ebikes on the Shore

Be interesting to see court case outcome when a rider on a radcity emoto bike gets cut off by a car in traffic, injured and tries to sue the driver. Since the bike is an illegal motor vehicle wonder how that will play out. Or illegal pretend motor bike runs down pedestrian with no insurance. Lawyers must be loving this scenario. I'm sure it's all fine haha

Here in Quebec it's getting crazy too. There was an accident involving a car and an emotorcycle (I wouldn't call that an ebike) in Quebec city a few weeks ago : https://zone911.com/accidents/31182-limoilou-accident-impliquant-un-velo-electrique-sur-la-3e-avenue

Still, the police officers never hand out tickets or enforce the law in any way. I've often seen police cars parked at a stop sign and seeing emotorcycles passing right in front of them on the cycle path and they never did anything. 

On the cycle paths it's pretty much a 50:50 ratio of human-powered bikes and motorized things of all kinds, but most of the time it's 70% electric things. Some people even drive small two-seated cars on the cycle path (anywhere in fact) and are totally fine with that. https://www.daymak.com/boomerbuggy-x.html

When or where will this stop?

Posted by: martin

When or where will this stop?

In the grave my friend, in the grave.

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: mammal

Posted by: shoreboy

So would you say that this quote directly from RadPower's website would fall into them being legal or illegal the way the laws are written?

I'd say the quote falls into the bikes being legal under the written legislation, but it would appear that BC Supreme Court precedent now exists that could make them illegal, and should now prompt a revision of that legislation.

Id say the quote falls into the bikes being illegal under the written legislation:

(2)The motors of a motor assisted cycle must turn off or disengage if

(a)the operator stops pedaling

If you are not pedaling, the motor should not be working. Seems fairly clear to me. The fact that so many of us are interpreting it differently means it needs revision.

You quoted that previously, but this time you've intentionally left out the comma after "operator stops pedaling", and then the  conditional "(b)an accelerator controller is released, or, (c)a brake is applied."

The comma after (a) indicates a condition that (b) is also acceptable, as is (c). 

Everyone can agree that as long as the regs are written this way, and the courts are making their own assumptions on the "spirit" of the law, it's going to be super messy from all angles. They need to nail this down with firm laws and enforcement.

Posted by: mammal

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: mammal

Posted by: shoreboy

So would you say that this quote directly from RadPower's website would fall into them being legal or illegal the way the laws are written?

I'd say the quote falls into the bikes being legal under the written legislation, but it would appear that BC Supreme Court precedent now exists that could make them illegal, and should now prompt a revision of that legislation.

Id say the quote falls into the bikes being illegal under the written legislation:

(2)The motors of a motor assisted cycle must turn off or disengage if

(a)the operator stops pedaling

If you are not pedaling, the motor should not be working. Seems fairly clear to me. The fact that so many of us are interpreting it differently means it needs revision.

You quoted that previously, but this time you've intentionally left out the comma after "operator stops pedaling", and then the conditional "(b)an accelerator controller is released, or, (c)a brake is applied."

The comma after (a) indicates a condition that (b) is also acceptable, as is (c).

Everyone can agree that as long as the regs are written this way, and the courts are making their own assumptions on the "spirit" of the law, it's going to be super messy from all angles. They need to nail this down with firm laws and enforcement.

I intentionally left it out because these are OR conditions, all three do not need to be met. If anyone of the a), b) or c) conditions occurs, the motor must turn off or disengage. The issue I have with twist throttle bikes is for condition a). The other two conditions are pretty obvious to me. If you turn off the throttle b), the motor stops.....if you put on the brakes c), the motor stops. If you stop pedaling, your throttle should no longer be functional. This is not the case with the RadPower bikes I have used as an example here.

I guess what I am really getting at is, if an ebike has a non-pedal assisted throttle, where does it cross the line into being an emotorbike?

You need to check out the definition of the word 'or'.

Only one of the sub-sentences needs to be true for the complex sentence to be true.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/or

Definition of or

1—used as a function word to indicate an alternative

coffee or tea

sink or swim

, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases

lessen or abate

, or approximation or uncertainty

in five or six days

2archaic : EITHER

3archaic : WHETHER

4—used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true

.

.

.

Also, in Boolean logic ...

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Logical_OR

"The logical OR (||) operator (logical disjunction) for a set of operands is true if and only if one or more of its operands is true."

Is that not what I said? If any one or more of the three conditions is met, the motor must turn off.

For what it's worth, I wrote the following for IMBA Canada a little while back:

https://imbacanada.com/imba-canada-and-e-bikes/

It is a little dated now that the Feds have repealed their ebike leigslation - leading to the wild west chaos we're now seeing, but I think we all stand firm on the definition we used, and our reasons for doing so.  I know there has been some friction between IMBA and some trail groups, but this kind of policy for guiding e-bike use I think is a great tool to help figure out how to manage and regulate things.

Posted by: shoreboy

Is that not what I said? If any one or more of the three conditions is met, the motor must turn off.

Okay then ... by your logic, the rider needs to use both in order for the motor to propel the bike ... because power to the motor would also have to be stopped if (b) an accelerator controller is released. Thus, riding by pedalling only and not using the AC (accelerator controller) would be riding with the AC released, thus power the motor must be cut.

.

.

So logically, it should be interpreted with the implied words added in italics ...

(2)The motors of a motor assisted cycle must turn off or disengage if

(a) if motor-assisted pedalling, the operator stops pedaling OR IF

(b) if using AC, an accelerator controller is released OR IF

(c) in all cases, a brake is applied.

