E-bikes: depressing or what?

[kwackers]

Do you mean banning specific people from cycling or something else?

No, I mean if people (cyclists) can't use shared use facilities properly then they (cyclists) should be banned and the use of the facility handed back to pedestrians.

(It's a bugbear of mine, watching cyclists treating shared use spaces as their own version of a motorway and then berating pedestrians for being 'random').

[meic]

The main lobby group to keep this restriction will not be racing cyclists nursing their egos, but pedestrians who dont want a stealth motorisation of the shared use facilities.

Watching some of the lycra crowd at work and listening to pedestrians I think they already have them.
Using legs rather than motors makes no difference particularly when the power is about the same. So in the respect of shared facilities if folk can't use them properly then I'm all for removing their rights to them.

Racing cyclists even in a group dont compare to a motorcycle. The path is for non-motorised use, allowing some even low level motorisation is probably a mistake and you for one are pushing to make it the thin end of a wedge. This exemption from the regulations is pretty much based on raising the weaker pedal pushers to something already within the ability of the stronger pedal pushers and not about raising above that level. As you say some cyclists are pushing the limits by their unassisted power, no need to make that worse.

[kwackers]

This exemption from the regulations is pretty much based on raising the weaker pedal pushers to something already within the ability of the stronger pedal pushers and not about raising above that level. As you say some cyclists are pushing the limits by their unassisted power, no need to make that worse.

I doubt your average (legal) ebike user is suddenly going to turn into a raging 'battery head' by allowing them to go a few mph faster - assuming they actually go flat out to start with.
OTOH, there's no doubt that young fit males are more aggressive and thus tend to cycle aggressively. Charlie Alliston being a case in point.

Perhaps safety is better served by simply banning lycra from shared use facilities. Much easier to enforce too.

[meic]

I doubt your average (legal) ebike user is suddenly going to turn into a raging 'battery head' by allowing them to go a few mph faster - assuming they actually go flat out to start with.

That argument exists no matter where the line was drawn.
Just imagine the line was originally drawn at 12mph* but they figured it wouldnt hurt to raise it to 15mph.
As it is the line has been drawn somewhere, as it always must be or we would have creep to the point of Goldwings cruising down the cyclepaths.


*speed limit for cyclists on many European canal paths.

[kwackers]

As it is the line has been drawn somewhere, as it always must be or we would have creep to the point of Goldwings cruising down the cyclepaths.

The line already exists; it's the maximum speed of an unassisted bike which is dictated by power input.

As for "Goldwings cruising down the cyclepaths" I think you too need to read this link.

[meic]

I have read the link, it doesnt add anything to the discusion, it merely tries to drag it of into an area of personal denigration.
The line did already exist, that was what a human body could achieve without motor propulsion or assistance. Adding some motorisation raises that line.

it's the maximum speed of an unassisted bike which is dictated by power input.

That is not a line it is too vague or far too generous. As an example a velomobile can do 60mph downhill, which would require an average 100cc petrol motorcycle to achieve on the flat. So a 100cc petrol motorcycle equivalent would be legitimate with that line.

[kwackers]

I have read the link, it doesnt add anything to the discusion, it merely tries to drag it of into an area of personal denigration.
The line did already exist, that was what a human body could achieve without motor propulsion or assistance. Adding some motorisation raises that line.

it's the maximum speed of an unassisted bike which is dictated by power input.

That is not a line it is too vague or far too generous. As an example a velomobile can do 60mph downhill, which would require an average 100cc petrol motorcycle to achieve on the flat. So a 100cc petrol motorcycle equivalent would be legitimate with that line.

Don't just read the link. Understand it. Dismissing it as denigration doesn't wash.

For example you're at it again. What has downhill got to do with anything, other than to allow you to introduce the ludicrous idea that a 100cc motorcycle engine is a reasonable alternative to pedalling.

It's all about power. 250w isn't a 100cc motorcycle engine, to claim it is brings me back to the link you claim is denigration when its fairly obvious you're simply being ludicrous.
We've had goldwings on cycle paths, 100cc motorcyle engine powered bikes. What next?

[meic]

when its fairly obvious you're simply being ludicrous.

You have drifted well and truly from arguing the point to personal denigration.

Don't just read the link. Understand it.

You repeat it here. Leaving behind the point entirely just making the implication that somebody who disagrees with you is stupid.

If you dont understand my arguments, I dont have to spell it out or even bring it up.
I just try and point out what you are getting wrong instead of screaming "your wrong, i am right repeatedly".

So either cut out the personal denigration and stick to the point or carry on talking to somebody else.

[meic]

We've had goldwings on cycle paths, 100cc motorcyle engine powered bikes. What next?

A 200w or 250W assistance limited to a 12 or 15 or 15.5 or 15.6 or 18mph which is enforced by law which needs a clearly defined legal line defining the border between legal and transgression.

[mjr]

Do you mean banning specific people from cycling or something else?

No, I mean if people (cyclists) can't use shared use facilities properly then they (cyclists) should be banned and the use of the facility handed back to pedestrians.

But carriageways are shared use facilities too, originally tarmacked thanks to CTC and its colleagues.

Also, isn't that tarring all cyclists with the same brush, punishing someone for the crimes of another? And wouldn't it end up so that the sadly-too-common-in-the-UK militant walkists wanting to get cyclists banned from a route (like Norfolk Living Streets want cyclists banned from Norwich Gentleman's Walk) just need to get bikes and ride like dicks there for a while? Catch the criminals, not all cyclists.

I have read the link, it doesnt add anything to the discusion, it merely tries to drag it of into an area of personal denigration.

Suggesting to someone that their logic is flawed or their argument is absurd isn't a personal attack.

The line did already exist, that was what a human body could achieve without motor propulsion or assistance. Adding some motorisation raises that line.

