How would you write ideal ebike regulations

[danielrlee]

LockH. This thread isn't about regulations for electric vehicles. It's about regulations for electric BIKES. You are so far from the point now that I can only assume you are just here for the trolling. Can we get the discussion back on track please?

I've been finding this thread fascinating and who knows, this might be the first time this has been discussed in any real depth by individuals with a real practical understanding and experience of the issue. Maybe somebody with the power to actually affect future regulatory action will read this thread someday, so let's keep it relevant.

 

[LockH]

So, be it resolved that "ideal vehicle regulations" shall NOT be the same as those for electric bicycles alone? That somehow electric bicycle operators are "different" in some fundamental way? Curious! Do tell, please?

 

[danielrlee]

So, be it resolved that "ideal vehicle regulations" shall NOT be the same as those for electric bicycles alone? That somehow electric bicycle operators are "different" in some fundamental way? Curious! Do tell, please?

Rights of access, for starters. Do you feel that you, with your legislatively limited bike, shouldn't be allowed in areas other vehicles are not permitted to reach?

 

[LockH]

So, be it resolved that "ideal vehicle regulations" shall NOT be the same as those for electric bicycles alone? That somehow electric bicycle operators are "different" in some fundamental way? Curious! Do tell, please?

Rights of access, for starters. Do you feel that you, with your legislatively limited bike, shouldn't be allowed in areas other vehicles are not permitted to reach?

OK. Good point (though my trike, w/pulled rickshaw w/passengers plus groceries, sorta heavy plus "wide" - not really, compared to most "car" sized vehicles).

 

[gogo]

So, be it resolved that "ideal vehicle regulations" shall NOT be the same as those for electric bicycles alone? That somehow electric bicycle operators are "different" in some fundamental way? Curious! Do tell, please?

Rights of access, for starters. Do you feel that you, with your legislatively limited bike, shouldn't be allowed in areas other vehicles are not permitted to reach?

The legislature in my state was admirably objective concerning the right of access to the interstate road system:

321.285 SPEED RESTRICTIONS.
1. Any person driving a motor vehicle on a highway shall drive
the same at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less
than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic,
surface, and width of the highway and of any other conditions then
existing, and no person shall drive any vehicle upon a highway at a
speed greater than will permit the person to bring it to a stop
within the assured clear distance ahead, such driver having the right
to assume, however, that all persons using said highway will observe
the law.
…
e. Any kind of vehicle, implement, or conveyance incapable of
attaining and maintaining a speed of forty miles per hour shall be
prohibited from using the interstate road system.
…

This means that if my bicycle is an aerodynamic velomobile that can attain and maintain a speed of forty miles per hour, its not prohibited from using the interstate. Granted, there are practical concerns such as the weight of the conveyance, grade, and headwind that must be considered before accessing it.

 

[LockH]

FINALLY, a voice of reason (from Master D... possibly puppies are already getting... "chubby").

BTW, re rickshaw (see above), it's a four-wheeler. Seats maybe 20 (yes, we like to party). Each wheel w/brakes, plus 2 front wheels do turn, and brakes connected to trike rider (trike) or independently controlled. Rickshaw also has e motors and own batts, just can't be steered on its own (but could be, w/steering device added). Trike at least conforms to local laws (watt are silent re trailers. At "legal" speed limits, down hills do wear out brake pads fast sometimes. I tried discouraging laughter by passengers, but so far no luck.

EDIT: Must get a pic of the gang on the rickshaw, but do have one of an earlier iteration. "Side car" style (and only added a third wheel, back in the day when I could ride two). Then I went full "trailer style" (only two wheels, at first) and added brakes, seat belts, motors, ashtrays, batts, awning cover, etc, etc.

 

[greenspark]

Recently I received a private message in regards to this thread, and I take the liberty of quoting some of it.

In your thread regarding addressing E bike laws and how we should address them, I found that most of the postings, not including yours, were so counterproductive and so addle minded, that I found it extremely difficult to try to wade through that thread. I would take a gander at it that it is most likely that the "serious folks" begin reading this type of thread with great interest and soon walk away from it due to the hoodlums that can't help themselves with expounding their drivel. You sir have shown a great amount of restraint and class in that you have not given these fools too much traction in that their ideas amount to much more than the immature ramblings whose juvenile/under developed voice is going through its mental/vocal cracklings. I find that I cannot engage with them. I wonder if you also had to a certain degree become exasperated with the lack of useful conversation dealing with this issue?

