Bicycle Friendly America Summer 2018 - 36
policy making by the public. Without a three-class system each state would have to decide how to make its own distinctions among the many types of vehicles that can fit within the broad CPSC definition of an e-bike. The National Bike Summit also featured speakers from two bike shops that sell e-bikes and Paul Basken, who wrote the article "Let's keep motors off our bike trails" published by the Washington Post. These speakers provided personal context to an otherwise technical policy debate. Paul Basken's major contention is that there are few places in our cities and suburbs that are defined by their lack of motorization. Where shared use paths exist, they are a welcome and needed respite from mixing with motor vehicle traffic. By opening up shared use paths to e-bikes, we may be opening a pandora's box of the motorization of previously non-motorized spaces. While I can't go as far as Mr. Basken's absolutism, I do think we need to be conscious of how a major change is coming to our non-motorized infrastructure. Whether by e-bike or by electric scooter or skateboard, previously non-motorized spaces are becoming motorized. The eventual impacts of this change are likely unknown and will depend upon the existing infrastructure in communities. Based on existing data on e-bikes, here are some potential policy areas for the future: » Current bicycle infrastructure does not have a defined design speed, but the AASHTO Bicycle Design Guide suggests that a design speed of 18 mph is generally sufficient. While this appears to encompass the average speeds reached by class 1 and class 2 e-bikes there is little data on the design speeds of existing shared use paths and other bicycle infrastructure and it is possible that many shared use paths will be overwhelmed by the speed and volume of bicycle traffic if e-bikes deliver on their promises. While this is a first-world problem to have, our federal, state and local transporta36 BICYCLE FRIENDLY AMERICA » » » » tion authorities should consider how to fund bicycle-only and/or shared-use infrastructure that can safely accommodate higher speeds and volumes. For advocates, higher average speeds may lead to increased need for improved pathways that can accommodate higher speeds and volumes. On roads, higher average speeds may decrease the interest of e-bike users for bicycle facilities as they are more able to operate at motor vehicle speeds. While e-bike users may be aligned with bicycle advocate on many issues, it is possible that they emerge as a distinct interest group if bicycle advocates do not represent their interests or if issues where interests diverge emerge. The three-class system does not address some characteristics that have been identified by bicyclists in the past as potentially distinguishing ebikes from standard bicycles, such as vehicle weight, fairings, and other atypical designs. Whether regulation on such characteristics would be appropriate, and what it might address, could be an important issue in the future if a disruptive vehicle emerges. Cargo bicycles are an obvious type of bicycle that benefits from electric assist and would be likely to be impacted by any regulation of vehicle weight or atypical design. The three-class system in the EU has a lower speed assisted top speed for its equivalent of class 1 and class 2 e-bikes, and there is not a great reason for why bicycle industry adopted a higher speed for the US. In the EU, L1e-A assisted bicycles can only have an assisted top speed of 15.5 mph while their next class, L1e-B, has an assisted top speed of 28 mph, just like the class 3 bikes in the US. At both the federal and state level, governments in the United States have chosen to offer incentives for people to buy electric cars. The Congressional Budget Office esti- mated that federal tax incentives for electric vehicles would cost about $1 billion per year. So far, there are no incentives for people to buy e-bikes despite the health benefits that they provide on top of emission reduction. Policymakers should consider subsidies to people who purchase ebikes - as well as standard bicycles - to boost their deployment, reduce emissions, improve health, and promote safer forms of transportation. The California Bicycle Coalition is currently pursuing incentives of between $500 and $1000 for the purchase of a bicycle or e-bike. » While not strictly a public policy issue, there is a need for greater understanding about how e-bikes are affecting bicycle clubs and events. There is an opportunity to get more people biking more often, but ebikes are likely to impact the sense of effort, shared suffering, and accomplishment that people derive from riding together on standard bicycles. Clubs and events will have to learn how to embrace new riders, or new abilities of current riders, while delivering the experiences that current riders expect and appreciate. Our insurance policy covers people who ride bikes defined as e-bikes under the CPSC definition, which means that if an e-bike is legal to operate in your state then it is likely covered by our insurance policy. If you haven't seen an e-bike yet, I hope you do soon. They are a fun and exciting vehicles. They may help get more people biking more often and may be an important part of getting people out of cars and onto bikes. In urban areas, startup ebikeshare providers like LimeBike, Pace, and JUMP are attracting tremendous interest and investment. (Uber recently bought JUMP for $200 million.) While I am conflicted about losing scarce nonmotorized space by welcoming electric vehicles to bike lanes and trails, I can't help but be excited by the opportunities that they represent. Ken McLeod is the League's Policy Director.
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.