You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
assume you mean the weight of the stereotypical user, becasue a few extra kilos on the bike is going to make sod all difference in a cyclist to pedestrian impact.
A fair point. My beef is more concerning people who use them without consideration, which they do. Existing cyclists do this but it takes effort, when you make it effortless you make it a bigger problem.
My off the cuff opion is that 20mph is a bit high.
Recently, I think I’ve managed my first two Strava Gran Fondos (100Km+) in under four hours having tried them for ~3 years, on routes with 66-70 feet per mile, ~16.9mph average with Normal Power of ~215W (~2.7W/Kg).
I think 15.5mph cut off is a little low, especially if you ride flatter routes. Something like 17/18mph might be better, although that means mixed bike/ebike groups are going to further splintered up inclines.
It sounds a bit nit picky but I actually agree with this.
17 or 18mph max "feels" about right from my non assisted commuting days.
As to the the comments about bikes turning into electric motorbikes, if a significant proportion of the population starting commuting on electric bikes with a low barrier to entry in the terms of cost and equipment then I'm absolutely for it. Cost benefit analysis seems good to me. Cars also kill people, I've heard.
if a significant proportion of the population starting commuting on electric bikes with a low barrier to entry in the terms of cost and equipment then I’m absolutely for it.
Thinks most would agree but not sure the limited speed of 15.5mph is the thing putting them off is it?
This is something that vexes me about shared-use paths/bridleways; walkers and dog-walkers know to expect cyclists yet many treat the path as their own private park letting their dog lead (if the dog is even on a lead) cross the path, kids to run around or they all insist on walking three-abreast.
Would you walk down a quiet country lane three-abreast expecting cars to honk and wait for you to move to the side?
Some walkers are totally passive-aggressive and just won't move even.
There are plenty of paths near me that bikes aren't allowed on. If you find cyclists such an annoyance then feel free to walk on them only.
Is walking single-file on one side of a shared-use path (left preferably) too much to ask?
Would you walk down a quiet country lane three-abreast expecting cars to honk and wait for you to move to the side?
They would, they do and they dislike having any concern for traffic be that cars bikes tractors or hgvs. There are lots of "I've got the right to be here so screw you" types everywhere, they're not limited to single use paths or anything else, they're just the same % of ignorant people you find in cars or on bikes.
Is walking single-file on one side of a shared-use path (left preferably) too much to ask?
And yes, for the same reason it's too much to ask that people on bikes don't ride primary, only use cycle lanes when one is provided and so on.
Shared use, shared space etc, everyone gets to use it equitably, I struggle with the fact my 6 year old niece understands how to share but grown adults seem to find it hard to comprehend.
Alternatively, my wife (who’s only been biking for a couple of years now) absolutely loved cycling in Holland, and if you asked her she probably doesn’t even recall mopeds, petrol or electric, in the same space as us (they were!)
On the outskirts of Amsterdam it was fine as the cycle paths were pretty quiet, but near the centre it was horrible - one of the worst cities I've ridden a bike in which was a surprise.
Mopeds used to be allowed on bike lanes in Amsterdam. But they were banned last year. Probably still allowed in most other parts of the Netherlands.
https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/living/latest-news/archive/bike-path-ban-for-mopeds
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/04/unwelcome-guests-moped-riders-protest-as-amsterdam-drives-them-from-bike-lanes
Quite happy with the power and speed of mine, it’s an assisted push bike Not a moped.
I've an eBullitt cargo bike. Whilst the motor working up to 30kmh would be nice, it's not necessary. I usually trot along at 28kmh anyways, but the motor giving you a kick from the lights is great.
Ebikes only really make sense for commuting and getting about town. They don't belong on trails, imo.
Here in Germany there is again a growing sentiment of anti mtb mostly thanks to ebikes, or rather those that ride them.
And yes, for the same reason it’s too much to ask that people on bikes don’t ride primary, only use cycle lanes when one is provided and so on.
Shared use, shared space etc, everyone gets to use it equitably, I struggle with the fact my 6 year old niece understands how to share but grown adults seem to find it hard to comprehend.
My point about the shared-use paths is that as a cyclist I wouldn't ride two or three-abreast and expect pedestrians to get out of my way so why are pedestrians doing the same? It's completely reasonable to my mind to expect cyclists to need to overtake ergo pedestrians should walk in single-file unless the path is particularly wide.