I have to say that I agree with the writer.

Many of the comments are inattentive, indulgent and in a curious way somewhat arrogant. Yet I don't believe that this is done with malicious intent, but rather indicative of people for whom forums have become a form of lazy interactive entertainment. I write this not as criticism, but as a wake up call.

The internet introduces me to people who are appallingly poor at the art of conversation. Rather than read a posting and then either move on because they don't have something responsive to offer, or respond to the subject matter because they have something worthwhile to add to the collective knowledge or understanding, these people seem impelled to write even though it has little to do with the subject.

In the end, yes, it does drive away original posters who are actually seeking a helpful dialogue, and yields the field to the diddlers.

I've pretty much given up hope that I can get intelligent and useful information from this thread.

OK, one groups says just set speed limits. Got it. If it has been said, it does not need to be repeated. If you want to repeat it set up a poll. However, there are problems with speed limits, of which the most obvious is that legislators may not accept that approach. I was seeking to get a good engineering description of what constitutes a safe accessory power-unit so the bicycle can still be defined as a bicycle (few regulations). I've concluded there is no one on this forum prepared to address that, thus I'll have to try elsewhere.

For the future, I ask each of you who posted to re-read your posting and ask how useful it was. Was it necessary to make such a posting? Did it, to use a football analogy move the ball forward? If you feel it is necessary, then ask "am I responding to the post, or going off on my own tangent"? If the latter, start a new thread.

Please no flaming responses to this comment.

******************

The person who reads too much and uses his brain too little will fall into lazy habits of thinking.
Albert Einstein

 

[LockH]

So here is the challenge. If you were to write rules that were clear, easy to measure, easy to enforce and really did hit the sweet spot between safe and dangerous, what would they say? It also would be very important to maintain the freedom we have now. No registration, no inspections, no licenses, no insurance, no obnoxious rules, and for safety a commitment that road builders make the roads safe (like in Europe), not vilify the bike rider because of bad road design.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle_laws for the mess we have now.

How should the rules read? (how would you write a regulation for ebikes that was fair, universal and adoptable?)

Perhaps most folks are in denial. Life as it has existed for them, plus whatever they know from history, and they can no longer imagine. See "over the horizon", so to speak.

RULE ONE (for ANY vehicle operation in any atmosphere, aka "Space"): NEVER DO HARM.
RULE TWO: NEVER TRUST (yourself, but especially not any other creatures, etc.)
RULE THREE: NEVER EXCEED PRUDENT VEHICLE OPERATING SPEEDS. (See Rule One, above.)

Maybe four:
BE AWARE (Of other creatures and things eg your own vehicle operating indicators.)

 

[LockH]

Yah know... In the known history of the human species living on the surface, mostly in the "dirt" on the surface of this little ball of watt some called (funnily-enough) "earth", us creatures (?) have had a rather pathetic habit of building walls. Perhaps first to keep the other (?) "nasty" animals out, but expanding things to form "nations" (more walls, more nasty stuff) and to "classify" other "people" and "things".

Watt many find useful for discussing opportunities and their "concerns" (and also perhaps generates lots of "income" - usually "money", used as a medium for exchange of products and services - for the legal "profession".)

So in any inline "discussion" titled "How would you write ideal ebike regulations", it may be useful if any contributors might keep in mind that with regards to "rules" regarding "transportation" that watt has "been done" in the past MAYBE HASN'T "WORKED" VERY WELL AT ALL?

 

[LockH]

Universal Rules of Travel:
RULE ONE (for ANY vehicle operation in any atmosphere, aka "space"): NEVER DO HARM.
RULE TWO: NEVER TRUST (yourself, but especially not any other creatures, etc.)
Corollary: EG, your own and other vehicles, on land called the "terrain", etc. Most "stuff" will ALWAYS "change"/"wear" (and wear "out" and/or "break"), if not maintained or replaced as needed or desired). So, one should ALWAYS HAVE A BACKUP PLAN and ALLOW FOR "CONTINGENCIES" (or be prepared to suffer the consequences).

RULE THREE: NEVER EXCEED PRUDENT VEHICLE OPERATING SPEEDS. (See Rule One, above.)
RULE FOUR: BE AWARE (Of other creatures and things eg your own vehicle operating indicators.)

 

[GeorgeS]

This is an interesting thread. Mostly I think it shows that regulation and law have broken down. The modern model for regulation (I used to fly a plane and the FAA readily admitted this) is to have so many regulations the regulator always has you, well, in a bad way.

