UniChris

Thanks for being honest about the rather drastically limited basis of your views of the safety and practicality of anything-but-car transport :-)

Have you considered that casual pedal bikes, determined pedal bikes, class I e-bikes, class 3 e-bikes, and non-compliant things that probably should have moped plates exist on a continuous spectrum?

All of which are not truly capable of the speed which "cars" are?

Well, I have.

Have you also considered how deadly most of what is dishonestly passed off as "bike infrastructure" turns out to be when one rolls through its deadly flawed intersections at even 10 mph?

Again, I have - the facts are all over the news.

And have you considered the fundamental conflict between unsafe-at-any-speed "bike routing" versus the same folks' desire to subsidize e-bikes as car replacements?

Again, I have.

There's your issue - you believe that a style of "marginalize the bikes out of sight" design which is proven deadly to even most casual pedal bike users is somehow going to be safe for e-bikes and determined pedal commuters.

In contrast, I'm quite aware of the undeniable fact that we will only cure car dependence when we make all of these things which are not cars first class users of the roads that go where people need to in order to accomplish their lives.

Enjoy your time in fantasyland, the rest of us live, bike - and in select cases like mine, accomplish bike-based-lives in a more complex place called "reality"

3alarmer 

...people who use random bolding never get irony.



...did you read either of the linked articles ?





...and this relates to the thread topic how, exactly ? Forgive me, I'm still not understanding how any of this intersection business relates to faster and more powerful e-bikes being ridden by children, as a danger to their well being.

...How to Calculate Force

...thank you for once more telling me what I believe.

...I believe I'll stop responding to you now. Thanks, its been real, and it's been fun. Too bad it hasn't been real fun.

...good luck in there, Captain Bicycle.

3alarmer 

.
...wow. I'm relieved to see A+S hasn't changed much. It's kind of reassuring, in a way.

UniChris

Enjoy your car! After all, it is... so far, the American way... and if we listen to you* will stay so forever.

(*or anyone else un-interested in the facts of how and where and why cyclists actually get hurt)

I thought this was bike forums though.

Silly me for imagining that would mean people here would believe that bicycle users should be first class users of public road space, and not relegated to the proven-deadly margins of unworkable afterthought.

It's clear from your illogical arguments that at a fundamental level, you simply don't believe bikes belong on the road... it's a grossly mistaken belief that you share with coal rollers, etc al - but mistaken as it is, honesty is better than continuing to pretend that the practical impact of your arguments is anything other than what it is - "a cars rule, bikes are toys" anachronism.

3alarmer 

3alarmer 

.
...I honestly never imagined I'd be berated by a guy who rides a unicycle. That's kind of a one off, even in the A + S.

UniChris

Believe it or not, traffic safety works out the same way no matter how many wheels you have: it's all about if you're where the other road users are looking.

That holds true no matter if you or the others have 1, 2, 3, 4, or 18 wheels.

And most of us experience the roads in a variety of modes - at least occasionally enough to cross inform each mode of the other to a wonderful safety educating extent!

One either believes that cycle-type things belong on the roads, or one believes that only cars are actual transport and the rest is "recreation"

I-Like-To-Bike

The "stats" that allegedly support your view that the "idea" that cars behind bicyclists are the primary threat to the bicyclists' health, and that this "idea" is an "instinctual fear inconsistent with informed reality" are usually spouted by True Believers on the Vehicular Cycling list. The view you espouse on evaluating bicycling risk ("stats" derived mostly though selective cherry picking of limited available bicycling accident data and that usually ignore exposure rate as well as likely severity of various collision scenarios ) has been hashed over previously on the Vehicular Cyclist list.

I find it futile to discuss proper means of managing bicycling risk with the dwindling number of people who still prattle on about "instinctual fear" and "informed reality" and other variations of Vehicular Cycling dogma on the subject of evaluating bicycling risk when riding on the road.

3alarmer 

...personally, I try to remember the formula for Force, when I'm deciding what to crash into.

UniChris

After looking at how cyclists actually get hurt, I worry about those ahead far more than those behind... but, you do you.