Before you talk about cyclists riding primary on roads, consider that primary means only taking up one lane; the motorist as full use of the other lane to overtake. These pedestrians are effectively taking up 'both sides of the roads' of the shared-use paths.
The path I was talking about is the prom along the shore. I share your frustrations about folk walking 3,4 or more abreast but equally you wouldn't slalom through traffic so why through people? The problem isn't ebikes or even cyclists, it's about people who can't share or show consideration. Unfortunately when such a conflict arises its only going to go one way, we have dozens of "cyclists give way" signs about the place now thanks to folk that can't behave properly.
Personally I don't see sea fronts as places where pedestrians should maintain any 'lane discipline'. It somewhere u go for fresh air rather than it being primarily a means to get from A to B.
Unfortunately the miopic twunts in North Ayrshire council don't share your opinion and as such there is a conflict between meandering pedestrians and cyclists avoiding the A road through town.
On the outskirts of Amsterdam it was fine as the cycle paths were pretty quiet, but near the centre it was horrible – one of the worst cities I’ve ridden a bike in which was a surprise.
My Dutch, cycling, friend moved out of Amsterdam because the city was overrun by anarchic cyclists and she felt it had become too dangerous to walk around in.
Personally the current limit seems to make sense. Back in my fitter days a good cross-country average pace for me was 17.5 mph. Would I enjoy a faster pace apart from downhill - probably not.
Here in Germany there is again a growing sentiment of anti mtb mostly thanks to ebikes, or rather those that ride them.
They don’t belong on trails, imo
That’s a bit of a shame, perhaps more consideration is needed.
They don’t belong on trails, imo
Again a shame, at the moment,I wouldn’t be able to ride and enjoy trails if that view becomes more prevalent.
Personally I don’t see sea fronts as places where pedestrians should maintain any ‘lane discipline’. It somewhere u go for fresh air rather than it being primarily a means to get from A to B.
This. The problem with shared facilities is that pedestrians do not behave as if they are traffic. Nor should they have to.
This. The problem with shared facilities is that pedestrians do not behave as if they are traffic. Nor should they have to.
Why not? Perhaps pedestrians should be able to lay down their towel and sunbathe or have a picnic right in the middle of the path?
tjagain
Subscriber
yes they are – check the legislation. 250 w continuous output.
Yip, which means nothing.
Personally the current limit seems to make sense.
Agree. It is pretty much the average speed I do over 20 or 30 miles and it feels fast enough.
Not sure where the speed limit came from but guessing it was aligned to a pretty average cycling speed? 20mph is not a pretty average cycling speed and is only for the very fit serious cyclist.
but not sure the limited speed of 15.5mph is the thing putting them off is it?
Exactly. Going to have no impact on uptake of ebikes for commuting. This is all about getting a speed boost off road. You just have to spend half an hour on the eMTB forum to see the attitude of some riders, especially to derestriction and even higher assisted speeds. As usual it’s only a small minority of ebike riders but that’s all it takes to ruin it for everyone else.
15.5mph does seem a bit random until you convert it Europe wide to kph.
I’ve only had two rides on my ebike so far, so maybe I’ve just not got used to the boost yet, but the way you get up to the limit so quickly is startling. A few good pedal strokes downhill and I hit the limiter. I think it’s this and the speed differential uphill that needs careful and considerate riding. Tales of kids being harassed is awful but I’ve seen the same at Glentress from Strava warriors on their enduro bikes treating the final blue as a race track.
I think it’s this and the speed differential uphill that needs careful and considerate riding
That's a good point. One wouldn't propose a universal car speed-limit throughout the UK; it should depend on the circumstances.
For example, I would suggest that doing 15.5 mph on a tightly twisting uphill trail past walkers and slow-moving non-e-bike cyclists is much more dangerous than doing 15.5 mph on a b-road.
Not sure where the speed limit came from
25kmh is the speed limit for cycle paths in Germany, if you go faster you are meant to be on the roads. That may be common across Europe, not really sure, but I think that is why the ebike limit is also 25kmh.
The simple truth is, people don’t need pedelecs to provide higher speed assistance, they just want to go fasterer because its more fun, especially when you don't have to provide all the effort.
