E-Bikes

[Jonrox]

Most ebikes are speed limited to 32km/h, with or without a throttle... a speed that's easily achieved on a conventional bike. And only a tiny fraction of ebike users go through the trouble of bypassing the limiter.

I'll be surprised if bylaw ever tickets an ebike cyclist, throttle or not. They pose no more of a hazard than someone riding a conventional bike.

If safety is a concern, it's likely more beneficial to put a speed limit on the trail... not trying to restrict a type of bike.

[cv23]

If safety is a concern, it's likely more beneficial to put a speed limit on the trail... not trying to restrict a type of bike.

How about just go with "No MOTOR Vehicles" period and end all debate about what type of MOTORized vehicles should be allowed and what type shouldn't? Or would that be to simple a solution?

[OhMyDarlin]

How about just go with "No MOTOR Vehicles" period\

Would this include bikes with electric motors, as all E-bikes have?

[cv23]

Would this include bikes with electric motors, as all E-bikes have?

It should if the vehicle has and derives any power for motion from a MOTOR then it shouldn't be allowed. Type, class, top speed, etc should not matter or be a deciding factor.
IF indeed speed is the issue then we need to remember that some runners can achieve over 40 kph so should certain runners also be banned from the rail trail simply because they could go that fast? The top speed achieved by a bicycle under human power is 296 kph. If the maximum "possible" speed that could be achieved is indeed the issue on the rail trail then bicycles should probably also be banned shouldn't they because the "could" go fast?

I have no issue with a speed limit on the trail and think it is an excellent idea. My point is if some MOTORized vehicles are to be allowed on the rail trail then ALL MOTORized vehicles should be allowed on the trail. "Possible" speed achievable should not be the determining factor.

[foenix]

Would this include bikes with electric motors, as all E-bikes have?

It should if the vehicle has and derives any power for motion from a MOTOR then it shouldn't be allowed. Type, class, top speed, etc should not matter or be a deciding factor.
Top runners can achieve over 40 kph so should runners also be banned simply because they can go fast? The top speed achieved by a bicycle under human power is 296 kph. If the maximum "possible" speed that could be achieved is indeed the issue on the rail trail then bicycles should probably also be banned shouldn't they?

I have no issue with a speed limit on the trail and think it is an excellent idea. The point is if some MOTORized vehicles are to be allowed on the trail then ALL MOTORized vehicles should be allowed on the trail.

I'm all for going on the rail trail with my dual sports bike. I'm sure I can keep to the speed limit.

[spooker]

*removed*

[cv23]

So the recap.
One needs to go to the MOTOR Vehicle Act to check the power output of the MOTOR a vehicle is equipped with to determine if it is a MOTORvehicle or not.
Got to be a special kind of stupid, or maybe just a cycling zealot, not to see both the irony and total ludicrousness of that.


The idea of a speed limit rule for safety purposes on the rail trail is a good one, just like it is elsewhere. Unfortunately the majority of cyclist don't like or obey rules as is obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes. There is a rule/law for safety purposes against riding bicycles on sidewalks and crosswalks which we all see most cyclists ignore. There is even a safety rule/law about wearing helmets again which most cyclists also ignore (one cycling zealot even believes this law is to persecute the poor not to save lives or prevent brain injuries). There is a safety rule/law against making turns without signaling yet again which we see ALL cyclists ignore (when was the last time anyone see a cyclist signal?). So why would anyone think cyclists would obey a speed limit rule/law, especially since very very few bicycles even have speedometers????????

[spooker]

*removed*

[CanuckFan]

When biking or walking on the rail trail, the ONLY people I've ever seen going faster than a scenic ride would suggest, are the spandex cyclist crowd.

As a senior, I've been thinking about getting a Class 2 e-bike. I have arthritic knees and cannot ride for a long time, so need the pedal assist. I also cannot lift my own bike on and off a bike rack. Therefore, I need the throttle assist just to get up the hill to come home from riding the rail trail. I am only interested in riding on flat surfaces because I'm sensible about my capabilities, however, I cannot get to and from the rail trail without the extra help from throttle assist.