In either case, I choose my position on the roadway to maximize my chance of survival - versus how bike lanes tend to be routed into intersections from the curbside position that is demonstrated over, and over, and over again to be that which causes crashes.

No one of sound mind can look at something like an alleged "bike route" hidden behind parked cars, and so forced to approach intersections from the deadliest direction possible, and conclude that's it's a survivable path for usage of a bicycle-like device for covering non-trivial car-replacement distances.

You can't safely ride an electrified device into an intersection from such a gutter at normal speed, even when you have the "right of way"

You can't safely ride a pedal bike into an intersection from such a gutter at normal speed, even when you have the "right of way"

All you can really do from there with any hope of survival is either be a literal pedestrian, or pause and carefully look as if you were a pedestrian.

3alarmer 

With a throttle and no pedals, Super73’s new “electric balance bike” blurs the lines of regulation and safety. “No license, registration or insurance required,” its marketing promises.

https://archive.is/DLA4v​​​​​​​

UniChris

20 mph electric devices make tons of sense transportation-wise.

But children should not be operating them.

And no matter who is operating them, put one of those on a sidewalk or a "bike route" that has the same intersection routing issues for bike movement as a sidewalk, and everyone who sees it zip past finally starts to understand why that's a recipe for intersection crashes.

Many of us know that's true of more-than-trivial use of pedal bikes as well - but at least putting a motor on something helps the general public see how dangerous it is to operate it anywhere that's not the equivalent of a road lane properly routed relative to other traffic at intersections.

Perhaps when society is forced to face the reality that such meaningfully car-replacement "e-bikes" are only survivable on the road itself there will be greater opportunity for the rest of us to pedal along in the same space where they are seen as normal.

I-Like-To-Bike

Force is directly related to severity of injuries likely to result from a traffic mishap, especially when the objects crashing into a bicyclist likely can impart mucho Force (mass and velocity) onto the body of said bicyclist.

Likely severity of injuries from various road position mishaps is usually ignored by those who get hysterical about the alleged unacceptable risk of not positioning a bicycle like a motor vehicle in the traffic lane, regardless of the traffic density, traffic speed, visibility or any other consideration but "faring best" dogma.

3alarmer 

.
...I had honestly forgotten about the VC believers.

UniChris

Even if one insists on ignoring that the majority of life-altering and season-ending injuries, as well as a substantial share of deaths occur in situations that had more to do with intersection geometry and sudden appearance of the cyclist from an unexpected direction, and instead looks only at how motor vehicle speed does indeed increase the severity of injury and likelihood of death in the minority of injurious that actually were about closing from behind.

Even if one is going to insist on ignoring those overall facts and look only at speed of closing.

Then that very same speed creates impact energy consideration has to include how the speed of the bike-form devices is itself increased by motors. People are now getting killed in e-bike crashes that involved no other moving party at all.

And not just the impact energy, but also the reduction in time to react and evade - we see how the cyclist's own speed plays a role in most any video of a classic right hook, entering driver, or dooring tragedy.

Maybe you think the collision energy in the all-too-common case where someone moving at 10-12 mph on a sidewalk-like or curbside route collides with a vehicle turning or entering at an only slightly higher speed is an an acceptable risk - though remember what things like high clearance vehicles and aggressive bumpers can do at even moderately low speeds.

But surely even those who ignore the basics of pedal bike safety can understand how riding a motorized device through an intersection from a sidewalk-like or curbside position at 20, 28, or 30+ mph is going to be far too dangerous.

If electrified bike-like devices are going to be meaningful car replacement then we have to look at the basic realities of the demand

• People covering American distances aren't going to be satisfied with moderate pedal assist speeds
• 20 and 28 mph "e-bikes" are what start to have car-replacement potential outside the shortest trips - and are often cheaper anyway
• many will look instead to something even faster - which should be regulated as a motor vehicle even though it is often not going to keep up with cars
• users are going to want to use the speed they have available, so offered routes must be survivable at the same sorts of speeds that ordinary traffic lanes are

Electric motors make it impossible to continue to ignore the realities of the demand for mixed traffic.

And nevermind the safety issue, sheer numbers force mixed traffic as well - if we actually got a remotely impactful number of people out of cars, then we'd have to be using the main public transportation space to accommodate them, rather than squeezing them into the margins of public life.