All this "keeping up with traffic" bollox is a spurious claim, if you want to keep up with motorised vehicles, buy a motorised vehicle. If you want to cycle regularly and not have hills kick the arse out of you, buy a pedelec.
The rules as they stand, are fine, they protect pedestrians and riders in and around urban areas. The problem is that the technology is easy to hack and lots of users know this, so that 'wasted potential' becomes something they feel the desire to use and hence feel the law should change to suit them, not the wider transport safety context...
The rules as they stand, are fine, they protect pedestrians and riders in and around urban areas.
Then you agree that the e-bikes should be afforded a higher speed limit in rural areas?
Then you agree that the e-bikes should be afforded a higher speed limit in rural areas?
They're subject to the same speed limits as all vehicles. They can all go faster than 15.5mph, the meat sack in charge just needs to work harder 😉
But no I see no, reason to provide some new "extra-urban higher assist speed rule". 15.5mph is plenty to get you up a hill or take the edge off a head wind...
Turning it round why do users need to be nudged along faster on a country B-road?
Increasing the speed limit of e-bike will help to increase the useful commuting range of e-bikes.
It isn't just a matter of fatigue but one of how long commuters want to spend commuting, of sitting in the saddle.
For example, right now I can do my 13-mile commute in about 1 hr on my normal bike at a decent pace. An e-bike with a 20 mph limit may be able to turn that into a 45 min commute making it much more attractive to many people or allowing people living maybe 18 miles away to do it in 1 hr.
Increasing the speed limit of e-bike will help to increase the useful commuting range of e-bikes.
I agree with part of that.
Yes bikes should be able to go faster for that exact purpose.
But it's no longer an e bike oh and as I've mentioned a few times...... The mechanism for this exists it's an s-pedelec classification.
So trying to raise ebikes speed limits on that grounds is ignorant of the current rules tbh.
But the s-pedelec classification would be useless to me because I couldn't use the cycling paths and bridleways.
So what powered speed to you want people to be able to use on bridleways and “cycling paths”?
But the s-pedelec classification would be useless to me because I couldn’t use the cycling paths and bridleways.
Apt user name. Wanting cake and to eat it.
It's either a bike or it's not.
And saying I don't have to go flat out is not an arguement because maybe I'll just nip along it on my 600cc sports bike -but I'll go canny ......
So what powered speed to you want people to be able to use on bridleways and “cycling paths”?
I'd say at least 18 mph.
And saying I don’t have to go flat out is not an arguement because maybe I’ll just nip along it on my 600cc sports bike -but I’ll go canny
Your motorbike probably weighs at least 150 kg.
Perhaps all bikes should be limited to 15.5 mph including purely pedal-powered ones?
Increasing the speed limit of e-bike will help to increase the useful commuting range of e-bikes.
It will? Don't they just gobble up more electricity the faster you go, making higher speeds worse for range?
It isn’t just a matter of fatigue but one of how long commuters want to spend commuting, of sitting in the saddle.
You either like cycling or you don't, an extra half hour in the saddle could be seen as a positive...
For example, right now I can do my 13-mile commute in about 1 hr on my normal bike at a decent pace. An e-bike with a 20 mph limit may be able to turn that into a 45 min commute making it much more attractive to many people or allowing people living maybe 18 miles away to do it in 1 hr.
I have a similar situation, a 10 mile commute, I take the quieter, scenic route in (45mins) on a laden old touring bike with some climbing, and the more direct (35-40mins) home. If I drive its maybe 25-30mins each way traffic and weather dependant.
I've had longer and shorter commutes in the last couple of decades but spending an extra half hour-ish total on a bike isn't really much of a hardship. A 20mph pedelec would make my cycle option similar to my driving (or Motorcycle?) option time wise. Frankly I don't want that, all it would do is make a relaxing, stress relieving cycle to work as rushed an stressful as getting in the tin box (IMO)...
I understand your making a point about people being "time crunched" and that the fact that every 5 miles further you live from your work place has a disproportionate effect on the viability of cycling as a commuting option, but actually there is something to be said for keeping the pace comfortable...
Plus as soon as you OK a 20mph country assist mode, it's going to be used in and around towns...
Perhaps all bikes should be limited to 15.5 mph including purely pedal-powered ones?
Tbh mostly they already are when talking about commuters.
