Why not speed limits?

[J.R.]

Dude, you are the one claiming the assist limits are a great solution. What about times when a rider should be going less than 20mph? So why not apply your logic to that and support lower assist limits.

I rode over 6000 miles on an ebike last year and I typically rode 22-24mph on a bike path that is noted to have a 20mph limit. OMG!!! But I only was at that speed when the path was total wide open and straight so I don't believe it was wreckless behavior.

Today I drove across Denver on I-25 which is posted at 55mph the entire way. I was going about 70mph most of the time and had more cars passing me than I passed and given the low volume it didn't feel unsafe. No one was being wreckless.

I'm sure most car owners would rather not have a 55mph assist limit on their cars but you support that nonsense on LSEBs. I just think you are in the minority on this and I'm hoping to lead an effort to kill the 3-class legislation in all the adopting states because it's garbage and it's an interstate commerce violation. The federal definition for a LSEB is not a crazy fast specification but few have even read it.

You are the poster child of reckless. Or as you say wreckless You prove the argument ebikers can't be trusted to either obey path speed limits or local laws for allowable access. Amazing.

Thread question: Why not speed limits?
Answer:

I rode over 6000 miles on an ebike last year and I typically rode 22-24mph on a bike path that is noted to have a 20mph limit. OMG!!! But I only was at that speed when the path was total wide open and straight so I don't believe it was wreckless behavior. Ken M

2 years of work to open paths and trails. The biggest concern of regulators, managers and the public? Speed by people ignoring the regulations. The evidence used to make the argument? Public statements by people like Ken M and YouTube videos.

60 mph on a community bike path.

Stop signs? No matter. Children? No matter. Ped crosswalks? No matter. Blind curves? No matter. Keeping to the right of center?

Open YouTube and type in the search: "fast ebike ride". That's all legislators, regulators, land managers and law enforcement have to do to justify banning us.

 

[Ken M]

You are the poster child of reckless. Or as you say wreckless You prove the argument ebikers can't be trusted to either obey path speed limits or local laws for allowable access. Amazing.

Thread question: Why not speed limits?
Answer:


2 years of work to open paths and trails. The biggest concern of regulators, managers and the public? Speed by people ignoring the regulations. The evidence used to make the argument? Public statements by people like Ken M and YouTube videos.

60 mph on a community bike path.

Stop signs? No matter. Children? No matter. Ped crosswalks? No matter. Blind curves? No matter. Keeping to the right of center?

Open YouTube and type in the search: "fast ebike ride". That's all legislators, regulators, land managers and law enforcement have to do to justify banning us.

Wow. I rode a Polaris Diesel that is a 100% CPSC compliant ebike that provide some assist past 20mph but tapers off at about 25mph. I rode it on open stretches at 22-24mph max and you are making me out to be some kind of major outlaw that is going to harm ebike access when I know road bike riders that can ride at those speeds without assist motors for many miles. Before I even started riding ebikes I use to ride those same trails at the same speed on my road bike but with a lot more effort. You are ignoring facts in your argument. You also ignore that when going down a hill virtually every biker can easily ride well past 30mph and yet for decades we have assumed they are going to continue to ride at a safe responsible speed and 99% do.

"Two years of effort to open paths and trails".... The speed concern has always been a concern about bikes on a Multi-use paths. Funny that horses have been clocked going over 50mph but their top speed is not a concern to those managers and public. A professional biker was able to sustain 33mph for an hour. Worlds best sprinters can hit top running speeds nearing 28mph. Should we be concerned about their potential top speeds on MUPs? It's tiring to deal with those that are not dealing with facts and no way should a few idiots on crazy fast NON-LEGAL ?ebikes? ruin access for anyone.

The average horse weighs about 1,600lbs and gallops around 28mph. Ask those land managers if they think a 28mph bikers will hurt them as much as getting hit by a someone riding a horse at that speed. This debate should not be singularly focus on ebikers going over 15 or 20mph on trails. If they are so concerned about walker/pedestrian safety then ban all bikes and horses from MUPs and don't just claim it's due to ebikes. That is just nonsense.

