A bill that states, “people may not ride Class 3 e-bikes on bike lanes, sidewalks or bike paths,” and has set off alarm bells across the state has inaccurately described the problem it seeks to solve. In an interview with BikePortland today, Senator Floyd Prozanski said he introduced Senate Bill 471 in draft form so it could be filed before the legislative session began (today is the first day of session).
SB 471, as introduced, would make sweeping adjustments to Oregon’s vehicle code. This would create a popular category of electric motorcycles, Class 3 electric motorcycles that have a motor that can help riders continue pedaling at up to 28 mph, which is legally similar to mopeds. This replacement would throw an entire industry and user organization into chaos, as it is about to differentiate Class 3 motorcycles from their Class 1 (up to 20 mph with pedal loan). one hand only) and Class 2 sibling (up to 20 mph with throttle).
A worker at a local motorcycle shop told BikePortland in an email that he had several conversations over the past week with consumers who were “worried that their newly purchased Class 3 motorcycles would be of no use if the proposed bill is approved. ” Another motorcycle shop worker said: “This proposal reflects a fundamentally false impression of Class 3 electric motorcycles and their users. » Respected electric motorcycle site Electrek said that if we stick with the logic of banning Class 3 electric motorcycles on bike lanes and roads, “then we might as well ban the flow of cars capable of reaching ‘highway speeds’ down highway streets. ” the city’.
When asked today where the impetus for the bill came from, Senator Prozanski said he was encouraged by the behaviors he and his fellow drivers practiced when they were on the road. “The bill is based on what we practice when we drive. ” I do a lot of miles [on my bike] every year. I hiked 8,300 miles last year, and of course some of that is on multi-use trails. And that’s where the brunt of the bill is, I know. The bill is much broader than that. Prozanski, who does not own or ride an e-bike, said the bill was rushed to meet the filing deadline and “is a starting point for the review. . . In fact, I hope the bill as written be modified and we will have more conversations.
Later in my verbal exchange today with Senator Prozanski, it has become clear that he is primarily interested in the small electric motorcycles and mopeds that are increasingly popular and travel at top speeds on roads such as the Eastbank Esplanade and the Springwater Corridor. “I’m actually more involved in full-speed cycling, where you don’t have the legal responsibility to do any kind of physical assistance,” Prozanski said. “Why would we allow a fully motorized bicycle with no human assistance to use those trails? »
Prozanski is right, but his invoice mentions in particular class 3 electric bicycles, which by law do not have an accelerator and must be pedaled. When asked why he chose language for the bill that is not compatible with the challenge he seeks to solve, Prozanski claimed that “it was probably a misnomer on my part. “
The senator clearly has an issue with people using two-wheeled vehicles with throttles and without any human power input on lanes and paths designated specifically for bicycle riders. So how are e-bike riders different than a person riding a non-motorized bicycle at a high rate of speed? “I think this is where we’re at now is to have this more open discussion as to what would be the most appropriate [response]. What I’m looking for is safety and courtesy.”
Safety on paths and people using e-motos (my word for a class of vehicle not yet defined in Oregon Vehicle Code) in a dangerous manner is an important issue to address. But industry experts recommend focusing regulation on behaviors, not specific vehicle types. That’s how we regulate a much more dangerous vehicle: cars.
I asked Senator Prozanski if he was involved in the confusion and fear his bill has caused among many e-bike owners and retailers. “I don’t have any, so I can’t put myself in their shoes,” he said. “But I can tell you that I have friends who own e-bikes and I’ve raised similar fears with other people who abuse those trails with these types of vehicles. “
If this bill goes to a public hearing (lately it’s been awaiting a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee), it will be appealing to see where the verbal exchange goes from there. Senator Prozanski obviously has a challenge with motorized bicycles that don’t require human power. Even after claiming that “class 3” was a misnomer, he continued to express considerations about the use of “motor vehicles” on the trails. At one point, he dismissed considerations that the e-bike law would result in a law so broad that it would encompass safe and law-abiding cyclists.
