Hi friends. Welcome to the week.
I’ve spent many hours thinking about how best to use BikePortland to help our community in this time of unprecedentedly reprehensible behavior from our national government and people who support it. I didn’t build this platform to stay in my lane when shit hits the fan. Sorry if this is off-topic for the Monday Roundup, but wanted you to know where my head has been lately. I’ll share more as the week goes on.
For now, below are the most notable stories folks shared with me and/or I stumbled on in the past seven days…
Wait! Before we get to it, this week’s Monday Roundup is sponsored by Nomad Cycles PDX. They’ve launched two locally-made e-bikes and you can order one and support them via their Kickstarter campaign.
Brooklyn bribery: We think backroom deals between a commissioner and business owners is shady? In Brooklyn they do straight-up cash payments to get rid of bikeways! (Streetsblog NYC)
Big housing win: “California lawmakers passed SB 79, a bill that would override local zoning laws to allow dense housing developments up to nine stories near transit hubs statewide.” (LA Times)
Don’t fall for it: Some Republicans are capitalizing on a horrible death that happened on a light rail train in Charlotte, NC as a way to further marginalize public transit and push the narrative that driving cars is the only answer. (The New Republic)
Historic protest: An immense crowd of Free Palestine supporters stopped the final stage of the Tour of Spain. The bike race has been held for 89 straight years, but it couldn’t withstand fierce protests by large, well-organized pro-Palestine groups who wanted more visibility for the cause and objected to the Israeli sponsorship of one of the teams. The UCI has condemned the protestors and says their actions violate the Olympic Charter. (AP)
Road rage in Bend: A grown man driving a truck was so triggered by a bicycle rider in the road that he decided to assault him, causing multiple serious injuries. Turns out the cyclist was just a teenager. Thankfully, police arrested the driver. (The Source)
Real talk about mopeds and e-motos: This article from the UK about the rise in injuries from collisions involving large, high-powered “e-bikes” is chilling and could probably be written about a city in the U.S. (BBC)
Wasted money?: “ODOT and WSDOT are proposing to spend as much as $10 billion to widen a roadway where traffic is declining, is less than it was twenty years ago, and shows no signs of ever reaching the levels claimed in the project’s modeling and environmental analysis.” (City Observatory)
Thread of the week: The Bluesky thread from Qagggy! about what Seattle could accomplish with a bold mayor is very solid and inspiring. Let’s expect more than the status quo from “bike friendly” mayors!
Thanks to everyone who sent in links this week. The Monday Roundup is a community effort, so please feel free to send us any great stories you come across.
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.
The article from England and the guy who wizzed past me when I riding 20 MPH on the Hawthorne Bridge remind me of this artice https://bikeportland.org/2025/01/14/oregon-bill-seeks-to-ban-class-3-e-bikes-from-sidewalks-bike-lanes-and-paths-392252.
The guy wasn’t pedaling but he was passing everyone really close and without warning. It sure seemed like he was going 28 MPH using just the throttle given how fast he overtook me. If we want to attract all people to ride bikes we need to stop being OK with this. I can’t imagine bringing my son across the Hawthorne Bridge or on the Springwater or other paths and have someone doing this. 28 MPH is just too fast for pathways. At least there’s more space to negotiate on streets. If you’re going nearly 30 MPH, especially if you’re not pedaling then you are riding a moped.
I was inches away from getting in a serious accident 10 days ago because someone.
He was on a fat tire moped doing 30 or so down the hill from Sunnybrook, decided at the last second to make the turn to go under 205 to Lawnfield, hit his brakes and skidded before barely making the turn *way* to the left of the path.
I was climbing the other way at the moment, and had I not ducked almost off the path, he would have collided with me. As it was our elbows touched as he went by, still not appreciably slowed down.
I get the reactionary impulse to regulate them – if only our police departments would then enforce them.
I know it’s not a popular sentiment, but 250W is plenty if you’re going to share space with true HPV’s. I can easily cruise at 16-17mph on a gravel bike with 35mm Marathon+ tires (read heavy, slow) while putting out less than 250W.
An average human with 250W additonal power is moving into the range of world record holder Aurelian Bonneteau and his 56km in 1 hour at 370W. A fit person is moving into Wiggo’s 440W for an hour in his UCI 1 hour record of 54km.
Is it just the theoretical ability to enforce power limits that makes people want to distinguish between throttle and pedal assistance?
I ask because at this point I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a bad distinction that needs to go away. The important factor is speed and weight, and since weight is dominated by the weight of the rider(s) which varies more than the variance of bicycle weight, the only real factor that matters is speed.
It’s speed, folks. Just like for cars. I don’t care if someone wants to sit back casually on an unusable motorcycle seat with decorational pedals or if they’ve “earned it” and have some supposed experience (a correlation I don’t believe). A small hill can get any rider going 30mph on any bike.
Nobody is enforcing any regulations or rules we make up anyway, but regulating speed seems perfectly possible.
Maybe both. Speed regulators just like we wish cars had. But none of that matters if someone’s doing 18 on a crowded path.
Momentary speed going down a hill is different than sustained speed at 28 MPH without pedaling on any terrain.
Oh really? I wasn’t aware. So do hills form a kind of spacetime bubble where bikes have less momentum than when on a flat road? Curious how that works, fascinating stuff indeed!
Going downhill, the speed differential is much smaller than the 15 or 20 mph speed differential you might have on the flat or going uphill.
John V- I get that you think nothing will work, and I think I agree. The cat is fully out of the bag- there are tons of highly powered e-bikes, e-unicycles, scooters//etc. There are so many that calls for speed regulators seems ridiculous- This is global trade so the regulators would need to be an aftermarket product.