Not if it's only low-speed assistance, surely? There can't be many who are completely unable to exceed 15mph in some situations, for example, so the line is still basically where it was - it's just easier to reach it, but the bigger effect is to open up cycling further to more people.

[kwackers]

when its fairly obvious you're simply being ludicrous.

You have drifted well and truly from arguing the point to personal denigration.

Don't just read the link. Understand it.

You repeat it here. Leaving behind the point entirely just making the implication that somebody who disagrees with you is stupid.

If you dont understand my arguments, I dont have to spell it out or even bring it up.
I just try and point out what you are getting wrong instead of screaming "your wrong, i am right repeatedly".

So either cut out the personal denigration and stick to the point or carry on talking to somebody else.

When your argument is about goldwings running along paths or 100cc motorcycle engines fitted to bicycles and you can't see the ludicrous nature of these claims then I apologise because I assumed you were better than that.

With that I'm out, I prefer a proper discussion with valid points, not spending all my time explaining why a 250w power limit doesn't mean we'll have goldwings on paths or motorcycle engines on bikes.
So in that respect yes, you definitely are wrong.

As an aside I don't actually know what your problem is. I can remember you used to post fairly decent stuff that I respected, but these days you've just turned into some sort of 'obtuse-o-bot' and that's not just my posts, I've noticed it when you've replied to others too.

[meic]

Suggesting to someone that their logic is flawed or their argument is absurd isn't a personal attack.

It is however a personal denigration implying the other person isnt capable of understanding the argument, instead of trying to determine where the disagreement lies.
I have trawled through the posts to find out where that came about. It is that with the twists and turns of all the posts on this subject on many threads I was arguing the point about the creep of relaxing and not enforcing the regulations (which had been bought up by Kwackers) and he was arguing the point about relaxing the sped limit while retaining the power limit.

If he had stuck to arguing the point instead of going off on implied insults to those who dont agree with him, it would have all been resolved much sooner and more amicably.

[meic]

With that I'm out, I prefer a proper discussion with valid points, not spending all my time explaining why a 250w power limit doesn't mean we'll have goldwings on paths or motorcycle engines on bikes.

If you had actually said that and only that then it would never have happened.

So in that respect yes, you definitely are wrong.

I am certainly wrong in what you think I was trying to say.

As for obtuse, I am certainly obtuse when it comes to definitions like

it's the maximum speed of an unassisted bike which is dictated by power input.

I wonder what it means to either a layman, a scientist or even a maker of statutes.
Much too vague for me as my example of a velomobile doing 60mph down hill shows.
If for example it is letting a weaker cyclist improve their power up to the power of Lance Armstrong, then what happens when Lance Armstrong adds the power assist to his own power?

[kwackers]

With that I'm out, I prefer a proper discussion with valid points, not spending all my time explaining why a 250w power limit doesn't mean we'll have goldwings on paths or motorcycle engines on bikes.

If you had actually said that and only that then it would never have happened.

OK I'll bite. So which other bit are you lumping in?
I mean, I've said lots and I guess if you're trying to find arguments you can cherry pick out all sorts of things, I don't as a rule outline everything I think when I make a statement. I make the assumption the reader will have read my previous comments and applied a bit of rational thought.

But if you take the statements I made initially when I outlined my thoughts you'll find one that says the 250w limit is fine but I don't see the point of the restriction since speed restriction naturally follows from power.

If it's anything beyond that then you'll find I mention the idea of 'classes' of electric vehicle. Which I assumed folk would understand implies restrictions (otherwise why have classes?).

So if your entire discussion is simply trying to turn the first into goldwings and petrol engined bikes then there's no point progressing.

As for obtuse, I am certainly obtuse when it comes to definitions like

it's the maximum speed of an unassisted bike which is dictated by power input.

I wonder what it means to either a layman, a scientist or even a maker of statutes.
Much too vague for me as my example of a velomobile doing 60mph down hill shows.
If for example it is letting a weaker cyclist improve their power up to the power of Lance Armstrong, then what happens when Lance Armstrong adds the power assist to his own power?

A scientist would know that increasing the amount of power doesn't increase the top speed by very much. If Lance added 250w to his own power how much faster do you think he'd go? The answer is not a lot. He'd be lucky to add 5mph.
And FWIW, Lance puts out a lot more than 250w so it's a bit disingenuous at best to suggest motors turn ordinary people into pro athletes.
It's also true that most fit cyclists can put out more than 250w albeit time limited.

There's nothing obtuse about pointing out that speed is a function of power. And if there's nothing wrong about a person doing 60mph in a velomobile then there's nothing wrong with doing 60mph with a motor.

[meic]

I mean, I've said lots and I guess if you're trying to find arguments you can cherry pick out all sorts of things

So if your entire discussion is simply trying to turn the first into goldwings and petrol engined bikes then there's no point progressing.

I was not seeking an argument or even trying to beat you in an argument.
The Goldwings were bought in to illustrate the point about having to define and enforce limits, if no line is drawn then things can extend ad infinitum. As we were arguing at cross purposes there was no need to see another Goldwing or 100cc Kawasaki on a cycle path again.

It isnt cherry picking it is a clear disagreement on a specific point. That of whether or not any existing laws should stand and be enforced or if they can be stretched because sometimes unassisted vehicles can also reach the same targets.

You argue that it will only put another 5mph on Lance Armstrong, I argue that it should not put a single mph on Lance Armstrong and that him and flat out velomobiles are already encroaching on the sort of activity that might attract regulation of cyclists (certainly on shared use paths) if they were more common activities. To allow vehicles on shared use paths that allow this to be increased even further is not a good move is my argument.
The speed restriction (on the assist, not the vehicle) seems perfectly reasonable for a vehicle that is cleared for shared path use.