HaraldvonBlauzahnBosch manager in interview: eBike over-motorization is a risk to our business, because eBikes with more than 800 Watt power will lead to much stricter regulations
There’s a whole class of electric vehicles being held back by regulation. We can slap electro motors on wheels and bicycles are not the only vehicles you can build with that tech. Many EU countries are e.g. banning throttles on eBikes, but why are we forcing all those delivery drivers to pedal the whole day? Just give them a gas throttle. For many eBikes uses it really doesn’t make sense to include the whole bicycle complexity of gears, chains, shifting and so on. Just give them a motor and a throttle.
Killing the eBike with additional rules, insurance, mandatory inspections and so on would be absolutely idiotic and a good business model for insurances, car companies and so on, so I’m really afraid that this could happen
There’s a whole class of electric vehicles being held back by regulation.
Do you know that there is a reason for the regulations on light motorcycles, mopeds, mofas, Vespas, scooters and however you name them? It’s the number of fatal traffic accidents. And yes, there are probably over two dozens of these motorized vehicle classes which originally started with the idea of an “bicycle with a bit of motor” such as mopeds and mofas.
I really can’t see this in the traffic accident statistics. Yes, there are a lot of motorcycle accidents, but if you look deeper into them, those are in most cases “real” motorcycles and not those slower variants. And if you take a look at those eScooters, most accidents here are people driving those rental scooters while drunk. That’s a problem, but that’s also a problem you won’t solve by regulating the dude going to the train station in the morning.
It is very clear from statistics of traffic accidents between cars and pedestrians that risk if lethal injuries rises sharply with speed, even at speeds of 30 km/h.
It is also very clear that riding light motorcycles is far more risky thsn riding a bike.
Actually it does make a difference, as cynetic energy is proportionnal to mass, so 30kmh car is much more dangerous than a 30kmh bike. Though it does not invalidate your point
No, that’s not the case. What’s relevant is the relative speed of the two objects, which is 30 km/h.
Suppose the impact coefficient k is similar, it does make a difference whether a bike crashes into a standing car (case 1) or a car crashes into a standing biker (case 2).
The thing is: You are using velocities v1, v2 which are relative to Earth. But none of the two vehicles collide with Earth - they collide with each other, thus the thing that matters is their relative speed, thus the difference of their velocities relative to Earth.
(That’s also why the speed at which both Earth, the car, and the motorized bike move around the sun does not matter - relative speed is all what matters).
The other thing is that a human colliding with an object of several tons weight with a speed of, say, 36 km/h is not “elastic”. 36 km/h is 10 meter per second, which is equal to about one second of free fall (accelerating with a= 9.81 meter per square second to the ground), which is equivalent to a fall height of h = a/2 * s ^2 or 5 meters.
Somebody falling from 5 meters hight on hard concrete ground will not bounce up but will likely have some broken bones, or a broken skull. What happens is that all parts of thier body is decelerated to a speed of zero within a distance of one or two centimeters, which involves massive forces that easily break bones.
And a speed of 14 m/s, or 54 km/h corresponds to a fall of ten meters depth - almost certainly lethal if hitting a two-ton concrete block.
The thing is: You are using velocities v1, v2 which are relative to Earth.
The formula includes the relative speed (v_2 - v_1) of both bodies. Derivation, see Wikipedia.
Somebody falling from 5 meters hight on hard concrete ground will not bounce up but will likely have some broken bones, or a broken skull. What happens is that all parts of thier body is decelerated to a speed of zero within a distance of one or two centimeters, which involves massive forces that easily break bones.
case 1, k=0. Fortunately, a car is not solid rock. I don’t know about a typical of k for collissions of humans with a car, but if you say it’s 0, that’s actually good for the biker, as the forces then acting on their tissues is smaller than if that would not the case.
So concluding. If the collision of the biker and tge car is completely inelastic, it doesn’t matter if the biker crashes into a resting car or the car crashes into a standing biker.