I do not see a mechanical definition or regulation being very effective. I think some clear rules might be: no motorized vehicles in parks or on MUPs. Another might be use adjacent lane to pass (and include signs that drivers can see). I think speed limits are an ok suggestion but they are are so variable- 10 mph will feel fast on Naito some days, but 20mph is fine most of the time. Speed limits also are are unlikely to work because so few vehicles have speedometers and it is meaningless without enforcement. If Portland Police were commit to regulating speeds and behavior on bike paths and MUPs, the City could launch a campaign the explains and defines unsafe behavior (close passing, too fast for crowded conditions, go slow around kids/vulnerable users, etc) and warn about fines, then patrol and hand out warnings and tickets. That could create a common understanding of community expectations.
I’ve made a similar argument except for naming 350 watts as a very ample maximum. Unfortunately the market has swamped our feeble and confusing attempts at regulation so far. What if we make a rule that any ebike, placed on rollers, must not exceed 20 mph under throttle control or when the pedals are hand cranked?
Riders could get a triangular plate with the number 20 on it to indicate that their bike has been tested, or alternatively get a moped plate for operation on the street with helmet, etc. Any person riding an ebike off street without a 20 plate would have to stand by at any control until the line clears. Any person clocked at over 20, assisted, in a bike space would have to pay a fine to get their bike released, and a double fine if they had a 20 plate on the bike.
This may seem like a harsh system but in the current situation we are at some risk of a backlash against ebikes and riders. It would make sense to give lead time so that riders who depend on their bikes would have time to test them and get plates. There’s a possible carrot here in that riders whose bikes have been tested could be made eligible for a mileage bonus in line with the public benefit of pollution reduction–less the calculated cost of pavement wear, naturally.
I would rather these resources go into enforcing driving laws.
Point taken.
We’re seeing a tendency to bring up, and sometimes enact, laws around ebike use that are unenforceable as a practical matter but give authorities another handle for selective enforcement against individuals. There’s a perennial movement to license and tax bicycles which also generates a fair amount of nonsense. I’d like to see some legislation that recognizes the use value of bikes and helps integrate them into our transportation system.
When it comes to safety, perhaps we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
A difference to me is that riding a throttle is not the same as riding a bicycle. We allow bicycles on paths and through diverters. Do we want to start allowing scooters and motorcycles through?
I think in the Netherlands there are modal filters and paths where mopeds are explicitly allowed.
Electric scooters are definitely allowed and even endorsed by the city.
I’m not talking about the micromobility scooters. I’m talking about Vespas and the like.
Some of those micromobility scooters have top speeds in excess of 40 mph. The cat is out of the bag.
Census transportation mode share counts were released last Thurs and driving has now recovered ~90% of its 2019 mode share while cycling is still at ~50% of its 2019 mode share.
15% decrease in cycling mode share:
2023 – 3.75%
2024 – 3.18%
12% increase in transit mode share:
2023 – 6.2%
2024 – 7.05%
4% increase in driving mode share:
2023 – 57.74%
2024 – 59.47%
4% decrease in work from home share:
2023 – 25.65%
2024 – 24.58%
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT1Y2024.B08006?q=B08006:+Sex+of+Workers+by+Means+of+Transportation+to+Work&g=160XX00US4159000
Thanks for the link.
Looking at the raw numbers, we had
8,209 +/- 1,515 bike commuters in 2023; and
11,532 +/- 1,945 bike commuters in 2024.
So at the worst, our decrease in bike share netted (11532-1945) – (8209+1515) = -137 cyclists.
At the best, it netted (11532+1945) – (8209-1515) = 6783.
In the end, it’s safe to say we added people who (say they) commute to work by bike.
In 2023 there were 13607 bike commuters.
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT1Y2023.B08006?q=B08006:+Sex+of+Workers+by+Means+of+Transportation+to+Work&g=160XX00US4159000
I don’t know where you found 8,209 but perhaps you clicked on a different data type in error. That being said mode share should be compared to population.
Wow. I cannot reproduce that 8,209 number either, but I had copy/pasted it into my spreadsheet (somehow).
Who knows!:¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thanks for the correction.
Oh shoot. Found it. the 8.2k number was *male* only riders.
In any case, I think the importance of mode share can be overstated. In other words, if NE Broadway saw 10,000 bike commuters everyday, then the bike facilities should built to safely and efficiently serve 10,000 bike commuters. It doesn’t matter if “relatively fewer” people are biking. Facilities are built to raw numbers, not percentages.
I think census mode share matters because it’s a decent proxy for for the safety in number effect on driver behavior. I personally have noticed fewer people biking to work this past year and a concomitant increase in drivers on bike routes (e.g. NE 7th is really bad during peak time).
A few years ago I lived at an address that made NE 7th seem like a favorable connection but the car numbers were too great and the drivers too aggressive to rate it a bike street. Now I mostly cross it so it’s hard for me to say if there’s any difference–the only new traffic control that actually favors bike use is the 4 way stop at Prescott.
I would say that the recent changes to NE Broadway are significant and the ~1 mile length of the improvement is enough to increase bike ridership in the area and on crossing bike routes and greenways.
Those census stats suggest that ~1,500 of those 10,000 bike commuters in 2023 no longer biked on NE Broadway. Not only does this have an effect on the critical mass needed for safety and comfort by numbers (and esp outside of peak hours) but city government and elected officials pay close attention to these statistics.