Further, take a step back and think about this ... your contention that the motor needs to stop in all cases when not pedalling. Then why have the AC? There is no logical, functional reason for the AC if the bike must be pedalled at all times. If the bike is being propelled by motor power using the AC, it would be just plain stupid to pedal - you'd just be freewheeling the pedals. Imagine, on a regular bike, flying down a hill and still spinning the pedals. Who does that? I contend that, given that the law is written to include and allow for ebikes to have a separate AC, it would be pointless to then override the intent of an AC by forcing the rider to pedal.

Now, you can argue the point that there shouldn't be any AC in the first place (European laws, for example do not allow it), but that's a different discussion. For now, the BC act allows for a separate AC.

Posted by: blangshaw

For what it's worth, I wrote the following for IMBA Canada a little while back:

https://imbacanada.com/imba-canada-and-e-bikes/

It is a little dated now that the Feds have repealed their ebike leigslation - leading to the wild west chaos we're now seeing, but I think we all stand firm on the definition we used, and our reasons for doing so.  I know there has been some friction between IMBA and some trail groups, but this kind of policy for guiding e-bike use I think is a great tool to help figure out how to manage and regulate things.

Some fair points, although I'd point out that this discussion has moved somewhat beyond ebikes on trails and into commuter territory!

Posted by: KenN

Posted by: shoreboy

Is that not what I said? If any one or more of the three conditions is met, the motor must turn off.

Okay then ... by your logic, the rider needs to use both in order for the motor to propel the bike ... because power to the motor would also have to be stopped if (b) an accelerator controller is released. Thus, riding by pedalling only and not using the AC (accelerator controller) would be riding with the AC released, thus power the motor must be cut.

.

.

So logically, it should be interpreted with the implied words added in italics ...

(2)The motors of a motor assisted cycle must turn off or disengage if

(a) if motor-assisted pedalling, the operator stops pedaling OR IF

(b) if using AC, an accelerator controller is released OR IF

(c) in all cases, a brake is applied.

Further, take a step back and think about this ... your contention that the motor needs to stop in all cases when not pedalling. Then why have the AC? There is no logical, functional reason for the AC if the bike must be pedalled at all times. If the bike is being propelled by motor power using the AC, it would be just plain stupid to pedal - you'd just be freewheeling the pedals. Imagine, on a regular bike, flying down a hill and still spinning the pedals. Who does that? I contend that, given that the law is written to include and allow for ebikes to have a separate AC, it would be pointless to then override the intent of an AC by forcing the rider to pedal.

Now, you can argue the point that there shouldn't be any AC in the first place (European laws, for example do not allow it), but that's a different discussion. For now, the BC act allows for a separate AC.

Good points...

And you have just perfectly summarized why ebikes are a ridiculous invention. Who ever thought of inventing a weakly powered motorcycle that has a throttle built into some cranks you have to spin with your feet. 

Could you imagine a 500cc motorcycle that has pedals you spin? It would be stupid. Why do it with a weak electric motor?

No licence , no insurance, no worries.

Posted by: RAHrider

Posted by: KenN

Posted by: shoreboy

Is that not what I said? If any one or more of the three conditions is met, the motor must turn off.

Okay then ... by your logic, the rider needs to use both in order for the motor to propel the bike ... because power to the motor would also have to be stopped if (b) an accelerator controller is released. Thus, riding by pedalling only and not using the AC (accelerator controller) would be riding with the AC released, thus power the motor must be cut.

.

.

So logically, it should be interpreted with the implied words added in italics ...

(2)The motors of a motor assisted cycle must turn off or disengage if

(a) if motor-assisted pedalling, the operator stops pedaling OR IF

(b) if using AC, an accelerator controller is released OR IF

(c) in all cases, a brake is applied.

Further, take a step back and think about this ... your contention that the motor needs to stop in all cases when not pedalling. Then why have the AC? There is no logical, functional reason for the AC if the bike must be pedalled at all times. If the bike is being propelled by motor power using the AC, it would be just plain stupid to pedal - you'd just be freewheeling the pedals. Imagine, on a regular bike, flying down a hill and still spinning the pedals. Who does that? I contend that, given that the law is written to include and allow for ebikes to have a separate AC, it would be pointless to then override the intent of an AC by forcing the rider to pedal.

Now, you can argue the point that there shouldn't be any AC in the first place (European laws, for example do not allow it), but that's a different discussion. For now, the BC act allows for a separate AC.

Good points...

And you have just perfectly summarized why ebikes are a ridiculous invention. Who ever thought of inventing a weakly powered motorcycle that has a throttle built into some cranks you have to spin with your feet. 

Could you imagine a 500cc motorcycle that has pedals you spin? It would be stupid. Why do it with a weak electric motor?

Well that's a specious argument. Apples/oranges. A 500cc road motorcycle weighs 4-500 lbs, a 500W commuter ebike weighs about 60 lbs. The rider of an ebike can pedal with their legs providing 200 Watts and the electric motor assists by adding extra power. Makes a huge difference on a hilly ride. When I was using my ebike commuter, I could do my ride to work in about 30 minutes, as compared to 40-45 minutes on my road bike. Now, if the commute to work were pretty much flat all the way, the road bike would actually be faster.

I agree with the statements KenN has made above. I guess my main contention is should ebikes have a throttle at all? That one will remain up for debate I guess.

The two videos below however, make RadPower bikes illegal without question. 'Hidden' menu that allows you to increase the assistance up to 40km/h (from the legal limit of 32km/h). This is a manufacturer supplied option, so it isnt like its an aftermarket hack or modification. It is part of their own software.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F82B6Dn0cAg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve6_pvAvuRg&t=0s

It looks like he tries to trick the computer into giving up some extra speed by telling it it is running a smaller wheel size than it actually is. He isnt sure if it made a difference, but he said he could still feel assistance up to about 27mph (~43kph).