Front page LA Times today regarding Ebikes

[kevinmccune]

These aren't assault rifles. Your points are as always well taken and spot-on. But calling the class system something of beauty just rankles the remaining anarchist in me. Maybe it was all the Henry David, but silly ill thought regulations on the most innocuous pastime. Nope.

Most People have no inkling of what an "assault gun" is.

 

[PedalUma]

Most People have no inkling of what an "assault gun" is.

I'll jump on this hand grenade. Firstly 'Tactical' means 'Premeditated'. That is what Tacticians do, plan an assault or assaults. These are military Tactical Weapons designed to hunt down and kill as many humans as posable in the shortest period of time, with minor modifications so they can slip thru some loopholes and enter public spaces. A farmer, rancher, or hunter wouldn't need that, ever. What is he going to do, kill a barn full of lambs in seconds flat? Parents in Uvalde could not identify their own children. The kids were blown apart. We have unalienable rights to things such as Life, Liberty, and Happiness in public. Those rights cannot be amended. They are not amendable amendments. Assault weapons are guns that have no legitimate function; their sole purpose is to efficiently take Lives, Liberties, and Happiness's in large numbers, quickly. I don't even want to be in crowds because of this threat. I don't know the count now, but this morning there were 52 mass murder shootings in the US for January, 2023. The rights and lives of those murdered were taken and the poor families and communities are in misery because of guns like these.

 

[AleksR]

Don't be a fool. You are the lord of your keyboard speaking to a small niche of a niche on a single internet forum. Your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what a statistically significant result is. Whats really true is nobody cares what either of us thinks, because we are just bleating ineffectively - in a small, secluded place - and we both love to hear ourselves talk. But only one of us realizes that.

I think this is emblematic of a cyclist's perspective and misses an important point: Throttles are a part of a transportation solution that is VERY near and dear to the hearts of the government in power in California, and likely to stay there for the forseeable future, if not the rest of our lifetimes (assuming here that we're all old farts). I am fairly dialed into the cargo bike community and that is a world where you will hear people (besides me, for a change) say things like "Why on Earth would someone want torque sensing when hauling a 100 lb load of groceries and a kid?" or "of course I use a throttle" and nobody spits up on their bib when they hear someone say that.

THOSE are the riders who a legislator (not a city councilman at a monthly town meeting) listen to and cater to. For reasons that are much bigger as part of a much bigger agenda. Cyclists on the other hand have all the baggage that comes with analog cycling, which has everything to do with cycling's past bleeding into determining its future.

If anything, California as the first State to introduce the 3-class system... I'll put it first in line to introduce a Class 4... or something similar where we see some sort of utility level bike codified. That aforementioned cargo bike with a load of groceries and a child is ill-served by a 750w motor and *everyone* knows it. If the goal is to wean Californians off of autos to any degree, the 749w legal limit is not long for this world - which probably has a lot to do with why it has long-since been completely ignored - at both the federal and state level - with zero consequences to any rider or manufacturer, despite everyone knowing what the law says.

EDIT: The one shining example in the USA has already been mentioned: The City of Honolulu. who effectively banned all USA-legal ebikes, although I doubt that was their intention and they probably had to back off once they realized the consequences of their actions.

Put the throttles on the highways. That is where they belong. Let them survive in the jungle. They don't belong with pedestrians.

Yes, correct. It doesn't matter what you and I think. We are N=2. Increase the N and you lose. I have no doubt about it. Throttle your way to a nearby highway. That is where you belong.

 

[PedalUma]

I will very occasionally install a throttle on a bike, but there needs to be a legitimate reason such as disability. And the bike is then limited in speed. This takes a car off the road while giving someone liberty, mobility and fun who, otherwise would be trapped. When a Soviet official visited London, he saw the bread section of a supermarket and asked, who planned this? There were so many selections. In the USSR there might be two selections. Not fifty! The USA is now like the USSR when it comes to its political offerings preselected by big money.

 

[tomjasz]

America is not a democracy. It's a moneymocracy. When you have two dimwits as choices, in a country when there are more choices among toilet paper, you realize that this type of democracy is illusion. But let's not confuse politics with populace. Throttle loses big time and you know it.

ohboy, here comes the lock.

 

[AleksR]

I didn't initially bring politics into this, but if we want to go that route, let's be honest about it.

