Written by Megan Ramey, who manages the Safe Routes to School program for Hood River County School District.
Last Wednesday I hosted an e-bike ride with policymakers and elected officials from the Hood River region with one clear goal: to find an Oregon legislator willing to champion a bill that will eliminate Oregon’s age restriction for Class 1 e-bikes (the type that don’t have a throttle and require riders to pedal) in the 2026 short session.
As a mom of a 16-year-old who’s been “illegally” riding a Class 1 e-bike for four years, I can attest to their transformative power. My daughter (in photo, right) has never been stopped by the police. She has, however, gained independence, mobility, and confidence — and shows no interest in getting a driver’s license. She’s part of a growing movement of 10-15 year olds hopping on e-bikes — the second largest age group, just behind baby boomers. Why? They’re too young to drive, but they crave freedom.
E-bikes sell themselves to kids. They’re fun, fast enough to be empowering, and are a sustainable alternative to car rides. The more t(w)eens who ride, the more empathetic, alert, and bike-aware they’ll be as future drivers.
Unfortunately, my 2022 Dawn of the Throttle Kids article has proven prophetic. Because Class 2 throttle bikes and e-motos are cheaper, that’s what parents buy. Many are modified beyond legal limits, blurring the lines between bike and motorbike. In Hood River, some youth zip along sidewalks on these throttled machines, alarming pedestrians and drivers alike. The backlash led our local police to announce in August that they would begin citing under-16 riders for violation of ORS 814.512 — a statute that actually applies to e-scooters, not e-bikes.
This call for enforcement (and its response) highlights a real problem: Oregon law treats a Class 1 e-bike — a traditional bike with a modest boost — like a car. Because under-16s are barred from riding them, schools can’t even legally provide education to the age group most eager to learn.
The ride with policymakers I led last week was designed to change that. Joining me were State Representative Jeff Helfrich and electeds and staff from City of Hood River, County of Hood River, Mid-Columbia Economic Development District, Hood River Parks & Recreation, CAT Transit, Cycle Oregon, The Environmental Center, Oregon Micromobility Network, Port of Hood River, Thomas Coon Newton & Frost law firm, Sol Rides E-bike Tours, and local mothers of e-bike riding teens.
We rode up steep State Street to Hood River Middle School — ground zero for the youth e-bike issue — then down to the hazardous 13th and May intersection, which is a top Safe Routes to School priority connecting two schools. We discussed infrastructure gaps, jurisdictional barriers, and the opportunity for an ODOT transfer to allow protected bike lanes through The Heights.
After Rep. Helfrich (one of only two Republicans who supported HB 3626, which would’ve lowered the age limit) departed, our group continued across the Historic Columbia River Highway to the Twin Tunnels Trail — what I call “the best under-10-mile bike ride in America.”
At the finish, we heard from two mothers whose stories say it all. Nicole Goode, a teacher at Hood River Valley High School, described how her son’s e-bike has given him independence since age 10, teaching him resilience and navigation skills that are already shaping his adulthood. Jess McGimsey, a mother from Mosier, spoke about her 13-year-old who saved up for an e-bike only to learn he couldn’t legally ride it. “I fully support Class 1 e-bikes for all ages,” she said. “They build confidence and relieve parents from constant chauffeuring.”
That same morning, I presented on best practices in e-bike education at the National Safe Routes to School Summit. The day left me with two truths: 1) We don’t have a youth e-bike problem — we have a youth e-moto problem. And 2) Class 1 e-bikes offer one of the greatest opportunities for a generation of t(w)eens to escape screens and anxiety through free-range mobility that fosters independence and joy.
We have a great example to follow. Marin County has been the national leader in Safe Routes to School and their new law allows all ages on Class 1 e-bikes, while restricting class 2 and 3 e-bikes to 16 years old (watch their PSA below).
It’s overdue for Oregon to honor its proud bike heritage — one that fosters resiliency, health, and mobility choice — and extend it to our youth, who arguably need it now more than ever.
— Megan Ramey is the Safe Routes to School Manager for Hood River County School District and the founder of Bikabout, which now hosts an E-bike Guide for Teens and Families.
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.
What’s the argument for why a health teenager can’t enjoy freedom on an unmotorized bike?
What’s the argument for why they shouldn’t be allowed to ride an e-bike other than pushing your own personal preference on other people?
It’s not more dangerous than an acoustic bike. Oh it’s 20 pounds heavier? So is every adult.
You sure seem to be a libertarian very selectively.
I’m not making that argument, so I don’t know, but I’m asking those who are making an argument to make it.
If it’s about “enjoying freedom”, I think they can do that already.
Tragic proof that e-bikes and kids are a risky mix. At 15, you should be building lungs and legs, not risking life on a throttle. Regular bikes teach balance, awareness, and fitness — e-bikes can skip all that and add danger at 25 mph
“15-year-old Bend e-bike rider struck, fatally injured by minivan at NE Bend intersection”
https://ktvz.com/news/accidents-crashes/2023/06/17/15-year-old-bend-e-bike-rider-struck-fatally-injured-by-minivan-at-ne-bend-intersection/
5 NOVEMBER 2025
“Eight-year-old dead in e-bike crash” https://bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2025/11/05/eight-year-old-dead-in-e-bike-crash/
No seriously. What is uniquely dangerous about class 1 e-bikes?
Cars are dangerous. That’s what causes the first one.
Crashes happen. The second one could just as easily have happened on any bike. Sadly, kids crash bikes sometimes.
So without having to lie by bringing up “25mph” (class 3) bikes, what is uniquely dangerous about class 1 e-bikes?
Class 1 ebikes don’t have a throttle
Um, Class 1 e-bikes don’t have a throttle and can’t go 25mph on the motor (possibly downhill though).
I’m a proponent of European level assists in something called a “bike” (250W) but can’t really see that those Class 1 e-bikes are more dangerous than my garage sale Schwinn 10sp in 1982-1985.
I used to hit over 25mph on the descent into Sheridan.
The crash involving the teen in Bend was a result of bad infrastructure, not a child riding an e-bike.
Jonathan covered this pretty well in an article.
It’s not clear who or what was at fault in that case. Sure, on this blog, everything is the driver’s fault (if not the road’s), but in reality most collisions are multi-causal, and it seems likely that the way the kids were riding was a factor (probably one of many, not saying they were at fault, or in any way deserved what happened). No helmet, double-riding, riding an e-bike on the sidewalk were all legal violations and plausible contributing factors, along with road geometry and driver behavior (and possibly other factors as well).
That crash should not have happened, but it did, and I don’t think anyone can say the fact that the bike was motorized was blameless.
Adults have decided that the dominant form of mobility in this country should be one that forces everything to be further apart than it needs to be in order to make room for surface parking for automobiles. Is it any wonder when things are so far apart that those who are excluded from accessing that mobility due to age restrictions are clamoring for other technologies that make their commutes shorter in distance, faster in time, and generally less sweaty.
Good question: I’d give you 2 weeks of biking around Hood River with a bike to carry kids or friends and stuff before you start making excuses to drive or not make trips by bike. This was me in 2016 when I moved 2 acoustic cargobikes from Boston to Hood River and came home crying one day. I felt like I was training for a triathalon and I race cyclocross. I felt like my biking lifestyle was over. Then I told myself to shut up, stop being a purist and get an E-bike.
Not only is life possible by bike in hilly Hood River, but we only have 1 vehicle that sits in our driveway and our daughter who just turned 16 has no immediate interest in getting a license.
Are there many kids carrying two other kids and therefore in need of a motorized vehicle? That’s not something I’ve seen much of myself.