Agree with that completely. My point is that it’s more alarming that that the raw numbers went down. To me that’s more important than the mode share percentage decreasing (which can happen even if raw numbers increase)
It’s useful information, but I still bristle at the fact that this data is limited to commutes. People move about for different reasons, and not always in the same way! I bike/Trimet for my commute, but do all of my errands on foot. That doesn’t really get captured in these reports.
Something like 95% of my bike trips are commutes or commute-adjacent utilitarian trips.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1328-february-5-2024-over-half-all-2022-bike-trips-united-states-were
Yeah…I know that in the USA riding bikes is seen as something children do, or a hobby or sport and not as transportation. And I was speaking for myself — I am all too aware that most people who used to commute by bike don’t do so anymore.
I think these numbers are intended to help guide infrastructure decisions during peak usage times, which are morning and afternoon commutes.
Census data provides the only rigorous statistical analysis of Portlander’s transportation choices.
I agree. My reply was meant for Will
That’s my point. Your utilitarian trips don’t get captured by the census data, and that’s frustrating.
utilitarian car trips don’t either.
Also true! I guess my gripe is that a focus on commute-only trips regardless of mode paints and incomplete picture of how people move about their areas.
Understood.
I think there are two issues a play here. Basically, designing a survey captures the granular detail you’d like to see will either:
a) be too tedious and participation rates will drop,
b) involve questions that are too difficult to accurate self report, so the statisticians are going to put errors bars so wide on the numbers that they’re useless, or
c) both.
Asking people about their primary reason for leaving the house, which also generally corresponds to the peak demand time for transportation systems, is relatively low-hanging (and accurate) fruit.
I guess I do agree. I’m also not a fan of PBOT’s amateur-hour bike counts but they found that numbers outside of peak commute hours showed similar trends.
“Some Republicans are capitalizing on a horrible death that happened on a light rail train in Charlotte, NC as a way to further marginalize public transit and push the narrative that driving cars is the only answer.”
For one it was not a horrible death that happened on a light rail train, it was a horrifically insane and brutal murder which if anyone was dumb enough to watch all of the video is quite clear. And then the murderer was heard saying “I got that white girl, I got that white girl” demonstrating some severe racist undertones to the brutal attack.
With this background The New Republic decides that the “republicans pounce” aspect is a solid plan to go with. Instead of discussing the very real problem of mental illness or sociopathic violence in a cramped and enclosed area, they decide to get political and devalue the murder and make light of the attack.
With the horrible murder by an attacker who had been arrested 13 times previously and whose own mother had begged authorities to put him away the most important part was Sean Duffy saying that poorer people have to take public transportation because it is not safe or pleasant. Where is he wrong?
I had to take public transportation for a year. It sucked and was unpleasant at the best of times. Is it more or less dangerous that driving? Statistically it is pretty clear that it is safer than driving. Is it more pleasant than driving? The MAX wasn’t more pleasant than driving. Even stuck in traffic watching my temp gauge twitch higher and higher, it was better than being subjected to the MAX (to be fair 99% of the time I used the MAX during commute hours, so I can’t disagree with people who have good experiences during other times).
Anyway, what a weird and pointed political article, but from what JM mentions in the introduction, this is the direction he is wanting to take BP. As he said, he has worked hard a long time to make BP what it is. I wish him the best as always in his endeavors and whatever path he takes. The shit hasn’t even come close to hitting the fan yet. Hang on everyone!!
Well we’ve had murders on the Max train too. I do remember that train was the one I would have normally taken home that day, but I left work early.
Yes, TriMet is a mess. I take train and bus each day so I get the fun of both modes. I do have to admit when TriMet started to the mass fare checks at Rose Quarter for Max trains it has improved. Crazy what happens when you only allow people who pay ride?
The buses, still marginal. People board the buses without paying all the time, even when there’s additional TriMet personnel on the bus. Most don’t do anything, but the few that do can sure make a transit ride miserable in a hurry.
Is driving the answer for Portland? I think many have chosen that based on the poor rideability of TriMet. If only TriMet would go back to allowing bus drivers to kick non-payers off then it could improve. Of course properly maintaining the system to limit breakdowns and bringing back the nightly cleaning crew could go a long way too.
It was a mess then and apparently still is. I’ve talked before here about burying SSG Best at Willamette National and how personal it was to all of us. A lot of the employees and recovering veterans there used Trimet and we could all picture ourselves in his situation. I’m glad you weren’t on that train that day! If only it had been safe for those young women and those men facing such raving insanity.
Driving shouldn’t be the answer and for long term growth and sustainability it can’t be the answer. Why then are commuters continually betrayed by all the myriad levels of government who should be supporting mass transit?
It shouldn’t be hard. Best, Namkai-Meche, Zarutska should all be alive. They were doing the right thing by using transit and were not supported for doing it.
It shouldn’t be on bus drivers to enforce fares or regulate behavior. They have enough to do keeping on schedule in adverse traffic. Too much to do, actually.
I’m inclined to say that buses should be free but I know why they are not. It’s to exclude people who might be disruptive. Lacking a better idea, what if a bus driver just parks when someone is acting out?
Fare checking at one known point, in a predictable way, will only control people who don’t know the system. It might filter out people who just want a sheltered place to sit down but it won’t exclude malevolence.
Mayor Wilson’s initiative to offer shelter to every person in Portland is a beginning towards solving the problems on Trimet. It offers a choice. Not everyone will be suited by public shelters but in a just world you can’t expect your employees to shove people out in the rain, or the heat, because they don’t have $2.80.
