cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/34367979
More barriers to cycling means more cars which means more dead cyclists/pedestrians. Help us defeat this terrible anti-safety bill.
Berm Peak on YouTube has a video about this (actually focused around the similar law that just passed in NJ).
I like the idea of “ebikes” with throttles simply being treated as mopeds/scooters. The laws already exist, in this case it’s just an electric moped.
It should be pretty easy to enforce too: person going relatively quickly without the assist of gravity or pedaling.
A bike with only pedal assist (motor only helps when pedaling) could just remain a bike.
I cycle / walk to work, and I 100% want to reign in these heavy ass bikes and doordash scooters that are flying past me at around 30mph. Ditto for when I’m out hiking in the hills with my dogs. About once a week I have to jump out of the way of a budget motorcycle.
This would basically mean petal assist would stop at 20mph if you don’t want a license. 20mph is still pretty damn reasonable if you’re commuting. I’m usually at about 15 to 20 mph.
Roads, trails, and intersections need to be safe for other cyclists, scooter users, and pedestrians. Visit SOMA during commute hours or redwood regional after work. That shit is not safe.
So you’d rather they be driving by at 50 mph? Because that’s the alternative in our society.
“Budget motorcycles” aren’t even class 3, so this law has no effect to reign those in. And you’re wrong about speed–class 1 and 2 are the same speeds.
If there is a problem with people riding too fast on trails (I haven’t experienced this personally) then it needs a different solution because this isn’t even targeting the problem.
Restricting petal assist to 20mph isn’t going to push people to cars. It’s going to make bike lanes, trails, etc. safer, and make more people want to use them.
People shouldn’t be flying through bike lanes and trails above 20. That shit is bananas.
If we want to push people into cars, we should do what we’re doing now. Surround cyclists / scooter commuters with HMP e-bikes, delivering DoorDash, faster than the speed limit.
I’m not defending people behaving poorly on trails. But this bill does nothing to prevent that and adds layers of bureaucracy and police violence to legal, responsible riders for no reason.
Enforcement will be similar to what happens today. Supply will drop. Retailers will have to decide to deal with the registration of this vehicle class, or sell a lowered powered solution.
These faster e-bikes are big problem in the denser urban areas during busy times. Cutting supply is the only practical way to deal with it. Local traffic police don’t have the time to hang out in the bike lanes all day.
Strawman. Grandparent didn’t say that.
If I could actually drive at 50mph to get into SF, that would cut my commute in half. lol.
Driving into the city is more like a 0-10mph affair during commute hours.
It doesn’t matter if they said it. That’s reality.
No it isn’t. Bug off.
Carbrain is real and most people don’t want to admit it. Maybe you’ll wake up someday but most people are too indoctrinated.
You’ve made it really easy to dismiss everything you say.
Cool. It wasn’t meant for people who are incapable of questioning the biases they receive from society. Such people are a lost cause anyway.
Moron.
Why this Bill Fails California and the East Bay Community:
It Ignores the Real Danger: The leading cause of traffic violence, especially for bike riders, is that of outdated street design and heavy vehicular traffic. We need protected bikeway networks for all ages and abilities, not license plates.
It Targets the Wrong Problem: Most “e-bike” safety concerns stem from illegal “e-motos” or hacked devices that operate in excess of legal speeds, not the legal Class 2 and 3 bikes used by families, commuters, and workers.
It Punishes Sustainable Choices: While a gas car emits 374 g of CO2 per mile, an e-bike emits only 8g. By adding DMV-style red tape to e-bikes, we discourage the exact behavior needed to meet the state’s ambitious climate goals.
It Enables Biased Policing: In 2022, California abolished local bike registration requirements (AB 1909) in part because they were used as a pretext for biased stops. Reintroducing regulation and plate requirements provides a new tool for discriminatory enforcement.
This bill is bad because something else is bad? Compelling.
So bikes with combustion engines by law need tags and insurance, but bikes with electric motors should not, despite being as fast and dangerous as their counterparts?
No? None of the vehicles covered by this law are as fast as gas powered motorcycles or whatever it is you’re talking about. They’re also much lighter.
Not to mention you know this is just an excuse to do more police brutality and racial profiling. They won’t police the “good boys” (rich white kids).
I meant motorised bikes in the same speed range as ebikes. Mopeds, not motorbikes. You need a licence, insurance, tag for them. Why not for an equally fast (and dangerous) ebike/pedelec?
F = m * a
Mopeds are at minimum 2-3 times heavier than electric bikes, making them 2-3 times more dangerous since they have 2-3 times more force, without taking speed into account at all. Taking speed into consideration, class 1 and 2 e-bikes top out at 20 mph, while a 50cc moped (based on some preliminary searching, someone please correct me here) tops out at 30 mph, multiplying the force by 1.5x in comparison.
For velocity you want kinetic energy .5(mass*V^2)
That’s why braking distance scales exponentially with velocity. 30 vs 20 mph is over twice the energy at the same mass.
Tell that to the people run over or nearly hit by reckless ebike riders in the pedestrian shopping zone.
Do you think they would rather be hit by a moped??
I think they’d rather not be hit at all.
Mopeds are easily identified as they have tags, so they don’t dare to drive in the pedestrian zone.
Honestly, bicycles should have license plates, period. They may not be as dangerous as cars, but they can still be very dangerous. And considering an unfortunate number of cyclists see themselves as above the law, it’s necessary. And honestly, I would have absolutely no problem with registering my bike, as long as the process isn’t overly complicated.
I wouldn’t consider 100x less dangerous to be “very dangerous”. And this is just another step to get us used to the burgeoning police and surveillance state. I say fuck no to that.
Unlicensed cyclists injure hundreds of people per year in the perfidious Albion alone, especially children and people over 65.
Less lethal doesn’t mean non-lethal. All wheeled vehicles are dangerous, and must be regulated.
Now compare to the number of injuries caused by cars. Not that data from another country is all that relevant.
Something else being much more dangerous doesn’t make that first thing less dangerous. Otherwise, why worry about rail safety then, for instance? Taking the train is also somewhere around 100x less dangerous than driving (and I’m pretty sure if you evaluated the statistics the way they are in your picture, it would be well more than 100 times less dangerous).
Add to that, just because it doesn’t kill you, doesn’t mean it’s not dangerous. Injuries are also something that are, well, not good, especially when it’s caused by other people’s recklessness.
And let’s not mix up licensing and surveillance. You get a surveillance state when that information is then used to track you where you go (see flock cameras). Otherwise you could make the same argument that cars shouldn’t have license plates, either.
Lol licensing. You mean paper surveillance. Fucking clownshoes
It’s fun that everyone pushing this position sounds like a fucking retard.
I’ll try to go slow for you.
Did you ever see that movie with the slappy black guy where everyone in the entire world he met was this nightwalking vampire monster but in the end he turned out to be the monster?