“I’ve heard some opinions that ‘Well, that means other people probably wouldn’t use bikes to get around,'” Prozanski said. “You know, other people are going to have to make decisions, but those paths aren’t made. “and, as far as I could see, they weren’t designed for motor cars. “
When I told Prozanski that Oregon State Parks officials told me they were seeing fast riders on non-electric motorcycles pose a bigger challenge on some car-free trails, he said, “There are a lot of Americans who ride on all kinds of things who are just jerks. And you can’t constantly tremble, can you?
It is unfortunate that this bill has caused so much confusion and concern. This follows a long list of similar “conversation starters” from Oregon lawmakers who proposed spending that would have primary ramifications for motorcycle riders, only to reverse and/or retire them. as a whole. Like this time in 2009, when former House Rep. Wayne Krieger filed a bill on mandatory bike registration, or when former Rep. Mitch Greenlick filed a bill in 2011 that would have banned other people from riding young people on bikes, only to shelve the concept two months later. A strong reaction. And Prozanski himself experienced this in 2008 when he tried to expand Oregon’s helmet law and make it mandatory for adults, and was forced to scrap it after it caused outrage among many Oregon residents.
We have much more productive tactics for introducing new policy ideas. Instead, legislators could: request a briefing from a legislative committee, get on the schedule of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, reach out to legislators with expertise on the issue, seek input from advocacy groups corresponding and more.
But now that the bill has been introduced, the most productive end result is that SB 471 can be amended to make significant progress in the use of electric motorcycles on trails and motorcycle lanes. Stay tuned.
BikePortland has served this network with independent journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your money is essential to keep this valuable resource alive and healthy.
Jonathan’s work on this highlights the need to carefully define and regulate “e-bikes. ” But there is a more important factor that is hinted at but hidden in Senator Prozanski’s proposed legislation: If we can ban or regulate differently certain categories of two-wheeled vehicles, why don’t we ban or regulate certain categories differently? of four-wheeled vehicles? ?
It is evident that larger and heavier SUVs, trucks, minivans, etc. are more likely to injure and kill, and pollute more, taking up more space in traffic and parking, etc. Trucks and SUVs of all sizes increase faster and thus cause more injuries and more injuries. However, no one is calling for regulation of these cars based on their size, acceleration speed or other characteristics that make them more dangerous. Why not?
As a daily cyclist, I am as concerned as anyone when a moped is traveling at disruptive speeds on a multi-use road. But if we only see this danger and not that of four-wheeled vehicle traffic on all streets, highways and highways – adding streets that border houses and schools – we are losing our sense. at most be replaced to ensure public safety. Training
Great point, Lois. Larger vehicles also need to be subject to stricter parking regulations. Can’t count the number of times that my view has been blocked by SUVs, light trucks etc parked close to intersections – and that’s while driving a car as well as cycling. It’s a serious safety issue and I’m sure it could be linked to crashes at intersections.
However, no one is calling for a regulation of these cars based on their size, acceleration speed or other characteristics that make them more dangerous. Why not?
This is simply not true; There are many rules that regulate the protection and length of motor vehicles. Here’s one that’s being prepared lately and calls for modifications to reduce the danger to pedestrians. He recently appeared on this blog. I even sent comments on this.
And certainly, many other people are asking for more.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2024-0057-0001
Is there talk in the Oregon legislature about increased regulation of cars and trucks?
Why don’t we ban or insure categories of four-wheeled cars differently?
The work is already done in countries all over the world. Oregon legislators just need to have the courage to cut and paste.
Great article! This clarified some things I was confused on.
I’m not crazy about non-human propulsion vehicles on multi-use trails. Would we be allowed if motorcycles or Vespas could simply use multi-purpose trails, go through derailleurs, etc. ? ?Should we set a speed limit on multi-use trails at 30 MPH if we allow motorcycles?I know it’s a bit of an exaggeration, but the only difference between the vehicle we imagine and a motorcycle is the length of the device and its top speed.
Assholes suck no matter how they move. As things stand lately, there are fewer instances of maximum speeds on our roads. If everyone there could drive a vehicle at 30 MPH, they would be a lot busier with this. This does not seem like a very suitable environment for all ages and abilities.
