If we'd just get all those thoughtless pedestrians off the walking paths, the e-hogs would no longer be an issue. Or else require everybody on foot to move at least 20 mph.
I went to college in Illinois, where there were no rules about motorcycles. As in, no helmuts required. I used to ride my motorcycle wearing cutoffs and sunglasses. And that was it. Barefoot and shirtless. I was too selfish to realize how awful this must have been for anyone unfortunate enough to have to look at me. Ultimately I crashed a BMW 650 at 40 mpg, which explains the scars and brain damage. For those who are concerned, the bike was fine, which was very fortunate, since I had borrowed it from a friend.
I think your timing of rerunning this piece is, coming on the heels of the NY Times piece on eBikes - The Shocking Crash That Led One County to Reckon With the Dangers of E-Bikes, is great!
That article did unfortunately present a fairly airtight case, Bob. But someone has to stick up for parents who have purchased motorcycles for their children
The issue from the beginning has been rooted in language and misclassification. Manufacturers successfully used the term "e-bike" to skirt wrongheaded laws that prevent children from getting their hands on motorcycles
Honesty, I surprised and disappointed by this piece, as well as the June 24 article "The Nanny State is Coming for Your Child's Motorcycle."
I've ridden motorcycles since I was old enough to get a driver's license, so I'm not against dirt bikes, scooters, street bikes. In college, I worked at several motorcycle dealerships over the years, chiefly as the parts department guy who prepared damage repair estimates. A disproportionate number of the bikes brought to those were ridden by kids 16 or younger. Parents I talked to reported concussions, broken bones, impact damage to vital organs---but fortunately no deaths. Those cases tended to be young adult men under 25 riding high-performance street bikes.
Younger kids (10-14) favored dirt bikes in the 80-125cc range, older (and taller) teenagers preferred more powerful bikes in the 250-350cc range. None of these models were approved for on-street use; any kind of data on accidents and injuries is scarce because there was no requirement to report them.
Today, the performance of some Class 2 and most Class 3 eBikes is comparable to late 1990's vintage 125cc dirt bikes. What's striking is that California law currently sets no age limit or licensing requirement on them for on-street use. As a pedestrian and motorist, I think that this is a dangerous public policy that will end in tragedy for a number of families.
The Department of Motor Vehicles, not the eBike industry, should be responsible for classifying eBikes based on their horsepower and performance characteristics. Licenses and proficiency tests should be required for models that are comparable to gasoline-powered machines and used on public streets. Off-street use should be limited to designated areas, just as motorcycles are.
As a motorist and pedestrian, these seem like basic common sense public safety measures.
Naturally, parents will make their own choices about the transportation and the recreational activities available to their kids. That prerogative, however, should not include the right to allow minor children to operate powerful eBikes on public streets and sidewalks.
I like your parody news stories but this is a subject I draw the line at poking fun at. I continue to have close calls with middle schoolers on throttle bikes and won't let my daughter ride her regular bike to school because those bikers make it too dangerous. She was run off the *bike path* by one who didn't even notice. How many more deaths will there be before we actually enforce the supposed reform?
If we'd just get all those thoughtless pedestrians off the walking paths, the e-hogs would no longer be an issue. Or else require everybody on foot to move at least 20 mph.
Innovative. Positive. This is the energy we need on this issue
I went to college in Illinois, where there were no rules about motorcycles. As in, no helmuts required. I used to ride my motorcycle wearing cutoffs and sunglasses. And that was it. Barefoot and shirtless. I was too selfish to realize how awful this must have been for anyone unfortunate enough to have to look at me. Ultimately I crashed a BMW 650 at 40 mpg, which explains the scars and brain damage. For those who are concerned, the bike was fine, which was very fortunate, since I had borrowed it from a friend.
Just to clarify; you do like your son, right?
He threatened to beat me up unless I wrote an op-ed demanding the return of his hog. He was a nice boy before we got him the motorcycle
That's how it goes! Now you can get one yourself and go join up at MMA! https://www.mcmadirt.com/
I think your timing of rerunning this piece is, coming on the heels of the NY Times piece on eBikes - The Shocking Crash That Led One County to Reckon With the Dangers of E-Bikes, is great!
That article did unfortunately present a fairly airtight case, Bob. But someone has to stick up for parents who have purchased motorcycles for their children
E-hogs. The minute I read that I laughed so hard I subscribed. Truer words were never spoken.
The issue from the beginning has been rooted in language and misclassification. Manufacturers successfully used the term "e-bike" to skirt wrongheaded laws that prevent children from getting their hands on motorcycles
Honesty, I surprised and disappointed by this piece, as well as the June 24 article "The Nanny State is Coming for Your Child's Motorcycle."
I've ridden motorcycles since I was old enough to get a driver's license, so I'm not against dirt bikes, scooters, street bikes. In college, I worked at several motorcycle dealerships over the years, chiefly as the parts department guy who prepared damage repair estimates. A disproportionate number of the bikes brought to those were ridden by kids 16 or younger. Parents I talked to reported concussions, broken bones, impact damage to vital organs---but fortunately no deaths. Those cases tended to be young adult men under 25 riding high-performance street bikes.
Younger kids (10-14) favored dirt bikes in the 80-125cc range, older (and taller) teenagers preferred more powerful bikes in the 250-350cc range. None of these models were approved for on-street use; any kind of data on accidents and injuries is scarce because there was no requirement to report them.
Today, the performance of some Class 2 and most Class 3 eBikes is comparable to late 1990's vintage 125cc dirt bikes. What's striking is that California law currently sets no age limit or licensing requirement on them for on-street use. As a pedestrian and motorist, I think that this is a dangerous public policy that will end in tragedy for a number of families.
The Department of Motor Vehicles, not the eBike industry, should be responsible for classifying eBikes based on their horsepower and performance characteristics. Licenses and proficiency tests should be required for models that are comparable to gasoline-powered machines and used on public streets. Off-street use should be limited to designated areas, just as motorcycles are.
As a motorist and pedestrian, these seem like basic common sense public safety measures.
Naturally, parents will make their own choices about the transportation and the recreational activities available to their kids. That prerogative, however, should not include the right to allow minor children to operate powerful eBikes on public streets and sidewalks.
Sarcasm can be a powerful tool. You should become familiar with it.
How ironic.
I like your parody news stories but this is a subject I draw the line at poking fun at. I continue to have close calls with middle schoolers on throttle bikes and won't let my daughter ride her regular bike to school because those bikers make it too dangerous. She was run off the *bike path* by one who didn't even notice. How many more deaths will there be before we actually enforce the supposed reform?
Oh no I just looked at your Instagram post and you used a "gestapo" reference.
File under "culling the herd."