 

[PedalUma]

A good friend and fellow eBiker is from Germany. Fritz says having five political parties is better because they must compromise, that cuts out the polar extremes, keeping things more civil and centered. Up the middle. He also only rides throttle assist bikes with torque sensors. They get him out into nature. He has the boost when he wants it. And we can still be good friends even though I am not a throttle advocate.

 

[Rexlion]

I'll jump on this hand grenade. Firstly 'Tactical' means 'Premeditated'. That is what Tacticians do, plan an assault or assaults. These are military Tactical Weapons designed to hunt down and kill as many humans as posable in the shortest period of time, with minor modifications so they can slip thru some loopholes and enter public spaces. A farmer, rancher, or hunter wouldn't need that, ever. What is he going to do, kill a barn full of lambs in seconds flat? Parents in Uvalde could not identify their own children. The kids were blown apart. We have unalienable rights to things such as Life, Liberty, and Happiness in public. Those rights cannot be amended. They are not amendable amendments. Assault weapons are guns that have no legitimate function; their sole purpose is to efficiently take Lives, Liberties, and Happiness's in large numbers, quickly. I don't even want to be in crowds because of this threat. I don't know the count now, but this morning there were 52 mass murder shootings in the US for January, 2023. The rights and lives of those murdered were taken and the poor families and communities are in misery because of guns like these.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous, and I can explain why. With the barest amount of practice, a person could fire a hundred rounds in rapid succession with a pistol or rifle that holds a mere 5- or 6-round magazine. All they have to do is empty a mag, hit the release, pop in another mag, and resume firing. It can be done in less than 5 seconds. So all this stuff about a gun being an "assault gun" is really based on media hype. They started with firearms that look army-ish, added firearms that have higher-capacity mags, and now have gotten to where just about any gun-related incident they report on is characterized as an "assault gun" incident.

Let's remember that when the First Amendment was ratified, the people had personal recollection of defending themselves against an army from across the ocean. That remains a legitimate concern today. Foreign governments should always have a reason to "think twice" before giving the USA grief on our home soil. It is a deterrent.

We also have an individual right to self-defense in case of home invasions, robberies, and other criminal activities that might endanger us. The police can't be everywhere and their response times are not always what one might wish for; the first line of defense, and the obligation to be equipped for self defense, lies with the individual. You may think that 10, 15, or 30 rounds is ridiculously unnecessary; tell that to the police and you'll be laughed at! The cops know how hard it is to hit a target while under stress, and they train constantly. We citizens are likely to be far worse under the strain of a man coming at us with a hammer or a knife or pointing a gun at us, so why have "maybe barely enough but maybe not" when we can have "more than enough" instead? (I mean, does anyone really need more than one ebike?)

Strange, isn't it, how California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet had 4 shootings in 1 week? So how are all those laws working for you? And you think the rest of the country should follow California's example with more anti-gun laws?

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Let's remember that when the First Amendment was ratified, the people had personal recollection of defending themselves against an army from across the ocean. That remains a legitimate concern today. Foreign governments should always have a reason to "think twice" before giving the USA grief on our home soil. It is a deterrent.

Um, I think the First Amendment gives us the right to complain and pray, and has nothing to do with defending us from the British.

 

[mschwett]

No it isn't. The concept of the tyranny of the majority is I expect a new one to some. Fortunately this was not true of the statesmen who founded the USA.

Defining Democracy: Tyranny of the Majority - Renew Democracy Initiative

Defining Democracy: Tyranny of the Majority “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch.” —Benjamin Franklin Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Tyranny. From best to worst, this is the order in which regimes degrade, as described by Socrates in Plato’s...

rdi.org

i was wondering who was going to point this out. well, after i did

thank you for the reference. apparently they don’t teach civics any more?!?

 

[mschwett]

…people had personal recollection of defending themselves against an army from across the ocean. That remains a legitimate concern today. Foreign governments should always have a reason to "think twice" before giving the USA grief on our home soil. It is a deterrent.

are you serious? the actual deterrent is the world’s largest navy, the world’s first and second and maybe third largest air forces (depending on how you count the planes of the various branches), a whole lot of nuclear missiles, and the logistical impossibility of moving an entire f’n modern army across thousands of miles of oceans against the aforementioned navies and air forces. anyone who thinks that a bunch of untrained civilians with pistols are a significant factor in the united states avoiding imminent invasion is seriously delusional.

there is no “legitimate concern” of invasion from the seas against today’s america. and the actual legitimate security concerns are so far removed from civilians with handguns that i can’t even make an analogy.