My question has nothing to do with purity; but if anyone can manage an unmotorized bike, it’s a teenager who wants to get out of the house.
I think one of the issues is that recent generations of teenagers aren’t as incentivized to get out of the house as we were.
When I was 14 (1981) I could watch crappy TV, play catch with my brother in the driveway (about 250ft long) or travel 3-5 miles to go see a friend. (later I had a C64, but mom limited my daytime hours on it).
Now they have the choice of sitting in the house and getting on their phone/tablet to chat with friends.
So, while I rode that crappy 10spd into town to see friends because *THAT’S THE ONLY WAY IT WAS HAPPENING* they don’t need to suffer like I did (even a 3 sport athlete can struggle with a 500′ climb on a cheap/badly geared bike). And I *always* ended up walking it up the hill past Blake’s farm. I never made it to the top before getting to slow to keep pedaling. That was my BMX bike from 11-13 and my cheap 10spd through high school.
One of these days I’m going to take a properly geared bike back down there and ride that hill, just to prove I can.
Double or triple riding is ever present in Hood River, Bend and southern California. It’s not any different than the reason The Dutch teens do it, except that they have had extensive bike education in their schools and they are going 10mph, not 20-30 with a death wobble.
Dutch teens also largely do it with unmotorized bicycles. And (maybe) it’s legal there, unlike in Oregon (unless the bike is built to carry passengers).
good answer!
Ugh, the “acoustic” bikes thing just makes me cringe every time I hear it.
Hills perhaps? The hand vs. foot throttle is a distinction without much difference in my view, but at least both can operate as such. So where gaining hundreds of vertical feet is needed to simply “get around” (like in Hood River), the class 1 can at least achieve that while placating some of the pearl clutching pedants because “it’s totally not a throttle!” An electric scooter could work just as well.
An electric scooter? Scooters are cool, but they also have objective hazards that bikes don’t. A twenty inch wheel on a bike encounters obstacles differently than a 26 inch wheel, sometimes very poorly. An e scooter wheel is what, eight or nine inches?
Electric scooter tire sizes these days include 8″, 10″, 12″, and even 14″. What I most commonly see is the 8″ variety, though.
This op-ed isn’t about unmotorized bikes, (some)2WheelsGood. Do you disagree with the claim being made?
The fundamental claim being made, as I understand it, is that teens under 16 need access to motorized bicycles in order to enjoy their freedom.
I do not agree with that claim, no. I believe that in the general case, regular bikes can offer the same freedom.
That doesn’t mean I oppose the proposal, but I am dubious about the basic claim underpinning it.
Constant straw mans. Nobody said they need it. They don’t need any bikes. But there has to be a good reason to take away that access, and there isn’t. There are plenty of reasons an e-bike is useful.
Speaking of strawmen, no one is proposing taking away access — it’s already gone. I’m asking proponents of changing the law to explain why letting 6-year-olds ride motorized bicycles would be good policy.
Perhaps you want to give that a shot, rather than criticize me for doing things I am not doing?
“They don’t need any bikes.”
There is a good case to be made for why kids having access to bikes is a good idea, and they currently have such access. Some people (including you?) are saying that is insufficient and we need to give them access to motorized bicycles as well. I want to understand the argument for that.
So far, it seems to be “hills” and maybe “carrying passengers up hills”. Is that the extent of it?
> Speaking of strawmen, no one is proposing taking away access — it’s already gone.
That’s just status quo bias. Doesn’t matter if it’s already gone, we’re talking about justifying pushback against removing that restriction. So no, not a strawman.
And who said anything about 6 year olds? That’s a strawman. Try arguing in good faith for a change.
Then you go on to make more bad faith arguments, as well as continued status quo bias.
If there was never any good reason for the current age based rule, then there doesn’t need to be any good arguments for removing it or changing the age, if no evidence can be shown that we needed the restriction in the first place. And I haven’t heard of any evidence, and nobody has presented any here.
I’m trying to understand the case for change, not “justifying pushback”, so the strawman is back in your court. Don’t you get tired of this?
The proposal is to remove the age limit for Class I bikes, so that means allowing 6 year-olds to ride them. Am I wrong?
If you wanted to move this conversation forward, you could explain why you think the proposal is a good one, why the benefits outweigh the costs (which could be zero) or do anything other than mischaracterize my post.
> I’m trying to understand the case for change
Right, which is the problem. The status quo bias.
We don’t really need to make much of a case for change, since the change is removing restrictions to get closer to the natural state of not restricting.
> The proposal is to remove the age limit for Class I bikes, so that means allowing 6 year-olds to ride them. Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong. You made that up. As far as I can tell, people are not proposing removing any regulations entirely. I don’t see any specific proposal at all. Only that 16 years old is too much. The youngest kid example I see is 13, but nobody has said we should put a motor on a bike with training wheels for toddlers.
This could easily be something we leave up to parents, like we do with almost everything related to raising kids. The main (probably only) reason we have any specific restrictions on age for things like cars and guns is their inherent danger to everyone else. But it’s obviously up for debate. Maybe 12 years old is a good age, maybe 10. But nobody has put forth any good reason why it should be 16, and status quo is not a good reason to limit things.
I don’t have to give any good reasons to remove the restriction any more than I would have to justify removing a ban on blue shirts. If there is not a good reason to keep the ban, and some people want it removed, it should be removed.
If I have an idea for a policy or proposal I want a group (or society as a whole) to adopt, it is up to me to make the case for it; it doesn’t somehow magically get adopted unless the world makes the case against it. You can call that “status quo bias”. I call it “life”.
From the article:
What, exactly, am I “making up”?
I don’t know why you’re spending your time attacking me rather than just making your case. Is it that you can’t muster any interesting arguments?
The case is simple. People want their kids younger than 16 to ride class 1 e-bikes, and that’s the whole case. If there is no argument against, that is sufficient.
If there was a good reason for the initial limit, I’d expect evidence that supports the argument. So far I haven’t seen any.
If some evidence actually was presented, you’d have to weigh that against arbitrarily restricting what people are allowed to do, how much nanny state we need, etc. And against the benefits, which need be no more than people use them for transportation. There is obvious demand, people are doing it despite it being illegal.
“that’s the whole case”
Ok, it’s good policy because I want it. There are better arguments in favor. See dw’s post below.
Sustainable freedom in hilly towns like Hood River, absolutely an E-bike is the way. Because of E-bikes, I see kids regularly going fishing by bike or carrying gear like golf clubs or lacrosse.
Don’t we have decades of famous music and movies at this point about the freedom that comes to teenagers when they get their driver’s license? I grew up in the suburbs of NJ, and I remember the absolutely life-changing revolution that was my friends getting licenses and not needing our parents to drive us to each other’s houses anymore.
We’ve built a car-scale world, and things are far apart. I’m happy my kids will grow up in a denser area where they can reasonably get to friends’ houses, parks, and cafes on a human-powered bike, but that’s not practical for most kids.
I’ll engage in good faith, I think you asked a really good question and it’s a discussion we should be having.
In my opinion, the allure of e-bikes for teens is pretty much the same as it is for adults. Others have mentioned hills. You can definitely get uphill on a regular bike, especially if you have gears. That can be slow and take a lot of effort. Teenagers have a lot of energy but it isn’t infinite, and there’s also the sweat factor. Showing up disheveled and sweaty to school can be a very socially alienating experience. Yeah, other kids should be nicer but getting ridiculed for your appearance can really put you off of riding a bike when you’re in the hormone soup of adolescence. For kids getting to and from extracurriculars like sports practices, they’re probably pretty cheesed as it is. In the summer when it’s hot, it is also really nice to have a little e-assist. Again, possible to do on a regular bike, but I think the e-bike is more likely to nudge teens in the direction of going out and engaging with their community instead of just staying put at home all summer.
