Diverse Stakeholder

Perspectives on the
Safety Impacts and
Appropriate Regulation
of Electric Bicycles

Saki Aono
Master of Community & Regional Planning

Dr. Alex Bigazzi

Assistant Professor
Civil Engineering and S chool of Community &
Regional Planning

ICTCT Extra Workshop

March 8th -9th 2018
Research
Context Growing need for
active
transportation

E-bikes as a
sustainable
travel mode

E-bike perceptions

2
Research .The objective of this research is
to:
• Gain insight on alignments and misalignments on perceived
e- bike safety impacts
Objectiv
• Identify patterns in industry stakeholder perceptions
e
• Formulate relevant recommendations for e-bike policy
and regulations in BC

Identif Trends in
Policy
y e- stakeholde
recommendation
bike r
percept s
perception
ions s

3
Market & E-BIKE TYPOLOGIES

S takeholde
r Summary

Source (from top left): Mountain Equipment Co-Op, Ebike Catalog, Draco E-bikes, industrialbicycles.com, VeloMetro
4
Market & E-BIKE INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS

S takeholde
r Summary E-B ike Government Non-profit
Industry Agencies Advocacy Groups
Professionals

Transportation,
planning agencies
E-bike retailers Cycling coalitions
(campus, municipal,
regional,
provincial)

E-bike
Transit agencies
manufacturers

5
Methodology

Survey Data
Survey
distributio analysis
design
n

6
 Summary of
responses:
Data • Response rate of 31%, with a total of 116 complete responses from 371
invitations
Summary • Largest share of respondents was affiliated with municipal government agencies
• 42% of participants were from organizations located in the Lower Mainland and
13% were from the Capital Regional District

7
 Speed was not considered as a benefit, but as a
Finding 1: safety risk for pedestrians that should be
E-bike speed regulated
• High speeds are generally not seen as an
important benefit from stakeholders
• 6 3 % of respondents agreed that the high speeds of
e- bikes will cause safety risk to pedestrians
• 6 6 % of respondents considered speed
regulations necessary for all e-bike types
• Current BC regulation of 32km/hr

Consider specific speed regulations for different e-

bike types on certain facilities
8
Finding 2: D iFFerent facilities were perceived appropriate
E-bike riding for scooter-style e-bikes vs. all other e-bike
facilities • types
Relationship between the perception of e-bikes as
conventional bicycles and the perception of
appropriate facilities
• Scooter-style e-bikes considered appropriate for mixed-
use traffic roads
• All other e-bike types considered most appropriate
for shared-use pathways

Scooter-style e-bikes should only be allowed on

mixed- use traffic roads
9
 Relationship between the perception of e-bikes as
conventional bicycles and shared-use pathways as an
Finding 2: appropriate facility
E-bike riding
facilities

10
 Scooter-style e-bikes were considered most appropriate
Finding 2: for mixed-use traffic roads
E-bike riding
facilities

11
Finding 3: Motor-assisted cycles (MAC) vs. Limited speed motorcycles
(LSM)
Categorizatio MAC

n of e-bikes LCM
Rely on motor power and
Combine bicycle pedal power
Description are generally not equipped
with electric motor
with bicycle-style pedals
assistance

32km/h on level
Speed 70km/h on level
ground without
ground
pedaling

Vehicl
e Must be registered, licensed,
None required
registration, and insured as a motor
licensing, vehicle
and
insurance

Examples

12
Finding 3: E-bikes require re-classification for policy
Classificatio • Speed regulations considered more necessary
n of e-bikes for throttle-assist e-bike types
• Licensing considered necessary for scooter-style
e- bikes and enclosed electric recumbent tricycles
• Age restrictions perceived necessary for scooter-
style e-bikes

Re-classification of scooter-style e-bikes as a lower

speed motorcycle

13
Finding 3:
Classificatio
n of e-bikes

14
Finding 3:
Classificatio
n of e-bikes

15
Finding 3: E-bikes require re-classification for policy
Classificatio • Speed regulations considered more necessary
n of e-bikes for throttle-assist e-bike types
• Licensing considered necessary for scooter-style
e- bikes and enclosed electric recumbent tricycles
• Age restrictions perceived necessary for scooter-
style e-bikes

Re-classification of scooter-style e-bikes as a lower

speed motorcycle

16
Findings
Summary
& Finding 1 Finding 2 Finding 3
Limitation Speed was not Different facilities were E-bike require re-
considered as a perceived appropriate classification for
s benefit, but as a safety for scooter-style e- policy
risk that requires bikes vs. all other
regulation types

Recommendation 1 Recommendation 2 Recommendation 3

Consider specific Scooter-style e-bikes Re-classification of
speed regulations for should only be allowed scooter-style e-bikes as
different e-bike types on mixed-use traffic a lower speed
on certain facilities roads motorcycle
17
Conclusion Areas of misalignment

Perception of speed Perception of policy

• E-bike speed seen as a positive • Self-propelling e-bikes considered as

factor by e-bike riders (Dill & R ose) motor-assisted cycles in BC

• Stakeholders perceived e-bike speeds • Push to separate pedal-assist and

as the least important benefit self-propelling e-bikes from cycling
coalitions

18
Thank you for
listening

If you have any questions please don’t

hesitate to contact us at:
• [email protected]
• [email protected]

19
Finding 3:
Classificatio
n of e-bikes

20
 Relationship between the perception of e-bikes as conventional
Finding 2: bicycles and separated bike lanes as an appropriate facility
E-bike riding
facilities

21
 Relationship between the perception of e-bikes as conventional
Finding 2: bicycles and bike lanes as an appropriate facility
E-bike riding
facilities

22
Finding 3:
Classificatio
n of e-bikes

23