 

[kevinmccune]

I'll jump on this hand grenade. Firstly 'Tactical' means 'Premeditated'. That is what Tacticians do, plan an assault or assaults. These are military Tactical Weapons designed to hunt down and kill as many humans as posable in the shortest period of time, with minor modifications so they can slip thru some loopholes and enter public spaces. A farmer, rancher, or hunter wouldn't need that, ever. What is he going to do, kill a barn full of lambs in seconds flat? Parents in Uvalde could not identify their own children. The kids were blown apart. We have unalienable rights to things such as Life, Liberty, and Happiness in public. Those rights cannot be amended. They are not amendable amendments. Assault weapons are guns that have no legitimate function; their sole purpose is to efficiently take Lives, Liberties, and Happiness's in large numbers, quickly. I don't even want to be in crowds because of this threat. I don't know the count now, but this morning there were 52 mass murder shootings in the US for January, 2023. The rights and lives of those murdered were taken and the poor families and communities are in misery because of guns like these.

Yep, one reason I do not like crowds or coliseums these days, a high capacity high power gun capable of rapid fire can kill more than one person per round, true assault weapons( tommy guns, sten guns etc) are usually one kill per bullet because the power and penetration are reduced somewhat, the problem is these things almost match a shotgun in the amount of lead poured out per second.If you had good fire control discipline these weapons would work for home defense because they are less likely to penetrate every wall in the structure. Of course, a parabellum or 45 ACP with the proper bullet would do the same.There are subsonic rounds for these weapons that are in a word, wicked. The wound cavity assures a one-shot downing( body armor gives you good protection against this type as well with the penalty of broken ribs and bruising) its not pretty any way you slice it
One problem I am having is how can you persecute a 6 yr old? Gone are the days when every house or farmhouse had a shotgun leaning in the corner by the door, Guns are now seemingly adored as things of beauty to collect and cherish like old junker automobiles, when in reality all cars were ever intended was transportation while guns were meant to destroy and kill things. I have raised the ire of many when I call bullets what they are,"deadly metal pellets"( not near as romantic is it?)
At the end of the day it is usually the Human holding the gun that does the killing, the gun is "dumb"( only exceded by the perp that uses it to kill) yes I have a couple, with a detente' that sez" I understand when the bullet leaves the barrel it cannot be recalled".

 

[kevinmccune]

Sorry, but that's ridiculous, and I can explain why. With the barest amount of practice, a person could fire a hundred rounds in rapid succession with a pistol or rifle that holds a mere 5- or 6-round magazine. All they have to do is empty a mag, hit the release, pop in another mag, and resume firing. It can be done in less than 5 seconds. So all this stuff about a gun being an "assault gun" is really based on media hype. They started with firearms that look army-ish, added firearms that have higher-capacity mags, and now have gotten to where just about any gun-related incident they report on is characterized as an "assault gun" incident.

Let's remember that when the First Amendment was ratified, the people had personal recollection of defending themselves against an army from across the ocean. That remains a legitimate concern today. Foreign governments should always have a reason to "think twice" before giving the USA grief on our home soil. It is a deterrent.

We also have an individual right to self-defense in case of home invasions, robberies, and other criminal activities that might endanger us. The police can't be everywhere and their response times are not always what one might wish for; the first line of defense, and the obligation to be equipped for self defense, lies with the individual. You may think that 10, 15, or 30 rounds is ridiculously unnecessary; tell that to the police and you'll be laughed at! The cops know how hard it is to hit a target while under stress, and they train constantly. We citizens are likely to be far worse under the strain of a man coming at us with a hammer or a knife or pointing a gun at us, so why have "maybe barely enough but maybe not" when we can have "more than enough" instead? (I mean, does anyone really need more than one ebike?)

Strange, isn't it, how California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet had 4 shootings in 1 week? So how are all those laws working for you? And you think the rest of the country should follow California's example with more anti-gun laws?

Population density contributes to a high average, maybe? Or is it the "fallout from Fukushima"

 

[Nomad]

being an Extremist on either side of the whole gun thing is a very dangerous thing! My thought is lets get back to talking about Ebikes.

 

[srolle]

I took the inclusion of a throttle on a given ebike as a way to solve the situation where a rider has stopped in a high gear but still needs to get going despite the extra weight of the vehicle. IGH is another solution to this problem. Do people really ride around on throttle only?

 

[m@Robertson]

Do people really ride around on throttle only?