I was reading an article about trends in ebikes, across the world. In China, they may sell 35 million in a couple of years. In Europe, ebikes are replacing cars, and certainly regular bikes. Most Chinese replace a regular bike. One of the interesting projections was for the US. Some people say the US market for ebikes will peak in a few years, under a half million.

If this is true it is largely because ebikes are becoming hyper-specialized, and they are selling outside the mainstream of regular cyclists. (In the thread above regular cyclists are referred to as “Lycras”.) The US market is fed by technological change, and the prices are going up pretty fast. So you have a very upscale market and the ebike market seems very much separate from the regular cyclists.

SUBA, the Southern Utah Bicycle Association, has found a fantastic partner in the relatively new head of UDOT. UDOT is the State Highway Dept., but the man in charge wants bikes included in every plan for a new highway. When they opened a new stretch of highway in the loop around St. George, the plan was to let cyclists have it to themselves for 2 days. Imagine that. But, ya know, I thought about whether I wanted to ride an ebike on the big mass ride, the official opening, and I decided the answer was ‘No’. I don’t know about the Lycras, but I do feel a certain tension there. And I’m 100% with the UDOT guy. Give us more, more, more for cyclists. If the Lycras get down on the ebikers, it’s a bad thing.

Anything that complicates the vision of cities and towns designed for cycling is a bad thing. The baseline question seems fairly simple to me: When is a power bicycle not a bicycle, but a motorcycle? Make it simple, with nothing in between. It’s a bicycle or it’s a motorcyle. People want fewer and fewer limits for bicycles because the motor vehicle laws are so punishing. But ultimately pushing bicycles, as a class, too far means more tensions with pedestrians and regular bikers.

Saying an ebike has to be able to climb a grade at xx mph is not logical. If you look at wattage calculators, a 250 watt bike will serve any cyclist well on the flats, and doubly so if you consider the effects of drag above about 15mph. Saying that motor that climbs a grade at 7 mph is inadequate doesn’t mean much. How much time is lost? Is it just too frustrating? We need 1000 watt motors because they will get us up a 7% grade, even though the same motor will allow flatland speeds that represent almost a total waste of battery power to aerodynamic drag issues? Really?

I don’t know what the regs should be, but pushing the limits of the technology is the road to the most trouble. The faster people go, the worse any collision will be. The faster ebikes go, the more annoyed the ‘Lycras’ will be, the wider the gap between serious road bikers and ebikers. I agree with the POV in the thread, prosecutors will decide what the law is when there is a bad accident. It won’t be a ‘good’ decision. About 2500 people are killed in China in ebike accidents, mostly pedestrians. Let that sink in. Some Chinese cities are banning ebikes.

I’ve been talking to a couple of dealers about ebikes. The trend to higher power and higher prices is just overwhelming. I think it is trending toward creating a smaller and smaller set of ebikers. Perhaps minimalist approaches like the FlyKly and Copenhagen wheel will work out and generate a large mass of cyclists with power assist.

 

[LockH]

To: Jeffrey D.Holt, UDOT Commission Chairman

Subject: Bikes included in every plan for a new highway.

Dear Sir.

I am not from Utah, nor a US citizen (sadly, from the "Great White North"/Canada), but I have just read that recently "the man in charge" at UDOT wants bikes included in every plan for a new highway.

Good on you Sir!

I have been a cyclist all my life (on and off, with a temp. lapse, I am ashamed to say, to driving a gasoline-powered automobile for a while).

Some time ago I stumbled on to electric traction for vehicles. And I hope never to go back.

Please think of us "living better electrically", riding electric bicycles, in your thoughts and prayers, going forward. And if you ever move to Washington, I might have to move to the USA, but you will have my vote for President.

Best regards to you and yours

Lock (etc.)

So, one might be cautious watt one writes here on the Alt. Spheroid Planet. Ya nEVer know who might be reading (might be some crazy old half-dead Hoser guy).

 

[zener]

I have changed my mind i would ban ebikes everywhere. Give this technology what it deserves 0 chance.

 

[LockH]

Yes. The horseless carriage was a silly thing too. No chance of any success there either.

 

[LockH]

"Anything that complicates the vision of cities and towns designed for cycling is a bad thing."

I've nEVer been to Dhaka, but traffic there looks bumper-to-bumper?


Oh. Sorry. Might be those darned pedestrians (ya can't trust them).