One time a driver did that when I was riding the bus. Got on the intercom, told the person they needed to stop several times (they were yelling and banging on the windows). Pulled over, told them to get off. After a few minutes of the person yelling “just drive the bus” at the driver, other passengers said things to the effect of “just get off so that we can get where we’re going”. The crazy eventually got the message and stepped off.
Hi Jake9. The problem with much dialogue these days is folks fail to understand that multiple things can be true at once. I totally agree that there are serious safety issues to deal with on transit. But we must look at the broader context of who’s saying what. In this case, Duffy et al don’t give one shit about mass transit. They’d like to see it die. That matters when discussing what they say. So yes, it’s I believe it’s relevant to frame this politically given who’s saying what.
I agree that Duffy would love to see transit die . I agree that he brought it up to capitalize on the horror of what was caught on film. I just think it was a bad take from the New Republic to use that horror show to push back on what Duffy was saying by focusing only on statistics. I understand the logical desire to correct what they obviously see as a developing narrative that transit is dangerous and therefore bad and therefore not worth funding.
However, the visceral shock of what happened isn’t going to be countered by dry statistics.
They could have argued for more public transit funding to make the trains safer , they could have accepted that what happened was bad, that it shouldn’t happen again and the best way to keep people even safer and cleaner was more money. Instead the New Republic made it seem like they didn’t really care about the murder and were just reflexively pushing back on Duffy.
I don’t object to them pushing back, it’s just that they did such a bad job and I don’t think they understand how bad and partisan it looks.
Thank you for naming the people who died doing the right thing, even doing it heroically. Everyone who hears the story has to think about what they would do. I have.
The numbers are dry but they don’t lie. Transit is safer than driving in a car. Not every media outlet will cover that story.
Also, a small fraction of the out-of-pocket cost of operating so many cars could pay for amazing transit, as well as public toilets at transfer points so nobody would have to pee on the seats or in the elevators…
I hear what you are saying here. But I’m not sure how the authors would address this comment:
If someone was trying to argue with you that airplanes should be banned because one crashed once resulting in a terrifying and horrific death for the passengers and crew, how would you counter that argument?
By pointing out the alternatives. Are you gonna fly to Amsterdam in 8 hours or drive 3 for 72 hours to New York then take a steamer for another 120+ hours (5+ days), each way, and spend gobs more in cash, hotels, lost productivity, etc?
Ok. So take that reasoning back to transit.
Sure thing.
It’s a matter of whether you are “captured rider” or a “choice rider”.
If you a choice rider, you have the option to drive, catch your ship, and arrive in Amsterdam a week or so later – you are probably very rich to do so, particularly if you are carrying your same car on the said ship. If however you are on a budget, you are like the rest of us and have no real option except to fly or stay home.
For transit in the USA, the Federal Transit Administration defines a “choice rider” as anyone who has the legal option to drive (isn’t banned from driving due to DUI or lack of license) and legally owns a car or truck. A “captured rider” is everyone else – kiddies, impaired seniors, DUIs, people without licenses, the carless, rural and urban dwellers too poor to own and maintain a car, even people who choose to only walk or bicycle – 30% to 40% of the population in most places – and thanks to the 1992 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the feds and states have helped local governments subsidize public transit nationwide.
According to the feds, most US communities have no public transit at all, especially in rural and suburban areas near larger cities where local politicians are notoriously “conservative” and/or have a reputation for corruption. Most of those that that do have any public transit tend to have at least 90% “captured riders” (including some rural systems). Some larger cities such as Seattle, NYC, Portland, DC, and Charlotte have much higher percentages of “choice riders” as they tend to be highly congested.
Again, as with the flying example, it boils down to whether you have a choice or not, and if you do have a choice, how convenient (i.e. safe, cheap, frequent, reliable, etc) is taking transit versus the alternative of driving (i.e. maintaining your car, secured parking, sitting in traffic, crashes, breathing in fumes, etc)?
Ideally, from a car driver’s perspective, we should be doing everything we can to make public transit frequent, safe, reliable, and so on. But we’ve had a bunch of European companies who actually operate our local transit service under contract who tell us that we should instead design our transportation system to make it more likely people will choose to use transit by making car parking a lot more difficult, expensive, and less secure; impose massive road diets that remove all onstreet parking and add bus-only transit lanes; confine gas stations through landuse zoning to very limited outer suburban locations; increase housing densities that simply bans low-density single-family homes, and much else.
Hi Paul,
It would depend on whether the airplane crashed by accident or was shot down.
If the plane crashed due to a mechanical failure I would do exactly what New Republic did. I would also offer condolences to the victims and family members though, but I would emphasize how although it was a sad event the statistics show air travel is overwhelmingly safer than for example car travel (but what method of transportation isn’t safer than car travel?)
If the plane was shot down however, it would be different. I would emphasize that the perpetrators of the tragedy were punished and safeguards had been put in to ensure that that kind of horror wouldn’t happen again. Because it is shocking when something deliberately violent happens, a different response is called for. The violence needs to be addressed first and people need to be assured that such an event won’t happen to them, regardless of what statistics say.
Since the Charlotte murder was deliberate violence, I would have stressed that these certain events were being done to prevent that situation from happening again. We all know that isn’t going to happen though so really if I was the New Republic I would have let that opinion piece slide and not printed it.
The Iranians punished the people whom they say shot down flight 752
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/17/middleeast/iran-sentenced-ukraine-plane-shot-down-intl-hnk/
A Danish court found 3 guilty in the downing of flight MH17
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63637625
and unfortunately no one was found guilty for the downing of flight 655
https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Air-flight-655
I guess I don’t make this kind of distinction in my mind (and I think it’s reasonable that you do).
