Status Quo for Me, a Speeding Ticket for Thee

One of the most frustrating things about transportation decisions in my city is the obvious double standard when it comes to cars versus everything else.

Recently, I was reminded of this double standard, in a new way. Citing an increase in reports from his constituents about near-misses, a Winnipeg city councilor moved to explore the idea of a speed limit for bikes, e-bikes, and scooters on shared paths. The motion stated that “many residents are afraid to use our pathways for fear of being struck and injured by speeding bikes, e-bikes, scooters, or other devices.”

Sigh. As someone who sometimes rides a bike for transportation, I’ve often felt like I just can’t win. I don’t want to be on the sidewalk where I may be disruptive or dangerous to people walking. But I also don’t want to be on the road with impatient, fast-moving motor vehicle traffic. Where can I be where I won’t be in someone’s way? And so, I feel for e-bike and e-scooter riders. Like bike riders in a city without great bike infrastructure, they, too, are in a seemingly impossible position: too fast for walkers and too slow (and too unprotected) to mingle in car traffic.

I will disclose right off the bat that I don’t currently use any of these motorized personal transportation devices (MPTDs for short). I tried an e-scooter once and found even the lowest speed was way too fast for me! But the recent explosion of e-bike and e-scooter sales shows that people love them, and they’re here to stay. How MPTDs will safely co-exist with others is something we need to figure out. And if we’re smart, we won’t see it as a problem, but as an opportunity.

Like the many Winnipeggers who weighed in on social media, when I heard about this motion, the obvious big question that came to mind is, assuming this is even necessary or a good idea, how would you ensure that people comply with this? It’s a tricky question, and it’s fair to ask. It’s evident that police have bigger fish to fry and this would be low on their list of priorities to tackle.

Is it possible that declaring a speed limit and putting up signs would be enough? Even the councilor who brought the motion “hopes that [enforcement] won't be necessary” and that simply bringing the issue to light will cause people to slow down.

I think we can confidently say that campaigns telling people to slow down, regardless of mode, aren’t very effective.

Also, the motion wants to explore speed limits on active transportation pathways, which isn’t exactly a defined term. Even if they ride primarily on officially designated active transportation paths, at some point most riders travel at least some distance on roadways or sidewalks. Do the rules apply there? Or are these only rules for official paths? These are the things that people who use any type of bike or other devices for transportation, not just recreation, think about. And speaking of types of bikes, non-electric bikes don’t have speedometers, and not all electric devices do, either.

These practicalities would need to be addressed, but I think it’s all a bit of a distraction from the bigger and more pressing picture. There just isn’t enough room for non-motor vehicle users, and as e-mobility takes off, this will only get worse.

The ostensible issue here (that electric devices are dangerous to others) is such a small piece of the overall sorry state of transportation in the city, that it’s frustrating to see it get so much air time.

Framing MPTDs devices as dangerous, while completely avoiding dealing with the longstanding and inconvenient reality that auto-orientation poses a far greater risk, does a few things.

One, it discourages modes that we desperately need people to embrace for the financial and environmental health of our cities. It maligns a technology that has the potential to transform urban mobility.

It also perpetuates a myth that e-bikes are only about speed. In reality, people choose e-bikes and scooters for many reasons beyond speed: to extend range, help with hauling children or cargo, take the edge off in hilly or windy riding conditions, etc.

Most interestingly, it lays bare the huge double standard that society has when it comes to speed. It can be summed up like this: Cars—everything is fine, no need to change. Everyone else—slow down, you could hurt someone!

In fact, when presented with a road safety advocate’s suggestion that a bigger priority should be reducing speed limits on all residential streets (thereby making the streets and active transportation paths safer for all users), the councilor who made the e-bike motion said, “There’s no way people would follow that.”

I guess what really gets my goat is that there’s this paternalistic concern for the poor, vulnerable pedestrian on a shared active transportation path, but also a complete blind eye to the hellscape conditions that pedestrians and bicyclists must endure everywhere else in the city. It’s vital and worthwhile to prevent collisions between vulnerable road users, but impractical and unrealistic to hold drivers to a similar standard?

It’s also notable that when we identify an issue with speed, the only tools we seem willing to use are speed limits and education campaigns. Those don’t work all that well for humans in cars, but somehow we anticipate that they should work well for humans on bikes…the very same ones who are often labelled "scofflaw cyclists" who think they’re exempt from the rules of the road!

Maybe the inability to see this double standard comes from the deeply entrenched perceptions that equate driving with transportation and the economy, and walking/biking with recreation and lifestyle.

It’s interesting to think about people contacting their city councilor to share their concern about e-bikes going too fast on active transportation paths. How many people contact their city councilor to share their concern about, um, the dangerous and financially devastating stroad-based transportation network the entire city is based on? (We do exist, and for our trouble get labelled as “special interest groups.”) People often do complain about specific dangerous intersections, but do they get the results they want? Not usually, if the response would mean restricting cars. But restricting bikes? Evidently, no problem.

It is encouraging to see an acknowledgement, even if not a direct one, that potential conflict between pedestrians and bikes comes from the speed differential. It is frustrating that the focus, though, is on AT paths and not roadways, where the stakes in a conflict are a lot higher. I don’t want to minimize the gravity of either collision. A person who gets hit by a bike or car travelling at 20 mph will get hurt, to be sure. But when that speed is 30 or 40 mph (and two or more tons of mass), injuries are life threatening or fatal.

Figuring out how MPTDs are going to fit into existing environments—and ideally, not just making it work, but well enough to be appealing—isn’t going to be simple or straightforward.

How we choose to regulate MPTDs says a lot about how much we want to help or hinder equitable urban mobility. I’m not saying I don’t think there should be a speed limit for e-bikes, e-scooters, etc.—maybe there should be, but I haven’t seen a compelling enough case, either way. I’m saying how we can adapt to and nurture this new type of transportation deserves a far more thorough, considered examination than simply “how fast is too fast.”

The questions we ask about new forms of transportation also need to be asked about our old forms of transportation. Some questions that decision-makers should ask themselves: Who gets to be safe when moving around in our city? Who needs protecting, from what? Who is participating in the economy?

If we’re willing to make evidence-based decisions, we will acknowledge that far and away, the most dangerous part of our urban transportation system (and the biggest deterrent to getting more people walking and biking) is fast-moving motor vehicles.

Until we are willing to re-examine “how fast is too fast” for those vehicles, it’s hard to believe that piecemeal regulations in the name of safety will have much of an impact on the big picture.

Featured

Emma Durand-Wood

Emma Durand-Wood likes walkable cities, front porches, street trees, bumping into neighbors, riding her bike, downtowns, and any excuse to check out a new coffee shop, bakery, or shop. A Winnipegger by choice, she lives in Elmwood with her husband and three children. You can connect with her on Twitter @emmaewood.