The only difference between the vehicle you are thinking of and a motorcycle is the length of the device and its most sensitive speed.
Many Vespa taste cycles don’t even go by much faster. If your vehicle is electric, it’s all a matter of taste and control.
This does not seem like a very suitable environment for all ages and abilities.
You may want to drop your children off on greenways and other alleys, where speeds are lower and there is more room to maneuver.
ALRIGHT. But I’m not talking about slower scooter-type motorcycles with pedals that can’t go faster than a typical motorcycle speed. I am referring to motorized cars without (or with) pedals that have the ability to overtake much faster. The speed difference between a non-motorized bicycle traveling at 10 mph and a motorized vehicle traveling at 30 mph on a 10- to 12-foot-wide trail is very uncomfortable and scary. It’s like being passed on a street without the required four feet. Even four feet of distance between cars can be distressing for many other people on motorcycles with a speed difference of 20 MPH.
If we can’t make our trails multi-use, off-street and car-free, for all ages and abilities, something is seriously wrong. There are many other people who are afraid to ride a bike on the street, no matter how quiet it is. Off-street trails have been the access point for many, many regular runners.
The difference in speed between a non-motorized bicycle traveling at 10 mph and a motorized vehicle traveling at 30 mph on a 10- to 12-foot-wide trail is very uncomfortable and scary.
Agreed.
If we can’t make our trails multi-use, off-road, car-free, for all ages and abilities, something is very wrong.
Also agree.
Rather, my point was that if you help a speed restriction technique to regulate motorcycle lanes, you actually deserve to help electric Vespas and other low-powered motorcycles that use the lane, as long as they follow the rules, because they don’t. difference (unless someone knows why the presence of pedals adjusts the basic characteristics of a vehicle).
I feel that motornormativity has almost completely taken over bike culture, at least judging by the folks here.
I’m not in favor of speed limits on highways. I also can’t stand cars that drive too fast on the roads.
You really deserve electric Vespas and other low-powered motorcycles taking the road.
Why not high-powered motorcycles then? Why not cars?
Indeed; If all that is behavior, why not?
I feel like motorcycling regulations have almost completely taken over motorcycle culture, at least judging by the people here.
Yeah it’s a little shocking to see what’s happened to bike advocacy. In a few short years it’s gone from being staunchly in favor of human-powered transportation to being 100% captured by the ebike industry. Remember when riding a bike didn’t require mental gymnastics to bury issues like e-waste, planned obsolescence and fossil fuel reliance? The loudest voices in the room would definitely like us to forget.
Jeff, the super straw men! And who defines “bicycle defense” anyway?There are as many critics of this issue as there are defenders, so seeking to label an idea as monolithic shows that it is more about trolling than substance.
Personally I am a bicycling advocate. I like bikes and think more people should use them. I also like e-bikes and have never shied away from or did “mental gymnastics to bury” any issues associated with them. In my view, yes some things suck about e-bikes. But the things that such about driving are much much worse, so overall I see them as a good thing with huge benefits. I am here to make progress, not gatekeep or waste time on purity nonsense.
When someone mentions Vespas or mopeds, I reflexively think of two-stroke engines excluded from the planet, and even less of cycling infrastructures.
As an e-bike operator, I would settle for a law that required a stopover at a fairly convenient location for a cursory exam*, a short quiz, and a nominal payment in exchange for a sticker and the right to take my n engine anywhere. . Cycling is legal. Yes, this is a vote for more regulation.
*Including manufacturer’s documentation.
Nothing with a motor belongs on a path for cyclists, WALKERS, DOGS ON EXTENSIBLE LEASHES.
Prozanski is right, but it doesn’t happen enough.
My 50cc four horsepower Honda Metropolitan weighs 180 pounds, 3four0 with me on board. 4. 4 horsepower = 3300 watts. It has four strokes according to the cycle, it is liquid cooled, it has completely virtual engine management, including a catalyst. Please don’t call it “like Vespa!” »
In order to operate on public rights of way it must be licensed and insured, and I must have a valid driving license. Motorcycle endorsement is not required for a 50 cc engine.