My thinking is:
If the murder occurred on a transit system in a state that is either totally controlled by the Democrats (for example Oregon or New York) or Republicans (like Texas or Nebraska) neither the New Republic nor Fox News would care about it. Charlotte however is the largest city (pop 870,000) in the swing battleground state of North Carolina, a state both parties spend a lot of campaign time and money on, so naturally they are going to try to capitalize on it through their various media.
This paragraph from the Bend road rage article stuck out to me:
I can’t decide if the husband and wife had gotten their story straight and it quickly fell apart, or if the husband and lied to the wife and the gravity of her daughter witnessing her dad assault someone had sunk in. Either way, dramatic
I read it as them not wanting to self-incriminate. This family does not have empathy for their victim. And this father’s anger issues probably aren’t just outside the home.
Yeah. Agree. I should have put “gotten their story straight” in scare quotes.
Once it unraveled at the gentlest pull of a thread, going quiet was the smart move (legally speaking)
It wasn’t that long ago when we used to passionately debate the issue at hand instead of the person or party or ideology we decide to label them with. Today we simply label individuals with whatever XYZ label we deem appropriate so we can discredit or demean them before actually debating the issue. Oh how I long for the good ‘ol days when we actually debated and discussed the issues or policies then took appropriate action instead of the endless doom loop of character assassination.
Hi Fuzzy. What are you referring to exactly?
Without getting into a long drawn out debate, it’s simply a 30,000 foot observation that tearing down the character of whoever is making a rational argument has taken the place of actually having a conversation on the issue at hand. I know that’s a super general statement but it’s the best I got in this time of uncertainty. We as a society are really good at tearing people down on both sides of the issues. Actually discussing the merits of the issues? Not so much.
Thanks. But I’m just curious why you’re making that observation. Based on something you saw in the post? Or in the comments? I really take pride in not “tearing people down” (unless it’s 100% warranted!).
How can we ever get back to those before times?
Maybe it’ll take the public to stand up and say they are tired of the poor behavior of people, no matter which side they are on.
The electorate has given political heads the power to say and do whatever they want without any expectation of truth or legality.
In a sense we, voters, are the cause of this. Doesn’t matter which side you are on, it only matters that so many blindly follow one side or the other or just don’t vote at all.
When certain people on the fringes of the left and right have no decorum, and it’s a take no prisoners attitude around discussions, and as long as we vote for them, we, in the end, are the cause for accepting this.
A clarification: without taking a stand one way or another regarding the Vuelta protests, the Israel Premier Tech team is NOT sponsored by the government of Israel. It is owned by two men who are Israeli citizens.
I would also like to mention that only 3 out of the 30 riders are Israeli.
https://israelpremiertech.com/riders/
The owners put a bullseye on the back of the team riders through their stupid self promotion.
That being said it was a ridiculous protest that got a lot of attention but ZERO results.
They ruined a sporting event that Netanyahu won’t even notice.
The war in Gaza will end when Israel decides to end it, world opinion be damned, they don’t give a shit.
It will probably end after the 2 year anniversary of Oct 7, when Netanyahu has milked all the political advantage he can. The Gaza protestors will have to find something else to stoke their own feel good Egos.
And they’re very outspoken about what they think is the path forward
It doesn’t matter. The protesters want to be disruptive and nothing will make them happy.
Almost sounds like a recent transportation event in Portland, let’s see what was that again. . . . .
Nothing, except, you know, ending the thing they’re protesting. Kinda makes sense if you think about it.
Jumping in before e-bike confusion sets in:
“Class 1
Electric bikes with motors that can only be ridden with a pedal assist system (PAS) and the motor cuts out at 20 mph.
Class 2
Electric bikes with a throttle and PAS where the motor also cuts out at 20 mph.
Class 3
Electric bikes with a PAS only but receive motor assistance up to 28 mph.
Classless
Other e-bikes that don’t fall under any class in the system (for example, those without pedals, those with a throttle that can assist up to 28 mph, and those with motors over 750W)”
(This text is from https://ebikes.org/ebike-classes-state-laws/ )
So, if you see someone riding an “e-bike” over 20mph, *without pedaling*, that’s not a Class 3 E-bike, it’s just an unregulated, “classless” machine. Since the e-bike market exploded, these “classless” bikes have been adopted by boys and young men all over the world.
One might reasonably assume that the classes become less like a bike and more like a motorcycle as the numbers ascend, but the confusing and poorly thought out classification system does not work that way.
My class 3 e-bike will not move if I don’t pedal (it has no throttle). It also has a relatively weak motor (compared to the “classless” bikes), so you almost certainly won’t see me going over 25mph unless I’m going down a big hill.
The fact that my bike is limited to powering the drivetrain above 28mph is kind of moot, because of its motor. However, the confusing class system doesn’t even take account of the wattage an e-bike motor can put out.
So, if you saw someone riding aggressively on a bike shaped object, keep in mind that it’s likely a classless e-bike (these are the most like a motorcycle), *possibly* a class 2 e-bike (they can go without pedaling because of the throttle), and if the rider is pedaling and is powered *below* 28mph, possibly a class 3 e-bike.
I get your point but a car doesn’t stop being a car just because it isn’t road legal.
And why do we care if you have to pedal or not? Who is that distinction for?
I’m only pointing this out because people leap to “ban class 3 e-bikes” under the mistaken assumption that these bikes are the ones that look like and ride like motorcycles or dirt bikes. No pedaling, fast speed, etc.