I think this rule is ridiculous and very limiting to seniors or other people with mobility problems. Also, to my knowledge, the rail trail is NOT a BC Park, therefore, the rule shouldn't be automatically applied. Besides, if the spandexers are the ones going too fast, how will banning e-bikes help anything? It won't. It will only limit the number of taxpayers who can actually USE the trail.

[cv23]

When biking or walking on the rail trail, the ONLY people I've ever seen going faster than a scenic ride would suggest, are the spandex cyclist crowd.

As a senior, I've been thinking about getting a Class 2 e-bike. I have arthritic knees and cannot ride for a long time, so need the pedal assist. I also cannot lift my own bike on and off a bike rack. Therefore, I need the throttle assist just to get up the hill to come home from riding the rail trail. I am only interested in riding on flat surfaces because I'm sensible about my capabilities, however, I cannot get to and from the rail trail without the extra help from throttle assist.

I think this rule is ridiculous and very limiting to seniors or other people with mobility problems. Also, to my knowledge, the rail trail is NOT a BC Park, therefore, the rule shouldn't be automatically applied. Besides, if the spandexers are the ones going too fast, how will banning e-bikes help anything? It won't. It will only limit the number of taxpayers who can actually USE the trail.

Sounds like to at least one poster this issue is not as about being a safety issue for the benefit of ALL users of the rail trail but more as personal convenience for their own personal benefit.
Or if it is about giving more, or ALL, taxpayers better access to and therefore increasing use of the rail trail then shouldn't there be zero restrictions as to who is permitted to use it?

Currently the CoK and ALL it's taxpayers are spending millions on segregated bike lanes because cyclists don't feel safe sharing a space with motorized vehicles and pedestrians don't feel safe sharing a space with bicycles. Seems only logical to also divide the rail trail in order to segregate cyclists from pedestrians for obvious user safety reasons. Question is which group of USERS should be the ones to pay for such a safety upgrade?

[pentona]

When biking or walking on the rail trail, the ONLY people I've ever seen going faster than a scenic ride would suggest, are the spandex cyclist crowd.

As a senior, I've been thinking about getting a Class 2 e-bike. I have arthritic knees and cannot ride for a long time, so need the pedal assist. I also cannot lift my own bike on and off a bike rack. Therefore, I need the throttle assist just to get up the hill to come home from riding the rail trail. I am only interested in riding on flat surfaces because I'm sensible about my capabilities, however, I cannot get to and from the rail trail without the extra help from throttle assist.

I think this rule is ridiculous and very limiting to seniors or other people with mobility problems. Also, to my knowledge, the rail trail is NOT a BC Park, therefore, the rule shouldn't be automatically applied. Besides, if the spandexers are the ones going too fast, how will banning e-bikes help anything? It won't. It will only limit the number of taxpayers who can actually USE the trail.

Sounds like to at least one poster this issue is not as about being a safety issue for the benefit of ALL users of the rail trail but more as personal convenience for their own personal benefit.
Or if it is about giving more, or ALL, taxpayers better access to and therefore increasing use of the rail trail then shouldn't there be zero restrictions as to who is permitted to use it?

Currently the CoK and ALL it's taxpayers are spending millions on segregated bike lanes because cyclists don't feel safe sharing a space with motorized vehicles and pedestrians don't feel safe sharing a space with bicycles. Seems only logical to also divide the rail trail in order to segregate cyclists from pedestrians for obvious user safety reasons. Question is which group of USERS should be the ones to pay for such a safety upgrade?

I have to agree pretty much that the majority of really FAST riders on the trails (at least that I have witnessed) are not E-bikes at all but rather Spandex type users riding non-electric racing bikes. E-bikes (at least class 2 and 3) tend to appeal more to older folks who want just a little "help" getting up hills or doing long rides but NOT speeding.