Personally, I think the piece that is missing is education. Kids should be taught how to walk safely from Kindergarten, and should learn bike handling and safety skills starting in 3rd grade or so. PBOT does have a traffic safety unit that they lend to schools that is effective in my opinion. I’m sure some on one side will argue that should be a parental responsibility; some on the other will argue that we should focus our efforts on making streets safer through infrastructure and enforcement. I don’t really disagree with either side, but the reality is that we have to teach kids about the world that we have, not the one we want.
In East Portland particularly, I see a lot of kids riding bikes and various e-things. There is little helmet use, and many behaviors that probably feel safer (like riding the wrong way in bike lanes) but actually pose a hazard and make riders unpredictable. I think some of these tragedies could be mitigated by building good habits in kids from an early age. Teenagers will still do dumb shit but at least we can help them fully understand the risks associated with it.
The allure of motorized travel is clear — we see that all around us, and it has now permeated so much of bicycling culture; but the question is whether the benefits of motorized bicycling are significantly greater for a teenager (and, in this proposal, young children) than conventional bicycling.
“Less energy” is a strong argument for people not in great shape traveling long distances who have the option to drive. It seems less compelling for kids who probably need more physical activity than they are getting, traveling generally shorter distances. But sure, put that on the list of benefits: “hills” and “easier/more alluring than a regular bike”.
Do you think there should be any younger age limit for e-bikes? Why is a throttle any different than a class 1 bike if speed and weight are the same (also hills and easier/more alluring)?
Much of your post is about the need for safety education, which I completely agree with you about (I generally discount notions that education is just blame shifting). Street safety and instilling good habits is hugely important, and walking, biking (motorized and human powered), and perhaps scootering should all be a part of that.
It seems that you are suggesting that continuing to disallow kids aged 15 and below to legally ride e-bikes will encourage (force) them to ride bikes, which is a better option for a number of reasons. In other words, they don’t need e-bikes because they already have bikes. Is that correct?
That seems like one of the key questions underlying the proposal. More generally, why is change warranted?
That, and should there be any lower bound on age for these vehicles at all, and why would continuing the ban on equivalently powered bikes with a throttle be the right policy?
In other words, I think someone should lay out the case for why a different regulatory framework makes sense and why ideally with some data attached to it somewhere, especially on the incremental danger of kids riding motorized bikes to themselves and others vs. conventional ones (if there is any).
I would say it is warranted because…”According to the Sports & Fitness Industry Association, between 2014 and 2018, one million fewer kids ages 6 to 17 rode their bikes regularly. The percentage of children biking to school has significantly declined. According to Safe Routes, almost half of the students aged 5–14 regularly biked to school in 1969. By 2009, this figure had decreased to about 13%.” My hope is that e-bikes will get more kids outside, playing, having fun. Then, my next hope is that they will then find their way to bicycles. I think of it as similar to the process many of my friends and I went through to become cyclists/commuters. We began as mountain bikers, then road cyclists, then commuters.
Has that significant decline in biking to school happened because riding became too physically challenging for teenagers? Or was it driven by other factors that may be less connected to whether there is a motor on your bike?
I think the pathway from motorized bikes to conventional bikes is pretty lightly traveled. What we’ve seen among readership here, who are some of the most dedicated riders in the city, is a very strong current towards motornormativity.
That’s a mind boggling stat but has nothing to do with e-bikes. Although I would expect e-bikes to boost those numbers, the fact people are riding less is something else.
I understand that. My point is that allowing more access to e-bikes will hopefully reverse the trend.
Well, to be honest I’m on the fence about it.
I can see both sides of the argument for and against kids being legally allowed to ride e-bikes/scooters. The educator in me thinks, yeah, kids can be pretty reckless and probably shouldn’t be using motors to get around. Then again plenty of adults are dumb and reckless and using much more deadly motorized vehicles to get around. To a certain extent, I agree with your point about physical activity as well. One of the great things about neighborhoods that are safe to walk, bike and hang out in is how kids get exercise without having to be shuttled to and from organized sports or physical activity. I grew up in a small town and my friends and I rode our bikes everywhere for hours all day. I credit my good health as an adult partially to that experience.
On the other hand, as I outlined in my original comment, I can understand how a motorized bike/scooter/thing could prove a valuable tool for mobility in certain contexts.
I also think that the restriction as it currently stands is basically unenforceable. The cat is out of the bag on e-bikethings, and trying to stir the cream out of the coffee is nigh impossible. Why not change the law to reflect the reality – similar to the Idaho stop law change? I suppose it really comes down to crash liability, but most of the e-bike related child deaths we see in the news lately are the result of negligent drivers.
There’s an economic angle to this discussion too, I think. Not everyone can afford to buy their kid a well-made $3500 Gazelle like the author (not hating my ebike is a Gazelle and I love it). In fact, most folks will probably just punch in “Cheap ebike” into Amazon and buy the first thing that pops up. A $500 ebike can pose a safety hazard in unique ways that a $500 bike really can’t. I’m thinking poorly made/non-standard components, battery fires, shoddy assembly, etc.
I’m glad we agree on that point. If I ever get around to getting involved beyond riding my bike a lot and bitching in this comment section I’d really like to teach street safety in some capacity.
What do you think? Do you think the law should be changed to allow younger kids to ride ebikes?
It is. Does that mean that we don’t need limits, or does it still make sense to have some limits even if they aren’t strictly enforceable? For example, if I hurt someone with my e-bikething, even if there’s no meaningful criminal liability, it might be of benefit to the person suing me to be able to show I was doing something illegal, heightening (or clarifying) my liability. In other words, there may be benefits to a law even if it isn’t or can’t be enforced as such.
I think it could be entirely possible to show that the benefits of letting kids ride class I e-bikes outweighs the costs. I would rather do that as part of a more comprehensive look at the entire legal framework (including higher powered bikes that are currently unregulated). Or failing that, look at a cost/benefit analysis of this narrow proposal.
But what’s been presented here is a desire for changing the regulatory framework without providing the underlying reasoning for doing so.
As to the question of whether the fault for fatalities lies with negligent drivers? That may (or may not) be, but it’s beside the point. If (“if”, mind you, not “when”) putting kids on e-bikes results in more dead kids without some compensating virtue, regardless of whose fault it is, it’s a bad idea. It may well indicate that we have housecleaning to do elsewhere (i.e. reducing dangerous driving), in which case we should attend to that and come back to this when we can more safely permit kids to ride electric powered bikes.
To answer your final question: I don’t know. You’ve offered more compelling reasons to support it than anyone else here (including the author of the article), but you’ve also offered some good reasons to be wary. I really don’t have a position on this one yet, but I keep coming back to “what problem does it solve” and “really no minimum age”?
Fully agree. Transportation is a life skill and should be taught from k-12. And it needs to be is fun. I talked about this in my presentation at the National Safe routes to school Summit webinar about best practices in e-bike education.
I teach all kindergarten and 5th through 9th grade in Hood, River County School district. Walking and bike buses are fantastic education. We take biking field trips during PE class for the teens and tweens. And then after school clubs centered around walking and biking to snacks is the best subversive education.
This winter will be our first walking field trips.
Video of my presentation highlights: https://youtu.be/IJ0JthDJWqA?feature=shared
“What’s the argument for why a health teenager can’t enjoy freedom on an unmotorized bike?”
or I might ask, an unhealthy one?
from reading most of the comments (mostly not) responding to you, it seems the answers are:
-hills
-sweat
-they will/are riding them anyway
-and my all time favorite: the e-thing is better than a car.