Also you touch on respecting regulations. What about the ???? if the 3-class legislation violate interstate commerce laws by being "more stringent" than the federal LSEB definition in HR727? Does that matter or just the regulations you care about?????

 

[AHicks]

Horses? Really? Kinda like my wife. When she starts loosing an argument, rather than face the loss, she switches topics to one she has a better chance of winning....

 

[J.R.]

Wow. I rode a Polaris Diesel that is a 100% CPSC compliant ebike that provide some assist past 20mph but tapers off at about 25mph. I rode it on open stretches at 22-24mph max and you are making me out to be some kind of major outlaw that is going to harm ebike access when I know road bike riders that can ride at those speeds without assist motors for many miles. You are ignoring facts in your argument. You also ignore that when going down a hill virtually every biker can easily ride well past 30mph and yet for decades we have assumed they are going to continue to ride at a safe responsible speed and 99% do.

"Two years of effort to open paths and trails".... The speed concern has always been a concern about bikes on a Multi-use paths. Funny that horses have been clocked going over 50mph but their top speed is not a concern to those managers and public. It's tiring to deal with those that are not dealing with facts and no way should a few idiots on crazy fast NON-LEGAL ?ebikes? ruin access for anyone.

Also you touch on respecting regulations. What about the ???? if the 3-class legislation violate interstate commerce laws by being "more stringent" than the federal LSEB definition in HR727? Does that matter or just the regulations you care about?????

What about them?! What about him?! Its not about road bikes. It's not about spandex wearing cyclists, that you continually denigrate. It's not about mythical horses. It's about one thing, ebikes. You just don't understand, it's not a winning argument pointing at the next guy and saying he broke the rules, why can't I? "Officer, I was just going along with traffic!" Guilty statement.

“Ethical behaviour is doing the right thing when no one else is watching—even when doing the wrong thing is legal.”
-American author and philosopher Aldo Leopold

 

[Ken M]

Horses? Really? Kinda like my wife. When she starts loosing an argument, rather than face the loss, she switches topics to one she has a better chance of winning....

Loosing an argument??? JR sends a video of a rider on an illegal ebike riding at illegal speeds and that is relevant as a reason we need the 3-class legislation that is still not adopted by over 20 states and those states are not having any issues. I bought up the horse because it's no more non-sensical that his video as proof we can no rely on personal responsibility for people to obey the use laws when riding a bike.

Here is a factual statement/request I made to the CPSC so maybe you can try not be like your wife and switch the topic. Tell me why this is not a reason to preempt the state 3-class legislation?

CPSC rule making decision request to preempt legal standing of 3-class state ebike legislation given the interstate commerce impact(s) resulting from more stringent requirements than the CPSC federal definition and CPSC safety requirements. The expressed / explicit preemption clause of HR727 is violated when the states require by law the more stringent elements. The legally powerful expressed / explicit preemption and previous CPSC decision precedence exists to support this preemption request.

Please avoid the BS on how you know trail access will be lost if the 3-class legislation is tossed.

 

[J.R.]

Loosing an argument??? JR sends a video of a rider on an illegal ebike riding at illegal speeds and that is relevant as a reason we need the 3-class legislation

Um, no. I know you think this forum exists for you and your rants, but this isn't one of your crazy threads. The OP asked about speed limits, not about your pet project.

 

[Ken M]

Um, no. I know you think this forum exists for you and your rants, but this isn't one of your crazy threads. The OP asked about speed limits, not about your pet project.

Huh??? I'm not ranting. I just asked if you had a specific reason why the 3-class legislation should not be preempted? It sure seems to be more stringent that the federal LSEB definition which is in direct violation of the preemption clause is HR727. It's not important as the petition had to re-submitted to clarify that a rulemaking decisition specific to LSEBs was being requested. It was re-submitted this morning and messages left with 3 CPSC representatives involved with the petition. I just hope they will make a decision based on the laws as the stand and not worry about trail access as part of the concerns with tossing out 3-class.

