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 it was introduced would make sweeping changes to the Oregon Vehicle Code. It would make a popular category of electric bicycles, Class 3 e-bikes with a motor that can assist riders who continue pedaling up to 28 mph, legally akin to mopeds. That change would throw an entire industry and user group into chaos as it’s nearly impossible to differentiate Class 3 bikes from their Class 1 (up to 20 mph pedal-assisted only) and Class 2 (up to 20 mph with a throttle) brethren.
A local bike shop employee told BikePortland in an email yesterday that they’ve had several conversations in the past week with customers who are, “Concerned that their newly purchased Class 3 bikes will not be of any use if the proposed bill goes through.” Another bike shop employee said, “This proposal reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Class 3 e-bikes and their users.” Respected e-bike site Electrek said if we follow the logic of banning Class 3 e-bikes from bike lanes and paths, “then we might as well just ban cars capable of highway speeds from being operated on city streets.”
Asked today where the impetus for the bill came from, Sen. Prozanski said he was inspired by behaviors he and his riding partners see while out on the road. “The bill is based on what we observe when we ride. I log a heck of a lot of miles [on my bike] every year. I got 8,300 miles this last year. And of course, some of that is on multi-use paths. And that’s where the main focus is for the bill, even though I know the bill is written much broader than that.” Prozanski, who doesn’t own or ride an e-bike of his own, said the bill was rushed to meet a filing deadline and that “It is a starting point for consideration… I truly expect that the bill as written will be modified and we’ll take into some more conversations.”
Further into my conversation with Sen. Prozanski today it became clear he’s mostly concerned with small electric motorcycles and mopeds that are increasingly popular and are often ridden at high speeds on paths like the Eastbank Esplanade and Springwater Corridor. “I’m really most concerned with the full throttle bike, where you have no requirement to do any type of physical assist,” Prozanski said. “Why would we be allowing a fully motorized, non human assist bike to utilize those paths?”
Prozanski has a point, but his bill specifically calls out Class 3 e-bikes, which by law do not have throttles and must be pedaled. Asked why he chose language for the bill that doesn’t match the problem he’s trying to solve, Prozanski acknowledged 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 Sen. Prozanski if he’s worried about the confusion and concern his bill has caused with many e-bike owners and retailers. “I don’t own one, so I can’t put myself in their position,” he said. “But I can tell you that I have friends who have e-bikes who’ve raised similar concerns with people that are abusing those paths with that type of vehicle.”
If this bill gets a public hearing (it’s currently in line for one in the Senate Judiciary Committee), it will be interesting to learn where the conversation goes from here. Sen. Prozanski clearly has an issue with motorized bicycles that don’t require human power. Even after saying using “Class 3” was a misnomer, he continued to share concerns about the use of “motorized vehicles” on paths. At one point he dismissed concerns about risk of e-bike legislation resulting in a law that is so broad that it captures safe, law-abiding cyclists.
“I’ve heard some concerns that, ‘Well, this means some people won’t use bikes for commuting,'” Prozanski said. “You know, people are going to have to make choices, but those those paths are not made for, and were not designed for, motorized vehicles to the degree that I’ve seen.”
When I shared with Prozanski that Oregon State Parks officials have told me they see fast cyclists on non-electric bikes pose a bigger problem on some carfree paths, he said, “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?”
It’s unfortunate that this bill has caused so much confusion and concern. It follows in a long line of similar “conversation starters” from Oregon legislators who’ve hastily proposed bills that would have major ramifications for bicycle users, only to walk them back and/or pull them altogether. Like that time in 2009 when former House Rep. Wayne Krieger floated a mandatory bicycle registration bill, or when former Rep Mitch Greenlick introduced a bill in 2011 that would have banned people from carrying children on bicycles, only to shelve the idea two months later following vociferous pushback. And Prozanski himself went through this in 2008 when he attempted to expand Oregon’s helmet law and make them mandatory for adults, and was forced to pull it back after it caused outrage among many Oregonians.
We have much more productive ways to introduce new policy ideas. Lawmakers could instead: request an informational presentation at a legislative committee, get on the agenda of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, reach out to lawmakers with experience on the issue, ask relevant advocacy groups for their opinion, and so on.
But now that the bill is filed, perhaps the best outcome is that SB 471 can be amended to make meaningful progress on the use of e-motos on bike lanes and paths. Stay tuned.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Jonathan’s work on this underscores the need for accurately defining and thouthfully regulating “e-motos.” But there is a larger issue that is hinted at yet obscured in Sen. Prozanski’s proposed legislation: if we might ban or differently regulate certain classes of two-wheeled vehicles, why aren’t we banning or differently regulating certain classes of four-wheeled vehicles?
There is increasing evidence that larger, heavier SUVs, pickup trucks, minivans, etc. are more likely to injure and kill, as well as polluting more, taking up more space in both traffic and parking, etc. In addition, electric cars, trucks, and SUVs of all sizes accelerate faster and are thus causing more crashes and more injuries. Yet nobody is calling for regulation of those vehicles based on size or acceleration rates or other features that make them more dangerous. Why not?
As a daily bike commuter, I am as disturbed as anyone when a moped is ridden dangerously fast on a multi-use path. But if we only see that danger and not the danger of four-wheeled vehicles being driven on every street, road, and highway — including the streets alongside residences and schools — we are kind of missing what most needs to be changed to ensure public safety.
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.
This is simply not true; there are lots of rules regulating motor vehicle safety and size. Here’s one that’s in the works right now, requiring changes to reduce the danger to pedestrians. It was featured in this blog recently. I even submitted comments on it.
And certainly, lots of people are calling for more.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2024-0057-0001
Is there anyone in the Oregon legislature talking about better regulation of cars and trucks?
Watts, you’re pointing to regulation of vehicle design — which is important, and we have plenty of it (those seat belts? they’re there because of regulations). My point is that if we are saying particular two-wheeled vehicles need to be subject to different regulations regarding where or how they are operated, why not also have operational regulations that correspond to the relative dangerous of different four-wheeled vehicles?
We do, just not at the consumer level. Triple-trailer-trucks can only be operated on some roads; some slow vehicles are prohibited from using the highway. I’m sure there’s more.
Why not do it at the consumer level as well? Because it wouldn’t work; most of us live on the low-speed streets, but occasionally want to use the highway.
If you have a specific idea in mind, why not sketch it out so we can discuss it?
This is not really my wheelhouse, so other folks can answer better than I can. But in the “just a guess” category … we could have speed limits, street parking, and vehicle registration fees that are based on the weight/size of the vehicle. And honestly, we could bar deadlier vehicles from particular streets. There is not a God- nor Constitution- given right to drive on any particular street.
And conversely, there’s no God- nor Constitution- given right to PREVENT someone from driving on any particular street.
Not that I don’t agree that we need better laws but you are asking 95% of the public to give up something that they’ve had for typically as long as they’ve had a driver’s license. It’s an uphill battle and it’s going to require elected officials with guts to go against the majority of the voting public. I highly doubt I’ll see any progress in my lifetime.
There are at least 65 street legal production car models that go from 0 to 60 mph in less than 3 seconds. A motor vehicle can travel from a place out of sight to the crosswalk you happen to be using in as little as two seconds, and cross that line at a lethal speed while still accelerating.
That’s what we’re calling regulation.
A great and very pertinent question that it seems no one in legislative power anywhere is asking. When the teen was killed in Bend..
https://bikeportland.org/2024/02/27/e-bike-bill-likely-to-pass-with-big-changes-following-compromise-384247
the instinctive reaction of all was to ban young peoples access to ebikes rather than look at banning or regulating the thing that actually killed him. I can only guess that the idea of regulating autos seems too daunting although they seem to be able to do it in other countries just fine. If Oregon politicians are too afraid to legislate autos themselves, why not start with the licensing procedures that gives legal access to cars? Make someone present a certificate of training for the size/horsepower of the vehicle they are wanting to buy? If I buy a firearm, I have to fill out a form (made famous by Hunter Biden) and at least up here in Washington present a certificate of training before I can legally obtain a firearm. Those regulations are to obtain a constitutionally protected item. Cars are not protected by anything except the greed of the manufacturers and the habits we’ve all developed in getting around.
