How is your commute safer?

The word "nonmotorized" comes to mind for some reason.

Monty, you post on a forume called "bike love", to tell us you've been regularly running a motorbike, with a concealed motor, on the trails at 20 mph because you feel safer than on the streets. Just how enthusiastic were you expecting us to be?

Three Rivers doesn't exclude my motorbike in their definition of the word exclusive trail.

I didn't ask for enthusiasm. If you thought about my argument for total user safety, WOW! That is usually one step further than internet arguments usually go. If you then dismissed it, fair enough.

I want to clarify that the motor happens to be concealed by my panniers. It was not my intention to conceal it. It just happens that that was the best place for the panniers and the motor.

[edit - for spelling... ]

Don't try to defend your actions, Monty. There is a subset around here that would rather have people drive their cars than let a 60 year old guy with an artificial hip use an electric assist bicycle on the bike trails. You know, because he's not riding a bicycle...

You can't argue with that kind of logic. You just have to shake your head and slowly walk away.

Whatever helps it persist is good with me.

Actually, this is incorrect. Most, if not all, three rivers trails are posted "No Motor Vehicles". You are driving a motor vehicle.

The point is *your* machine might be silent, *your* machine might be electric, *your* machine might only do 20mph, but how is that different (legally) from something that isn't silent, does 40 and runs on gas? And if we say "this type is ok" but "this type isn't" who is going to enforce it? Is someone really going to stop every electric bike and check the wattage? of course not. The point becomes if and when scooters, mopeds, etc become trail users and the restrictions are not enforced or even enforcable then its no better/different/safer from just another road.

I never understood the desire for these sorts of electric bike conversions. Want a scooter, buy a scooter. Want to bike, pedal it. But if what you want is access to uncrowded roads for you scooter, well, move to the country or fight for scooter-specific infrastructure.

WARNING! WARNING! SLIPPERY SLOPE! We're on the road to damnation if we try to define a line!!!

Its *much* easier to define/enforce motor|no-motor than motor x|motor y. So if we're going have to have a line separating vehicle types, I pick the one that is easier to understand and enforce.

As suggested before, I would be fine with a free permitting process that allowed people with certain disabilities or situations to use certain types of motors on the trails (i.e. small electric assist). You could apply for it separately, and maybe it would also come automatically with a handicapped parking permit. There could also be some kind of badge or spoke card that would be a way for other trail users to recognize that you're "legal" (so as to avoid harassment or comments).

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/9 ... page=1&c=y


I agree this is an problem. I think that the total benefits of the motor bike out way the potential harm. N. Europe is proving my right. China, on the other hand, is debatable. I think America are more like China than N. Europe.



I have tried to bike to work everyday for about 7yrs and have been unsuccessful. In the winter the best I have done is just under once a week. The motor bike on average adds about 10min daily to my commute over a car. For this, I get, at the very least, 1hr of low intensity workout everyday, I don't have to shower at work, the vehicle that uses 200 to 60 times less energy than a car, cost a fifth per mile over a car, I almost never sit in traffic and is fun.

Why is it even up for debate to allow scooters on the greenway?

Because many scooters classify as mopeds under state law.

Monty, is your electric motor less than 750 watts (1 h.p.)?
If so, the Consumer Product Safety Commission defines it and regulates it as a bicycle--
a low speed electric bicycle--not a motor vehicle. The regulation is also stated here.

I am not seeing how that's relevant. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is about - well, product safety. Not traffic laws or bike trails. The manufacturers of these vehicles would also like to call them "bicycles" because that opens up new markets.

I find Wikipedia's definition of a bicycle more to the point: "a human-powered, pedal-driven, single-track vehicle," If moped advocates want to redefine "bicycle" maybe they should start by editing the Wikipedia article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle

They might also want to redefine "assisted". I suggest that if your pedaling basically stops when you leave your driveway, it's not an "assisted" vehicle, it's "powered".

The CPSC is relevant because they are the only ones that can regulate manufacturing requirements.

Anyway, Congress passed the law (Public Law 107-319) that exempts electric bicycles under 750W/20mph being defined as motor vehicles. So you can blame them for re-defining words in a double plus ungood way that has opened a can of worms.


I'm going to save my complaining if these develop into an abused nuisance. I do want to see what, if anything, is being done to educate law enforcement about these. I'm not going to fault the person with a Yubo Mondo with a stokemonkey that's towing around 2 kids and 3 bags of groceries. Anything to keep people off of mopeds. Which these aren't. If you want to see a moped utopia move to Taiwan and I wish you luck in breathing.

+1

Here's another Wikipedia article to reference.

It's going to become even more contentious. And I think the outcome will be that what we call bike trails and bike lanes today, will become something else in the future. Laws can be changed under public pressure, and there are a lot of people who don't like the effort of pedalling, and they vote too. But there are a few things in this discussion that sort of set me off.

One is the fake-y use of "assisted". If you're not pedaling, but just holding down a throttle, you're not being "assisted", you're riding a motorized vehicle.

And who said electric power is "green"? The electricity that runs these vehicles is the same electricity that runs the air conditioner in your house.

Then there's the idea that someone's desire for safety should entitle them to motor down the bike trails. Hey I was cycling downtown the other day, and it was scary, so I decided I'll just ride on the sidewalks from now on. I promise not to go over 10 mph and if a few pedestrians don't like that, tough.

Maybe if the people promoting these vehicles would be more honest about it, the discussion could go somewhere more positive.