|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
I’m an old guy on an e-bike and I know when I’m being bullied.
What happened so far …
Ronald Reagan (R) gave us Bike Lanes (1967), George W. Bush (R) brought us the Low Speed Electric Bicycle (2002) and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger tied it all together with his Global Warming Act (2006) and his Complete Streets law (2008).
So the Elephant certainly did his part to help California get greener.
How about the Donkey?
The California Donkey is all about the Inconvenient Truth and being green. We know that, because he keeps telling us. Nowadays,, there is nothing greener than the combination of bike lanes and e-bikes. The Low Speed Electric Bicycle is currently the only sustainable transportation device with absolutely zero emissions. And with only a few more emissions, it essentially has infinite range. It is by far the cheapest EV in California. And therefore it’s also the bestselling.
The Elephant basically gave the Donkey everything he ever dreamed of.
So, how successful was the Donkey over the last 50 years, giving us more access to recreational opportunities? Can residents here use low-speed electric bicycles and bike lanes to face the Inconvenient Truth, save the planet, and all while enjoying Livable Communities in the process?
The Donkey owns 50 Years of Futility
That’s right. This lovable loser, this mascot of futility, just can’t achieve the most basic things anymore. And looking at history, he never really was a go-getter in the first place.
You might be just as surprised as I am, but neither BAAQMD, EPA, CAFE, CEQA, ADA, nor Cap & Trade was given to Californians by Democrats. All these typical California things—basically State-defining laws—were signed by Republicans. No California Democrat comes even close to signing any comparable Landmark Laws.
On the contrary, ever since The Governator (R) gave us “green”, Governor Gavin Newsom (D) and his Democrats have been trying to roll it all back. For example, Gavin Newsom has vetoed the Idaho Stop, which has made riding a bicycle safer in 12 U.S. states and D.C. PG&E – with Newsom’s approval – is going hard after the people who bought into Arnold’s Million Solar Roofs Initiative. And Governors Brown and Newsom have raised California’s oil production several times. Now, Governor Newsom is even bribing Big Oil – as if they really needed a bailout.
… but back to our ADA mobility devices.
The Spirit of the Law
The latest improvement for e-bikes came in 2019 with federal order #3376. It is so much fun looking at that order where the “Spirit of the Law” is the same as the “Letter of the Law” – the intend is quite obvious:
“Subject: Increasing Recreational Opportunities through the use of Electric Bikes”
“E-bikes shall be allowed where other types of bicycles are allowed; and e-bikes shall not be allowed where other types of bicycles are prohibited.“
We could stop right here, but they also explain the problem:
“Uncertainty about the regulatory status of e-bikes has led the Federal land management agencies to impose restrictive access policies treating e-bikes as motor vehicles, often inconsistent with State and local regulations for adjacent areas. The possibility that in some cases e-bikes can be propelled solely through power provided by the electric motor [Class 2 and Class 3], a function often used in short duration by older or disabled riders as an assist, has contributed to confusion about e-bike classification.“
The Spirit of the Law is very progressive and equitable, if I may say so:
- This order increases opportunities for people with physical limitations.
- E-bikes, especially Class 2 and Class 3, shall be regarded as ADA mobility devices.
- E-bike rules were too complex, too confusing, too restrictive, even discriminatory.
- Going forward, e-bikes shall be treated the same as regular bicycles.
- Federal agents shall NOT discriminate against e-bikes nor ADA.
As the header clearly states, the Feds want more access for more people using the most sustainable transportation devices. This includes Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 low-speed electric bicycles. Low-speed electric bicycles have been defined by George W. Bush as having a maximum of 1 hp and 20 mph with a throttle.
“We believe that new rules for e-bikes can provide more Americans with opportunities to recreate, and provide commonsense solutions for pressing issues such as traffic congestion, parking, maintenance backlogs and emission reduction.”
[People For Bikes]
The rules were established with the help of industry and advocates and they seem happy.
A Climate Denier shows up our Progressives
“Enhancing access to our public lands and expanding recreational opportunities to all Americans is a priority for the Trump Administration. The new regulations allow our public land managers to provide e-bike access to bike trails, enhancing the opportunities to utilize our public lands to create life-long memories.”
[Secretary of the Interior David L. Bernhardt]
Bernhardt is more of a fossil fuel guy, might even be considered a climate change denier and yet he seems greener, more progressive, and seems to understand equity better than Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, MidPen and all of Marin County combined:
- Palo Alto is the only jurisdiction that is reducing access to the Bay Trail.
- MidPen bans e-bikes on 160 miles of its trails AFTER an expensive, drawn-out study process found there have been no special issues.