These defenses of e-bikes I find an interesting Rorschach test of where we find ourselves in this time and place. A lot of milquetoast. A lot of posturing. Not a lot of serious engagement with the facts, the issues, the tradeoffs. It is a shame, really. We could hold ourselves to a higher standard.
It seems to me that we (those who bike, or those who comment on Bikeportland) have forgotten what makes bicycles special – the kind without any motor or battery.
Cheap,
basically indestructible,
simple to maintain, fix, use,
energetically superior to basically all known forms of locomotion,
and consequently the bike wins the freedom prize, the environmental prize, the economic independence prize, and probably a dozen more prizes I haven’t thought of.
Very little of the above is true for an e-bike.
the avoidance of (some) sweat is purchased at the cost of basically losing all of the list of advantages above.
My #1 answer would be -fun.
That doesn’t make any sense.
*fun* isn’t an argument.
*fun* is the reason why a healthy teenager can’t enjoy freedom on an unmotorized bike? Come again?
No, fun is why a healthy teenager who doesn’t ride a bike might choose to ride an e-bike. They are incredibly fun to ride.
Throttle controlled e-bikes are also quite fun. Why not allow them as well?
Good question. I would need to learn a bit more about them before answering as I don’t have any experience with them.
Still not an argument.
What you are articulating is a preference.
It’s an argument for why a teenager might choose to ride an e-bike when they would not choose to ride a bike, as many are no longer doing these days unfortunately.
Still not an argument. More like pandering.
People don’t drive 55mph on the freeway so let’s raise the limit to 65mph.
People text in the car so let’s give them hands free technology.
I don’t care what legislators say about the age cutoffs for e-bikes. I’m
Just trying to point out how weak the case strikes me given the ecological and economic and independence trade offs involved here.
Two things:
First– where, oh where is this restriction actually keeping kids off ebikes? The streets are completely unregulated when it comes to electric bikes and scooters in Portland and every other Oregon city I’ve been too. A neighbor here in Portland has been riding his electric “quadracycle” through our greenways and last week he was driving kids up and down the block in it, even letting them “test drive” it at what I judge to be car speeds (I live on a Greenway FYI). It’s ridiculous and we have organized a Next Door discussion to stop this.
Second– children need all the exercise they can get. Kids and teens are supposed to be shooting for 12-16k steps of walking a day. They can use their legs to pedal!
When I worked on passing the Idaho Style stop sign law in Oregon one of the things we had to fight past was many legislators simply didn’t believe that any police officer would be wasting their time enforcing stop sign laws in cases when people were rolling them when no other vehicles were present. This despite the fact that we had stings where a dozen cops were gathering at some of the safest intersections in the state to actively target people riding bicycles despite a complete lack of any actual injuries at these locations. Assuming that we don’t need legalization because there aren’t cops out there who want to make targeting kids riding bikes their number one priority is a mistake, I’m sure they are out there and it sounds like some of them might work in Hood River.
I miss those Ladd’s Addition mega-threads. Oh…the…drama.
The 1997 law restricts E-bike riding to 16+ years old but there is no penal code, hence the wild west culture you speak of. If class 1, pedal assist was legal for all ages, they would ride them and still have to pedal but get boosts up the crazy hills we have here in Hood River. They would ride every day and longer distances, which is greater exercise than riding once a week and making an excuse not ride every day.
I think it’s reasonable to surmise that there are plenty of parents who restrict their kids from getting things that are illegal for them to use. I don’t think the fact that many people break a law with impunity is a good argument for keeping a law.
When a government attempts to enforce a law that is not widely supported by the public, it undermines the rule of law, tends to corrupt law enforcement, and subsidizes criminal enterprises everywhere.
Do you think the general public supports young kids on ebikes? I’m guessing not, and even if they do, a hypothetical crackdown is not likely to lead to police corruption, subsidized criminal enterprises (whatever they are) or any other horrible outcome.
I think it is fair to ask what the public would support. I suspect the answer would be “reasonable regulation but mostly I don’t care.” I think we currently have reasonable regulation (which is not to say a different regime might not also be reasonable, or even better).
“Kids not allowed on motorized bikes” easily makes my list of issues least likely to lead to undermining public confidence in the rule of law.
It varies. Some parents match your take 1:1. Others surprisingly get their minor children slightly underpowered electric motorcycles. I don’t get it either. Too much money?
The subsidy for criminals is the inflated price of illegal goods that rewards risk takers. People in the US are so taken with power and speed that many will break laws pretty freely. What used to be pedal toys are now routinely motorized. I’d make them illegal too except that trash is already out there.
I think Mom in Hood River is missing a good hack: a municipal bike lift to the top of the town, because the directions there are Up, Upwind, Down, and Downwind. If you go Up first you can tack Upwind, and the rest is easy.
The lessons of Prohibition writ large.
Given the crazy souped-up cars and trucks on our roads, it *IS* pretty crazy that legislators obsess over kids on e-bikes.
(checks notes) Didn’t the obsession come from one or two tragic crashes that led legislators (and some parents) to conclude that kids need to be protected from e-bikes?
It should be illegal for kids to drive those as well.
https://www.centraloregondaily.com/news/local/oregon-house-passes-trentons-e-bike-law-after-bend-teen-s-death/article_47fa38be-d65f-11ee-bcc5-df3b3e348798.html
This is, I believe, the bill that contains the relevant prohibition. I wouldn’t have supported it, personally, but I do think it’s an honest attempt by a local legislator to address the kind of behavior she sees in her community.
I think a better bill might include targeting multiple teens on a single bike, and e-motos. I’m not sure how to do that, but they’re so fast and so dangerous.
The same very sad result is completely possible on any sort of bike. It’s as if we made a law concerning white vans and ignored all the other motor vehicles.
Nope. That was the bill 3 years ago that would have fixed this mess, enabling all ages to ride class 1. E-bikes, and we did not pass it.
Now we are in hard negotiations with with legislators that don’t want to go below the age of 14 because of the public safety backlash.
Meanwhile, Marin County, the birthplace of safe routes to school have determined that class 1 e-bikes are the safe option for youth under 16.
I guess I stand corrected!
Bicycles in general are very dangerous, presenting a greater danger to operators even than cars themselves due to lack of personal protection. Young people should be formally trained to ride in traffic on an ordinary bike before being allowed ones that amplify their power.
As a dedicated track cyclist also well versed in the fine art of herding Subarus in Trader Joe’s parking lots, I long have been puzzled about why we start children on fixed gears–tricycles–and then make them switch to two wheels with free-wheeling at the same time, so requiring them to learn balance and how to deal with stalled cranks at once.
Fixies are easier to ride, more controllable, and so safer too, once one has been properly educated in them.
Motors of any kind plus free-wheeling are a very bad combination. Old SAABs are the exception, of course.
No, they aren’t. If you ride safely and use good sense, they’re not particularly dangerous at all, especially in Portland.
The danger of riding a bicycle is real, and it’s 99% caused by cars. But that danger applies to any kind of bicycle just as much, including fixies.
Are we now pretending that gravity, velocity and mass are not relevant unless a car is involved? Come on, arguing like this isn’t helping the cause.
Are we now pretending that 20mph on an e-bike is different from 20mph on a non e-bike? Are they e-mph?
For most people, 20 mph on a regular bike isn’t really a thing, whereas it’s available to any kid on a motorized bike on their first day riding.
So yes, they’re different, categorically.