Since the “numbers go up,” I think a lot of people assume that Class 3 must be the biggest and baddest of them all. When they see dangerous or inconsiderate riding on this kind of machine, they may mistakenly assume that banning these bikes provides a regulatory solution to the anti social behavior.
Since I ride a class 3 bike (a specialized turbo Vado) that neither looks like nor rides like these unregulated or throttle-equipped class 2 bikes, I am very sensitive to the mis-categorization. I don’t want to be banned (a la Prozanski’s bill) from bike lanes just because people are justifiably pissed off at dirt bikers on bike paths, or inconsiderate speeding, etc.
Sure, I agree, but what I find pretty frustrating is that you don’t need to have one of those unregulated bikes to ride antisocially. 25mph (a speed easily reached on a class 3) or even 18mph (a speed easily reached by many on any acoustic bike) is antisocial when you are passing a couple casually riding 9mph on a crowded path.
The being antisocial part just isn’t something that is even close to being addressed by the class bike system or any other plausible regulation I can think of. The practical limit that could be regulated at the level of manufacturing is speed, maybe (not power or the presence of a throttle imo), but that is a max speed so it’s useless for basically everything people complain about with e-bikes on paths. Sure, they could limit top speeds on some paths or something.
Speed and behavior are what matter, because they are visible. Back in the day you used to get moving violation tickets for doing things like not signalling in a car. Or speeding. Supposedly. That wasn’t done with hardware, it was just someone looking. I don’t know how much I want cops out giving tickets to people on bikes (not very much because bikes are not really a big problem even at the most annoying), my point is just that no alternative short of outright banning e bikes will do anything, so we shouldn’t even be talking about it. People want some “one weird trick” regulation that will fix things and make people behave the way they want, and it doesn’t exist.
I think we’re agreeing a lot here!
E-bike class definitions are vague, unenforced, unenforceable, and effectively meaningless.
Yes, agreed! As long as people keeping saying things like “well, I saw some kids riding electric dirt bikes on the Springwater so we should ban Class 3 e-bikes,” I will keep pointing out that doing so ropes in a bunch of bikes and riders that *are not causing the problems that bother people the most.*
I hope to help avert the public misconception of these categories so that we avoid the kind of nonsensical regulation suggested by Oregon State Senator Prozanski this year.
Here’s simple rule, if it uses a powered mode of movement (whether in use or not), it goes in the street.
If it’s human powered, it goes on the sidewalk.
Powered wheelchairs are the only exception.
Why are powered wheelchairs an exception? How is an e-bike not a mobility device for people who otherwise couldn’t ride? And for that matter, what does it matter if a person COULD pedal but chooses not to? Makes no difference to anyone else.
Bikes (generally) don’t go on the sidewalk
That may very well be a simple rule, but the consequences are not exactly simple: while riding my class 3 e-bike, my average speed increases, relative to riding my road bike. However, much of that increase occurs on hills, while accelerating from dead stop, and while accelerating from slowdowns due to pavement quality, turns, etc.
In other words, assuming I’m riding on the Springwater Corridor, the top cruising speed on my road bike is comparable to the top cruising speed on my e-bike. This is borne out by my experience riding: I am passed by roadies frequently.
So this is actually kind of complex: does it make sense to ban the kind of bike I’m riding because it has a faster average speed? Might as well ban roadie group rides. Or if it’s mass that has you worried, should the paths be only open to skinny people? That’d legally eliminate the vast majority of poundage out on the paths, but it would be similarly inane. Maybe reserving the paths only for experienced riders makes sense? Or maybe paths should only be for considerate people: take a personality test to get your license.
Is it worth maintaining or enforcing the ban on my commuting bike on MUPs such as the Springwater Corridor? It’s a pleasant, though longer way for me to get home after work. The pavement is better than the roads through Sellwood, and I don’t have to contend with aggrieved drivers.
Why should the City enforce its ban on me riding this path, when the most dangerous thing than happened to me on my e-bike was hitting a pothole on SE 19, the main alternative to the Springwater, and breaking my elbow and wrist? You’re saying I should have to endure that risk, rather than continue to ride uneventfully on the Springwater.
I personally think that in the grand cost/benefit analysis, enforcing the ban on e-bikes doesn’t make sense. There are bigger fish to fry (where are all the deaths to pedestrians and riders from the scourge of powered pedal bikes?), and shouldn’t we be *encouraging* people to ride bikes instead of cars???
I’d be fully in favor of signage that explained courteous behavior, speed limits, limits on dirt bikes (seriously, get the fuck out of here with those things), etc. Why has the City done absolutely jack about the guys riding dirtbikes on the path?
The main problem I see is that cyclists, whether e-bike or not, don’t give pedestrians warning *or* sufficient space when passing. Riders often pass pedestrians even when there’s oncoming ped/bike traffic: in other words, the rider is passing in the middle of the path, while sandwiched in between traffic. WTF? When I call out “on your left”, and wait to pass, I often get a “thank you for actually warning me.” I see this with guys on regular bikes, and it annoys me to no end, but again, the City has done *nothing* to change this behavior.
How hard is it to do this? Why is there not even a single sign suggesting riders to slow down so that there’s not three people squeezing into the path at the same time?
Sorry. I know people get upset about the e-bike menace, and it’s easy (and simple!) to blame the inconsiderate riding on the machine itself, but there’s too much shitty behavior on machines of all kinds, and practically zero governmental effort to reign in that behavior or even simply suggest better behavior! Why start with a completely unenforceable ban, and then let it become a Wild West of regulatory abandonment?