Note to ODOT-DMV: NOT A MOPED!
Allegedly it will do 40 mph. I have seen 30 once, when being chased downhill by a large truck. Much too fast.
I normally drive 12 to 15 mph on back streets, 20 where it’s posted. 25 bet means that cars and trucks pass through 35. Then I avoid being persecuted.
The only thing I dislike about JM’s BP is the “cyclists uber alles” mindset. Special privileges for bikers: running STOP signs; chasing walkers on trails.
Cease whinging folks. Try being responsible. We are not precious children.
Electric bicycles must be registered and insured.
To take it to the extreme, would you fine banning motorized wheelchairs from multi-use paths as they are non-human powered vehicles?
Let’s not go to extremes. The most productive policies are almost somewhere in between.
Yes, if they can reach 20 mph or more.
… Then it looks like we’re back to the law as it is, 20 mph or less.
Wow, that’s an embarrassing blunder on Senator Prozanski’s part. I wonder if he apologizes at all. It doesn’t seem so. ?
Clearly, Mr. Prozanski reads Bike Portland for inspiration.
https://bikeportland. org/2025/01/14/oregon-bill-seeks-to-ban-class-3-e-bikes-from-sidewalks-bike-lanes-and-paths-392252#comment-7537426
That earlier comment of yours was the first thing I thought of when I saw his response in this article. You nailed it.
Smart comment, but I do have to say that Prozanski does look in his photo like an avid cyclist – but perhaps the elite-athlete kind and not the use-my-bike-to-get-around kind, which is why he’s not up to speed (ha) on the way people use e-bikes to Get Stuff Done.
“There are a lot of individuals that ride all types of things that are just jerks. And you can’t regulate jerks per se, right?”
You CAN shake one hundred percent, but you can’t impose it.
The core of the challenge is behavior, I’m glad it’s included in this article. My electric bike would definitely be affected by the proposal, but I use it safely based on the situations around me. I drive slower in bad weather and I drive slower in congested areas. I may go over 45 km/h in the city, but I don’t do it, because I’m not an idiot.
I just have to say that if the motorcycle shown in the most sensitive part of this story, which weighs around 440 pounds fully loaded (according to the manufacturer’s website), were to come at me in Springwater at 28 MPH (for a final speed of over 40 MPH), I would feel uncomfortable. The trail is simply not designed for those speeds.
Of course, everyone would travel at this speed, but some obviously do.
^ That’s one point! I should also point this out in reaction to the article that asks the difference between a user riding a bicycle at forty-five km/h and an electric motorcycle at forty-five km/h – the consequences of a possible impact!(not to mention that *most riders capable of reaching this speed will have some motorcycle handling skills, while electric motorcycles have no prior experience)
It’s a Class 1, so the motor cuts out at 20mph.
https://www. jclindbikes. com/riese-mueller-multitinker. html
It depends on the options. Look at the manufacturer’s site.
Looks like all the options for that bike are Bosch Performance Line CX, which max out assist at 20 mph.
Therefore, impose a speed restriction on the road. Two tall people in a tandem can easily reach 28 mph and 440 lbs, no electronic assistance required.
I have some fairly compatible friends who ride tandem from time to time. They call it “socialized watts. “
Sure put a speed limit on the trail, but please don’t hold bike riders to a higher standard than car drivers. Speed cameras for cars are set to trigger at something like 11mph over the limit. Please don’t tell me that its ok for cars to drive 35 in a 25, but you’re going to ticket bike riders for going 22-28mph with a 20mph speed limit…
It’s smart to go 35 in a 25 MPH zone.
Watts, come on, more rational than that. The scenario you describe is incredibly unlikely at best, if not downright impossible.