Oh BS. Get a slight incline and it happens trivially. N Vancouver, Broadway, NW 4th, there are places all over the city where people can nearly coast over 20mph for long stretches. And on the flat, any 14 year old in a hurry can do it.
And no e-bike stays pinned at 20 (I try when I’m in a hurry), they fluctuate between 17-20 at best. Some may be different, but now we’re talking far closer to barely “spirited” speeds.
You’re splitting hairs. In no way are they “categorically” different. That’s a joke.
and
Sounds to me like electric powered bikes just slow you down.
And you can coast along NW 4th at 20 mph? It’s basically flat!
Hah, that’s supposed to be SW I guess. The part where you’re coming in just past 405 and going down hill. The place you’ve said was comfortable to do vehicular cycling because you can go traffic speeds.
The e-assist won’t keep it at 20mph. Doesn’t slow me down at all, it just means in those places where it is trivial to do high teens or 20s, the e-assist isn’t doing anything. It stops assisting, and everyone on any bike is going the same speed.
As I said elsewhere, the part of SW 4th where it intersects I-405 needed a severe upgrade, and I hope this project provided it. It was never comfortable riding there.
The part that was comfortable and objectively safe (if you trust data more than vibes) was north of the Hawthorne Bridge. The street environment is very different there — low traffic volumes, slow speeds, easy to turn left or right.
I’m honestly not entirely sure what vehicular cycling entails, except that it seems to be a term used by religious zealots. That’s definitely not me.
And I’m glad we now agree that a kid could do 20 on an e-bike on their first day of riding it.
This comment made me laugh as a track bike is also illegal to ride on the street in Oregon and we have a history of those being targeted by bored cops as well. https://bikeportland.org/cats/news/fixed-gear-ruling
Not if it has a front brake. Brakes are good on street fixies!
Fixies generate about 30% more power because one can apply force during a complete stroke. Free-wheel bikes must be finessed when cranks are near vertical, requiring a delicate balance of back-force on the rising pedal and down-force on the falling pedal; this creates a dead-zone where no power can be applied. To do so is an acquired technique; it causes fixie newbies to feel like they are about to be thrown over the handlebar.
For physics nuts, a free-wheel bike has a rheonomic holonomic constraint and a fixed-gear bike a scleronomic holononomic constraint. Quite simple, really.
You referenced a track bike, I know that Alpenrose is gone but you are definitely not allowed to have a front brake on a bike that you are riding at a velodrome.
Weird – all the racing I did (TT’s mostly, crits didn’t interest me) I was required to have 2 working brakes at equipment check.
I wish I had torque readings from the pedals from when I raced my recumbent trike – I generated power through far more of the stroke than I do on a DF, but less explosive power from the quad/glute groups.
Really noticeable hypertrophy of the Adductor Magnus/longus/brevis as well as the iliosoas. Going off the trike for any amount of time, even if I stay fit leads to post workout (night time) cramps in those muscle groups when I return.
A high BB ‘bent is a very different mechanic and requires a substantial period of neuro muscular adaptation to get back to full power when you switch.
What? Don’t clipless pedals get you the same thing? Not that I use them. But you need to be clipped in on a fixie to get that benefit, which works just as well on any bike.
Bjorn,
Instead of lobbing insults at local law enforcement you should go for a ride along with PPB. I think you would learn a lot about “bored cops”
Yeah. Nothing says control like having to keep your legs moving to maintain traction while making an emergency stop.
I learned to ride on freewheel bikes so for me the best technique was always to keep the wheels weighted and modulate the brakes to avoid skidding. I’m not really a fixie rider but I watched a generation of newbies try to stop track bikes heroically with back pressure on the pedals as you describe. It’s ugly.
Skiers will understand this more easily. On skis you unweight the ski to initiate a turn. On a fixie you unweight the rear wheel, momentarily giving up traction so that you can stop the small mass of the wheel to initiate a skid and the friction of that skid is what slows or stops the bike.
If there’s drama you’re doing it wrong. You don’t jump around or whip the bike like that one guy. A movement forward and then back, or a little pressure on the bar, is all it takes.
Sounds way easier than pulling a lever.
Well of course not. It was a fashion but done well it was kind of beautiful. Skill is its own reward sometimes.
I agree. I really want to try fixies, but I need to be discerning about what bikes I get. I have too many.
Claiming bicycles are inherently dangerous is one of the roadblocks to getting justice for people hurt or killed by careless drivers.
The argument goes that they assumed the risk when they climbed on the bike, so the drivers aren’t a fault.
It’s just plain wrong – riding a bike is not inherently dangerous.
Vehicles weighing 1000’s of pounds operated by merely average or below average human beings *are* inherently dangerous to anyone – even people in ohter steel cages.
You seem to be some decades behind the times thinking that starting kids on fixed gear tricycles is most common. Surely you’re aware that balance bikes exist?
Great work on putting together this ride Megan!
I do think we should work to lower class 2 to at least 14 to allow for some better ‘steps’ to driving. As an alternative idea if we keep Class 2 at 16 then let’s raise the driving age to 17 or 18! It’s crazy we’re equalizing the age of driving a car and that of riding a class 2 e-bike.
The key is to get Class 1 age limit dropped but we shouldn’t give up on the potential of having ‘stepping stones’ to driving.
Totally fine keeping Class 3 at 16.
The other key, as you highlight in the article, is to clarify what ‘out of class’ e-bikes are and make it clearer that e-motos are the issue, not e-bikes.
Riding a bike (electric or not) with a beverage in one hand, only the fingertips of the other hand touching the handlebar, and wearing leather-soled boots on plastic pedals? Whether or not it should be illegal, it sure looks dangerous.
And yet, it isn’t
Yet, it is. Life is dangerous.
I ride with no hands all the time; but there’s no way in hell I’d do it if my shoes and pedals were that slippery.
Each element by itself is a little dangerous, and I’d personally draw the line at doing all of them at the same time. Obviously we each make our own decisions and live (or die) with them.
But I do think it’s a peculiar choice of photo to illustrate that you think it should be legal. It makes me question the author’s perspicacity on risk.
It’s absolutely wild to me that you know how slippery her pedals are and what the general character of that street was when the photo was taken. My partner has a similar e-bike and the stock pedals have a grippy rubber surface.
By my estimate, there is negligible risk to anything more serious than bumps and bruises from an accident that a better pedal-shoe interface and two hands on the bars would have prevented.
If the risk of injury requiring medical care in this situation is truly higher than your baseline risk tolerance, then I’m surprised you ever ride at all.
I’m a bike mechanic. I can recognize those cheapo plastic pedals a mile away. I’ve had to dispose of dozens of them in favor of quality pedals.
Have you ever worn leather-soled cowboy boots? I have.
Yeah. If they’re nice and scuffed up, traction is ok. People in Europe ride in dress shoes all the time.
The point stands, the worst that could possible happen is a scrapped knee or elbow here. Chill out dude. Live a little.
Dangerous? Really? It looks like she’s barely moving beyond parade pace.
It’s almost like you can tell she’s got the comfort and skills of someone whose been riding a bike their whole life! PS- this appears to be a leisurely neighborhood pedal.
Anyhoo – I agree that there are much bigger issues with teens and motorbikes. From what I’ve seen and heard from our local police, it’s a big issue and unfortunately many conflate the two. I worry about more restrictions on Class 1 e-bikes to deal with the behaviors plaguing the teen motorbike crowd.