 

[mjeds]

Dude, you are the one claiming the assist limits are a great solution. What about times when a rider should be going less than 20mph? So why not apply your logic to that and support lower assist limits.

I rode over 6000 miles on an ebike last year and I typically rode 22-24mph on a bike path that is noted to have a 20mph limit. OMG!!! But I only was at that speed when the path was total wide open and straight so I don't believe it was wreckless behavior.

Today I drove across Denver on I-25 which is posted at 55mph the entire way. I was going about 70mph most of the time and had more cars passing me than I passed and given the low volume it didn't feel unsafe. No one was being wreckless.

I'm sure most car owners would rather not have a 55mph assist limit on their cars but you support that nonsense on LSEBs. I just think you are in the minority on this and I'm hoping to lead an effort to kill the 3-class legislation in all the adopting states because it's garbage and it's an interstate commerce violation. The federal definition for a LSEB is not a crazy fast specification but few have even read it.

seriously? where did I post ANYTHING about being in support of assist limits? please show me.. I made no such post, I claimed no such support.

I simply stated that I believe that posted speed signs are pointless, as car drivers don't obey them so cyclists won't and don't.

I don't believe in assist limits anymore than I believe in speed governors on cars, I believe people need to be responsible for themselves and their actions and I have said as much multiple times in this thread, you are the one that is choosing to read into things that I did not say. Seems to me you have a comprehension problem.

 

[Ken M]

seriously? where did I post ANYTHING about being in support of assist limits? please show me.. I made no such post, I claimed no such support.

I simply stated that I believe that posted speed signs are pointless, as car drivers don't obey them so cyclists won't and either.

I don't believe in assist limits anymore than I believe in speed governors on cars, I believe people need to be responsible for themselves and their actions and I have said as much multiple times in this thread, you are the one that is choosing to read into things that I did not say. Seems to me you have a comprehension problem.

My mistake...I'm going to fast and I must have misread your intent. I honestly thought you were against personal responsibly when it comes to following speed limits.

 

[mjeds]

My mistake...I'm going to fast and I must have misread your intent. I honestly thought you were against personal responsibly when it comes to following speed limits.

no, I am simply saying that posted speed limits are pointless, no one obeys them. as for assist limits, also IMO pointless because they can easily be removed, I've done it to all my ebikes.

I ride smart, IMO, on bike pathways that are cluttered with other riders and pedestrians I stay around 15mph, on empty paths I will go as fast as I think is safe for the road conditions (a lot of the paths around here are pot hole ridden and broken). On a roadway with cars I will go as fast as I can to stay with the flow of traffic.

none of the dedicated bike paths I take currently have posted speed limits, but they do have other rules that are always ignored.

 

[RunForTheHills]

I think that it is not accurate to say that speed limits are completely ignored by everyone. While I do exceed the speed limit in my car, I try not to go more than 5mph or so over the speed limit. Excessive speeding and weaving through traffic will draw the attention of law enforcement. I also drive at a safe speed for the conditions, so I slow down in the rain and snow. I believe that if there were actually no speed limits, drivers would go much faster than when speed limits are posted. I could be wrong, but you hear about people driving 200 mph on the Autobahn in Germany.

 

[Widgets]

I could be wrong, but you hear about people driving 200 mph on the Autobahn in Germany.

In 1989 and 1999 I could only get my 4 cylinder rental car to 185 mph. The BMWs would pass me like I was standing still.

That said, in my first day back in the good old USA I saw more accidents on my drive to work than I saw in three and half months I. Germany. They are way more responsible drivers than we are. I felt safer on the Autobahn than I do on the roads here.

While in Germany I did read in the Stars and Stripes (US military paper) about a 200 car accident in the fog on the Autobann, caused by the excessive speed. Turn the page and there was a story about a 200 car accident in the fog on the interstate near San Francisco, caused by the heavy fog. Our national mantra that speed is bad keeps us blind to common sense. Both accidents were caused by speed unsafe for the conditions, but they were reported differently due to the perspective that the paper was trying to get me to believe.