The specific model of the bike notwithstanding, I looked up the Bosch motors common on the class 1 and class 3 bikes. There’s no actual difference in power output. Even the “speed” model is 250W continuous, 600W peak. As I’ve mentioned before, the peak power is really only useful for punching it up short hills. Because of proportional response, the thing is never going to be humming along on the Springwater at 600W. With a typical rider and load (that bike is especially upright), the pilot would have to be putting out probably in excess of 500W continuously to keep up 28mph. Not realistic. Cruising at 22-23, maybe, but that would still feel pretty difficult for most people. Maybe I’m wrong on these power numbers, but I know from riding my own analog cargo bike with a power meter that if I’m cruising on the Springwater at around 20mph I’m probably holding at least 350W. And that’s with a much more aggressive riding position than the R&M.
Also, very few people who don’t actively participate in the Carry S*** Olympics will weigh up to 440 pounds. The R
I agree that 440 pounds of meat and a motorcycle going 28 mph may seem scary, but I don’t think that’s reality. This same cyclist will most likely be forced to ride on surface streets (especially if they are excluded from motorcycle lanes), where they will have to suffer assaults from drivers as they struggle to comply with a 20 speed limit. at 25mph.
Again, the most egregious behavior is people riding throttle controlled electric machines that aren’t legally ebikes and are ALREADY ILLEGAL. Let’s not use unrealistic scenarios to justify unnecessary regulations that unfairly punish people just trying to get around safely and efficiently.
The reality is that the Springwater, like many MUPs is a constrained area full of distracted people walking and looking at the scenery, including flighty children and elderly folks, and even riding 20MPH is too fast.
Yes, fast riders should use the surface streets; there are good alternatives available. I often use them instead of the Springwater because I don’t like dealing with the walkers and joggers and people with strollers (and they’re usually a bit more direct). I so rarely experience aggression from drivers that it’s truly remarkable when I do, and I’m pretty assertive about not riding in the door zone and taking the lane where appropriate (though I also try to let drivers pass where I feel it’s safe).
The most realistic situation is that of being pulled by an oncoming fast and silent bike (usually motorized, though not always). This habit completely sucks and makes UPMs unsightly and threatening places to roam.
Are speed limits the solution? Maybe, but maybe we should reserve a few places for non-motorized travel. That was hardly a controversial view just a few years ago before many bicyclists decided to start using motors.
Why are laws written based on “I’m living this anecdotally and I don’t like it” and not on the knowledge of what is happening?
Every year, dozens of pedestrians are hit by cars and there is no urgency to address them in a meaningful way. A legislator gets a little worried about an MUP and suddenly we ban entire categories of useful vehicles.
Don’t get me wrong, there is a perfectly valid argument for regulating “electric motorcycles” as Jonathan said, but how many people are hit by MUPs each year? Most years, probably zero. So why are our legislators spending their power on this, instead of prioritizing regulating things that kill other people almost daily?
There are many, many, many more people driving in Portland than there are MUP passengers, so it’s no surprise that there are many more injuries on any one of our thousands of streets than on one of our few MUPs. Limit your research to the streets that other people follow and the comparison becomes more relevant.
What I’m saying is that electric bikes are more harmful than cars, it’s just that the number of injuries doesn’t give the full picture.
Why are laws written based on “I’m living this anecdotally and I don’t like it” and not on the knowledge of what is happening?
Because laws are written based on human experience, not computer algorithms. Prozansky did his job. He used human experience to tell himself and propose laws for our lives. This procedure will be followed through all sorts of other human revelations to take into account. Including those that have been shared here. This is called self-government. We can all contribute our experience and then a decision is made.
Frankly, much of the experience of some electric motorcycle users is very similar to that of motorists. They drive safely, so we don’t want motorcycle lanes, sidewalks or separated multi-use paths. Some other people recommend a 30 mph “speed limit” on multi-use trails when the maximum speed limit is five to 10 mph lower.
I don’t want people going 30 mph while I am out for a walk. I want to be able to watch for birds, not constantly watch to make sure I don’t get hit or run over by some maniac in a hurry to get to an appointment. I have seen the look on some mom’s face when their toddler is wobbling along on their bike and I approach on my bike. We need to make multi-use paths feel safe for everybody. We ought to thank Prozansky for setting us out to do something about it.