Here are the steps an English citizen needs to take to obtain various levels of motorcycle licensing..
https://safe.menlosecurity.com/doc/docview/viewer/docN13A289120734ba5db90730ff81db8dfd66306cfe955768c433b7a118fb31a7fa1fc98878735f
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 powered vehicles on multi-use paths. Would we be OK if motorcycles or Vespas were OK to use multi-use paths, go through diverters, and so on? Should we set a speed limit on multi-use paths at 30 MPH if we allow motorcycles on? I know this sounds a little over-the-top, but the only difference between the vehicle you’re thinking of and a motorcycle is the size of the machine and its top speed.
Jerks suck no matter how they’re getting around. The way we have it now, there are far fewer instances of super high speeds on our paths. If everyone could ride a 30 MPH vehicle there, then they would be way busier with those. Doesn’t sound like a very all ages and abilities type environment to me.
A lot of Vespa-style cycles don’t even go much faster. If your vehicle is electric powered, it’s primarily a question of styling and gatekeeping.
You might want to keep your kids on the greenways and other backstreets, where speeds are lower and there’s much more room to maneuver.
OK. But, I wasn’t talking about slower scooter styled bikes with pedals that can’t go faster than a typical bike speed. I was talking about motorized vehicles without (or with) pedals with the capacity to go much faster. The speed difference between a non-motorized bike going 10 MPH and a motorized vehicle going 30 in a 10-12 foot wide path is so uncomfortable and scary. It’s like getting passed on a street without the 4 feet that is required. Even the 4 feet distance between vehicles can be nerve rattling for many people on bikes with a 20 MPH speed difference.
If we can’t make our car-free, off-street, multi-use paths safe for all ages and abilities, something is going very wrong. There are so many people who are afraid to ride on the streets not matter how quiet. The off-street paths have been the entry place for many, many regular riders.
Agreed.
Also agreed.
My point was more that if you support a speed-limit approach to regulating bike paths, you really should support electric Vespas and other low-power motorcycles using the path, so long as they follow the rules as there’s no meaningful functional difference (unless someone can explain why the presence of pedals changes the fundamental characteristics of a vehicle).
I feel that motornormativity has almost completely taken over bike culture, at least judging by the folks here.
I don’t support speed limits on paths. I also don’t support vehicles that are too fast on paths.
Seems kind of silly not to support speed limits – you can get going very fast on many bike paths thanks to gravity regardless of a motor.
Why not high-powered motorcycles then? Why not cars?
Indeed; if all that matters is behavior, then why not?
Couple things.
1. Weight matters. High powered motorcycles are heavy. Cars are heavy and huge.
2. Gas powered vehicles are loud and antithetical to any goals of being climate friendly.
The reasons to regulate should be based on safety, but they don’t have to only be about safety.
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.
great strawmen Jeff! And who defines “bike advocacy” anyways? There are as many opinions about this stuff as their are advocates, so trying to label any thought as monolithic shows that you are more about trolling than about 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 somebody names Vespas or mopeds I reflexively think of two-stroke enginess which should be excluded from the planet, much less bike infrastructure.
As an e-bike operator I’d be fine with a law requiring a visit to a reasonably convenient location for a cursory examination*, a short quiz, and a nominal fee in return for a sticker and the right to take my motor anywhere a bike is legal. Yes, this is a vote for more regulation.
*Including documentation from the manufacturer
That’s funny, I think of electric when I hear Vespas… I know they used to be 2-strokes but I think the new ones are all or nearly all electric.
What would the examination look for? the output of an electric motor is governed so much by the software you can simply push a button on an app on your phone and have a vehicle that’s within a power and speed limit vs far outside of it. Manufactures often even ship their bikes with these modes – I got an ebike that has a class 1, 2, 3 and an off-road mode. It’s very handy and truth be told I feel a lot safer being able to ride at 32 mph on a 35 or 40 mph road with no good shoulder than at a class 2 speed…. but I still want to be able to use the way safer bike paths when possible.
Why not just enforce a speed limit?
Nothing with a motor belongs on a path for cyclists, WALKERS, DOGS ON EXTENSIBLE LEASHES.
Prozanski is right, but does not go nearly far enough.
My 50 cc Honda Metropolitan at 4.4 horsepower checks in at 180 pounds itself, 340 with me aboard. 4.4 hp = 3,300 watts. It has 4 strokes per cycle, is liquid cooled, has full digital engine management, perhaps even a catalytic converter. Please do not call it “Vespa like!”
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.
Normally I ride 12-15 mph on side streets, 20 where that is posted. 25 posted means cars and trucks go 35. I pull over then to avoid being chased.
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.
E bikes should be licensed and insured.
Why not? It sounds very much like a Vespa. Both the old 2 strokes and the modern 4 strokes.
For awhile I had a Honda Hobbit moped and a 50cc Honda scooter (I forget the name, maybe a Metropolitan?) in the mid 1990’s when I didn’t have a car and really enjoyed commuting to work and school on them. The Hobbit (pedal assist and it actually did help) when there were hills on the route and the scooter for out right “speed” (all that i could squeeze out of 50cc’s). I parked them both in my ground floor apartment and was quite happy with the arrangement.
“running STOP signs” — legal for people cycling if the coast is clear
Sigh…I guess mopedists are just as ignorant of traffic laws as SUVists.
Legal stops are rare. If you watch the intersection just outside my window perhaps one motor vehicle operator in ten comes to a full stop at the crosswalk line. This is not special pleading, you can see it anywhere.
I’d be pleased to find comprehensive bike rider insurance at a cost proportionate to the true risk of operating a bicycle. Unfortunately that risk is so small that most of the cost would be overhead and profit. If I’m not mistaken, most car insurance policies cover the insured driver on a bike as well. How do you think they can offer that benefit at no extra cost?
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 take it to the extreme. The best policies are almost always found somewhere in the middle.
Yes – if they can go 20 mph or faster.
…so it sounds like we are back to the law as it stands, 20 mph or less.
I think it would be great to allow all vulnerable small vehicle road users to use our multipaths so they can avoid the very high risk cars pose to them.
I think they should agree to a reasonable speed limit so that walking doesn’t become too dangerous – such as 20 mph (maybe depending on path and visibility?)
20 mph on the Springwater during busy times is absolutely too high. That’s the max speed we allow on wide streets with plenty of room to maneuver, and where pedestrians have their own dedicated walking space.
For confined, mixed use trails, 12 mph is probably closer to right. Maybe even slower.
I know that would be inconvenient for cyclists. Luckily, there are good on-street alternatives available for those who want to go faster than MUPs safely allow.
Wow, that is an embarrassing gaffe by Senator Prozanski. I wonder if he is at all apologetic? Doesn’t sound like it. 🙁
Clearly, Mr. Prozanski reads the Bike Portland Comments 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
“Just going to write Prozanski’s response for him:
I appreciate everyone’s interest…
As an avid cyclist who cares deeply…
Safety is my top priority…
I felt that is was time to start this important conversation with this proposed legislation.
I will be working with stakeholders to get this right over the coming legislative session.”
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.
For what it’s worth, the “elite-athlete-kind” of cyclists are the most dedicated “use-their-bike-to-get-around” cyclists that I know.
I wonder why do you think they are more “dedicated” than we who can’t afford a car and/or bike to save the earth?
You 100% CAN regulate jerks, you just can’t make them comply with the regulation.
The heart of the matter is behavior, I’m glad that was included in this article. My ebike would definitely be affected by the proposal, but I ride it safely according to the conditions around me. I ride slower in poor weather, and I ride slower in congested areas. I could go 28mph all around town, but I don’t, because I’m not a jerk.
