[bikeqld] Power-assisted pedal cycles discussion paper

[Christopher Biggs]

On 19/07/2009, at 9:44 AM, Michael Yeates wrote:
> It seems fairly clear then that the level or extent of "assistance"  
> should result in a vehicle that has performance characteristics in  
> relation to maximum speed, acceleration and hill-climbing power/ 
> speed, etc that are roughly equivalent to that of an average cyclist  
> on a fairly common bicycle.

Not at all "clear" to me!

It seems to me that the people who want to be an "average cyclist"  
already ride a normal bicycle.

The primary attraction to me of electric bikes is their potential for  
getting all those single-occupant cars off the road.   Doing this  
means allowing:

   * electric bikes that can carry fairly significant commuter cargo  
and/or

   * electric bikes that let you ride in work clothes without getting  
too sweaty

Wimpy 250W bikes where you MUST pedal to get assistance don't achieve  
either of the above goals.

I've met a few people who commute along at 20kmh on no-pedal bikes,  
wearing their office clothes.   I don't think they're harming anyone,  
and I can't see ANY point in forcing them to pedal.

No-pedal bikes aren't for me (i don't have the patience to sit at 20  
when I can pedal at 30), but I support those who want that.

> Without some kind of accepted broad principles such as those above,  
> trying to negotiate details re controls, performance, power, etc let  
> alone some kind of standard will inevitably end up with a totally  
> unsatisfactory outcome.
>

Policy needs to be goal driven.

It seems the current trend of nobbling electric bikes is motivated by  
vested interests, Shadowy Oil Conspiracies or  old-guard "cars cars  
cars" RTA bureaucrats.

For me the goal is to get rid of single-occupant cars, revitalise  
inner cities, and save the planet.   Strangling the e-bike market in  
the cradle won't do this.

--chris