The Coming Disruption of Transport

[lenaitch]

Spotted it. It’s a four wheeled Emmo E-bike.

ET-4 Cruise

DESCRIPTION The Ecolo Cycle ET4 Cruise is a fully enclosed 4-wheel mobility scooter that provides a comfortable all-weather ride. Equipped with a front windshield wiper, and rearview camera, it offers excellent functionalities. With a 60V45Ah Long Range SLA battery, it offers an impressive range...

emmo.ca

Not a "bike" because it has four wheels. The company calls it a 'mobility scooter'. They're not extensively regulated in Ontario but municipalities can have bylaw regarding where they can/cannot travel.

If the vacation "near Kincardine" was in Huron-Kinloss Township (just south of Kincardine), it is one of the two pilot areas for golf cars. even with that, they have to meet certain equipment standards which are not typically seen on 'normal' golf cars.

 

[just east of the creek]

Not a "bike" because it has four wheels. The company calls it a 'mobility scooter'. They're not extensively regulated in Ontario but municipalities can have bylaw regarding where they can/cannot travel.

If the vacation "near Kincardine" was in Huron-Kinloss Township (just south of Kincardine), it is one of the two pilot areas for golf cars. even with that, they have to meet certain equipment standards which are not typically seen on 'normal' golf cars.

At some point quite soon, the province is going to have to bring some common sense regulation to these various newer modes of personal transit that do not precisely fit into the current regulations. Insurance, safety equipment, registration, driver capabilities, there may be others. Electric bikes, my Vespa, these enhanced golf carts or mobility scooters. They all seem to bridge a useful gap between the pedal bicycle and the late micro or sub compact cars I.e SMART cars being an example.

 

[lenaitch]

At some point quite soon, the province is going to have to bring some common sense regulation to these various newer modes of personal transit that do not precisely fit into the current regulations. Insurance, safety equipment, registration, driver capabilities, there may be others. Electric bikes, my Vespa, these enhanced golf carts or mobility scooters. They all seem to bridge a useful gap between the pedal bicycle and the late micro or sub compact cars I.e SMART cars being an example.

Not to completely defend Ontario governments, which historically lean to 'nanny-state', there are a number of regulations in place to try to accommodate emerging transportation options. Three-wheeled motorcycles (BRP Spyder, HD Trike) can be operated on a restricted M licence. Pilot regulations allow the use of golf cars on public roads in two communities. The challenge is trying to respond to some entrepreneur's or company's next innovative offering by sticking a battery on something. Regulation will always lag innovation and risk-aversion will always rule when something new is proposed to operate in mixed public.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think a lot of people who are anti-Musk also have a fairly surface understanding of him.

Well, if we don’t buy a Tesla when shopping for an EV perhaps Musk will sue us?

Elon Musk's X has lost tons of advertisers. The platform's solution is to sue them.

Musk's X has sued a group of advertisers, alleging they violated antitrust law to boycott his platform.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[just east of the creek]

Indeed, although 'dirt bikes *can* be street legal provided they are licenced and insured. Manner of operation is, quite rightly, often another thing.

The legality of ATVs/UTVs and MSVs on municipal roads is entirely up to the individual municipality. Again, licencing, insurance and manner of operation impact legality.


In North America I think we are more risk-averse in terms of liability, largely driven by the US, but the thinking pervades here as well. Clearly, many western European countries take driving and mobility more seriously; although no doubt idiots exist over there as well. Another factor might be a generally smaller 'mass differential'. The difference between the mass of a typical European passenger car and a scooter, bike, etc. is smaller than over here. Perhaps somewhat less now but more prevalent during the heady days of land yachts which informed a lot of road policy.

My thinking is probably two fold. One. To bring the individual municipal standards under one provincial standard and make it easy for individuals to register themselves and their 'vehicle' for on /off road use. And two, I agree with you that NAM is more risk averse, probably with good reason, as liabilities lie everywhere. So perhaps, anything more then pure pedal power (without electronic assistance), with a max weight in excess of x kg's and a max nominal speed exceeding y should be insured by the owner/operator against the likelihood of causing damage or injury to the operator or anyone the operator collides with. I have thought of this more then a few times when zipping down the Halton Hills exceeding 35 kmh or when some ass on two wheels cuts me off and bike checks me on those same sideroads as i trundle along with the hay wagon or some implement and I am apparently am not 'sharing' the road. Depositing them in the ditch seems like an insurable option. Somewhere they must be keeping some stats on these type of incidents causing injury. It might be useful to see them, I just have not taken the time as yet to research in much detail. There are studies, but they seem to focus more on car related incidents, which is fair enough. However, outtakes on some of those reports, indicate that the highest increasing % of bicycle related injuries do not involve a car. Fitting in some of the newer forms of 2, 3 and 4 wheel transport may not yet have hit a critical mass for reporting purposes. Or I just have not found the data.