Just have to say that if the bike pictured at the top of this story, weighing in at around 440 lbs fully loaded (according to the manufacturer’s website) was coming at me on the Springwater at 28MPH (for a closing speed of well over 40MPH), I’d be pretty darned uncomfortable. The path just isn’t designed for those speeds.
Sure, not everyone would ride at that speed, but clearly some do.
^This is a good point! Also I want to highlight it as a response to the article questioning what the difference is between a person cycling at 28mph and e-biking at 28mph: the consequences of a potential impact! (not to mention that *most cyclists capable of that speed will have bike handling skills to match, whereas e-bikes don’t have an experience prerequisite)
It’s a Class 1, so the motor cuts out at 20mph.
https://www.jclindbikes.com/riese-mueller-multitinker.html
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.
You can program a different cut out speed pretty easily though. 28 mph is a lot nicer if you have to share a 35 mph or 40 mph road with cars.
Interesting. I’ve had a bosch system before on a cargo bike and it didn’t seem very programmable. Of note, the picture for the article changed after the comments were made. It initially had a woman and some kids on a long tail Riese and Mueller- Link above in Chris I’s comment.
Bosch systems are one of the more locked down ones – they only give the software to bike makers and try to keep it locked down so consumers can’t easily change them from class 1 to class 3 say if you travel or move to a state that has different regulations or want to ride on different paths. There are a ton of dongles you can get though that will let anyone program them from your phone generally.
Many, other motor and moto controller companies though simply let the consumer program it without buying anything additional. They don’t want to have to setup different bikes for different markets, regulations and users so just leave it up to the buyer to set it to whatever class they want.
Put a speed limit on the path, then. Two large fit people on a tandem can pretty easily hit 28mph and 440lbs, no e-assist required.
I have some pretty fit friends that ride a 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 not ok to go 35 in a 25 MPH zone.
It clearly is ok with the state to go 35 in a 25 if the speed cameras dont trigger until going 11mph over the limit. If it wasnt ok to the state they would set the trigger much lower.
Either that or they want to avoid the endless arguing that arises from claims of miscalibrated speedometers, miscalibrated speed cameras, etc. All of which, presumably, flows from considerable experience with real courts in front of real judges.
If you only pursue the egregious violations, it streamlines the process considerably.
I personally think 10+ MPH is a bit too much cushion, but that’s where we’ve landed. It has nothing to do with what “the state” (whoever that is) is ok with.
Since a bike isn’t required to have a speedometer – any speed limit is pretty much unenforceable by that logic.
I really don’t know how it would work. That’s one problem I see with any kind of speed-based enforcement against bikes.
But more importantly, we all KNOW enforcement won’t work (even those who are suggesting it). The stakes are just too low to get the level of scarce police resources needed to change behavior.
How will or does any of this enforcement work?
In CA I see cops chasing people down sometimes on multi-use paths, it’s rare but it happens. Seems like that kind of thing needs to happen to enforce speed or vehicle type regulations anyway. At least with speed they can have radar guns they tell them who is in violation instead of whatever the other plans are… which are what look carefully for throttles as they zoom by? Try and spot some 750 W max sticker on the bike? seems a lot more ridiculous than trying to enforce a speed limit.
“The stakes are just too low to get the level of scarce police resources needed to change behavior.“
The lowness of the stakes really highlights, to me, why this bill is a waste of time.
Yea the 10+ mph over thing is silly applied across the board. Maybe it makes sense at 70 mph but at 35 it should be cut in half, a margin of error makes way more sense as a % instead of a fixed margin.
Watts, come on, you’re more rational than this. The situation you’re describing is at best extremely unlikely, if not completely 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 very few people not actively competing in the Carry S*** Olympics are going to be loaded to 440lbs. The R&M pictured weighs 79lbs stock. Maybe 60-70lbs of child on the back (people riding with children are often very careful anyway). Add in like 20lbs of other stuff, and you’re at like 170lbs without the rider.
I agree that 440lbs of flesh and bike traveling at 28mph may feel scary, but I really don’t think that’s the reality. What’s more likely is that that same rider is going to be forced onto surface streets (especially if they’re excluded from bike lanes) where they will have to endure aggression from drivers as they struggle to keep up with a 20-25mph speed limit.
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 very realistic scenario is getting buzzed by a fast and silent bike approaching from behind (usually motorized, but not always). This behavior totally sucks and makes MUPs unpleasant and threatening places to wander.
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.
You make some good points here, Watts. I’d prefer to separate fast modes from slow modes on MUPs – have one lane for peds, strollers, people looking at the birds, etc and two lanes (contraflow) for faster vehicles (bikes, e-bikes, e-trikes etc).
I’ll bet that most cyclists churning along on an MUP are okay being passed by an e-bike doing 20 mph. But most peds are NOT okay with it – they’ll say e-bikes make them feel unsafe. So for me the bigger issue is getting slow modes and fast modes into their own spaces so each can feel safe. If we want bikes to be viewed as serious alternatives to driving cars everywhere, then we need to provide space for bikes and not always put the burden on cyclists to avoid the kids running amok on a MUP.
I agree that there are plenty of times when riding fast on the Springwater is a bad idea, motor or not. But there are also plenty of times when its pretty empty and cruising at 20mph+ is not an issue. As an example, when I’m late to meet friends for an evening roadie ride in Sellwood, I’ll usually take Milwaukee because its way faster than having to constantly slow down for the aforementioned MUP users. Although many car drivers are fine, there’s enough aggression and unpredictability that it’s a route that I wouldn’t assume most people would be comfortable using, even if equipped with a 250W motor. This is even more salient east of Sellwood, where surface street alternatives are even less practical. I think you’d agree that step 1 ought to be improve surface street routes.
Perhaps we need better places to wander than a 6-10ft paved path. I, for one, have never felt compelled to wander along the 205 path. If only there were 70+ miles of trail through beautiful urban forest completely off-limits to bicycles. Now that would be something…
Yes, the person on the electric cargo bike is likely to be moving faster than they would without a motor, but the example you’re using of some 440lbs of pedal-assisted flesh and metal bearing down on you at 28mph is unrealistic, and should not be used to justify a law that a) won’t actually fix the real problem, and b) creates negative outcomes for the mostly well behaved owners of pedal assisted ebikes.
Nor I. The I-205 path might was well not exist at this point.
I’m not trying to justify any particular law; I’m trying to show why I think fast motorized (and perhaps non-motorized) vehicles (especially heavy ones) are incompatible with other uses of our MUPs, which are shared with slow-moving, erratic pedestrians, pets, and children. In my view, they are the ones who should have priority on these paths.
I don’t care one whit about people using e-bikes to travel at normal biking speeds (12-15 mph) with courteous riding practices. If that’s all that was happening, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
If the best solution is to build new trails for walkers, then I’m all for it. But until we do that, most folks here seem to have accepted that we have a growing problem with fast riders on mostly motorized vehicles, and the question is whether it’s better to banish those vehicles from the trails or establish rules for using them safely.
I don’t think either approach is workable, which leads me to think we may increasingly have to cede one of our few refuges from motor vehicles to motorized traffic.
Nice for you! I must be living an uncharmed life, because it’s remarkable for me to ride a day without multiple encounters with aggressive drivers. Even had a driver yell at me as a ped in a crosswalk on a sunny morning last week for being “camouflaged” in my green and blue plaid. Huh? I have to wear high viz to cross the street in broad daylight?
He had come to a screeching halt from 10 over the limit as he realized the reason the opposite car was stopping. I was in front of that kind driver, and would have waited for the speeder to pass before completing my cross. But he had to make it my fault.
Every day I go out, driver aggression takes away from the feeling of safe community I almost get from the majority of decent encounters with other drivers. Every day, almost every trip.
Yeah, that sucks. I may just have had a good run of luck. Or you a bad one.
I would love to be living Watts life where they hardly ever meet aggressive drivers.
Myself, I put over 200 miles a week on my ebike. I deal with aggressive drivers on the daily just like you.