 

[mjeds]

I think that it is not accurate to say that speed limits are completely ignored by everyone. While I do exceed the speed limit in my car, I try not to go more than 5mph or so over the speed limit. Excessive speeding and weaving through traffic will draw the attention of law enforcement. I also drive at a safe speed for the conditions, so I slow down in the rain and snow. I believe that if there were actually no speed limits, drivers would go much faster than when speed limits are posted. I could be wrong, but you hear about people driving 200 mph on the Autobahn in Germany.

the last statistics I saw from the US NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) in 2019 stated that only 32% of drivers obey posted limits, only 48% understood the "Basic Speed Law" and 91% stated they normally drive faster than the posted limit by 5mph or more.

I think it is pretty accurate to say that posted limits are ignored (in the USA) by everyone seeing as 91% of people surveyed are openly admitting that they ignore them

 

[mjeds]

In 1989 and 1999 I could only get my 4 cylinder rental car to 185 mph. The BMWs would pass me like I was standing still.

That said, in my first day back in the good old USA I saw more accidents on my drive to work than I saw in three and half months I. Germany. They are way more responsible drivers than we are. I felt safer on the Autobahn than I do on the roads here.

While in Germany I did read in the Stars and Stripes (US military paper) about a 200 car accident in the fog on the Autobann, caused by the excessive speed. Turn the page and there was a story about a 200 car accident in the fog on the interstate near San Francisco, caused by the heavy fog. Our national mantra that speed is bad keeps us blind to common sense. Both accidents were caused by speed unsafe for the conditions, but they were reported differently due to the perspective that the paper was trying to get me to believe.

speed unsafe for conditions and differences in speed are the issue IMO.

500 cars all doing 80 mph is not an issue. throw a couple of cars into the mix doing 10 over that and weaving in and out of traffic or doing 10 or more under causing others to go around them, is a recipe for an accident.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

I could be wrong, but you hear about people driving 200 mph on the Autobahn in Germany.

It happens. If you take part in an accident and you drove over 140 km/h (and are still alive), you are automatically guilty there. Once, I was picked up by a company car (actually, a cab on a contract) in Ruhrgebiet. The driver was going at 180 km/h on the Autobahn. At 140 km/h he took the steering wheel in both hands. I was scared but the guy was a professional.

My own maximum speed on Autobahn was 185 km/h (with tailwind).

Nowadays, most of Germans drive at 140 km/h to save on the fuel.

 

[rawlus]

where i live there are no paths that are exclusively for bikes. all are shared paths.
for shared multi use paths, i’m not a big proponent of regulatory speed limiting signage mainly because the cost of such an application, both in capital expense and in manpower for enforcement would be ridiculous and likely seen by the community as a misuse of important funds better used where it can make a stronger impact.

id support path design improvements to accommodate high speeds more successfully, while preserving the paths multi-use nature. cautions and pavement markings where possible to warn of blind corners, road crossings, areas of congestion or other hazards so riders and walkers of all types can take necessary precautions.

i think given the right information in the right context at the right time riders and other path users will usually make the right decisions in the best interest of all.

there will be outliers who impose risk and danger to themselves and perhaps others…. these risks cannot be effectively mitigated, and we take far greater risks in other everyday activities without a second thought.

i am not a fan of legislation that pursues a utopian ideal of a zero risk society. i am much more a fan of personal accountability.

Australia paper but a comprehensive technical study of shared use paths and speeds: https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/...cal-notes/Traffic-engineering/TN130.pdf?la=en
i’m fine with much of the recommendations made in the tech paper.

 

[rawlus]

if into calculus, probability and statistics this older study by the feds is quite interesting. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/05137/05137.pdf

 

[mjeds]

if into calculus, probability and statistics this older study by the feds is quite interesting. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/05137/05137.pdf

that report is 7 years out of date

 

[rawlus]

that report is 7 years out of date

yes, i acknowledged it was an old study, it’s age does not make it entirely irrelevant. it’s a study of mixed use trail design and how to manage those different uses concurrently without impinging upon the freedoms of each user.

 

[Dallant]

Speed limit enforcement is the reason why not in the U.S. as nobody can provide the resources to police it.