Why not speed limits?

Browneye

Well-Known Member
Agree with your thoughts here, but struggling on the relevance of car and motorcycle speed limits.

For instance, if you assign a 5mph speed limit to a section of popular multi use trail, and there's nobody around to enforce it, what kind of compliance would you expect? Do you think that because a speed limit has been established that authorities will just start enforcing?

Assign a section of residential street, where kids are often found playing, with a 20mph limit, and consider which of the posted speeds you are most likely to exceed. The bike trail speed limit, or the residential street? Why?
I think you're splitting hairs. If you're setting a safe speed to ride, just like any other conveyance, you either adhere or you don't, but putting additional regulations in to somehow curb the equipment just seems draconian, illogical. At least to a point. And yeah, at some level of motorization the bike ceases to be a bike, whether to be allow at all or not.

If no one is patrolling the freeway I can go 100mph in my car. [shrug] If they are I'm likely to get cited.
You're talking about a limit and enforcement like they are inextricably connected, and they're not. If limits are set and not followed then enforcement becomes necessary. Otherwise people self-police. Wherever there are rules and limits there may or many not be an enforcement element present. Does that mean you shouldn't set them anyway?

I don't know why this seems complicated to some. Must be a different mindset. I'm just not getting it.

Waterways are a another example. For inland ways they're set for safety, but even more importantly to keep wakes down so as not to upset moored watercraft. This goes right along with your paved bike path example - the limit is set for the safety of others present - which my example again was, you couldn't make 28mph on that strand if you wanted to. The speed limit is set for 10mph. If you're exceeding that, regardless of the conveyance, it's a violation.

Oh well, I'm out. Have fun with it! 😇
 

AHicks

Well-Known Member
I think you're splitting hairs. If you're setting a safe speed to ride, just like any other conveyance, you either adhere or you don't, but putting additional regulations in to somehow curb the equipment just seems draconian, illogical. At least to a point. And yeah, at some level of motorization the bike ceases to be a bike, whether to be allow at all or not.

If no one is patrolling the freeway I can go 100mph in my car. [shrug] If they are I'm likely to get cited.
You're talking about a limit and enforcement like they are inextricably connected, and they're not. If limits are set and not followed then enforcement becomes necessary. Otherwise people self-police. Wherever there are rules and limits there may or many not be an enforcement element present. Does that mean you shouldn't set them anyway?

I don't know why this seems complicated to some. Must be a different mindset. I'm just not getting it.

Waterways are a another example. For inland ways they're set for safety, but even more importantly to keep wakes down so as not to upset moored watercraft. This goes right along with your paved bike path example - the limit is set for the safety of others present - which my example again was, you couldn't make 28mph on that strand if you wanted to. The speed limit is set for 10mph. If you're exceeding that, regardless of the conveyance, it's a violation.

Oh well, I'm out. Have fun with it! 😇
Simple version of my thought. You can make all the rules you like, including speed limits. but with no enforcement/teeth to back them, they are a waste of ink/bandwidth.

Regarding water, I've lived on the water for the last 40 years and feel very safe saying no wake zones and speed limits are an absolute joke with no cops on the lake to enforce them. Add in the (clueless) weekend warriors to that idea, and you have what I see every holiday weekend. A real zoo.
 

steve mercier

Well-Known Member
One concern of mine is desensitization. If you're used to going say 45 mph, you're going to want to do that everywhere regardless of circumstance. Moderation to you will be say, 35 mph. Especially if you have a full suspension and all. Whereas with an e-bike that tops out at 28 mph, a moderate speed will be considerably lower.
I disagree. Some local trails are marked 10 kmph. They may be congested with dog walkers. I know how to slow down and use Eco until I am clear and then resume my 35 kmph. I do not know what kind of mindless juvenile E bike riders you fear are roaming the streets.
 
Last edited:

Asher

Well-Known Member
I disagree. Some local trails are marked 10 kmph. They may be congested with dog walkers. I know how to slow down and use Eco until I am clear and then resume my 35 kmph. I do not know what kind of mindless juvenile E bike riders you fear are roaming the streets.
Onyx RCR goes up to 60 mph. Sur Ron to 47 mph. Bunch of others go up to 35. Plenty of bike paths that aren't congested but still dangerous to do >25 mph.
 
Its 17mph in Europe/UK and I 'll say I have to agree, we are very over crowded and cyclists flout the law en masse.
25mph ebikes tear arsing around with shopping on the handlebars, bouncing on and off the pavement/sidewalk.
Yes you can pedal that fast...but only the fittest for short periods.
Its not a problem offroad if you are doing it right, no ones climbing steep hills faster than 17mph and you can still downhill at 45 if you want.
The 250w limit is just legal speak, thete are road legal 800W emtbs in the UK.