I’ve had near misses from oblivious e-bikers both on trails (slog uphill at Llandegla where one was slaloming round everyone) and when on a shared path with my daughter (suddenly finding someone zipping between us) and IMO it’s only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or killed by one given the weight of them. More speed is not the answer, 15.5mph is plenty fast enough for assistance.
Whilst I support your frustration withe the 'degla tube, I don't agree with the rest of your post. You sound very like a frothed up cycle hating gammon....
it’s only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or killed by one given the weight of them.
What a ridiculous comment. Do you know how many people get killed by cars every single day, and here's you objecting to the solution because somebody, perhaps, in the future might get injured by one. Do you not see how stupid that sounds?
No he sounds like someone who doesn't want to mix with faster moving vehicles with his daughter.....in what were safer spaces.
Plus as soon as you OK a 20mph country assist mode, it’s going to be used in and around towns…
I do see your point but we 'trust' motorists to mostly keep to variable speed limits but it seems e-cyclists can't be trusted?
Isn't this an example of Daily Mail 'lycra lout' characterisation where 'irresponsible cyclists' can't be trusted?
here’s you objecting to the solution because somebody, perhaps, in the future might get injured by one. Do you not see how stupid that sounds?
Cos that would never happen....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-51707616
do see your point but we ‘trust’ motorists to mostly keep to variable speed limits but it seems e-cyclists can’t be trusted?
Motorists by and large can't. So I'm good with keeping speeding e bikes off shared use paths.
Mr Cake,
I know it is a Tyler Hamilton cliche but I think cycling is about burning matches. At the end of a long day you burn a lot of matches getting up a hill on a commute. With battery assist taking the edge (I say edge, I mean a huge chunk) off the hills as well as accelerating away from lights and junctions that's a lot of unburnt candles. Is there any reason you can't use some of those unspent matches to get you up beyond 25kph on your B roads using your actual legs? What with it being a bike and all.
I gave my 25 mile new commute a test drive yesterday (for fun, not going to work) - it's a bit of a beast. 15.5mph average human powered is a distant dream I feel and that's on a relatively light road bike. And you know how I'm going to tackle it - by getting up a little bit earlier not signing a petition 😉
I deliberately bought a fixed gear bike to limit my top speed on the flat when commuting. Max sustainable speed was just short of 25mph due to the gearing (could do about 30 down hill). Normally I'd be riding around 20-22mph. Same conditions with gears, easily upto and above 30.
just nuts allowing ebike assist to go much faster.
I deliberately bought a fixed gear bike to limit my top speed on the flat when commuting. Max sustainable speed was just short of 25mph due to the gearing (could do about 30 down hill). Normally I’d be riding around 20-22mph. Same conditions with gears, easily upto and above 30.
just nuts allowing ebike assist to go much faster.
ATM they aren't allowed anywhere close to your 20-22 mph assisted so I don't know what you mean.
Given the speed of the leisure cyclists we passed today, I'd say 25km/h is way too much. Most were doing around 15km/h.
Well, I used to have the same fundamentalist or purist attitude as you convert but now I can see the benefit of e-bikes as part of a low-carbon transport strategy. Many people are never going to be able to get or stay ultra-fit, and some people are just old. Besides, even for a fit cyclist, an e-bike could increase the useful commuting range by bike getting them out of the car or off a train or bus.
This might as well be the Daily Mail comments section given attitude and stereotyping of fellow cyclists. Even the thread title is misleading as it’s assistance that stops at 25kmh not a limit on how fast you can go. Personally anything that gets people out of cars is a good thing and if raising the limit helps then why not?
Given some argue it’s all about safety maybe we better start a petition to get all bikes limited to 25kmh? I bet it would get a lot more votes.
Whilst I support your frustration withe the ‘degla tube, I don’t agree with the rest of your post. You sound very like a frothed up cycle hating gammon….
With all due respect, you're talking shite. You also sound like the sort of entitled twunt that thinks a shared space is fair game to ride how you please yet would be the first to cry foul as soon as a driver did the same on a road.
What a ridiculous comment. Do you know how many people get killed by cars every single day, and here’s you objecting to the solution because somebody, perhaps, in the future might get injured by one. Do you not see how stupid that sounds?