 

[LockH]

BTW. Per Wicked-ped-ia, the Wall Street Journal first reported the label "sheeple" in print in 1984.

 

[Ch00paKabrA]

I am confused. Why should there be regulations? All they do is add to cost and limit freedom. In the US the federal regulations appear to be sufficient. Under 20mph, 100 pounds, and less than 750 watts is a bicycle. Over 750 watts or 20 mph or 100 ponds is a moped and needs to be registered, insured, and licensed.

What more would really be necessary?

Anything else is really just to make some politician feel like he/she "did something" or is just a money grab.

 

[LockH]

I generally might agree w/you, but do not wish to quibble re vehicle "HP" or a "top speed".

 

[LockH]

I am sorry if this topic may have "released the hounds", but Sir Henry (Baskerville, from my current "home town", probably died years before I got here. And I perhaps should have stayed in "Hades".

 

[amberwolf]

In the US the federal regulations appear to be sufficient. Under 20mph, 100 pounds, and less than 750 watts is a bicycle. Over 750 watts or 20 mph or 100 ponds is a moped and needs to be registered, insured, and licensed.

No such thing as a federal regulation for ebikes in the USA.
http://www.endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=56912&start=50#p850347

 

[LockH]

Oh oh. Somebuddy didn't maybe read this whole thread. (Or understand or agree with some written here.)

 

[greenspark]

I am confused. Why should there be regulations? All they do is add to cost and limit freedom. In the US the federal regulations appear to be sufficient. Under 20mph, 100 pounds, and less than 750 watts is a bicycle. Over 750 watts or 20 mph or 100 ponds is a moped and needs to be registered, insured, and licensed.

What more would really be necessary?

Anything else is really just to make some politician feel like he/she "did something" or is just a money grab.

I suppose there are two phrases I would like to ban from this thread:

• "should"
• "in America / US"

Writers in America / US who wish to write on these two subjects should set up their own new thread and have a jolly old time talking to themselves. Please refrain from hitting the Submit button on this thread. Your comments do nothing more than clutter the thread so its serious intent is diluted and the useful posters give up.

For the rest of the world (and probably in some blue US states), governments write regulations and the regulation writers are often functionaries who look to experts for advice. Hence, the helmet making companies employ lobbyists to provide expert advice that says bicycle riding is unsafe and helmets must be mandatory. In the absence of a user group giving counter advice (bicycle riding is safe, and helmets should only be required for learners [children] because children fall off of bikes), the helmet companies get the rule.

We are right now in the early stage of a new technology. The rules are sparse, in some cases too restrictive (like Europe, Israel and Australia's), and in other cases baffling (like New Zealand's). It's a bit like the PC business was before IBM came out with the Personal Computer. Radio Shack types, handy with the solder gun, were building their own PC's, and creative types were playing with Jobs & Woz's fruity box. Only when IBM came out the the PC did the industry go mainstream. Something similar is happening right now with the ebike industry. In the West (meaning not in Asia), the recent advances in Chinese-made motors and batteries is a game changer... very competitively priced, far more sophisticated and reliable, bolt on aftermarket kits. On our island in New Zealand, we are now seeing bikes everywhere, and most of them have Chinese electric motors, controllers and batteries. This is new. The riders do not wear lycra. They sit upright and they pedal up hills at the same speed they pedal on the flat (about 18 km/hr).

Because this is a shift in technology, the current rules WILL be rewritten, both here and elsewhere. New York City WILL rewrite their rules, as will Portland, the Bay Area and other blue state cities. Our job, if we choose to accept it, is to come up with a clear consensus as to how those rules should be written so that they do not "add to cost and limit freedom".

This means a rule that is clear, that is easy to enforce (meaning a police officer can do a rapid inspection and tick "legal" or "infraction"), yet works from a functional standpoint so it serves users' needs.

I am beginning to think that it may be a set of controller specifications that the manufacturer can put as a certified sticker. Controllers can do anything. So perhaps the allowable motor can be a huge, grunty thing (no Watts in the reg) that has gobs of torque to get a beast of bike and its 300 pound rider up a hill with no strain (but still pedal assist), but then not exceed a particular speed under power on the flat. With all due respect to some posters, 50kph (30 mph) under power on the flat is not a bicycle anymore. It's a moped. The brakes of a bike that you can buy at Walmart (sorry, but the lowest common denominator is the rule) will be dangerous at 50/30. The tires at that speed need to be better than Walmart tires (by the way, I live in Auckland and we have no Walmarts in the country, so I use the Walmart standard uninformed, please do not argue the comment, it's not important).