But yes, we should totally be regulated to the streets because we have the capability to go fast…
You should definitely try it. Maybe I should design a line of lifestyle products around how I live, and promote them on a TikTok channel (now that it has a reprieve).
I strongly suspect it depends on what part of town you ride in. I’ve found drivers are generally courteous in SE, downtown, and NW, where I mostly ride, whether I’m on a bike, on foot, or in another car. I also try to be courteous as well, and maybe that helps.
North and NE are my usual haunts. I’m not sure how I could be more courteous to aggressive drivers without ceding the bike lanes and crosswalks and just avoiding the street altogether whenever a moving motor vehicle might be present.
Maybe people drive differently up there. In the meantime, follow me at @wattslife for dispatches from the good life.
I think there is a clash about what the MUPs should be for and maybe what we are advocating for in general as bike enthusiasts.
Do we want people biking for transportation? Should those trying to get somewhere use the MUPs and get the safety benefits when these paths align well with where they are trying to go?
I love recreational riding and wandering paths too but I assume there are people trying to use these paths for travel as well and they are great at protecting them from being killed by cars.
Where possible it would be awesome to have walking lanes and biking lanes. I used to commute Santa Monica to Venice ca and was lucky enough to be able to use the beach path as my commute – surprisingly many others seemed to as well on the weekdays. On the weekends the path is so congested but it really helped that they had dedicated walking vs riding paths.
Why are laws being drafted based on “I experience this anecdotally and I don’t like it” and not by the data of what’s actually happening?
Dozens of pedestrians get mowed down by cars every year and there’s a complete lack of urgency to regulate them in any meaningful way. A legislator gets a little stressed out on a MUP and bam suddenly we’re banning whole categories of useful vehicles.
Don’t get me wrong there’s a totally valid argument for regulating “e-motos” as Jonathan put it, but how many people are getting run over on MUPs each year? Most years, probably zero. So why is this where our lawmakers are spending their energy, rather than prioritizing regulations on the things that actually are killing people on an almost daily basis?
There are far, far, far more people driving in Portland than riding on MUPs, so it’s hardly surprising there are lots more crashes on one of our thousands of streets than on one of our small handful of MUPs. Limit the analysis to streets that people actually bike on, and the comparison gets more relevant.
I’m not arguing that electric powered cycles are more dangerous than cars, only that the number of crashes do not paint the whole picture.
Because laws are drafted based on human experience not computer algorithms. Prozansky did his job. He used human experience to inform himself to propose legislation to make our lives better. That process will be followed by all sorts of other human experiences to be considered. Including those that have been shared here. Its called self-government. We all get to provide our experience and then a decision is made.
Frankly a lot of the experience from some e-bike users sounds a lot like motorists. They drive safely, so we don’t really need bike lanes, sidewalks or separate multi-use paths. We have people suggesting a 30 mph “speed limit” on multi-use paths when the street speed limit most places is 5-10 mph less than that.
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.
This is ridiculous. Laws and policy should not just be based on vibes.
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.”
I love your quote but it’s just not how the world works. If data ruled transportation safety, cars and trucks would be banned and we’d have the cycling nirvana that all (or nearly all) BP readers crave.
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 some people are only interested in serving their narrow interests … how long will it take for me to get there. And some of those people drive cars and ride over-powered e-bikes.
I agree with you that many e-bikes are over-powered. I think a 250 watt assist is a miracle. It’s plenty for brisk comfortable cruising on a single bike.
I don’t agree with your lumping of e-bike riders with car drivers. For one thing, some drivers’ stated reason for owning a car is to take their pristine bikes to someplace nice so they can ride without a lot of cars around.
My personal excuse for an e-bike conversion was that it would be safer to ride fast on a collector street than to cruise on a greenway where right of way is regularly slighted by cars. It hasn’t worked out. Even if I’m running the bike at the posted limit, about half of the motor vehicle operators feel a strong need to pass.
mowed down *with* cars (*by* traffic Engineers, policymakers, auto industry, driver maybe involved too sometimes)
I find this legislation absolutely infuriating, particularly the inclusion of bike lanes, but the whole concept is absurd. Basically, this law is saying class 3 e-bikes, like my Benno Boost, should be treated like cars. I should have no right to dedicated bike facilities of any kind – no bike lane over the Broadway Bridge? Or Steel? Or Hawthorne? No use of the Naito Bikeway or any downtown Portland bike lanes? Should I put my life in even greater danger so that spandexed roadies don’t have to pass me while I try to transport myself and my 7-year old on the safest route we can find?
Why make biking less safe for the few of us still left on the streets, when we live in daily fear of being hit and killed by motorists who are exceeding the speed limit, driving under the influence, driving while texting, blowing through stop signs and red lights, etc.? I actually saw someone yesterday on my commute who was driving while watching the Great British Bakeoff. I’m not saying there aren’t assholes out there on the trails or streets, but how can anyone with a straight face say that our elected officials should be spending their limited time on this when we have an absolute crisis of safety on our streets caused by car violence?!?!?!? How many of these fatalities would have been prevented by 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?? – really gets at the issue of enabling safe, low-carbon transportation. I agree that Prozanski is missing the boat on that issue.
E-bikes are safe for the rider in the same way motor vehicles are safe for the driver. And they are higher in carbon than either walking or riding a bike. So cut the crap about how you are saving the planet, Their real advantage is just that they are faster and easier.
https://www.ebikes.ca/documents/Ebike_Energy.pdf
Until I see a good study done under real world conditions (where people eat in more “discrete chunks” (like one sandwich rather than on a continuum (like 8g of bread), and accounts for actual human physiology (we all know calories in must equal calories expended +- weight gain, except it doesn’t)), I’m calling this an urban myth for light to moderate levels of cycling. I, for one, do not eat more on days when I bike a few miles around town than those when I don’t, and I don’t believe anyone does.
The math is inarguable, but the assumptions are bunk.
But either way, eat beans rather than beef to reduce your climate impact and the oh-so-horrific suffering caused by industrial meat production. Just as we are horrified that our ancestors owned slaves, our descendants will be disgusted at the suffering we inflict on animals.
Watts has made a comment that I agree with in every detail.
No, Ross – e-bikes really do emit a fraction of the carbon that cars and especially trucks. A generally accepted figure is one thirteenth.
Of course any battery-powered vehicle is only as planet-friendly as its energy source, so getting your electricity from coal increases the carbon footprint (though still not as much as driving a regular car).
We aren’t comparing them to cars and trucks. We are comparing them to pedestrians and bicycles. I don’t know what the carbon footprint is from an e-bike with its battery compared to a bike.
Who said anything about saving the planet? I’m trying to get myself and my kid where we want to go in the cheapest, fastest way I can, hopefully without being murdered by a car. I’m 125 lbs, I’m not mowing anyone down on my e-bike; I try to ride in the lowest assist level to get more exercise and use the assist for hills or times I’m forced to share a lane with cars. I’m just not strong enough to tow a second grader on my other bike.
Exactly. With the emphasis on fastest. That was my point, this is not about saving the planet. Its about a people getting where they need to go as fast as possible. We are talking about bikes that go 28 mph sharing a path with small children out for a walk.
Sure but we already have 8,000lb cars than can go 200 mph sharing roads with small children walking to school. So maybe replacing those with bikes that go 28 mph would be great?
Then neither are you. Emissions statement is debatable. Depends on diet and makeup of grid sources. I’ve done some back of the envelope calculations for CO2 emissions for an ebike charged from the existing grid, and a fully banana powered rider. The results are not as far off as you’d think. Here’s a study that actually uses Portland as an example if you want some reading: https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10218774#:~:text=A%20single%20e%2Dbike%20could,et%20al.%2C%202015).
Interestingly, the average Portland car trip in this study was 5.49 miles. Which seems right in line with a distance that ebikes are exceptionally useful. Nothing wrong with making things faster and easier. Its ok for people to enjoy things differently. Not everyone needs to follow rule #5.