Except that countless places sell “Class 2/3” bikes or Class 3 bikes that can be easily converted to throttle only. This entire industry is basically unregulated and the classes have become meaningless.
That’s kind of my point, except that since people still seem to assume (reasonably but mistakenly) that Class 3 bike must be the biggest and baddest of all e-bikes, people often suggest regulating class 3 bikes more strictly, and doing so would rope in bikes (like my specialized turbo Vado) that neither look like nor rides like these unregulated unregulated bikes.
So, if people start with “blame Class 3 bikes,” the not good, very bad class system actually can have meaningful legal consequences.
I would not give two hoots about this broken class system if I wasn’t personally concerned about being regulated off the road because of misunderstandings like Senator Prozanki’s bill this year.
As long as people keep mis-categorizing these bikes, and suggesting stricter regulations for bikes that are honestly pretty tame, I’ll continue to try and point out the nonsense of the class system. It’s not that I’m trying to defend the definitions of the class system, it’s that I’m trying to defend the technology from regulation due to misunderstanding.
Classless ebikes were here long before the class system. Physics doesn’t care about these arbitrary boundaries. I see that electric motor watt ratings also continues to be a source of confusion. Electric motors just do not analogize well with IC engines (which seems to be the root of all the ‘weak motor’ and ‘motor wattage rating’ misunderstandings). The reason a motor is ‘weak’ is probably more due to the other components and imposed design constraints, e.g., insufficient number of cell groups in your battery, lower quality cells, insufficiently gauged wires, lower current connectors, lower pack voltage, lower current controller (mainly this one),etc.
I see. Well, since I don’t have the technical understanding about electric motor systems that you have, and since I am just trying to convey the sense that I’m not riding some bicycle rocket, I’ll probably continue to use this terminology. Unless you have a better suggestion!
Your bike is in that class because your reasonable assumption that classes become less like a bike and more like a motorcycle as the numbers ascend is correct. Your bike may nominally fit that class (or did at one point), but due to intentional or defective design, or excessive battery cycles, it simply doesn’t reach the limits of the class designation. Maybe under this new class system there could be a way to petition to lower the class designation of your bike if it’s a turd or has become a turd but perhaps that’s a bit optimistic.
I suggest not referring to your motor as the source of “the wattage” or the motor being “weak”. It may make sense from an IC-engine mind, after all it’s doing the conversion from electrical to mechanical work, right? But the magic is really the battery and the controller. Your bike can be easily converted into your stated bicycle rocket without changing your existing motor. Your motor isn’t weak, the controller’s transistors just aren’t allowing more current to flow through its windings. Think of it this way, you need a spark plug to make something happen with your car, right? You do not need a spark plug with an electric motor. There is an avalanche of energy from the battery just waiting to rotate the windings.
Well, I suppose I could be more technically correct in describing the bike itself, by writing “the controller’s transistors just aren’t allowing more current to flow through its windings and therefore it will not reach higher speeds,” but that’s kind of rhetorically. . . weak.
Also, I must not be communicating clearly, because every one of my comments is written with the express intent of disagreeing with the “reasonable assumption that classes become less like a bike and more like a motorcycle as the numbers ascend.” Contra your comment, I’m not agreeing with that assumption at all!
The whole point of my comments is to push back on this assumption:
The article about the kid being assaulted should be its own story.. regardless, what a feckless response from the bystanders and the cops. No call to 911, no immediate arrest and immediate plea deal on wimpy charges. Seems to me that if you use a vesicle, everyone gives a pass. But if there had even been hint of a gun, swat would have been called.
Bet that drive beats more than helpless teens.
Are you talking about the road rage incident in Bend? The vehicle was not used in the assault and there was no mention of a plea deal. Do you have another article that discusses those?
But it was over before any cops would have arrived, and for what it’s worth, nobody used a vehicle as a weapon in that story.
And they had all they needed to find the attacker very soon after. The system seemed to work surprisingly perfectly.
Nothing in this situation would have been improved with 911, more cops, and more guns.
Agree completely.
If anything, the truck driver would have been more likely able to talk his way out of the situation with a police officer on scene. Time gap between the incident and the eventual knock on his door meant witness statements and the cellphone footage was reviewed beforehand. At that point, anything said by the Wild family is going to be held to a higher standard.
That doesn’t match what the (excellent) article says.
The response from bystanders was refreshingly incredible. His biking partner confronted the assailant, the vehicle arriving on the scene stopped to help, with one of them physically separating the assailant from the bike rider, and the other joining her to confront him, to the point Wild left. The remaining bystander, a teenager, recorded it for evidence.
The police arrived immediately (so there must have been an immediate 911 call), interviewed the bike riders and bystanders, then within a couple hours were at Wild’s house, and told him his story didn’t make sense. Then they arrested him, and took him to the jail to be lodged and charged with several things.
The article also states the plea hearing is Oct. 6th, so how can there already have been a plea deal?
A plea hearing is where the defendent enters a plea (guilt/not guilty/no contest).
Oops, I see–the deal would happen before that. Still, the article didn’t mention any plea deal happening.
I wonder, might the driver suffer from epilepsy and had literally blanked out during his road rage, then blanked back in afterwards and had completely forgotten what happened? If he has that condition, his family would have known about it (or suspected it). It’s often triggered by stress, but it can be very sudden and rather dramatic on the person suffering from it.
There is zero indication of that in the article. The driver seems to remember the event quite well, though it’s unclear if he understands that what he reportedly did was wrong.
The article described the driver’s interview with the police. It didn’t read like someone confused about what had happened, it read like someone that knew what he did, trying to downplay it to avoid consequences.