Funny how the Government seems to push folks to use alternate forms of transportation (ie: EV cars or bikes) yet now they go and put up roadblocks to the use of them. I believe that one of the excuses for use in Provincial Parks was that they didn't want MORE people out there, period as it might ruin the trail bed. Very ironic/contradictory. I think they can shove the class 2/3 rule where the sun doesn't shine.

Please view and sign the petition attached to this Castanet article: https://www.castanet.net/news/Vernon/36 ... h-Okanagan

[CanuckFan]

cv23 - You mistake my meaning. I do not want things to change for MY convenience. I was only highlighting how one person is affected. There are many seniors who are even less able than I, and we are not the problem.

When I've ridden my regular bike on the trail (only about 1/2 dozen times), I ring my bell upon approach and pass wide around people wherever possible. Those same people, however, are not as courteous. The walkers spread all across the trail, and some barely move even if they know you are coming. They let their kids and / or dogs wander and don't gather them in or call them back when someone approaches. Believe me, I am NOT riding fast at the best of times. It's a struggle for me and I do it occasionally to get out on the beautiful trail and to see something different. Some other cyclists zip in and out of traffic and don't slow down, or even signal their approach. I have even ridden into the ditch and fallen off my bike, avoiding some idiot who didn't keep their dog under control. Meanwhile, coming the other way, 3 oblivious women rode on by, without even stopping to see if perhaps this older woman lying in the ditch might need some help.

It has to do with courtesy, sharing the trail, and allowing our seniors to keep active as they age. Some of us cannot walk the hills in Kal Park or many similar places. There are very few flat, safe places to cycle.

[cv23]

cv23 - You mistake my meaning. I do not want things to change for MY convenience. I was only highlighting how one person is affected. There are many seniors who are even less able than I, and we are not the problem.

When I've ridden my regular bike on the trail (only about 1/2 dozen times), I ring my bell upon approach and pass wide around people wherever possible. Those same people, however, are not as courteous. The walkers spread all across the trail, and some barely move even if they know you are coming. They let their kids and / or dogs wander and don't gather them in or call them back when someone approaches. Believe me, I am NOT riding fast at the best of times. It's a struggle for me and I do it occasionally to get out on the beautiful trail and to see something different. Some other cyclists zip in and out of traffic and don't slow down, or even signal their approach. I have even ridden into the ditch and fallen off my bike, avoiding some idiot who didn't keep their dog under control. Meanwhile, coming the other way, 3 oblivious women rode on by, without even stopping to see if perhaps this older woman lying in the ditch might need some help.

It has to do with courtesy, sharing the trail, and allowing our seniors to keep active as they age. Some of us cannot walk the hills in Kal Park or many similar places. There are very few flat, safe places to cycle.

Sounds like someone believes there are issues with basically every other user group of the rail trail except their own which happens to be disabled seniors. Obviously for at least one an age/lack of mobility limit would be preferable to a type of vehicle limit or even a speed limit.

Is this not a PUBLIC trail (it was/is publicly purchased and funded) and therefore should be open to ALL who want to use it or a some kind of a publicly funded but private club with restrictions as to who or what can and can not access the trail? The above poster previously stated that having a restriction "will only limit the number of taxpayers who can actually USE the trail" so why should there be restrictions on what is supposedly a publicly accessible trail?

[CanuckFan]

What on EARTH are you going on about? Good grief.

It IS a public trail, and I think people with mobility issues should be able to use it, along with everyone else. If ebikes are allowed, they can be told 'no throttle use allowed'. That would let people ride the trail, but still have their throttle to use to get to and from the trail.

[spooker]

Learned an interesting stat today ...

In 2018 when the CoK was researching for the Transportation Master Plan they found that 1% of the local households had an e-bike ...

Another study that has been ongoing from SFU uses Kelowna as one of it's target cities, IBIMS (Impacts of Bicycle Infrastructure in Mid-Sized Cities Study) found last year that 12% of local households now own an e-bike ...

Pretty amazing increase over just 3 years ... and easy to see when you check out the bikes people are riding these days around here