> > > Let's assume that most folks who use electric assist do so based on > > some need that we probably don't know about. > =v= My experience is that this is true some of the time, but not most of > the time. So I can't really assume that.
So instead you will gladly assume that they are not actually in need but instead looking to somehow cheat the system and also ruin everyone else's cycling experience? I'm curious how one would actually know that it is not true most of the time short of stopping the users to actually talk to them. And even if it were "for convenience" should that disqualify them? I mean that in the hypothetical sense assuming we could craft a law from scratch, not as a reference to the current legal status. I see a lot of jerks on their training rides whizzing by within a foot or two of pedestrians at unsafe speeds without a motor. Why are e-bikes singled out as the problem? > =v= This has become a problem even in Amsterdam. Since the main technical > advance in recent years is motors that can now be hidden, the police have > had to resort to checkpoints on cycletracks in which they take a > motor-powered bike and put it on a roller to see how fast it can go. Citation? Not questioning its truth, just wanting to get more information. I find this interesting since motorized scooters (mopeds) are allowed on bike paths in the Netherlands. Paths are obviously not functionally the same as cycle tracks, but it would seem an odd place for the Netherlands to crack down given the relaxed view toward mixing motorized and non-motorized equipment.
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list Bikies@lists.danenet.org http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