As with a lot of violent incidents… committing this kind of violence is definitionally a sign of having some kind of problem with anger that could be diagnosed and named, as if it’s a condition outside of one’s character. But for all of us to live together in a society, most of us, most of the time, have to take responsibility for understanding and dealing with our anger, not letting it boil over into violence.
You should call his defense lawyer right away.
Returning to this to correct a misperception:
Those “puny” charges include 1 stone cold felony C and 1 misdemeanor A that elevates to a C felony if witnessed by a minor child.
Each carries a maximum of 5 years in jail and a maximum 125k fine.
They also have the added benefit of actually being appropriate to the actions of the assailant.
If a weapon had been involved, that would have driven it to assault 3, but otherwise it’s a straight up 4.
For anyone who hasn’t read the Bend road rage article, it’s the best reporting for this type of story I’ve ever seen outside Bike Portland.
I was expecting the typical brief article with a sketchy police report. Instead it described everything at length, even citing the relevant bike lane law. On top of that, the responses by bystanders and the police were refreshingly good. AND it had lots of information about the assaulter and the company he owns, totally removing the anonymity and freedom from consequences that road ragers typically feel they have.
That BBC article is alarming. Ebikes adding pressure on health providers? How about the 110,300 injuries in the UK from motor vehicle crashes in 2023? How about we limit the power on motor vehicles to 250watts? or even horsepower?
So misplaced, this vitriol.
It’s a different article than comparing, for example, pedestrian injury rates in roads from cars vs motorized bicycle-shaped objects. But it’s worth knowing if a MUP was previously a completely safe place (relatively speaking) and now it’s not.
To make a possibly outlandish example: If people on electric bicycle-shaped objects were recklessly riding near soccer fields and injuring people on foot (parents, kids on the field), you wouldn’t point to pedestrian injuries in crosswalks to dismiss the issue. You’d (hopefully) address both.
Yeah. I think the increase in risk is *real,* and e-bike riders need to be aware of it… but I’m still waiting for these risks to show up in fatality rates. There’s just no evidence that bike kill like cars do- even bikes with motors!
I don’t think anyone is claiming that “bikes kill like cars”.
For anybody interested you can leave a review of HD Construction here. People who assault kids on bikes shouldn’t be trusted to handle tools and construction equipment or to work on other people’s property.
This e-junk is a scourge. Keep it out of bike lanes please!
In re, “Road rage in Bend”
Had an incident last week a block from home, usual ride route coming up to a Stop sign at SE 139th and Taylor going East on Taylor. A couple hundred feet from 139 a woman in a pickup is trying to pass me, I’m already taking the lane so I have full view of the traffic and Stop as I approach. I signal her to slow down as she guns it to go around and starts yelling “get out of the way your taking up the whole road. I tell her not to pass, we’re both yelling at this point and we come to a stop.
139th is a major cut through and drag strip some of the time, no speed bumps or stops for several blocks from Stark to Market.
I stop and go at the sign and as I’m rolling across. the neighbor at the corner house I don’t know is yelling at me now, being a little rattled I roll on home, calm down a bit and decide to go make sure he was yelling at me or not.
Sure enough he goes off just like the woman in the truck, threatens to call the cops, “box” me and calls plenty of names.
Ok I know where he stands, should have left him alone.
Seen him a couple of times since, not sure he knows it was me and no further conflict, yet.
I have video with audio of it all, didn’t report it yet so we’ll see from here on out.
Not my finest moment to be sure and most of the time motorists back off if you don’t start with yelling or profanity.
I tried that here first to no avail with the exuberant slow down hand signal which some may not know but I was taking the lane so any pass would be illegal.
I was not lollygagging, not that it should matter but she was well over the speed limit before she even got to me as I was going 15mph+ when she came up behind me with only a couple hundred feet to the Stop.
“Real Talk about Mopeds and E-Motos”
As far as I can tell no meaningful regulation is forthcoming from the federal, State or City regarding motorized vehicles on our bike infrastructure, but planning, design and construction continue! This article is relevant for Portland. Even with greatly reduce numbers of people biking, we are seeing more frequent conflicts with little motorized vehicles (e-bike, e-scooters, E-uni’s, gas bikes and even gas skateboards). As far as I can tell, PBOT is about 15 years behind when it comes to planning and design. I urge everyone to go to the Green Loop survey and beg them to consider motorized little vehicles in their planning. The Green Loop currently relies on the +/- 7′ wide shared sidewalks on the Broadway Bridge. While these are seldom crowded, they are frequently inadequate for the types of vehicles and use on our streets today. A big box, e-cargo bike cannot safely pass a couple, and a bell/or an “on your left” is not helpful when the streetcar is lumbering by and the pedestrians are wearing noise-cancelling headphones. Clear rules and guidelines would be helpful, but we cannot wait for them. PBOT needs to pull their head out of the sand and acknowledge this and start accommodating reality in their planning and design.
https://www.portland.gov/transportation/planning/green-loop/greenloopsurvey
In RE “Bend road rage”
So guess I probably should have added my usual disclaimer of sorts.
I ride East PDX near my house a bit, mix with cars a lot and for the most part have almost zero conflicts.
I take the lane when needed and prudent while making my intent clear with eye contact and numerous hand signals including ones drivers seem to understand if you do them in a timely manner, the palm up “May I?” seems to work far better than I would expect and pointing to the ground of a lane to move there works well too.
The incident I posted was not usual with the double whammy of the neighbor joining in and it was a perfect storm but so far no harm no foul.