I suspect you guys are taking the photo more seriously than intended. It looks like the kid isn’t actually riding — rather she was doing something else, asked to pose for a photo, and she did (i.e. picture is “kid on bike” not “kid demonstrating how to ride bike”)
Otherwise, the photo is nuts. She has a canned beverage in a cosy that she can’t put anywhere — eliminating all right hand control for steering, braking, and shifting, there’s virtually no control with the left hand either, and the only choice worse than those boots for footwear would be stilettos.
On the off chance she actually rides like that, it’s not going to take that long to crash. Unless she’s super unlucky, that will result in little more than injured pride and she’ll make better choices in future.
I suspect whether Class 1 e-bikes are legal for kids will have negligible (if any) impact on overall safety. The types that would actually bother to know and follow the law aren’t the ones that will find trouble.
Unless teens are totally different nowadays than they used to be, I’d expect them to make choices based on speed/coolness/fun rather legality or what oldsters think
Man, silly me, riding home from Safeway on quiet neighborhood streets, one-handed with overflow groceries in the other hand. Who knew what grave danger I was in!
You’re right, if something came up, she absolutely would not be able to drop that precious beverage and take control of the bike.
You may joke, but it really is a terrible idea — my ex wife broke her jaw in 3 places in such a crash.
If anything grabs your front wheel, you hit anything, a squirrel or a small kid runs out, your wheel slips (some stuff is as slick as snot), sudden mechanical failure, someone you didn’t realize was there opens a door or darts out of a driveway, branch comes down, etc — and of course there are always cars you can be in a really violent crash even at low speeds.
And no, she’d have no chance of dropping the beverage in time — she’d be on the ground before she even knew she’d crashed.
It’s a quiet neighborhood street and she has a clear view of what’s ahead of her.
It appears to be a warm, dry day. How many times have you hit something as slick a snot on a warm, summer day?
How many times has this happened to you or someone in your circle and caused a crash?
Quiet neighborhood street. Clear lines of site.
Again, a warm summer day. I’d wager that if it was windy enough to bring down branches, it’d be windy enough to not be able to ride like that. Also, if branch falls *on* you, I’m not sure how two hands on the bars changes the nature of your crash. If it falls in front of you, at the speeds she’s likely moving, the crash is minor.
Quiet neighborhood street. I’m going to give the rider enough credit to assume she’s aware of the traffic levels and general patterns on that street.
And the most likely outcome would be some scrapes and bumps. She’d be OK.
Did you know that sometimes, little league pitchers take line drives that hit them in the chest at the absolute worst moment and it stops their hearts? It’s rare, but it happens. And youth baseball still happens because if we lived our lives with such microscopically thin risk tolerances, it wouldn’t be living.
I bet a lot of her peers can absolutely shred Post Canyon on mountain bikes. They better stop. Sure is risky…
Like I said at the beginning, I believe she’s posing for a photo rather than riding. I have no interest in dumping on a kid — the only reason I mentioned anything is I regularly see people riding distracted with inadequate control which leads to unnecessary problems.
One thing I find unfortunate about this blog is how vigorously dumb things are promoted. Riding with open canned beverages with no place to put them is not a thing.
Encouraging or justifying bad ideas does cycling no favors. Despite Portland having a rep as a cycling city, I know loads of people with very anti cycling attitudes. It doesn’t need to be that way — and isn’t anyplace else I’ve lived
What normal teenage girl is going to put a bike helmet on for a posed photo? And it’s hard to balance with both feet on your pedals while raising a drink to your mouth. And why do your pose in the middle of the street?
I have no context for the photo, and am I read a lot less into it that everyone else, but is pretty clear to me that she was riding her bike when the photo was taken.
The pose would involve a bit of rolling to make it look like riding is happening.
The point of the article is that kids need electric bikes because distance/difficulty requires powered assistance. This setup makes no sense at all for such a ride, but it makes perfect sense for a quick shot.
People don helmets for pics because if you don’t wear one, you’ll get loads of grief. If safety is an actual concern, holding onto the handlebars would be far more useful.
Who the heck would carry a can for an entire ride with no place to put it, or drink from one while riding? I’ve seen cyclists do all kinds of things over the years, but not that.
I’ll bow out here. Every time I come on these forums, it reminds me why my attitudes align much more closely with drivers than cyclists despite the fact that I hardly drive myself — I think my last time was 3 weeks ago, definitely more than two.
Here’s a fun game: Head over to Google Image search and punch in “amsterdam cyclist rain”. Sooo many images of people riding around one-handed while holding umbrellas. I bet the ERs were packed on those days.
No kidding. Snap a picture of someone waving and the response would be “I can’t believe you ride turns sideways with your hand in the air 100% of the time day and night! So dangerous!”
I’ll just drop my phone and put my hands on the wheel if it looks like I’m going to crash my car.
I’ll take false equivalencies for 200, Mr. Jennings
It’s equivalently not going to happen the way you imagine it will, so maybe not so false.
Everyday, all around the world, people ride their bikes with one or no hands, and they’re just fine.
Y’all can exaggerate the risk all you want. But casually riding a bike through a neighborhood is generally safe. If taking a hand off the bars put you in grave danger, we’d hear about road cyclists getting in horrible accidents while reaching for water bottles or eating snacks on their rides (think of the distractions!).
And yet, we don’t observe these things in any number that suggests that the “risk” as computed by the probability-of-occurrence multiplied by the cost-of-occurrence is anything worth mentioning.
We do see plenty of suggestions that distracted driving is dangerous.
I challenge you to race my daughter in cyclocross or climb a black mountain bike trail with her. She will school any adult or judgy man with her bike skills.
This photo was taken at the beginning of the Beyonce bike ride at Ladd’s Addition and we were coasting, but this is a class 1 E-bike, requiring pedaling.
Don’t visit the The Netherlands because your head would explode.
My rain commuter has flat pedals (Raceface Chesters) that do NOT slip. I frequently ride this bike with boots with a hard, smooth sole. I expected to slip but I never have. Even when i ride hard in a downpour. Pedal assist would decrease the chance of slipping even more.
Ooh, thank you for helping me prove my point!
The Raceface Chester provides excellent traction because it has about a dozen metal screws on the face of the pedal which protrude from the pedal face by 4 millimeters. The screws dig aggressively into the sole of pretty much any shoe you might choose.
The pedals in the photo have no such features.
It is perfectly safe to ride one handed.
You have to use your head when interpreting pictures. Here’s a clue: is she wearing Lycra and down in a tucked position on a race bike? No? Then maybe she’s riding for the situation.
I ride with weird setups sometimes. Maybe a heavy load, maybe carrying something awkwardly. In those cases, get this, I’m not going as fast nor riding in the same places necessarily.
Seems dumb that you can legally drive a Ram 3500 on a learners permit and shoot guns before you can ride an ebike — I had no idea, particularly since kids seem to be on all kinds of motorized contraptions.
That only recently available motors are apparently required for freedom bodes poorly for the future. Even Class 1 which is seen as slow allows up to 1000 watts of boost providing anyone with better than world class legs.
I’d personally favor Class 2 and 3 bikes requiring a motorcycle endorsement with reduced requirements (other states often have a lightweight motorcycle endorsement as opposed to ours which has a single category that allows you to ride everything).
The higher speeds on Class 2 and 3 seem to correlate strongly with low skill and low judgement riders looking for a way to go fast without having to bother with the rules of the road, insurance, or licensing.
Could not agree more, I have been waiting for the rains to clear the 2 and 3 newbies off the bike lanes.
I was with you up to your third paragraph!
I just want to point out that my e-bike is Class 3 and, if you ever rode it, you’d probably agree with me that regulating it like a motorcycle doesn’t make any sense. I’m sure there are faster, heavier Class 3 e-bikes out there with more powerful motors and bigger batteries, but the idea that I could throw a leg over and cruise around at 28mph on the flats is a joke.