 

[evandyk]

If you think about something like this, which I posted above and is actually a pretty good transportation solution for a lot of people in Toronto, there's not really any objection to allowing them on roads that doesn't also apply to bicycles, which we obviously allow people the option of using on roads. But I think this thing is illegal to drive on roads, bike lanes or sidewalks anywhere in Toronto? Or would this fall under the rules for using motorized wheelchairs on the sidewalks?

ET-4 Cruise

DESCRIPTION The Ecolo Cycle ET4 Cruise is a fully enclosed 4-wheel mobility scooter that provides a comfortable all-weather ride. Equipped with a front windshield wiper, and rearview camera, it offers excellent functionalities. With a 60V45Ah Long Range SLA battery, it offers an impressive range...

emmo.ca

 

[just east of the creek]

If you think about something like this, which I posted above and is actually a pretty good transportation solution for a lot of people in Toronto, there's not really any objection to allowing them on roads that doesn't also apply to bicycles, which we obviously allow people the option of using on roads. But I think this thing is illegal to drive on roads, bike lanes or sidewalks anywhere in Toronto? Or would this fall under the rules for using motorized wheelchairs on the sidewalks?

ET-4 Cruise

DESCRIPTION The Ecolo Cycle ET4 Cruise is a fully enclosed 4-wheel mobility scooter that provides a comfortable all-weather ride. Equipped with a front windshield wiper, and rearview camera, it offers excellent functionalities. With a 60V45Ah Long Range SLA battery, it offers an impressive range...

emmo.ca

It seems to me that with the capabilities of this machine and its useability, that somehow this machine (and others) should find a licensed home on some streets and other bikeways/multiuse paths. Licensing could afford both the user and the rest of the general public some protections as well, and give any city some user data that could be incorporated into improvements into the transportation mix within the city, any city.

 

[lenaitch]

My thinking is probably two fold. One. To bring the individual municipal standards under one provincial standard and make it easy for individuals to register themselves and their 'vehicle' for on /off road use. And two, I agree with you that NAM is more risk averse, probably with good reason, as liabilities lie everywhere. So perhaps, anything more then pure pedal power (without electronic assistance), with a max weight in excess of x kg's and a max nominal speed exceeding y should be insured by the owner/operator against the likelihood of causing damage or injury to the operator or anyone the operator collides with. I have thought of this more then a few times when zipping down the Halton Hills exceeding 35 kmh or when some ass on two wheels cuts me off and bike checks me on those same sideroads as i trundle along with the hay wagon or some implement and I am apparently am not 'sharing' the road. Depositing them in the ditch seems like an insurable option. Somewhere they must be keeping some stats on these type of incidents causing injury. It might be useful to see them, I just have not taken the time as yet to research in much detail. There are studies, but they seem to focus more on car related incidents, which is fair enough. However, outtakes on some of those reports, indicate that the highest increasing % of bicycle related injuries do not involve a car. Fitting in some of the newer forms of 2, 3 and 4 wheel transport may not yet have hit a critical mass for reporting purposes. Or I just have not found the data.

One problem with harmonizing road use across the province is it can't differentiate a municipal road in Toronto from one in Kenora district, in terms of such factors as traffic, condition and, for want of a better term, 'local sensibilities'. An ATV or MSV on a road coming back from the bush is around here is accepted differently than one bopping down a Toronto street.

Your example paints an interesting scenario. If by two wheels you mean a bicycle, if something were to occur, it would not generate a Motor Vehicle Collision Report since neither are 'motor vehicles' by definition. Neither requires registration or a licence to operate. If the cops attended it would not doubt generate an incident report by the data would just go into the maw of reports, whereas an MTO MVC report is specifically designed to capture data.

It seems to me that with the capabilities of this machine and its useability, that somehow this machine (and others) should find a licensed home on some streets and other bikeways/multiuse paths. Licensing could afford both the user and the rest of the general public some protections as well, and give any city some user data that could be incorporated into improvements into the transportation mix within the city, any city.

I would think little prevents a city like Toronto from permitting them on non-roadway public property, or even lobbying the province to allow a pilot for on-road use.

I would anticipate that allowing something a yard (ish) wide and weighing 600 pounds on trails and bike paths might face some opposition.

 

[evandyk]

This thing specifically I don't think would be a fit in any bike lane or path given its width and weight. But it should have a home on streets. Of course, then it shouldn't be governed at 30 kph.

 

[lenaitch]

This thing specifically I don't think would be a fit in any bike lane or path given its width and weight. But it should have a home on streets. Of course, then it shouldn't be governed at 30 kph.

Then should it be governed by regular vehicular equipment and collision standards? At some point, a device crosses the line between 'mobility device' and 'motor vehicle'.