Also, wtf are you talking about safety? If I crash an ebike I’m gonna get the exact same amount of hurt. If someone on an ebike gets hit by a car, its not like the extra 20lbs of battery and copper windings are going to save them. Ebikes as defined by the current law are not the problem here.
My back of the envelope says that a 10ah e-bike battery at 48 volts has 480 watts of power which is 412,800 calories. That is a lot of bananas.
“…has 480 watts of power which is 412,800 calories.”
Watts are not directly convertable to calories. They are not the same thing. Also, when we talk about calories in a banana we’re really talking about kilocalories.
“E-bikes are safe for the rider in the same way motor vehicles are safe for the driver…”
Except for the additional 1200 kilograms of mass, the shell designed to absorb energy on impact, safety belts, air bags, and mandated insurance for both parties in a collision.
If this was a humorous statement I apologize, my mistake. If not, why lead off your comment with something completely false to fact? The physics of an e-bike are within a small factor of an ordinary bike, while the physics of a car are orders of magnitude greater.
I actually feel reasonably safe on an e-bike because I am taking great care at every avenue of possible conflict to make it so. Limiting my choices and a streak of fatalism has to take care of the set of issues that are truly out of my control.
Why make walking less safe by turning bike paths into high speed freeways for e-bikes?
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.
Yeah, there’s a schism on the horizon and it’s been brewing for several years. At some point we’re going to have to acknowledge the reality that electric powered bicycles are incompatible with human powered bicycles and will require their own segregated infrastructure, as well as licensing, registration and insurance requirements.
Or they could just operate in the street like the gas powered mopeds have been doing or the last 60+ years.
Good point. I’ve been thinking for a while that we’ll need TWO lanes for low-powered vehicles: an e-mobility lane and a human-powered lane.
When the City reaches vision zero and cyclists aren’t regularly hit and killed, I’d be happy to ride in the travel lane on my e-bike. The irony is, our car-centric hellscape is driving cycling down so much I rarely find myself passing other cyclists at all, except for the warmest sunniest days, whatever their power source. And I’ve definitely been passed by human-powered riders while riding like a normal human on my scary class 3 e-bike on paths like the esplanade or bike lanes like the steel bridge, Naito pkwy, N Williams, etc.
Is it? It’s a less car-centric hellscape than drove cycling rates up so much.
Please let me know when we get there. I’d be so happy if this was our future. If so many people are adopting ebikes that this becomes a reality, you’d have to forgive me for thinking we were in one of the better timelines…
COTW!
Let’s just draw the line at 100lb weight with a throttle, or anything capable of going over 28mph 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’d support kinetic energy limits for all of our roadways
Every vehicle pays by the number of kW or HP it can produce.
Because technically, a road bike with a very fit rider can go above 28mph with just pedaling.
If we’re going to ignore pedaling as an aspect of “low car” spaces, I guess we can scrub “active transportation” from all of our promotional materials now.
I am glad to hear this as I obviously have a lot of respect for senator prozanski who really was instrumental in helping us get Idaho Style stop sign laws in Oregon. One thing I learned during that process was if you want to get a bill passed you really have to start well before the session because after things get rolling it is quickly too late to introduce new ideas. His explanation makes a lot of sense to me, and it seems like he realizes that better verbiage could have been chosen. I do kind of wonder though isn’t it already illegal to ride an unregistered electric motorcycle on multi use paths? We have seen issues with them being ridden on the rose city golf course causing damage as well and unfortunately it is very common for people who don’t know the difference to blame ebikes so I hope the senator cleans up the language and draws a hard line going forward.
Prozanski should name this law “Janet’s Law,” in recognition of outspoken people everywhere, but especially on NextDoor, who are refractory to understanding the difference between an e-bike and an electric motorcycle.
Yes, it’s already illegal to ride surrons (the more popular brand of these machines) and other electric motorcycles on any public space. I think the fact that a seasoned rider (and presumably knower of the law) such as Sen Prozanski was unclear on the laws and classes of ebikes shows that our current system is too complicated. Lets instead get rid of the class system and unnecessarily restrictive speed limits on pedal assist bikes, and focus on managing the demand for throttle controlled electric machines. People clearly want to ride these things. They also probably don’t feel safe sharing space with cars. Lets work on solutions (I wish I had a good one off the top of my head) for creating safe, legal use of these things.
This is incorrect if you have a surron with peddles it is legal. Surrons without peddles could be considered electric scooters (similar to lime etc.) assuming they have the power correctly limited
I ride on the Springwater frequently and I have seen gas powered and electric motorcycles riding well in excess of 30 mph. It is hard (impossible?) to imagine ANY enforcement happening on MUP’s. We all know that there is very little enforcement of laws governing motor vehicles on roadways in this state.
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 just setting a speed limit on paths be easier and make more sense? Of course, then Sen. Prozanski and one of his riding bros. might get caught up by the law.
MUPs have lots of people walking for pleasure, not always laser focused on what other users are doing. They are narrow. They often have kids who have a habit of running and playing when in a park-like environment, and elderly folks out for a stroll who can be severely injured by a simple fall (much less being knocked down by a fast vehicle). They 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 tops, probably lower. In many driveways and parking lots, where people are walking about, vehicles are typically limited to 5 MPH.
I mean, we all care about safety above convenience, right?
I think a 5 mph speed limit would be appropriate. But it would make multi-use paths the equivalent of pedestrian only. They would be of little or no use for someone using a bicycle as transportation.
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.
Could maybe do a 5 or 12 mph speed limit when children playing or something – or on weekends or something.
I have no concern about what speed people ride on that trail when there are no other users. I also have little concern about what speed people drive when no one else is on the street.
The problem is you never really know for sure (as the driver who killed that rider on Glisan found out).
Good rules are simple and clear. Maybe the weight/speed tables I suggested elsewhere could have a time/date modifier.
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.
Can you imagine ANY enforcement of speed limits on MUP’s?
The fixation on PEDALING seems to have confused the issue for Sen. Prozanski and others.
It’s got nothing to do with peddling. Since e-bikes with peddles can now go 28+ mph, two-wheeled vehicles need 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 any non-electric bicycle can go 20 MPH. Why should our laws treat all bicycles as motorcycles?
No – only a very strong cyclist can sustain 20 mph on flat ground for any length of time, and almost no one can accelerate to 20 mph in the couple of seconds an e-bike can.
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.
I don’t think these people have actually ridden a road bike around town.
Boy, I’d love it if we regulated 4 wheel vehicles by power and speed. I don’t understand how an individual can own and operate a 1000hp 4.5 ton vehicle legally.
I agree, and I think we should regulate those vehicles before we look at e-bikes. But we’re talking about e-bikes here, on Bike Portland.
I think it has everything to do with peddling.
Prozanski is peddling outrage over e-cyclists that “threaten” SUVists who drove their SUVs many miles to take a short walk on a mixed use trail.
Very clever, but beside the point. I agree that Prozanski seems out of touch about the practical ways people use e-bikes.
I doubt it. I think everyone recognizes that e-bikes are being used for the same purposes as regular bikes. They are just easier and faster to use and easier to use faster. Which is creating a changed environment for everyone else. So a leisurely ride on a nature path requires negotiating speeding traffic.
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.
Are people who ride the class 3 given any required drivers manual like cars are so they do not ride on “paths, or sidewalks”. Just the other day on NE Sandy I was nearly hit by one who approached from behind. Hit my sleeve. I had no idea.
Also I’ve been passed going both N & S across the interstate bridge on my bicycle by Vespa using it without warning except for the noise.
How did you know it was a class 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 electric assisted bicycle” means an electric assisted bicycle that: (a) Provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling; (b) Ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour; and (c) Is equipped with a speedometer.
I guess since mine doesn’t have a speedo, I’m exempt? 😀
But seriously- we have to get over this throttle thing. Throttles are essential equipment for cargo bikes, and any ebiker starting on a hill. Can’t we rewrite this law so the throttle is say, unable to boost over 15mph? or 10 or 5, anything but no throttle at all.
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.