It’s ridiculous. Laws and policies should not be based solely on vibrations.
I agree it’s ridiculous, but Ross is largely right about the way politics works.
Bad policy works this way. Ross’s comment endorses this type of politics. He says it’s either a human experience or an algorithm. He leaves out the most important basis for good policy- objective data and concern for the broad effect of legislation.
“The plural of anecdote is not data, it is misinformation.”
No one should pay any attention to your “vibe”. We should advocate for laws that serve our interests.The only facts that matter are the ones that serve our interests. And we get to define what our interests are. Thankfully most of us define our interests pretty broadly to include a lot of other people’s interests.
Of course, other people are only looking to serve their narrow interests. . . How long will it take me to get there? And some of those other people drive cars and use super-powered e-bikes.
hit *with* cars (*by* traffic engineers, policy makers, automotive industry, driving force also sometimes involved)
I find this law infuriating, especially the inclusion of motorcycle lanes, but the entire concept is absurd. Basically, this law says that Class 3 electric motorcycles, like my Benno Boost, deserve to be treated like cars. I deserve to have no right to compromised services for motorcycles of any type? No motorcycle lane over the Broadway Bridge? Or steel? Or Hawthorne? Isn’t it the Naito Bike Path or the Downtown Portland Bike Path? Do I have to risk my life even more so spandex roadies don’t have to pass me while I check in to send me and my 7 year old son? What is the safest address we can locate?
Why make bicycling less safe for the few of us still on the road, when we live daily with the worry of being hit and killed by speeding, drink-driving drivers? , drive while texting, blow against prevention symptoms and red lights? , etc. ? I actually saw someone on my driving trip hunting at the Great British Bakeoff. I’m not saying there aren’t idiots on the trails or in the streets, but how can someone with a straight face say that? our elected officials deserve to spend their limited time on this when we are experiencing an absolute protection crisis on our streets. Caused by car violence?!?!?!? How many of those deaths would have been prevented thanks to this law?
Sen. Prozanski comes off as extremely out of touch and entitled in his response. His experience cruising around trails in Eugene has nothing to do with every-day cycling where near-death experiences are commonplace. His bill is a slap in the face to family cyclists and vulnerable road users everywhere. We deserve legislators fighting for our safety in the face of increasingly deadly use of cars, a form of violence that largely goes completely unpunished.
Comment of the week? – addresses the factor of enabling safe and low-carbon transportation. I agree that Prozanski misses the mark on this factor.
Electric bikes are for the rider, just like cars are for the rider. And they’re more carbon-rich than walking or cycling. So avoid talking about how you’re saving the planet. Their real merit is that they are faster and easier.
Despite the intuitive sense that electric bikes would require more resources than regular bikes, life-cycle analysis shows that they actually consume 2-4 times less primary energy than human riders eating a conventional diet. This conclusion is largely due to the considerable amount of transportation and processing energy that is associated with our western food system
https://www. ebikes. ca/documents/Ebike_Energy. pdf
“Why make cycling less common for the few of us who are still on the streets, when we live daily with the worry of being hit and killed by drivers exceeding the speed limit?”
Why make walking less by converting motorcycle lanes into high-speed highways for electric motorcycles?
I agree on bike lanes on streets. They are set aside to get slower vehicles out of the high speed lanes claimed by large motor vehicles. But if they get to the point that someone can’t ride at a normal speed because there are so many e-bikes cruising along at 28 mph then something will need to give. If there are enough e-bikes, the bike lanes will just be another traffic lane reserved for a different form of motorized vehicle.
Let’s draw the hundred-pound throttle line, or anything capable of exceeding 28 mph without pedaling.
Why does it matter if there’s as nominal amount of pedaling involved or not? The kinetic energy is the same either way.
I would set kinetic power limits for all of our roads.
Each vehicle will pay based on the amount of kW or horsepower it can produce.