So, while reasonable regulation isn’t a bad idea, the complexities of wattage, weight, danger, and legal Class definitions make it so that simple proposals rope in bikes that aren’t faster than a good road bike , but still fail to address current problems: e-motos are already illegal to ride on roads and trails!
I’ve ridden them and inherently don’t have a problem with Class 3 nor the speeds. A strong nonmotorized rider can easily break 28mph on the flats on a race bike for short distances and there are loads of hills where it’s easy to break 40.
But there’s an important difference between riding a bike fast as a bike and knuckleheads finding the fastest a motorcycle they can to ride in spaces and according to rules intended for human powered speeds.
Kyle says: “there’s an important difference between riding a bike fast as a bike and knuckleheads finding the fastest a motorcycle they can to ride in spaces and according to rules intended for human powered speeds.”
Well, I agree! That’s why I’d like to see better, more proactive regulation of e-motos and other out-of-class bike-like vehicles. My consistent complaint in these threads is that we risk roping in bikes that aren’t so dangerous or so fast, like my bike.
It’s entirely nuts to me that anyone would spend energy fighting to stop a 14 y/o from independently operating a 50lb ebike with a top speed of 20mph, while being totally OK with a 16 y/o operating a 4000+lb SUV with a top speed over 120mph.
The presence of a battery isn’t launching a teen to speeds far beyond what they could achieve with their own legs. All it does is offer longer range and “flatten” obstacles like steep hills. It grants more independence without majorly increasing vehicle weight or risk, and comes with all the same benefits offered to any other ebike rider (ex: getting somewhere without getting sweaty).
I’d strongly agree that kids belong nowhere near e-motos, and that 20mph is a healthy upper limit for anything they legally can ride. But there’s no sensible argument against a teen on a properly-regulated ebike or scooter with an appropriate speed limit riding anywhere an adult legally could.
Is “hills” the main argument for allowing kids to ride motorized bikes?
Is there any argument against a 6 year-old riding one, as this proposal would allow?
And why not a 20 MPH throttle controlled bike?
One difference between a bike rider and a car driver is the driver is licensed, requiring 50 hours of driving practice with a licensed adult driver if they’ve attended a government approved driving school (or 100 hours if they haven’t) and is required to have insurance to compensate anyone they injure. (By comparison, you only need 40 hours of practice to get a full pilot license, half of which you do flying alone.) I don’t necessarily think insurance is needed for a motorized bike, but your equivalency isn’t really equivalent.
Yet the damage each can do is nowhere near equivalent, either.
The main reason kids can’t ride e-bikes is to save the kids from hurting themselves, not because they will kill or maim other people, which is what kids do when they drive cars and trucks.
“Yet the damage each can do is nowhere near equivalent, either.”
Yes, of course. Another reason not to draw an equivalency.
How do we know that any particular individual has actually had the required hours of practice?
I believe they keep a logbook the veracity of which is attested to by the adult driver. I believe logbooks are also how pilots track their flight hours.
People wringing their hands so much, but it all rests on the assumption that unmotorized bikes are safer than e-bikes. Anyone who has ridden an e-bike for daily transportation for a year knows that the opposite is true. Most of my miles have the motor entirely off. When I’m on a road with poor infrastructure, such as an unprotected bike lane next to cars that are too fast, throwing on the motor to close the gap in speed between me and the cars clearly improves my safety.
I can see why that would be hard to understand if you don’t have much experience with e-bikes, but it’s a daily experience for me. Further complicating matters is that some people have tied their identity and ego to the lack of a motor. There may be no satisfying those folks if they can’t get over that hurdle. Personally, I still have a road bike, and I enjoy riding it for fun. I won’t be deluding myself that the road bike is safer than the e-bike.
As an owner of multiple e-bikes, I think you are projecting too much of your personal experience here. I go as fast as possible at all times when I’m riding my e-bike, and most other e-bike owners do the same. Why wouldn’t you? You like taking longer to get to your destination?
Ultimately, this editorial is pointless, because Class 1 e-bikes are a tiny fraction of the market. Basically a rounding error. Most kids are riding Chinese throttle bikes and will continue to do so, regardless of the legality. My kids certainly won’t be getting one until they have a driver’s license.
Hi Chris, I have no problem taking longer to get to my destination as long as I have departed from my origin on time. I think your question gets to the heart of biking. Why do I bike at all and actively choose it over other modes of transportation? Because biking is fun! If I could somehow choose between days with more time spent biking or less time spent biking, I would absolutely choose more time on the bike. I have found biking to be a great social activity with family and friends, which also means that I don’t view time on the bike as crowding out other activities that I value.
In any event, I don’t see how the amount of time I personally spend with or without the motor on is relevant to my perspective on this discussion. When I first got the e-bike, I rode with the motor on almost exclusively and took that “fast as possible” approach you mentioned for many months. I wanted to really learn and understand the bike’s capabilities. The bike has a speed limiter at 20 mph and I have found that more than sufficient despite it falling into your “pointless” category of Class 1. At the same time, I did not notice any negative impact on safety, only the positive safety impacts I mentioned before. I would hope widening legal access to Class 1 bikes would bring even more of them to the local market, but I have honestly not noticed that they are particularly difficult to find at local bike shops in Portland. Just off the top of my head, I know they are available in NW, N, NE, SE, and E Portland. But we could always use more shops and bikes for sure.
“Further complicating matters is that some people have tied their identity and ego to the lack of a motor.”
seems like a weird thing to say. Maybe read Ivan Illich some time. He had a lot of insightful things to say about how energetically special bicycles are. Putting a motor on a bike upends most of that economic and physical independence, energetic brilliance, ecological harmlessness, etc.
https://ranprieur.com/readings/illichcars.html
Do you have a lot of experience riding modern Class 1 bikes? I didn’t understand this point until after I switched, but they have clear benefits across economics, physical independence, energetic brilliance, and environmental benefits. Certainly you can google all these benefits. And reading essays like that is nice, but nothing is going to beat real-life experience beyond a certain point.
Anyway, I don’t begrudge someone who, let’s say, ties their identity to mountain biking and drives their SUV to their favorite spots to ride their unmotorized bike. Thats a great hobby! But we also shouldn’t delude ourselves that it’s ecologically harmless because he staunchly refuses to motorize his bike. That decision was clearly irrelevant to the total ecological harm of the outing, which has become more and more obvious with the passage of time.
You are missing the point completely. Your weird, specific use of class 1 e-bikes sounds just as safe as a non e-bike, but you seem to be ignoring that the vast, vast majority of e-bike riders are:
I didn’t miss your point Chris, I can even acknowledge that you’re no longer introducing new points, but instead repeating yourself. Have a good day!
Citation needed.
I don’t know either but that is hard to believe.
What really happens is when someone sees an aggressive or reckless rider, surprise, they’re not on a class 1 e-bike. It’s a cognitive bias, people just complaining about what they notice, imo.
“ they have clear benefits across economics, physical independence, energetic brilliance, and environmental benefits.”
Compared to what? Bikes? I will argue that point with you anywhere, any time.
Sure, I’m a regular bike happy hour. See you there!
> some people have tied their identity and ego to the lack of a motor.
Hit the nail on the head.
The other contingent is non-bike riders who just have a reactionary approach to bikes in general and see an excuse to keep people off of them. But the pushback you see here is entirely the ego, IMO.
Thank you for your work advocating for this Megan, and everyone else who has contributed. Reading through some of the comments here, I can see how difficult it is to address the torrent of curmudgeonly fears older people have about young people.