Great point about throttles. I should have added in my comment above that PEDDLING and THROTTLES shouldn’t be the basis for regulation. Sounds like Prozanski and others want to ban throttles cuz that’s a safe way of excluding e-motorcycles. But as you say, the throttle is an essential feature of most modern e-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.
I think you mean pedals and pedaling.
The traveling bike mechanic peddles pedals to those whose bike pedaling depends on the mechanic’s pedals peddling. 😉
So what makes these a bike and not a motor bike? Far from motor-assist, these are pedal assist. They aren’t usable at all without the motor and they are without having to pedal.
I have a cargo bike which is perfectly usable with no motor – because it has none.
I’m able to pedal my 120-lb kid up hills thanks to a neat invention called “gears”.
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:
Maybe we would be better served by a bill that clarifies right of way between passing path users, required clearance, and liability in unfortunate incidents. It’s pretty sad that often our traffic laws come into play only after a crash so that instead of courtesy and civility we get litigiousness. I’d like to think we could define ourselves by what we have in common instead of by our differences.
3 ft seems reasonable for passing a pedestrian on an MUP. Unfortunately, this might make passing challenging on some stretches of the Springwater, especially if people are walking 2 abreast, as they very commonly do.
Liability is already set — determine who caused the accident, and apportion costs accordingly. We’ve been doing that for hundreds of years.
Let’s keep it to the premise of correcting inappropriate behavior for the surroundings.
Regarding “what” to call fast small two wheeled light duty vehicles without pedals and with a motor…we can look back to the late 1970s when major Asian motorcycle companies entered the low cost mobility segment and introduced what became the “No-Ped”; basically a “Mo-ped” in function BUT without pedals for supplementary power. Nopeds had foot pegs. Remind you of any new e-vehicle types? 😉
https://mopeds.com/the-rise-and-impact-of-noped-mopeds-a-retrospective-study-of-the-70s-and-80s
https://www.mopedarmy.com/wiki/Noped
And for the ‘kids’ who may never have seen a true moped: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped
Side-by-side comparison between moped and e-bike:
These two photos do a terrific job of showing why it’s a bad idea to make laws (or policies) based on superficial features like pedals or throttles or frame shape.
This is the exact argument that opponents of an assault weapons ban make — why ban guns that look a certain way, while still allowing guns with similar capabilities that look “traditional”?
I’m not expressing an opinion on any gun laws, just noting that the argument is familiar.
Sweeeeet 🙂
Honda Hobbit 50cc pedal to start and assist and a yellow paint sadly never seen again. I loved mine! I raced a coworker home from work once with them on the Hobbit and I had my mountain bike with knobbies (Specialized when they were still American), but I knew the steep downhill would put me out in front enough to win as they caught up on the flat. I guess the modern version of that is electric, and people sure seem to be enjoying them as much as I enjoyed that old Honda.
That green machine is actually not a legal ebike per Oregon state law, as it appears to be throttle capable up to 28mph and has a motor capable of >1000W. It’s actually specifically marketed as “moped-style.” https://hjmbike.com/collections/moped-style-ebike/products/turbo-moped-style-electric-bike?variant=45312925368618
Maybe I’m reinforcing your point here, but if that thing is already illegal, how is the proposed law going to make things any better?
Which Oregon law?
HB 4103, in effect as of Jan 1 2025 modifies ORS 801.258 to include the class 1,2,3 designations.
Where does it say over 1000 W? I only see exactly 1000 W in that link. I also don’t see where it states that it’s throttle capable past 20 mph. Actually, the fact that it specifically mentions 28 and 1000 suggests to me that it’s styled to comply with the class 3 designation.
Doesn’t really matter though. The new rules effectively allow throttle up to 28 anyway because changing crank angle to trigger motor-assist can involve a trivial amount of power. You just need to have a leg, maybe two.
I think the biggest change with the new rules is this effective increase in the (legal) ebike speed limit from 20mph to 28mph, and almost doubling of kinetic energy.
“motor capable of 1000W” is meaningless there is no standard for measuring that. Motors convert watts of electric energy to kinetic energy. It’s the software that regulates the speed and power output of a motor by controlling the motor controller (separate from the motor) This is why you can find the same motors marked as 1000W in the US and 250W in the EU, it doesn’t mean anything.
These bikes come with software so you can set them based on your local regulations to be a class 1, 2 or whatever you want as well as taking off or disabling the throttle.
It sure would be nice if the people responsible for writing laws could actually do a good job at writing laws
Please think about that the next time you vote!
We write laws. All of us. They are made by committees that take testimony from anyone who wants to give it. Then they try to create a consensus. Then have to get 50%+1 of the voters (in the committee, in the legislature) to support it for it to become a law.
An awful lot of legislation gets through with truly dumb stuff still in the law.
Measure 108 a few years back has a classic example of this. It raised taxes on cigarettes, implemented taxes on vape and reclassified a subset of cigars to be taxed like cigarettes.
It’s the last one that shows they had 0 clue what they were doing and didn’t solicit any information from outside sources.
They simply copied the Federal definition implemented in the 2009 SCHIP bill.
Thing is, only about .5% of the “cigarette substitute” filtered cigars fall under that definition. The overwhelming majority that they were *trying* to tax don’t.
If they’d talked to the folks in WA state (or just me or other industry folks like me) they would have gotten a definition that gets literally 100% of them.
We have a really good relationship with the OR DOR and DOJ and regularly have to work with them (provide insight) to help them do the rulemaking to actually implement laws that affect a convenience store distributor like us. That’s because the law usually has issues that need to be resolved in that process.
Whether a bike is Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 wouldn’t be important if everyone who rides stays Class E.
Put it on a PBOT yard sign!!!!!
Certainly the sign will change everyone’s behavior.
Good point, Fred. The signs aren’t enough, so I have created a multipoint plan.
Something I don’t understand, from those on here who suggest we should only regulate behavior instead of vehicle type on paths: none of us suggest the same for the streets filled with cars, right? The consensus is that we need separate infrastructure for bicycles on streets, and the more separated the better. That’s why we ultimately want protected bike lanes instead of just paint, and lanes for bicycles instead of just sharing the space with cars. If simply regulating behavior was sufficient, why would we need separate, safe infrastructure for bikes at all, or road diets, traffic calming, crosswalks etc? Just police and prosecute the dangerous motorist behavior if that’s all it takes. But bring e-bikes into the conversation and the logic gets flipped. How do you square that? Jonathan?
The people arguing to regulate behavior instead of design all ride e-bikes.
I don’t ride an e-bike, but think there are some real problems with regulating design instead of behavior, especially with the proposed regulations.
And I can understand why people who do ride e-bikes in particular are objecting to the regulations, again especially as proposed.
It reminds me a bit of places that respond to dog-biting concerns by banning Pit Bulls and German Shepherds.
Or banning motor vehicles based on things like bumper height, fenders, lighting positioning, etc.
We actually do that. We have all sorts of regulations about what is and is not allowed for vehicles to be legal on the street.
That doesn’t seem comparable to me. Those types of regulations are already applied to bikes, too, But I don’t see people arguing against banning their Class 3 bike from a path saying they should be exempt from equipment requirements for lights, reflectors, helmets, etc. that other bikers must follow.
I only ride an ebike to take my kid places, and when I can manage, I ride a non motorized long tail to transport them. I strongly prefer a non motorized bike. I run and ride on the spring water often, and ebikes going faster than 17 mph with fat tires are like nails on a chalkboard for me. But, I can still see that banning Class 3 ebikes from bike lanes is bad policy.
My view: One reason is the differences between cars and bikes are much greater than the differences between one type of bike and another.
The difference between one type of bike and another is closer to the difference between a gas car and an electric car, or a manual-transmission car and an automatic transmission car, than it is to a bike vs. a car. And we don’t have different traffic laws for cars depending on whether they’re gas vs. electric, or manual vs. automatic.
There is also as fairly small difference between a high power electric bike and a moped, but we regulate them much differently.