5% two wheeled user mileage share means nothing in terms of reducing the climate etc impact of full size motor vehicles, and it's not "a start" if it's done in a way that cannot scale

25% percent starts to be a change - but a future with 25% bike and light electric mode share in terms of people's routine mileage travelled is one where most of the ordinary roads that go places where people need to, are going to have to see those devices operated in the same space as the cars that remain - special casing is physically impossible on too many of those routes.

A bike and light-ev future is a future where bikes and light-evs are first class users of the public roads. Anything less is just a cute little theater skit we put on where some people are encouraged to pretend they are doing something, while society as a whole stays stuck in the very "only cars are practical" mindset that is the underlying problem.

Subsidizing e-bike purchases is brilliant politicking - it's basically a tiny "guilt fee" that society pays to pretend that it is doing something, even while in directing their users to "bike lanes" on the unsafe and impractical margins of transport space, it only doubles down on remaining car-focused.

We need a world where far from accusing a bike or light-ev user in front of them of "hogging the road" those in four wheeled vehicles recognize that it is actually their insistence on continuing to operate such which (situationally justified or not) is what is "hogging" the multi-purpose public road.

jon c. 

So you would contend that no bicycle should ever be ridden in a traffic lane regardless of traffic density, traffic speed, visibility or other considerations?

If you're going to take strawman arguments to the extreme, might as well do it from both sides.

UniChris

I can understand why some are stuck in their misunderstanding of essential pedal bike safety.

What I can't understand is why they won't re-consider their cherished beliefs in the case of faster electrified things that the article was largely about

Where it is safest to ride at 12 mph may sadly remain a dispute - but at 20+ mph the danger of misrouting into intersection conflict is undeniably obvious

3alarmer 

...why is increasing severity of injury as speed and mass of the vehicles involved increases a strawman argument ?
It's an easily documentable phenomenon, and I have attempted to do so in post # 17. The first study is not anecdotal, it has real world statistics.

Here's another study, for pedestrians and car occupants. Both of those demographics have been more extensively studied.

There might be a strawman here, but I think maybe you're the guy making it.

UniChris

It's not the fact which is disputed but the statistical relevance to overall safety, exponentially moreso in the e-bike case so long as one persists in looking only at the speed of the car and not also the speed of the e-bike.

You persist in forgetting that crashes with high speed motor vehicle movement are only a small minority of overall injurious crashes.

Yes, if you ignore life altering injuries, and look only at actual deaths, then you see high closing speed showing up in a slight minority of deaths.

But that's only if you ignore all of the day-ruining, month-recuperating, life-altering tragedies that are far, far more likely to occur when attempting to get around by anything but car - when you look at bad outcomes in general, you recognize that intersection, turn, etc type conflicts are your largest risk.

Incidentally, you might be surprised to know that I will occasionally operate a bicycle on a literal sidewalk(!) It wasn't instinctive, but I ultimately realized that where not technically illegal, during high traffic times on a road in disrepair, poking along the sidewalk at 7 mph, pulling off on the rare encounter of a pedestrian, and coming to a stop to carefully look before crossing each commercial driveway, was still faster than walking. Though I do walk that trip more than I sidewalk bike it, because walking has its own merits. But when headed out of town for 50-100 miles on a weekend morning, I'm centered in the right lane and people can use the left to pass me. And if they'd simply re-pave the road while changing nothing else, I'd probably use it more exclusively.

And what actually matters for this thread is that at an electrified 20+ mph the risk of intersection conflict becomes even more dominant than it already was.

3alarmer 

...this is a fundamental misunderstanding of both the articles and the on topic discussion about them.

You have managed, through some trick of personal perspective, to presume that all of this is in favor of higher speeds for e-bikes, available in the marketplace with little regulation or oversight, even for the use of children. And because you are one of the remaining true believers in the Gospel according to Forester, you've twisted this into some sort of VC argument. It's not that, and if you want to preach VC, there's an entire thread devoted to those sermons. Take it there, if you need to vent.