As pointed out, it's happened already. And why are cyclists considered vulnerable road users? Maybe the difference in weight and speed? Now apply that to a shared cycle path where you want to increase that speed differential beyond normal commuting speeds.
And you keep missing the point that you can get a bike that does what you want
It just means you have to stay on paths/roads suitable for use of them.
Eh? Assume that's not me.
Personally anything that gets people out of cars is a good thing and if raising the limit helps then why not?
Does it help, where is the data that more people would cycle if eBikes had a higher limit?
The 25kph is clearly what is deemed a "pedal bike speed" (based on a good average speed for an average cyclist, or probably faster than average cyclist) If raising it why stop at 20mph, why not 30 mph? Ah, maybe because that would then be a scooter speed and require helmet, tax, insurance etc,.
Yes you can ride a bike at 30mph but those that do/can really are in the 0.0001% of cyclists.
Now apply that to a shared cycle path where you want to increase that speed differential beyond normal commuting speeds.
Plenty of commuters do more than 15.5 mph.
Aye right ye are, I average 15mph or so on my mostly flat commute on my hybrid (7.5 miles in just under 30 mins) the road rats can go faster but funnily enough they shun the cycle paths and stick to the road.
I'm sure though that you're about to pull a load of data out to back yourself up and blow my analogy out the water, aren't you? You can do it at the same time you back up your assertion that present assisted speed limits are discouraging uptake of e-bikes.
Plenty of commuters do more than 15.5 mph.
Do they really though......
Do they do block Speeds the whole commute higher than 15.5mph or do they sometimes reach 20 down a hill.....because the latter is what I see based on local folks Strava records of their commmutes
I do see your point but we ‘trust’ motorists to mostly keep to variable speed limits but it seems e-cyclists can’t be trusted?
Car drivers consistently prove that people (at the end of the day we are talking about people operating any of these modes of transport) can't be trusted to adhere to a speed limit, so no we don't trust them...
Isn’t this an example of Daily Mail ‘lycra lout’ characterisation where ‘irresponsible cyclists’ can’t be trusted?
I never used the term "Lycra lout", I haven't "characterised" e-bike users at all.
Like I said humans are flawed, we hadn't gotten past page one of this thread before someone who "knows better" than the existing law, had owned up to having chipped their e-bike for moar speed...
This whole discussion is about what's "Street legal" in the UK. Do what you like on private land, but I'd always rather the rules err on the side of caution with road going vehicles of any sort.
The legislation as it stands caterers for the "lowest standard" of bicycle user, for whom there is no barrier or prior requirements to demonstrate skill/ability in operating an e-bike on the road/shared path/bridalway. Therefore it is only right that the capabilites of the equipment are limited in order to control the level of risk...
Or do you want "e-bicycle licences"? Now there's a DM concept for you...
The legislation as it stands caterers for the “lowest standard” of bicycle user, for whom there is no barrier or prior requirements to demonstrate skill/ability in operating an e-bike on the road/shared path/bridalway. Therefore it is only right that the capabilites of the equipment are limited in order to control the level of risk…
Nobody is arguing that they should be unrestricted just that 15.5 mph is too onerous a restriction.
Nobody is arguing that they should be unrestricted just that 15.5 mph is too onerous a restriction.
I never said anything about "unrestricted" e-bikes, I said I believe 15.5mph is enough assistance in all transport settings, some seem to want 20mph, others want to split the difference at 18.
But that all misses the point, you're not "limited" to 15.5mph, the assistance you receive is, you can ride your e-bike faster, it just won't help you do it.
The argument most e-bike fans trot out when us "Haterz" start talking about motorbikes is that they only provide limited assistance, that they're not twist'n'go leccy motorbikes they're bicycles just supplemented, mostly for climbs, by a motor to achieve about "average" human powered performance levels for a bit longer without fatiguing the rider as much.
As soon as the assisted speeds start creeping up the "its still a bicycle just with a little help" claim falls over and those haterz will be all over it...
I never said anything about “unrestricted” e-bikes, I said I believe 15.5mph is enough assistance in all transport settings, some seem to want 20mph, others want to split the difference at 18.
But that all misses the point, you’re not “limited” to 15.5mph, the assistance you receive is, you can ride your e-bike faster, it just won’t help you do it.
It doesn't miss any point; we're asking for assistance up to a faster speed than 15.5 mph. 🙂
An 18 mph assistance limit wouldn't change the essence of e-bikes for example.
