Starting today, California is coming for your e-bike throttles
Last September, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law SB-1271, which redefines and adds to several electric bicycle regulations in...
Last September, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law SB-1271, which redefines and adds to several electric bicycle regulations in...
Moto rider here.
Let's be honest, these are eMotos and that distinction needs to be made clear in the nomenclature. Currently both bicycles and motorcycles are using the term "ebike" and that's half of the problem. If it is powered and has a throttle it's a motorcycle, imo.
An eBike, to me, can only be pedal assist.
Perhaps an unpopular opinion but I think that if it has a throttle and goes faster than 15mph (25kph) then it belongs on the road with cars.
I see where you're coming from, but we also need to consider the mass of these vehicles, not just their speed. Person+bike at 50km/h vs pedestrian at rest means a roughly 1:1 split on the inertia after impact, and a pedestrian accelerated to 25km/h. Car at 50km/h vs person+bike at rest is a 1:10 or 1:20 split in inertia after impact, and rider accelerated to very nearly 50km/h.
IMO sharing a space with pedestrians is the lesser harm outcome if we cannot provide safe infrastructure which separates such vehicles from both cars and pedestrians.
In the Netherlands we have quite good infrastructure for bikes, but e-bikes/scooters going >25kph really fuck up the safety.
I’m with OP, if you want to go that fast you should be in the road.
It's not all about the impact. It's also about the chance or impact. If you're going at that speed on pedestrian zones, you'll eventually hit someone, or be very close to doing so. Pedestrians go in any direction, and can change at any time in an instant. If you go fast, no matter how fast your reflexes are, they won't be fast enough to brake in time on pedestrian zones.
The roads not being safe for non-cars is not the problem for pedestrians. Use the bike lane in those cases.
I find it so weird that some people are fine with vehicles going faster on bicycle lanes (and even worse with pavements for countries that allow that, which I also find weird, where is the pedestrian supposed to go in these cases ?). These fast vehicles make it so annoying and unsafe for other users.
I agree with you that if people want to go fast, well we already have roads for that.
Yeah, I don't think anyone would be advocating for allowing gas powered mopeds traveling at 40kph (25mph) on the sidewalk but when it's electric they somehow feel differently about it. Where ever we draw the line is going to be arbitrary but it needs to be drawn somewhere. I think 25kph (15mph) is a good limit as it's about the speed you can comfortably maintain with an acoustic bike as well. Me plus the bike is around 120kg (250lbs). That's a lot of energy hitting a pedestrian even at 15mph. It'll definitely cripple a grandmom.
I would even say that a normal bike with a >25km/h drive does not belong in public traffic. You can only put a certain amount of breaking power on a bike.
Unless you mean trying to do 60 to 0km/h over a few meters is harder to stop without being launched, there is no way there is any notable limit to braking power. I can easily stop in half what a small car can do in any conditions, and less if I hang off the back and squeeze the seat with my thighs really hard to not launch over the bars. I could probably push it even more and do even shorter but it would need a lot more traction and front vs rear weight considerations and wear the tires super fast.
My radwagon motor tops out at 32kph, I can pedal it up to about 40kph. At 40kph I can stop in 3m on dry tarmac, about 6m in snow.
For comparison, the cars I'm forced to ride with have a 24m braking distance at 40kph, but let's be honest, there's usually doing over 50kph despite the limit, so it's more like 38-55m
Well, at least it was a free opinion even if it doesn't turn out to be a popular one.
I do not understand why this is being implemented, after reading the article. What's the safety gain to be had here?
It clarifies their class so if an area is limited with no throttle E-bikes it can allow level 1 and 3 instead of only level 1
I imagine it's to stop them being used like motorcycles? Can't say why, maybe it's for registration / taxation purposes?
My nephew is 12 and has one of these with a throttle that can go over 35mph. His parents let him ride it anywhere (fucking irresponsible, but don’t get me started).
The fact is, because it looks like a bicycle, he’s essentially able to ride around like he’s on a motorcycle, even though he’s too young to have a drivers license and has no formal training in rules of the road.
Throttles are a big factor enabling this legal gray market for e mopeds. Without throttles most of these bikes are basically too heavy to ride as a pedelac. This will push the trend back towards lighter, bike-like bikes.
Thank God they regulated ebikes, I was worried that they were going to come after my SUV /s
Don't worry, your Child Crusher 9000 will be safe from all that mean safety legislation.
This law regulates vehicles with a throttle AKA what most people would consider an electric motorcycle. ebikes (meaning e-bicycles that you need to pedal to move) are unaffected.
They need to start allowing e-bikes to be registered and plated in CA. The Stark Varg EX is for sale, it's a perfectly capable street legal motorcycle but CA doesn't have Stark as a manufacturer in their system so people can't register it.
thats so dumb too. you would think the manufacturer detail should be freely written/typed out rather than a choice from a list under the assumption that they come and go like any other business. many car makes don't exist any more.
The throttle is a key feature to stay safe in busy intersections. That and super steep hills are the only reason to use it.
Legally, the throttle turns off once you hit 20mph. It's not for going fast, just for quick acceleration when you need it to be safe around cars.
Getting rid of the throttle is only going to make e-bikes more dangerous and less appealing for adoption.
I don't understand how it is a safety issue. Plenty of people ride bikes just fine without a throttle, and if you can't get started from a stop then the bike is too heavy for your skill level.
And that's the entire problem with the throttles. They are precisely what is enabling this trend towards bigger and heavier bikes in the first place, and that is blurring the line between bikes and mopeds in ways which are inviting unwanted regulations. Ban the throttles and the ridiculous fat tire mopeds will go away.
Exactly, one look at the photo used in the article:
Illustrates that this is not about regulating bicycles but electric mopeds/motorcycles.
Also this law is not a ban on throttles it just (correctly imo) reclassifies electric motorcycles as motor vehicles.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but how does the law treat "improvised" e-bikes which are pedal-powered bicycles with motors added by their owners? They aren't officially in any particular "class". I suppose they're all not street-legal...
I imagine it's one of those things where it's not technically legal, but as long as you're not doing 40 mph on your e-bike you're unlikely to be bothered about it.
Wait until they hear about cars not having regulated throttles!!
I rewired my cars throttle to respond to the volume knob on my dash.
All of this is perfectly legal because apparently the DoT hasn't regulated this yet.
(You're so ignorant I find it kinda sad)
Facts to back that up?