Someone gets killed by a car, so they restrict e-bikes.
Oregon Senate passes 'Trenton's' e-bike law; sends to Kotek for signature
(Title shamelessly stolen from this comment in the crossposted !micromobility@lemmy.world thread.)
...
"It is literally impossible for us not to harvest your data and sell it, so you can't come in".
That's hilarious, so some sites just Apple-gatekeep potential viewers?
As a european, I don't feel like I'm missing out. If a site has too many ads or popups, I'm inclined to click it away anyways.
No, it's sites gatekeeping their dodgy tracking cookie policies.
US companies don't want to comply with data protection rules of other territories, so they block our access, just so they can continue their exploitative tracking
It’s because the EU actually governs the storage and use/sale of personal data. This is the mark of a sketchy company that doesn’t want to comply with basic privacy requirements.
If you’re in the EU and you see this, it’s probably a good thing, and it means even the US viewers shouldn’t be visiting the site. Because the EU laws aren’t even that restrictive or difficult to comply with.
AKA Geotargeting
This honestly makes me furious:
A 15-year-old boy... e-bike
the teen was riding with a passenger on the back.
They were riding ... on the sidewalk
The teen who died was not wearing a helmet, police said.
They were riding it on a sidewalk, through a crosswalk and someone turned into them. Of course.
One caveat I'll say is that depending on how fast they were going the laws should be that they should be with traffic, because if I'm driving and I look right I may not notice someone going 40+ mph on a sidewalk. But even then the law should be "Where do ebikes belong" officially
Someone going 40+ MPH is doing what amounts to riding a small motorcycle down a sidewalk. That's no longer a "bicycle" thing. Imagine the howling and pearl-clutching we would be reading if someone were caught blasting, say, a Honda Grom down a sidewalk like that. Which is already illegal, for obvious reasons.
I own an ebike and I use it on the mixed use trails in my city. Mostly I have it because I often pull my kids on a trailer bike and we have hills in town.
I fear that my riding on these trails will soon be banned because people are out there driving stupidly fast on big knobby-tired motorcycles masquerading as “e-bikes.”
There are tons of Karens pushing strollers on these trails and any election now they’re going to ban my bike.
Just to be clear, "40+ MPH" is wildly inaccurate to the point of being a strawman argument. If the e-bike the kid was on was any sort of normal -- and there's nothing in either the article about the law or the article about the collision linked from it to indicate otherwise -- then it was going no more than 20 MPH, tops.
One of the many reasons you don't ride anything on the sidewalk is that you cross driveways and crosswalks too quickly to be seen by drivers. Even a standard bike should be ridden in the road, because 15 mph is fast enough to "come out of nowhere" and be hit by a car. All bikes are road vehicles.
In NYC, maniacs ride ebikes and mopeds on both the sidewalk and the street as it benefits them. Every time I walk my dog I have to dodge the fuckers going full speed down the sidewalk. And they always glare at the pedestrians like you're the problem.
One caveat I’ll say is that depending on how fast they were going the laws should be that they should be with traffic, because if I’m driving and I look right I may not notice someone going 40+ mph on a sidewalk. But even then the law should be “Where do ebikes belong” officially
40mph is twice as fast as the max (motor assist) speed of a normal class 2 e-bike, but yeah, the real problem here is lack of proper bike infrastructure.
It is trivial to kit-build an e-bike that will do this. Hell, I have one myself, constructed out of a Warp DS2 frame.
But the difference is, I also have an M endorsement and I treat my monster bicycle as a motorcycle. The law doesn't -- that's actually impossible in my state, so my bike falls in between a registrable motor vehicle and a bicycle. It also has turn signals, a car horn, a headlight, and working brake lights. But I also don't ride it like a dickhead, and that includes paths set aside for non-fire-breathing bicycles, sidewalks, etc.
My city has amazing bike infrastructure: mixed use trails with no cars, bike lanes on all streets, tunnels and bridges over major thoroughfares (really it’s pretty insanely good and yes it’s in the US of fucking A).
People still ride on the sidewalks like morons. They ride the wrong direction in the bike lanes.
Bike infrastructure is essential but also not totally sufficient. You need a significant enough number of people using them that there is a culture for it and tribal sharing of knowledge around it.
I hate cyclists that masquerade as pedestrians. It’s less safe for them and it’s less safe for everyone. Get your ass out into traffic and learn to take up some space. Ride defensively. Get yourself a rear view mirror. Pick the most bike friendly route. For fucks sake.
I once made a left turn through a gap in the crowd downtown, then out of the ongoing crowd zips out a bike the opposite way out of nowhere. He almost hit the side of my car and of course he got mad at me, even though he was on the sidewalk which is illegal in my city, and he was riding against traffic
I don't know about Oregon, but I see how people ride their e-bikes here in NYC and it makes me suspect that most e-bike/car collisions are the e-bike's fault.
I'm from Toronto, same. Also as a pedestrian, those ebikers scare me the way cars scare them. They're not allowed on the sidewalk in my city, but you'll be walking with your toddler and an ebike speeds past you on the sidewalk almost hitting you. And they'll switch between sidewalk and road depending on the traffic, so I have no love for ebikers.