- Safety-concerned Half Moon Bay council members want to force elderly e-bike riders and kids to ride the dangerous Cabrillo Highway (SR-1), where elderly people with bikes keep getting killed.
- Mill Valley is banning people with physical limitations when using e-bikes (class 2).
- While Unincorporated Marin County has some e-bike rules, Tiburon and Mill Valley have others.
- Marin County ranks first in California for car collisions caused by speeding – yet they still punish people on e-bikes for that.
Remember when the Elephant wanted to make the whole low-speed-electric-bicycle thing less complex, less confusing? These are just six different Bay Area jurisdictions, and each one has created very different Donkey-rules. Not a single ban is based on real studies, trusted research, or reliable data. None increases safety; each one is bullying another target group.
“In the five-year period between 2012 and 2016, unincorporated Marin saw a total of 624 reported crashes; 100 of those involved a person who was killed or severely injured, including seven fatalities.” [Point Reyes Light]
All these motor vehicle crashes in Marin County, and no bans have been issued, nor have general speed limits been reduced. So we know the e-bike thing has nothing to do with safety, but everything to do with distraction and discrimination.
But how can we be absolutely sure it’s bullying?
In 2023, an estimated 41,000 Americans over the age of 65 died from a fall. Almost 50% of the time, they die because of Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI). If safety were a major concern, each municipal code would require a pedestrian helmet for people over 65.
Each year, over 40,000 Americans are killed by drivers of motor vehicles. An estimated 5 million residents are injured, resulting in approximately $427 billion in damages each year. Basically, the cost of these damages beats the revenue from new car sales. This is a pyramid scheme paid for by society.
… and yet, are council members jumping into action? Would council members – in the name of “Safety” or “Good Governing” – ever dare to take the same approach with cars that they are taking with e-bikes? Or in other words, have our esteemed council members ever ushered a statement similar to these:
- “A Ferrari can reach 200 mph and should therefore be banned from our downtowns.“
- “All EVs should be banned from residential areas, because they can accelerate 0-60 mph in [who gives a sh…]”
- “Because of air pollution, all pickup trucks are banned around schools.“
- “For safety reasons, no teenager should be allowed to drive a Cybertruck, ever.”
- “We need to extend California’s Open Container laws to mobile phones.”
- “Senior citizens no MUST wear protected head gear while walking in county parks.”
All these would make complete sense if someone wants to improve safety for residents, especially children and teenagers. There is plenty of data, research, studies that would support each one of those policy points. The only question then is, why haven’t we heard the safety-concerned Donkey making such great points?
Other cities in the world have implemented similar rules and laws. Other jurisdictions, caring about the safety and health of their residents, have enacted rules and laws limiting motor vehicle entitlement. Bay Area Democrats, however, would never dare to restrict the automotive or fossil fuel industry in any way.
But if you don’t restrict the danger coming from these 4,000 lbs. fossil fuel vehicles and killing machines, why then focus on a 60 lbs. zero emission vehicle?
This public comment summarizes it best:
“I’m a nearly 50 year resident of Palo Alto and have been an avid bike rider for most of my 70+ years. About a year ago, because of some knee problems in riding my old bike, I bought an e-bike and really have enjoyed riding it, especially on the trails of the Baylands. The new bike allows me to go further than I would be able to go otherwise. I would strongly discourage you from banning e-bikes in the Baylands. There are many people who would not be able to bike there otherwise. As you probably know, there is a 15 mph speed limit on the trails there and I believe that most cyclists, including e-bikers, ride much slower than that. In fact, in my experience, the fastest bike riders have always been the folks in spandex shorts who often exceed 15 mph and continually scare me as they blast past.” [Palo Alto Public Comment]
Why is an e-bike that doesn’t exceed the speed limit of 15 mph worse than a MAMIL or WILMA (middle aged men and women in Lycra) riding 25 mph? Why is an e-bike a noise concern, but the three tenors could yodel on the Palo Alto Bay Trail all day long? Why is there not the same scrutiny towards the airport or those golf carts next to wetlands?
Post.Scriptum.
Btw. none of these rules and laws and bans are even enforceable. Their only goal is to bring back the complexity and confusion the Elephant wanted reduced. The Donkey on the other hand seems to like confusion. Confusion helps with hiding discriminatory policies and bans in plain sight.
… to be continued.
More Information
- Trump Administration Paves Way for More People to Experience Bicycling on Public Lands
- People For Bikes: E-Bikes on Federal Lands
- MidPen’s E-Bike Politics on 160 miles of trails
- Marin County speed-related crashes top state rates
- Newsom’s climate warrior image is backsliding
Editor’s Note: The views and opinions expressed in all blog posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Redwood City Pulse or its staff.