So, let me direct this thread ONLY to forum members who understand controller profiles. All the rest of the libertarians (and other forum members who feel every posting requires their comment), please do not respond. I'm asking technical questions and I am looking to members with more expertise than mine.

How could the profile of a controller be programmed to have a high torque spec, but control top speed (and possibly acceleration), that automatically adjusts for load? Also, would it be difficult or costly to incorporate a GPS system that would eventually have a map of every road, so it could provide real-time real-location analysis of roads and adjust performance accordingly? This latter question is called future-proofing, but GPS technology is moving so fast that it may be something to consider. The main question for regulations would be a set of words that a controller maker could easily follow and certify. It might also include a setting that would show when the controller was reprogrammed by the user, sort of like the seal that when broken voids the warranty, except that it would be electronic. This should be enough to be defensible in court, meaning that when an infraction is alleged, the defendant is able to show they relied on a manufacturer's certificate.

If you understand how controllers work, and can offer precise language that a manufacturer could follow, and it would produce a safe ebike standard, please reply.

Thanks

 

[greenspark]

Universal Rules of Travel:
RULE ONE (for ANY vehicle operation in any atmosphere, aka "space"): NEVER DO HARM.
RULE TWO: NEVER TRUST (yourself, but especially not any other creatures, etc.)
Corollary: EG, your own and other vehicles, on land called the "terrain", etc. Most "stuff" will ALWAYS "change"/"wear" (and wear "out" and/or "break"), if not maintained or replaced as needed or desired). So, one should ALWAYS HAVE A BACKUP PLAN and ALLOW FOR "CONTINGENCIES" (or be prepared to suffer the consequences).

RULE THREE: NEVER EXCEED PRUDENT VEHICLE OPERATING SPEEDS. (See Rule One, above.)
RULE FOUR: BE AWARE (Of other creatures and things eg your own vehicle operating indicators.)

Hi LockH,

I don't want you to be offended, but would you mind starting your own thread and exiting this one? Your answers are not speaking to the original posting, but are serving to drive away serious and useful replies. Your proposed rules demonstrate a failure to understand the subject matter. No police officer who must appear and testify in court can be expected to issue an infraction notice for breaking rule one, two or four, and "prudent" in rule 3 is the kind of language lawyers love. While you may be enjoying writing your replies and really believe you are making a contribution, I am receiving private messages expressing frustration that a useful thread is being drivelled to death.

I view this forum as being one with significant expertise, and with sufficient credibility that if we can come up with a well-fashioned recommendation, it will carry authority. Comments like yours undermine that. I've tried to express this gently, but you don't seem to be getting it, so I run the risk of alienating you by being a bit more frank. Please do not be offended, but unless you really have some technical expertise and ability to translate that into regulatory language, please do not hit the quote/reply button any more.

Feel free to start a new thread and invite members to join it. I'll be happy to recommend to similar posters that they pop on over as well. Given the clutter on this thread, I may need to start it over again with the useful information I've learned from this one. If I do, please do not join it unless you can precisely speak to the subject matter.

Thanks
GS

 

[LockH]

"I am receiving private messages expressing frustration that a useful thread is being drivelled to death."
And some might rudely suggest you have been receiving private mails from cowards and fools.

 

[ThirtyFerretsInAManSuit]

If you want a sensible ebike that can climb and tow trailers but not go dangerously fast, you don't really need to limit its power but you do need to limit the speed it can assist you to.

You'd want a hall-sensored motor to measure speed, so that the rider can't just move a magnet out of the way to make the bike think it's always stationary.

You'd want the controller to cut power if it measures at least 30km/h. Or 25km/h, whatever compromise you can get the government to make.

The implementation of both those limitations would be internal to the system, therefore difficult for any old consumer to hack. Compliance would still be easy to measure, you just open the throttle all the way with the wheel suspended off the ground, and look at the speedo. Or count rpm, if there isn't a speedo.

Once you have those conditions met, the bike might as well have 6kW of power, it still won't cause any high-speed collisions. Most people would be happy with 1 or 2kW though, so they don't get kicked in the butt by their saddle.

The difficulty will be in convincing authorities that top speed is the only quality of the electric system that they'd be sensible to regulate.



If you want my opinion though, I'm libertarianish.

Don't regulate: power, torque, top speed, driver skill, control scheme.

Do regulate: actual speed, braking ability, vehicle gross mass, driver knowledge, visibility.