Young people’s coordination, dexterity, and learning ability are peak, with the crucial development period for coordination around 10 years old. Most coordination growth slows after 16, when skill development tapers. Tweens are probably the most capable age group of riders if they start young enough, and certainly besting any of you commenters over 35.
People who have concerns should help ensure all children have regular access to bicycles by age 6, to develop optimal skills for this golden age of electrified mobility.
Megan wrote:
“Class 1 e-bikes offer one of the greatest opportunities for a generation of t(w)eens to escape screens and anxiety through free-range mobility that fosters independence and joy.”
This is from Ivan Illich. It really bears re-reading.
“The habitual passenger is caught at the wrong end of growing inequality, time scarcity, and personal impotence, but he can see no way out of this bind except to demand more of the same: more traffic by transport. He stands in wait for technical changes in the design of vehicles, roads, and schedules.”
“The habitual passenger cannot grasp the folly of traffic based overwhelmingly on transport. His inherited perceptions of space and time and of personal pace have been industrially deformed. He has lost the power to conceive of himself outside the passenger role. To “gather” for him means to be brought together by vehicles. He takes freedom of movement to be the same as one’s claim on propulsion. He has lost faith in the political power of the feet and of the tongue. As a result, what he wants is not more liberty as a citizen but better service as a client. He does not insist on his freedom to move and to speak to people but on his claim to be shipped and to be informed by media. He wants a better product rather than freedom from servitude to it. It is vital that he come to see that the acceleration he demands is self-defeating, and that it must result in a further decline of equity, leisure, and autonomy.”
https://ranprieur.com/readings/illichcars.html (emphasis mine)
and the following paragraphs are also very good:
“DEGREES OF SELF-POWERED MOBILITY
A century ago, the ball-bearing was invented. It reduced the coefficient of friction by a factor of a thousand. By applying a well-calibrated ball-bearing between two Neolithic millstones, a man could now grind in a day what took his ancestors a week. The ball-bearing also made possible the bicycle, allowing the wheel — probably the last of the great Neolithic inventions — finally to become useful for self-powered mobility.
Man, unaided by any tool, gets around quite efficiently. He carries one gram of his weight over a kilometer in ten minutes by expending 0.75 calories. Man on his feet is thermodynamically more efficient than any motorized vehicle and most animals. For his weight, he performs more work in locomotion than rats or oxen, less than horses or sturgeon. At this rate of efficiency man settled the world and made its history. At this rate peasant societies spend less than 5 per cent and nomads less than 8 per cent of their respective social time budgets outside the home or the encampment.
Man on a bicycle can go three or four times faster than the pedestrian, but uses five times less energy in the process. He carries one gram of his weight over a kilometer of flat road at an expense of only 0.15 calories. The bicycle is the perfect transducer to match man’s metabolic energy to the impedance of locomotion. Equipped with this tool, man outstrips the efficiency of not only all machines but all other animals as well.
The ball-bearing signaled a true crisis, a true political choice. It created an option between more freedom in equity and more speed. The bearing is an equally fundamental ingredient of two new types of locomotion, respectively symbolized by the bicycle and the car. The bicycle lifted man’s auto-mobility into a new order, beyond which progress is theoretically not possible. In contrast, the accelerating individual capsule enabled societies to engage in a ritual of progressively paralyzing speed.
Bicycles are not only thermodynamically efficient, they are also cheap. With his much lower salary, the Chinese acquires his durable bicycle in a fraction of the working hours an American devotes to the purchase of his obsolescent car. The cost of public utilities needed to facilitate bicycle traffic versus the price of an infrastructure tailored to high speeds is proportionately even less than the price differential of the vehicles used in the two systems. In the bicycle system, engineered roads are necessary only at certain points of dense traffic, and people who live far from the surfaced path are not thereby automatically isolated as they would be if they depended on cars or trains. The bicycle has extended man’s radius without shunting him onto roads he cannot walk. Where he cannot ride his bike, he can usually push it.”
Since this is an e-bike article, I think this is the perfect place to put this.
I did an analysis of my CO2 production riding 90mi/wk on my gravel bike and compared it to the CO2 production of a person my size on a class 2 e-bike. (HPV at 15mph, e-bike at 20mph)
Unsurprisingly (given that human beings are around 22-23% efficient converting chemical energy to forward impetus and electric motors are 60% effecient) the e-bike is vastly less kgCO2/mi with Oregons power mix (3x IIRC).
A low power e-bike combines the low mass/low speed advantages of a bicycle with the higher efficiency of an electric motor and is simply a superior form of locomotion in a society where access to electricity is easy.
That said, at 58 I still don’t see an e-assist in my future for quite some time. I only have 400′ of climbing daily and if I get tired, I just gear down a bit 🙂
“Unsurprisingly (given that human beings are around 22-23% efficient converting chemical energy to forward impetus and electric motors are 60% effecient) the e-bike is vastly less kgCO2/mi with Oregons power mix (3x IIRC).”
This is not how such a calculation would be made so let’s not even go there. As we have had occasion to discuss here in the past, the idea that e-anything is ‘more efficient/produces less lifetime CO2 than a human’ doing the equivalent task is thermodynamically absurd.
But go ahead, show your work.
It wouldn’t be surprising at all if all things accounted for, e-bikes are more efficient. It’s just a fact that humans (animals) are inefficient at converting food into work. Whereas an electric motor is very efficient, so it comes down to energy source. An e-bike could trivially be entirely solar powered, which means we’re talking about the amortized cost of a motor, battery, and solar panel. All of which last a really long time.
If your energy comes entirely from coal or something (ours doesn’t), I could definitely see it being close.
That just to say, the bicycle is amazing. Powering it with a tiny efficient motor gets to hitch a ride on that amazingly efficient frame, and perhaps do better (purely in terms of energy use) than a human-bike system alone.
It would behoove anyone purporting to compare these two forms of locomotion to have a firm understanding of how to draw boundaries around the subject, what to include/exclude, basically how to conduct an LCA. So far what folks here have offered is some hand waving. Not reassuring.
this is some of what I wrote here https://bikeportland.org/2024/04/09/monday-roundup-fentanyl-french-revolution-safer-transit-and-more-385418 in this very long comment thread
“What I am asking is for someone to plausibly show how it can be that the ebike (pedelec not throttle) rider consumes roughly one third (6gCO2e/km) as many food calories as the leg-powered cyclist (16gCO2e/km) toward propelling his or her bike forward. That seems to be the ratio and the assumption that all of these comparative claims rest on.”
Kids on e-bikes?
Ugh, I don’t know.
In no particular order, just thinking out loud:
— Helmet use depends on the neighborhood. So does traffic enforcement.
— Your brain isn’t done developing self-control and executive function until you’re well into your twenties.
— Impulsivity skews higher in kids than in adults.
— E-bikes may be fun, but they are not necessarily low-maintenance; most people simply pay someone else to fix flats and otherwise maintain them.
— We already have kids riding bikeshare bikes and scooters before the legal age and very often without helmets. I’ve been nearly hit half a dozen times while walking by someone zipping by too close on an e-bike or scooter without giving audible warning — and half of those near-collisions happened on the sidewalk. Some of the riders were adults. Do we want to encourage this by either looking the other way (as we do now), or by encouraging e-bike ownership for kids?
— Is there really anything we can do to stop it?
I think that squeaky wheels get things done, and right now e-bike proponents are very, very loud. Things may change in the future, depending on many ecological and sociological factors too numerous to list here.
I’m just not a fan of this idea. But I know that it already happens by default, so if anyone really wants to do the paperwork it’s probably not a big leap to legal approval.