The real problem in my opinion is the mixing with pedestrians, not other 2-wheeled vehicles. There, the difference in top end speeds is pretty significant.
That’s a concern of mine also.
Would you write your comment differently if pedestrian conflicts were front and center?
Also:
There’s no consensus for that on BikePortland, or anywhere else I can think of.
Even people who are strongly pro-separation are often fine with bikes and cars–or even bikes, cars, and pedestrians–mixing on low-speed, light-traffic streets.
So I don’t see any “flipping” of the logic. It’s logical that people who can accept sharing streets in some situations with vehicles that weigh 2-3 tons, are 6′ wide and can go 120 mph can accept various types of bikes sharing a lane or path.
As someone doing that I will try to respond. First I think perhaps simply regulating behavior of cars on the streets better very well could solve the issue as well or better than protected lanes. Clearly we aren’t doing enough to regulate the cars though – we allow them to go 10+ mph over posted speed limits and when is the last time someone got pulled over for passing a bicycle rider without giving them enough space?
Since we have and are making these separate paths though I think the proper way to divide them is to consider who the venerable road users are. Maybe the rule would be if you have a big metal cage around you and your vehicle weights more than 1,500 lbs you can’t go on the MUP.
However if you are daring enough to go somewhere without a 2,000 lb + metal cage and your willing to go slow enough to mix well with pedestrians walking on MUP then I think we should let these vulnerable road users use the MUPs instead of making them chance it with the metal cages that can go 200 mph….
so sure there is a one vehicle type dividing line it’s just a lot more clear in my mind than these classes of ebikes which no one can tell from looking at them…
If you want that to happen, and I do, you need to have enough cops around to 1. See it; and 2. Not be stretched so thin that they don’t have time to deal with an incident that didn’t amount to anything actually physically happening.
That adds up to a lot more cops out and about than we currently have.
Yea in many cases though won’t the tickets pay for the cops? be a net positive revenue?
None of these need to be enforced 100% of the time though, with a high enough ticket cost, awareness that you could get a ticket sometimes can be enough to help.
Cops don’t — and shouldn’t — get the ticket revenue. Well, they actually get a little of it, but the idea that policing should have a profit motive is, frankly, terrifying.
Sure but the local government gets the money right? so it could offset the cost of more cops that’s all I’m saying. I’m not really sure what for-profit police would look like, private sector I guess?
Some towns have historically funded a chunk of their local government using revenue from traffic fines. This incentivises abusive practices such as ticket quotas and speed traps, and is why Oregon cities can no longer set their own speed limits without state permission.
As for how fines are distributed in Oregon, you’ll have to Google that.
It may be true that the current police staffing levels preclude protection of bicyclists. It does not follow that hiring more of the type of officers we have would improve the situation. I, too, would like to see someone get pulled over for passing a bicycle rider inappropriately. I’m not sure more cops (and their retirement funds) are the best way to spend our city resources. My position would be different if I perceived the cops differently.
If you want enough people to respond to all the 911 calls we get, we need more cops. It’s as simple as that.
Enforcing speed limits on bike trails is way down the priority list. It’s obviously not going to happen any time soon, no matter how you feel about the police, so we need other ways to reduce conflicts on trails.
Or, more likely, we have to tell pedestrians to just suck it up and walk on streets if they don’t want motorized cyclists close passing them.
“Enforcing speed limits on bike trails is way down the priority list. It’s obviously not going to happen any time soon, no matter how you feel about the police, so we need other ways to reduce conflicts on trails.”
One possibility would be to do what folks here claim they want on the streets: engineer speed limitations into the trail. That could take the form of mini speed bumps that would not impact pedestrians, such as those that were briefly installed on the Hawthorne Bridge. I’m not advocating for this, but it is an option.
And, as folks here like to say, it’s not about actual safety, it’s about perceived safety. It’s very unpleasant to have to worry about fast moving vehicles on the trail when you’re out for a walk. The car/bike speed differential on a Greenway is usually pretty small; on a MUP, the bike/pedestrian speed differential can be 20 mph.
Ten years ago I was in the “anti-e-bike camp.” My thinking was that all you needed to do was put in the work by riding. Don’t complain, just ride more and get in shape. Back in the day, my spouse and I would ride several centuries each summer and not the metric one either. I’d opt for the century option every day it was offered on Cycle Oregon. My spouse and I completed the STP in one day on our tandem.
A few years ago I bought myself an e-bike for my 70th birthday so I could keep riding with my younger, stronger friends. On the flats, I regularly ride without motor assist. As hills get steeper and longer or when I opt for the 40+ mile ride, I add a bit of power.
I rode Cycle Oregon last year for the first time since 1998. I used my class 3 e-bike and I don’t think I could have completed the back-to-back 70 mile days without it. Now I’m one of the riders I looked down upon for not being as strong and resilient as I was and thought everyone was capable of being. Welcome to becoming elderly.
There is a common misunderstanding that seems apparent from the discussion on this topic. It seems many people believe that with a class 3 e-bike, the operator pedals a little or engages the throttle and immediately and effortlessly is cruising at 28 mph. Nope. That’s not how it works. Through a bit of experimentation, I’ve concluded that the eco power mode gives me a boost of about 3 mph; sport gives me a boost of about 6 mph; and turbo gives me a boost of about 9 mph. The 28-mph figure cited is the speed at which the electric motor stops providing any boost. Yes. I’ve hit 28 mph on the flat on my class 3 e-bike, but I’ve had to pedal pretty hard to get to that speed. And, at my advanced age, I can’t keep that up. Maybe you can; I can’t.
If I’m riding the Springwater Corridor to Gresham, I’m riding at 11 or 12 without power or 14 or 15 with eco boost. If I’m riding up through the cemetery from the Sellwood Bridge, I opt for sport mode and ride up at 9 mph rather than crank on up without power at 4 mph. Except when I engage power on the hills, I don’t think pedestrians or other cyclists are even aware that I am riding a class 3 e-bike or whether I am using power assist. I’m seeing similar behavior by others using e-bikes on club rides I participate in.
As I’ve stated in previous texts, I think the most egregious behaviors are from class 2 operators who simply jump on a two-wheeled vehicle with a throttle and crank it up to maximum.
Sometime last century I poked fun of a local environmental leader who was excited about his new e-bike. He was an early adopter. He looked at me with a scowl and said “You’re a flat-lander, aren’t you/”. He was right I lived in SE and rarely ventured on bike into the hills on the west side of the river. Another person in the group asked “How often do you ride your bike to meetings up at Audubon?” Lesson learned.
I think its important to not make this an e-bike vs no e-bike argument. The question is when and where are they appropriate. And there is also a need to recognize the impact of the growing numbers of e-bike users on other users.
I am not sure the typical pedestrian cares whether the person speeding by is using pedals, pedal assist or a throttle. Whether its a bike or what class e-bike it is. They will just want them gone so they can go for a walk safely.
Kinetic energy is proportional to mass times velocity squared. Safety on a bike path should relate to these two variables. Set a speed limit and weight limit. Pedals or no pedals is gatekeeping and ableist. If a stand-up scooter rider or road biker hits you at 20 MPH does it matter?
Personally, I’d prefer to keep combustion engines off multi-use paths, but quiet e-motors don’t bug me.
Alternatively, we can do what major European cities do: separate walking, biking, and car paths. This improves safety for everyone and encourages bikes as car replacements. We should strive for this, but in the meantime, attempting to push bikes that can go too fast on a pathway into the roadway where they’ll be the slowest by far, is just asking folks to drive instead of bike.
Maybe we could issue speed/weight tables at MUP entrances.
I couldn’t help myself… asked GPT to make me a table.