And they’ll switch between sidewalk and road depending on the traffic, so I have no love for ebikers.
This is the problem I have with bikes. They want the pros of pedestrians and vehicles without the cons of either.
Blame the city not the biker. An person riding an bike will always choose a protected bike lane over having to weave through pedestrians on the sidewalk. If you want to get mad at someone get mad at the city for not putting down a bike lane instead of the biker just trying to not get hit. Pedestrians and cyclist need to have solidarity to take back the road from there dominance by cars. Fighting between each other over the scraps they give us only helps them, we need to demand more.
Oh no, sensible regulation on e-bikes. Although the initial proposal was better. Splitting the bikes into classifications. And then splitting the eligibility by class (class 1 for any age) and class 2 and 3 for 16 and older.
The accident was horrible but also weird. Biking on the sidewalk? next to a highway?? With turns??? It just reads bizarre and like a traffic system that is very hostile to anything but cars.
Remember that for state governments, "Highway" is a term of art that does not necessarily mean "elevated controlled access high speed multilane thoroughfare with on and off ramps" but usually more along the lines of, "anything paved, but not dirt." And the cops parrot this to make themselves sound like they're very officious and totally not useless doughnut-eaters, and then news outlets follow suit.
For example, my state's laws consistently use the word "highway" to refer to all paved roads that are under the purview of the state (i.e. not private roads, county roads, or municipal roads), even if they're not wide enough to have a center stripe. Then what we'd think of as a highway I believe is referred to as a "controlled access freeway."
Here is the location in question. This is definitely a Stroad, and it is certainly not a freeway. Stroads are well known to be hostile to pedestrians and cyclists. It also appears to have non-separated bike lines, i.e. some asshole just came by and painted bike icons on the existing shoulder, calling it job done.
Thanks for that tidbit of background. Much appreciated. The location does seem hostile to anything other than cars.. that's a stroad for you.
All that space can easily fit a protected bikelane and pavement on either side with a row of trees on the separator between the bikelane and the carlane.. such a waste.
Obligatory, stroads are stupid.
Jesus, that place looks super dangerous
anything paved, but not dirt.
Um, isn't pavement by definition, precisely not-dirt?
Just seems like a weird way of putting it
They're not actually. They just needed to define what e-bikes are as a by-the-by because so far it had not been defined.
"Well we clearly need to make it even more illegal then" -The Government
(Although technically was 16 year olds not allowed to ride e-bikes? If so then this is more permissive, because it says 16 year olds can ride class 1 bikes)
The bill creates three classifications of electric bicycles. Class 1 ebikes only provide assistance when a rider is actively pedaling and stops its motor when the bike reaches 20 mph. Class 2 ebikes can be propelled without pedaling and top out at 20 mph. And Class 3 ebikes require pedaling, come with a speedometer and top out at 28 mph.
Levy initially proposed allowing anyone, regardless of age, to use a Class 1 electric bicycle and making it a traffic violation for a child younger than 16 to use a Class 2 or Class 3 ebike. But as passed by the House, the bill would ban ebikes for anyone younger than 16 who doesn’t have a driver’s license or permit. Anyone 16 or older can use any ebike.
Hmmm. I think high school is when there might be a real need for an Ebike so I'd go with that age.
What age can you get a driver's license? Does a learners license count?
A permit is a learner's license, and it looks like you can get them starting at 15 in Oregon, which is the case in most states.
Umm that's not exactly what they're saying.
Hell the ACTUAL statute is just defining what a e-bike is. You can see it here: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024r1/Measures/Overview/HB4103
It does say class 1 can be operated by anyone, but 2 and 3 can be limited to 16 and older. Yes that's more restrictive then the past, but really it's "Defining the e-bikes" because they were poorly defined based on an almost hundred year old law.
That being said it does limit the top speed of an e-bike to 28 miles an hour, I assume above that it's now a motocycle, and honestly, that might be a good thing, because at that speed they no will come out of no where (hell at 20-30 miles an hour they still will)
This is hardly as bad as the title.
So it's literally to prevent 9 year olds going 50 on an e-bike. Seems fair to me.
Damn 1997 was 100 years ago? How time flies...
Do they at least require insurance on anything that goes faster than 15 mph or similar?
If only.
Maybe we could get signage that clearly displays a bike's information such that a hit & run wouldn't be impossibly easy. Maybe we could make it made of Metal so it's durable. Call it a License Plate.
As far as I read/understand, nope. But if it does limit the assistance to 28 miles an hour, that might be required if the bike goes above that speed. (Note: that's only the point where the power would stop assisting, not the fastest speed the bike can do.)
Some states don't even require insurance for motorcycles. So there's that.
This doesn't seem so bad. I live in the PNW and have seen people absolutely hauling ass on home-made e-bikes and scooters, easily 40mph and passing traffic in the bike lane.
I'm not against people building their own e-bikes, but at some point it's not an e-bike, it's a motorcycle, and they need to be in traffic and ideally have the brakes to match.
Yeah, imagine using rim brakes at 40 mph. Good luck with the inevitable crash with absolutely nothing to cushion or take the hit for you(no crumple zones).