Sure its a thing for a LOT of people. Especially the ones who gear their riding to urban mobility and transportation, and have no roots whatsoever in cycling. They are in effect a new class of rider uninterested in exercise, who would otherwise be driving a car or an ICE moped or small scooter to get where they are going (vs. a recreational ride where the journey is the goal).

Interestingly, the tourists in the Monterey Bay area who rent the Rad step thrus and mini-bike style ebikes like have been pictured earlier here are all pretty much throttle-only and riding so they can get around and see the sights. They tend to be riding slowly as a result since they are sightseeing. the complete opposite of the characterizations here.

The same types of bike riders on the main paths in the Fresno area are the opposite. They are riding these same style of bikes and they ride to go places, so they are at the 20 mph limit often as not. The riders in that same town who are going thru the parks (Woodward Park in particular), tend to be slower. One couple I see all the time that drive me nuts roll on the sidewalk, although they are both going slowly. Riding on the sidewalk in a bicycle is expressly against the law here. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. But some people are just plain chicken when it comes to riding on streets (they also go on the wrong side of the road facing traffic which makes it even worse).

 

[kevinmccune]

I took the inclusion of a throttle on a given ebike as a way to solve the situation where a rider has stopped in a high gear but still needs to get going despite the extra weight of the vehicle. IGH is another solution to this problem. Do people really ride around on throttle only?

Only the ones who are just using it for cheap transport,I saw one commercial where one big unhealthy chap rode to the supermarket, got His things rode back home without pushing a pedal. The first"Lectric" commercials always showed a bunch of teenagers ripping and tearing without pedaling and they were not the only ones. At the end of the day, these companies have to sell product to keep the business viable. OTH "Lectric" is doing a good job of selling a good product at a fair price. It makes me cringe when I see people trying to convert ebikes into motorcycles.

 

[mschwett]

Sure its a thing for a LOT of people. Especially the ones who gear their riding to urban mobility and transportation, and have no roots whatsoever in cycling. They are in effect a new class of rider uninterested in exercise, who would otherwise be driving a car or an ICE moped or small scooter to get where they are going (vs. a recreational ride where the journey is the goal).

Interestingly, the tourists in the Monterey Bay area who rent the Rad step thrus and mini-bike style ebikes like have been pictured earlier here are all pretty much throttle-only and riding so they can get around and see the sights. They tend to be riding slowly as a result since they are sightseeing. the co0mplete opposite of the characterizations here.

The same types of bike riders on the main paths in the Fresno area are the opposite. They are riding these same style of bikes and they ride to go places, so they are at the 20 mph limit often as not. The riders in that same town who are going thru the parks (Woodward Park in particular), tend to be slower. One couple I see all the time that drive me nuts roll on the sidewalk, although they are both going slowly. Riding on the sidewalk in a bicycle is expressly against the law here. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. But some people are just plain chicken when it comes to riding on streets (they also go on the wrong side of the road facing traffic which makes it even worse).

tourists on eBikes here are a bit wobbly and slow, but generally follow the rules. other than doing dumb things like stopping in the middle of a crowded bike lane on the bridge to take a picture, or riding 4 abreast past crissy field. wouldn’t matter if they were on an e-bike or regular bike, and i don’t think anyone rents bikes with throttles.

in the city proper, which has a very high density of cyclists for an american city, the problems (which are fairly rare) are created by speed differential in bike lanes, particularly going uphill. you have 5 traditional cyclists going up a steep hill at around 10mph, with 20-25mph traffic in the vehicle lane. some clown on a high powered bike or scooter decides he wants to go 20mph up the hill, but in the bike lane. totally unsafe and yes, you could argue “it’s the rider, not the vehicle” but the temptation is hard to resist. the 750w limit (if it were a peak limit, lol) prevents this situation. a lower limit would be even better. larger or faster vehicles can be in the vehicle lane, where speed limits are uniformly 25mph. a more thoughtful set of classes and local controls on which go where would address unique situations like this.

 

[PedalUma]

I took the inclusion of a throttle on a given ebike as a way to solve the situation where a rider has stopped in a high gear but still needs to get going despite the extra weight of the vehicle. IGH is another solution to this problem. Do people really ride around on throttle only?

I have a friend with bad arthritis who also needs two hips replaced. Understandably he rides mostly with a throttle. I saw an out of shape person today smoking while using a throttle. I agree about high density and overall mix with a large speed differential being a problem. And that what is between the ears is a large or the largest single factor in safety. How do you regulate fools? We saw this with Covid too.

 

[tomjasz]

an out of shape person today smoking while using a throttle.

sorry but nunyer.