikes needed licensing and were prohibited from bike
lanes and paths, that they would sell far fewer of them.

 
True, but it's also new technologies moving into areas where there's no
legal and philosophical underpinnings of how they should interact with
the world around them. And where the promoters of those technologies
have a vested interest in filling the gaps with their products, and
hopefully (at least for them) that they generate enough demand for their
products that by the time that the legal process catches up, they can
object with "it's obvious that we're filling a need, you can't put legal
restrictions on us!" Even if the biggest need being met is not
necessarily customer demand, but maintaining their revenue streams.
 
We had that happen several year ago, when there was a big outbreak of
the pay-by-the-minute motorized scooters that were all over town, not
just in the central part of town, or along major thoroughfares, but even
in neighborhoods further away, where users simply abandoned them
wherever they were when they were no longer needed.  There were several
that ended up near my house, and I was tempted to take one or two of
those scooters and throw into the canal.
 
As it turns out, when the question came up with town governance, the
scooters weren't totally banned, but there were enough operating
restrictions put on them that they pretty much disappeared, even if
there are a small number in one high-density part of town.
 

 
And here we are.
 

Most lobbyists and companies such as Bosch are very much not in favour of
higher power, for the above reasons see UK Government suggesting to
increase power and EU talking of stricter regulations as DIGI have been
pushing the limits with 1000watt boosts and so on.
 
Aka they will get banned from stuff and so on.

 
Yep.  See above.
 
Thanks for further opportunity to think out loud.
 
Smith
 

Roger Merriman