If you keep on at this vehicular cycling argumentation, which even Forester would probably not advise as a good idea for young kids and adolescents, I'll have no choice but to ask the moderation team to intervene.

I ride a pedal bike. I ride various iterations of them all the time here. That I disagree with you about "essential pedal bike safety", is not a "misunderstanding" on my part. Please stop referring to it as such. Someone posted a recent video in the dedicated VC thread. You should go there and watch it.

https://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular...r-cycling.html

Meanwhile, please stop derailing this thread.

UniChris

The article is pretty clear about the user demand for such - and the severe consequences of using them without matching thought.

And if you think for a minute about what would actually get people out of cars for trips of non-trivial distance, that's obvious.

You ignored where I mentioned that the faster things should have moped plates

You ignored where I said that children should not be operating them.

Now let's set the blatant falsehood of your accusations behind and talk about the actual topic
-----

As the article makes clear society demands electrified devices, but hasn't yet worked out how to include them and regulate them.

So:

How do you believe that someone riding an e-bike at 20 mph should be routed past a spot where other traffic can turn?

What about a class-III e-bike at 28 mph?

What about a 35 mph electric motorcycle with motor vehicle plates and a licensed operator?

As the article makes clear, these devices are happening. It illustrates at great length the dangers of their misfit with current ideas of traffic and regulation of things which are passed off as, but not exactly bicycles.

But they are happening - so the questions that matter are how we categorize and regulate their sale, regulate and direct their use, and if the path we chose makes them attractive as a numerically significant car replacement, or only a niche interest.

-----

Do you want to propose a standard for what is an e-bike vs what is a motor vehicle requiring a licensed operator, plates, and insurance? That would be great discussion to have.

And even if you want to keep the slower of these things in routings which I believe are unsafe, I'd like to know where you'd direct the faster ones to ride.

Or do you prefer a regulatory regime where there's just a big gap in legal offerings? e-bikes up to say 20 mph and anything more must be a motor vehicle? I'd could make a strong argument that 20 mph is too fast to be lumped in with incumbent "bicycle planning" and be survivable, and also point out that that such a decision would leave purchasers of previously legal 28 mph class-III devices high and dry.

But I'm quite interested - what are your policy proposals?

What devices are vs are not allowed, and where in public space does each category operate?

I am far the moment far more interested in how you'd handle electrified devices than the background of our disagreement over routing pedal bikes.

jon c. 

Not sure if you're intentionally missing the point or not.

I'll take the charitable view and assume so.

3alarmer 

...thank you. I still don't get it. This exchange you quoted started out as the simple discussion of how force, which increases with both speed and mass, increase the severity of injury statisitics.
I am never, ever, going to have mass approaching that of the other occupants of the traffic lanes. I can pedal pretty fast in the same direction, but I'm always going to lose in the event of a conflict...even with a swell e-bike.

I am old enough to sort of understand and weigh those risks. Younger individuals lack the resources for informed consent. Thus the suggestions in the various posts and links for more regulation in the marketplace.

I-Like-To-Bike

That is a strawman argument that you are making and falsely attributing to me.

Evaluating risk properly mandates consideration of likely severity of mishaps as well as the probability of mishaps to include exposure to the various hazard. Stats that only add up the total number of crashes in various road scenarios/environments and ignore severity (as in skinned knee boo-boos suffered on the sidewalk by low speed mishaps carry the same value as fractured skulls and traumatic amputation injuries from high speed collisions) pollute the typical "crash rate" stats and "facts" so beloved by so-called bicycling safety advocates who tout conclusions based on bogus hazard analysis. Such conclusions have seeped out of the Vehicular Cycling list into this thread.

UniChris

Do you perceive the balance of risks differently when an e-bike starts going 20 mph, or in the class III case 28 mph - or when like some of the things in the article, it's not really an e-bike but something where clipping a conveniently provided wire unlocks its fundamental design as something built for the purpose of going far faster still?

Or are you only willing to look at the speed of the car, and not consider what the speed of the light electric device may contribute to the likelihood of a collision with a car, where that car's speed or mass or height may indeed, still be the thing that makes the collision yield severe injury?

Do your beliefs about where in public space electric devices should be operated take their own speed into account? If so, how?