Better still just give them a power limit.
It doesn’t miss any point; we’re asking for assistance up to a faster speed than 15.5 mph.
Get a moped then. You want 18mph limit on eBike, another person will then want 20mph, someone else will then want 22mph and so on. There is a point where the speed limit moves it away from a bike and what an average person can achieve on a bike and it is no longer a bike.
That's fine, sell ebikes with limits of 30mph and have a requirement for test, insurance etc,.
An 18 mph assistance limit wouldn’t change the essence of e-bikes for example.
It would just mean you'd have folk doing 18mph full time on shared use paths. A speed which should see them on the road.
I've still to see any evidence of vast amounts of commuters on regular bikes doing >15.5mph mile after mile day after day.
I’ve still to see any evidence of vast amounts of commuters on regular bikes doing >15.5mph mile after mile day after day.
What's the evidential basis for 15.5 mph being the appropriate assisted limit?
It's the high side of the mid point between the recommended and maximum limits suggested for shared use paths.
What’s the evidential basis for 15.5 mph being the appropriate assisted limit?
First sensible question of the thread.
I believe it is as simple as copying what other EU legislation has already put in place.
So yes it does justify closer examination. But the findings of such an analysis may not be that an increase is appropriate...
15mph avarage is slow for a roady. Thats entry level club run speed, with 17av being inters and 19 being being fast group, over a 40 to 50 mile sunday ride.
18 mph on a shared path is a silly speed, rospa and police recommend 10 is the limit then pop onto the road. 15mph riles drivers, hell 20mph riles drivers and you have maybe 20 seconds before the revving and the looms start.
Beimg able to commute further and faster with electric aid has to be a good thing
18mph and a 100watt motor get my vote. Less watt motors weigh less and neef less amps hence smaller batteries that weigh less too, less inertia, less kinetic energy, cheaper to make, easier to package
15mph avarage is slow for a roady. Thats entry level club run speed, with 17av being inters and 19 being being fast group
average 15mph or so on my mostly flat commute on my hybrid
For the love of God, can people stop conflating average speed with top speed. It's complete ridiculous. Just because certaon people average y mph does not mean that e-bikes should be [effectively] limited to y mph on thé flat.
15mph avarage is slow for a roady. Thats entry level club run speed, with 17av being inters and 19 being being fast group, over a 40 to 50 mile sunday ride.
So you are talking about <1% of cyclists, not a great group size to use as an example in any debate is it.
What’s the evidential basis for 15.5 mph being the appropriate assisted limit?
What's the evidential basis for suggesting it should be 18mph?
If I was to petition for 22mph limit you would clearly be against it as 18mph is the "safe" limit. Can you please give me the reasons you are against having a 22mph limit?
What’s the evidential basis for suggesting it should be 18mph?
If I was to petition for 22mph limit you would clearly be against it as 18mph is the “safe” limit. Can you please give me the reasons you are against having a 22mph limit?
That's bad faith questioning since you're trying to put the 'burden of safety' on me without first assuming the burden for the 15.5 mph you clearly support, and I can't argue my case without first knowing the evidence and arguments that support the 15.5 mph assisted limit.
18mph and a 100watt motor get my vote.
100 w motor would not reach 18 mph for most iriders. 250 w struggle
Reasons for the 15.5 mph limit. It was a euro law and decision. In much of europe most bikes are used in urban situations on bike lanes. anything above 15.5 mph is too big a speed differential for bike lanes.
Also severity of crashing is down to momentum which IIRC is the square of speed. So the faster you go the worse the crashes.
Its already been seen that in europe there has been a significant increase in bike accidents down to old folk on ebikes.
You have to legislate for lowest common denominator
For the love of God, can people stop conflating average speed with top speed. It’s complete ridiculous.
Of course it is, good job nobody is trying to do that. If you were thinking a little harder you would see the correlation given it's easier for an ebike to maintain that 15.5mph average by virtue of design.
For the love of God, can people stop conflating average speed with top speed. It’s complete ridiculous. Just because certaon people average y mph does not mean that e-bikes should be [effectively] limited to y mph on thé flat.
Please stop conflating the end of assistance with a limit, there is nothing, at all, in this country or the rest of the EU preventing you doing 20mph or 2000mph on an ebike on the flat except the laws of physics.