I’m glad to hear that because I obviously have great respect for Senator Prozanski, who was instrumental in helping us get Idaho-style sign prevention legislation in Oregon. One thing I have learned in this procedure is that if you need to approve a bill, you have to start well in advance of the session, because once you start, it is temporarily too late to introduce new ideas. Your explanation seems very logical to me, and it turns out that you realize how much more verbiage it can get. However, I wonder if it is rarely illegal to ride an unregistered electric motorcycle on multi-use trails. We also saw disruptions with their use at the Rose City Golf Course, which also caused damage and, unfortunately, that is not unusual. so other people who don’t know the difference will blame electric bikes. Therefore, I hope that the honorable senator will blank out the language and draw a hard line. Let’s move on.
Prozanski calls this law “Janet’s Law,” in popularity among other people who speak everywhere, but especially on NextDoor, and who are reluctant to understand the difference between an electric motorcycle and an electric motorcycle.
Yes, it is now illegal to ride surrons (the most popular logo of these machines) and other electric motorcycles in any public area. I think the fact that an experienced cyclist (and probably an expert on the law) like Sen Prozanski was not clear about the legislation and elegance of e-bikes shows that our current formula is too complicated. Instead, let’s get rid of the elegance formula and unnecessarily restrictive speed limits on pedal-assist bikes and focus on managing the demand for throttle-controlled electric machines. Obviously people need to put those things together. They probably don’t feel like sharing an area with cars either. Let’s analyze the answers (I wish I had a smart one in mind) to create a legal use of those things.
gut-and-stuff this with a repeal of the child helmet law and as a side note ban cars, for a conversation starter
This just feels like cycling gatekeeping. My friends and I ride so much and I’m going to make a law based on my feelings about who should and shouldn’t be riding on the paths I use.
Come on, wouldn’t it be more logical to limit speed on the roads? Of course, then Senator Prozanski and one of his brother electors could find themselves caught by the law.
Wouldn’t it be limiting the speed on the roads?
In UPMs, many other people walk for pleasure, without focusing on what other users are doing. They are narrow. Sometimes they have young people who are used to running and betting in a park-like environment, and other older people who go for walks who can be seriously injured by an undeniable fall (let alone being hit by a speeding vehicle). These are shared spaces.
What’s an appropriate speed limit for a motorized multi-passenger vehicle weighing in at 440 lb when fully loaded, like the one shown in the original picture at the top of this story (now swapped for a more bike-like motor vehicle) in such an environment?
I’d say 12 MPH max, probably less. In many driveways and parking lots, where other people walk, cars are limited to five MPH.
I mean, we all care about safety above convenience, right?
I think a speed limit of five mph would be appropriate. But this would make multi-use trails equivalent to paths reserved for pedestrians. They would be of little or no use to those who use the bicycle as a means of transport.
There are already occasionally people riding too fast on multi-use paths. But it requires a little work and some skill with the rider paying attention.. E-bikes let a whole lot more people get up to that speed, and they can do it while talking on their phone or texting.
I believe the Willamette Greenway is signed 12mph through the Willamette Shores area and honestly it feels a little fast. Not sure I’ve ever sustained that speed through there, unless it was deserted.
The fixation on PEDALING turns out to have Senator Prozanski and others.
This has nothing to do with street vending. Since electric motorcycles equipped with pedals can now reach more than 45 km/h, two-wheeled vehicles will have to be regulated by POWER and SPEED.
I’d say any two-wheeler that can go 20 mph is a motorcycle and needs to be regulated as such.
Almost all non-electric motorcycles can reach 20 MPH. Why does our legislation treat all bicycles as motorcycles?
No, only a very strong cyclist can a speed of 20 mph on flat floor for any duration of time, and almost no one can boost up to 20 mph in seconds with an e-bike.
Yeah it’s funny how all these “regular bikes can go 20!” comments are really bending the truth of real everyday cycling. Sure, I’ve done 45mph loaded touring on a long descent. I doubt I’ve ever hit 20mph on a flat MUP.
Wow, I would love to see us regulate 4 wheeled vehicles for power and speed. I don’t understand how a person can legally own and operate a 4. 5 ton, 1,000 horsepower vehicle.