0.22 kJ @ 5 mph (Bike)
0.25 kJ @ 5 mph (E-bike)
0.37 kJ @ 5 mph (Cargo bike)
0.47 kJ @ 5 mph (Motorcycle)
0.90 kJ @ 10 mph (Bike)
1.00 kJ @ 10 mph (E-bike)
1.50 kJ @ 10 mph (Cargo bike)
1.90 kJ @ 10 mph (Motorcycle)
3.75 kJ @ 5 mph (Car)
5.00 kJ @ 5 mph (SUV)
6.00 kJ @ 20 mph (Cargo bike)
7.59 kJ @ 20 mph (Motorcycle)
8.09 kJ @ 30 mph (Bike)
8.99 kJ @ 30 mph (E-bike)
13.49 kJ @ 30 mph (Cargo bike)
14.99 kJ @ 10 mph (Car)
17.09 kJ @ 30 mph (Motorcycle)
19.98 kJ @ 10 mph (SUV)
If that’s true, a cargo bike going 20 mph uses more energy (6kJ) than a Tesla Model S going 30 mph (somewhere between 3 and 4 kJ).
Cargo bike riders are climate arsonists.
https://imgur.com/xlwkUxE
Woah you seem to be comparing totally different things there!
What I was calculating was the total kinetic energy of the vehicle and rider at a speed. Aka the max energy it could exert in an impact. KE=0.5*m*v*v
A car going 30mph would be about 134.90 kJ not 6kJ, so a cargo bike is about 1/10th as much.
I think your thinking of how much power it takes to maintain a speed, aka efficiency which is totally different. For example efficiency can be improved with low drag tires, aerodynamics etc. but the total kinetic energy of the vehicle will be the same if it weights the same and is going the same speed, it will simply have less power loss to friction so will take less kJ to maintain that speed.
Sorry… I completely misunderstood the table. It was not clearly labeled. My comment is not relevant.
Sorry I thought you’d understand it to be a table of kinetic energy given your comment above or I would have labeled it better 🙂
I assume this is sort of what you meant to account for when you said “speed/weight tables at MUP entrances” ?
I didn’t connect it to what I had earlier described; I had imagined a table that showed max speed limits for different vehicles based on their mass (and rider’s weight) and equalizing KE.
A complete misfire!
Comment of the Week.
Just about everyone has seen the various graphics showing “if the vehicle’s going this fast instead of this fast you’re this much more likely to be injured or killed”.
But I haven’t seen (or remembered seeing) a chart that compares being hit by vehicles (even broken down to cars and SUVs) at various speeds to being hit by anything else.
I realize kinetic energy numbers don’t tell the whole story in regard to the consequences of being hit, but still these numbers seem valuable.
And this table would apply to so many articles here. Showing bikes vs. e-bikes vs. motorcycles is also so timely.
Yea perhaps one thing to note is motorcycles have a huge weight range. Typical full size dirt bike for example is around 220 lbs. Smaller street bikes around around 300, sportbikes 400, and harleys can be around 700lbs. I’ve even got one road race style motorcycle that’s only 150 lbs and can still top 145 mph (used to road race it)
I thought about adding a line for the sur-rons which I think are the electric motorcycle people thing about lately, they are only 125 lbs, which is lighter than some cargo bikes.
kJ seems like one of the best ways to compare the dangers of being hit although I know things like bumper height make a difference as well – so the SUV is actually more deadly than the car. I’m not sure if any studies have been done to show how bicycles and motorcycle hits compare though. Design shape might just benefit cars.
I also wonder about damage from being run over. I race motocross and regularly see people getting knocked down and run over, the impact isn’t too much because it’s typically less than a 5 mph speed difference since everyone is generally going in the same direction and then being run over even by a 220 lb motorcycle is often not as bad as you’d think and people generally get right back up.
If you imagined the same happening with a heavier vehicle, like a car at some point the being run over damage is going to go up a lot so even if you get bumped with just a 5 mph speed difference if you go down and get runover… bad news. Highlights probably the biggest vehicle difference with motorcycles and bicycles you have such a risk of getting knocked down and run over that does not exist when your inside a car. Such that even what could be a minor speed differential impact can become very deadly due to the possibility of being run over by 4,000 lb vehicles.
“kinetic energy numbers don’t tell the whole story”
Would you rather be hit by a motorcycle at 40 mph or a much higher KE fully loaded freight train at 1 mph?
Why not just enforce speed limits?? No one is actually measuring the output of an ebike on the paths anyway and the output and speed of an ebike is just governed by some software settings that can often be easily changed on the fly. For example many bikes will ship with Class 1, 2, 3 and off-road modes even preset. If they care about the speeds on bike paths then just enforce the speeds. We don’t do this for cars and we let 1000 horse power, 200 mph capable cars drive around.
Plus I’d contend that a class 3 ebike can often be SAFER. Where I live the road my house is on is a 35 mph speed limit road… it has no bike lane, it has a shoulder, but the shoulder is often blocked with debris and it’s a lot safer if I can go closer to the speed of traffic aka 30+ mph than 20 mph. We all know it’s the speed differential that causes problems it’s been well studied and it’s great when we can have bikes that can help us close the speed differential and make us safer because often we are forced to ride with 35-45 mph traffic anyway and then we can simply slow down for bike paths etc just like cars need to do for different streets.
2 huge issues enforcing speed limits on paths.
The same effort level on my town bike & trike have a 25% speed differential (61rpm in 38/12 on a 700×28 wheel = 16mph on my town bike, 63rpm in 50/12 to a 650×44 rear is 20mph on my trike) – they both feel the same (BPM, muscle fatigue) because the trike is so much more aerodynamic.
I completely agree with you about the speed differential on major roads though. I’ve been known to flat out sprint for sections of some roads to get as close as possible to posted speed limits.
The biggest problem in this debate is that there is no easy answer to enforcing decent behavior on MUPS. I’ve been known to loaf at 12-15 on the trike in congestion on a path because that feels safest. I’ve been known to hit 40+ going down Taylor’s Ferry or Skyline because that’s the safest way to ride there (:) Yep, safety is why ….). I try very hard to be a good neighbor regardless of where I’m riding. If everyone did that it wouldn’t matter if they had 750W of boost or just very well trained legs that can put otu 450W for a while like I used to.
As long as a vehicle is light enough not to damage the much lighter structure of a path and is ridden in a save manner, I don’t think I care if someone is just using a throttle or pedaling.
We do enforce speedlimits on roads for multi-ton machines – arguably not enough but there are thousands of speeding tickets written all the time and they are arguably one of the easiest things to enforce – easier than things like vehicle weight or power output.
Enforcement is hard regardless but I think it’s certainly way easier to enforce speedlimits than trying to spot throttles or somehow measure power output etc. We already have radar guns that you can simply point at vehicles to measure, we don’t have any thing like that for figuring out class 1 or class 3 etc and it’s hard to imagine anything like that working when usually the difference between class 1 and class 3 is just a software setting that can be done with the push of a button.
You can enforce speedlimits without requiring speedometers.
In Oregon and many states speedometers aren’t required on motorcycles but you can certainly still get a speeding ticket on one.
I used to ride a bike on Venice Beach in CA and they had a speedlimit they enforced for bikes, didn’t mater if you didn’t have a speedometer.
You can. And if people did, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
We know that people (in cars, on bikes) are not good judges of how their speed impacts others.
If I’m doing 30 it is downhill or a very short sprint. It takes a very long descent to pull that off with a loaded 400 pound cargo bike. Nobody is going that fast for a consequential amount of time without a closed-road race or a motor.
I was hoping for a little more nuance but instead I’m getting the same kind of semantic gotchas that advocates use to sink common sense ideas around guns, etc.
My comment has nothing to do with the content of the article, but with the content of the photo used at the top of the page now. Maybe it’s just me, but take a look at that front wheel/fork/disc brake. See anything wrong with that? I’ll wait…. And this is why people shouldn’t assemble their own bikes if they don’t have the proper training or knowledge!
First thing I noticed too! Yes, that fork is mounted/facing backwards even though the handlebars are in the correct forward position. Don’t even get me started on the helmet fitting as well… At least they are riding a bike?
Barely… given the seat position and foot position on the pedals, it’s clear the motor is doing most of the work.