For the love of God, can people stop conflating average speed with top speed. It’s complete ridiculous
Evidence please 😉
Signed in order to legalize my baby Robin killing STW frothing death machine and I want this angst ridden thread to overtake the Brexit page count which it will do at this rate.
Its already been seen that in europe there has been a significant increase in bike accidents down to old folk on ebikes.
I'd expect there to be more accidents involving bikes if more people take up cycling.
Its already been seen that in europe there has been a significant increase in bike accidents down to old folk on ebikes.
The US too, apparently.
15mph avarage is slow for a roady.
Is this true though? 15mph might be slow for a fast roadie, but even then you're only talking by a few mph (if that, depending on elevation). Group rides are not a fair comparison at all as you're getting assistance from the group which is easily going to raise your average by 1-2mph. And we're talking about a tiny proportion of cyclists who dedicate a fair amount of their time training their bodies to ride fast. And they only ride on the road.
The average person buying an electric bike is more likely to have an average speed of between 8 and 12mph ordinarily. Forget the edge cases for a second; the old roadie, the mountain biker, the 15 mile commuter (they're all hardened cyclists anyway, those are not the people we're encouraging to ride). Most of these bikes will be used on shared paths and around urban environments where even at 15.5mph the speed differential can be a real issue. Add a climb into the mix and your average utility cyclists might be doing 3-4mph while that electric bike silently whizzes past at 16mph, and in close proximity it can be genuinely frightening. You don't even need a climb. Imagine your gran setting off on her 3 speed Sturmey Archer. 20 kilo steel town bike. Those things take some getting going. e-bike accelerates from behind, straight up to speed in the smallest of busy streets.
I can't say it's an issue I've ever experienced in this country. We're quite late in adopting e-bikes and we're not big on utility cycling, using it as a practical means of transport. But I have experienced it elsewhere. You put lots of these things in a small space it soon gets pretty wild. If they were capable of speeds of 20mph or more it would be utterly mad.
Also severity of crashing is down to momentum which IIRC is the square of speed. So the faster you go the worse the crashes.
You mean kinetic energy? (1/2 mv^2)
Which if we work it out for and assumed say an 80kg rider + 20 kg bike (100kg, nice round figure) at 15.5mph its about 2400 Joules, at 20mph it's about 3900 Joules. So yes the potential increase in impact energy is exponential as speed goes up. But to put it in context a 1.5 ton car at 30mph is over 13000 Joules so motor vehicles are substantialy more dangerous still. But then cars aren't (normally) on shared use paths with earphone wearing joggers and meandering dog walkers, where I'd still be more concerned about reducing the available reaction time and increased stopping distances for faster moving assisted pedalers.
Then there's the PPE argument, polystyrene hats are arguably most effective up to around 12mph (at least that's about the level the mandatory testing goes to) so you could argue that every bit of assistance you give an e-bike user in going further above that speed the more you're risking their safety...
Ultimately its almost all as marginal as arguing that you "need" to go faster to "keep up with traffic" or to "get to work quicker" without expending as much energy...
At some point you just have to admit, you want to go faster on your pretend bicycle, because you like going fast and dislike effort, and it's just obeying the pesky rules that constrain you. At which point you've got to accept that you have more of a "motorist mindset" and you don't really want to ride bicycles... You just need a motorcycle.
As I've said before pedestrians should be more disciplined (like traffic) when using shared use paths.
If pedestrians or dog walkers want they can go and walk on footpaths or parks if they don't want to do this.
As I’ve said before pedestrians should be more disciplined (like traffic) when using shared use paths.
If pedestrians or dog walkers want they can go and walk on footpaths or parks if they don’t want to do this.
Get real. What Utopian world are you living in?
Well, the real solution is dedicated cycle paths and (protected) lanes. Just asking for this would have brought accusations of being a fool or hopeless idealist a few years ago.
In the UK we are improving things but the general solution has been to either force cyclists to share space with cars or pedestrians. Either way, there is a conflict.
For example, the TPT and Bridgewater canal towpath near me is both a functional commuter route and means of getting from A to B for many cyclists, in addition to being a recreational space for walkers, families, and dog walkers. One can see how this naturally promotes a conflict. Nobody asks motorists to share spaces with people walking dogs.