I agree and think we deserve those cars before we take a look at electric bikes, but we’re talking about electric bikes here at Bike Portland.
It has everything to do with street vending.
Prozanski expresses outrage against cyclists who “threaten” SUV drivers who have travelled many miles in their SUV to take a short ride on a mixed-use trail.
Very intelligent, but irrelevant. I agree that Prozanski loses touch with the practical tactics other people use with e-bikes.
I doubt. I think everyone recognizes that electric motorcycles are used for the same purposes as normal motorcycles. They are fair and faster to use and use. Which creates a replaced environment for everyone. Therefore, a leisurely stroll along a grassy path requires controlling excessive speed.
Bicycles, motorized bicycles, motorcycles and cars are all zones on an increasingly continuous spectrum of vehicles that help us get directly from one place to another.
How did you know it was an elegance 3?
So I was looking up the ebike “laws” since as far as I recollected we didn’t have any. And that’s how I discovered HB4103, introduced last year.
Interesting bit:
(3) “Class 3 electrically assisted bicycle” means an electrically assisted bicycle that: (a) Provides assistance when the rider pedals; (b) stops providing assistance when the bicycle reaches a speed of 28 miles per hour; and (c) is supplied with a speedometer.
I guess since mine doesn’t have a speedo, I’m exempt? ?
But seriously, we want to overcome this fuel limitation thing. Throttles are devices for shipping motorcycles and for any e-bike rider who starts climbing a hill. Can’t we rewrite this law so that the accelerator is, for example, incapable of exceeding 15 mph?or 10 or 5, all but without any accelerator.
Thank goodness we haven’t started limiting motors to 749 watts or less. That would make my cargo bike unusable on a lot of our hills. In the meantime, I still get regularly strafed by speeding hundreds-of-horsepower cars which have none of these limits applied.
Good point about the drivers. I added in my previous comment that street vending and gas lighting are not the basis of regulation. It seems like Prozanski and others need to ban butterflies because it’s a certain way to exclude electric motorcycles. But as you say, the throttle is a must-have feature on most modern electric bikes.
I once had a gas-powered moped with a 49cc, two-stroke gas-combustion engine. It had a throttle plus peddles which were largely decorative, but in CA at the time, the peddles and the 49cc engine made it NOT a motorcycle. But clearly it was a motorcycle – even though I did need to peddle occasionally to assist the underpowered engine in climbing very steep hills.
Throttles are a gadget for shipping motorcycles and for any electric rider starting up a hill.
So what makes them a bike and a motorcycle?Away from motor assistance, it’s all about pedal assistance. They can be used without a motor and without pedaling.
So a state senator is cranky about what are basically electric mopeds on bike paths and then writes a half-assed bill to ban them in bike infrastructure? I guess my question is:
Perhaps we would benefit more from a bill that clarifies the right of way between trail users, necessary permits, and liability in the event of unfortunate incidents. It is quite unfortunate that our traffic legislation only comes into force after an accident, so instead of courtesy and civility we engage in litigation. I would like to think that we can define ourselves through what we have in common and not through our differences.
Authorization required
3 feet is moderate for passing a pedestrian in a MUP. Unfortunately, this can make it difficult to get through on some stretches of Springwater, especially if other people are walking two by two, as is often the case.
The responsibility is already established: who caused the destination turn and assign prices accordingly. We’ve been doing this for many years.
Let us follow the precept of correcting behaviors that have no importance for the environment.
And for the ‘kids’ who may never have seen a true moped: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped
I have noticed a genuine moped.
Side comparison between moped and electric bicycle:
In fact, it would be great if the other people guilty of drafting the legislation could do a smart job drafting the legislation.
In fact, it would be fantastic if the other people guilty of drafting the legislation could do a smart job in drafting the legislation.
Think about it when you vote!
If a motorcycle is elegance 1, elegance 2 or elegance 3, it matters whether everyone who rides it remains in elegance E.
Put it on a PBOT structure sign!
BikePortland is a production of PedalTown Media Inc. Original photographs and content are owned through Pedaltown Media, Inc. Not to be used permission.