With technological advances and lower prices, electric bicycles (e-bikes) and other low-powered vehicles (LPVs) such as mobility scooters, self-balancing devices, e-skateboards and e-scooters are rapidly becoming more popular. Chapter 1 describes how such devices can be seen as having economic, environmental and/or personal health benefits, require less road space and consume less fossil-fuel, compared with traditional modes on a per person-trip basis. Many LPVs are blurring the lines between conventional vehicle classifications, and raising new questions about our existing legislation and infrastructure. Current New Zealand legislation principally refers to motor power and, unlike most other countries, does not limit the maximum motor-assisted speed. Regulations should be flexible enough to cover any new device that does not yet exist, help minimise harm to road and path users, and support the positive benefits of LPVs. The various types of LPVs are introduced in chapter 2. The research focuses on electric-powered devices with a continuous power rating no more than 2,000 W and considers how these relate to existing legislation (including for petrol-powered mopeds). The devices may or may not include means of human propulsion. In New Zealand, the vehicles included in this research fall into one of the following classes: • power-assisted pedal cycles (bicycle-style e-bikes) • mopeds, including motor scooters with a maximum speed of 50 km/h and low-powered scooters (also known as power cycles or scooter-style e-bikes with pedals) • wheeled recreational devices, which may have a motor of no more than 300 W • mobility devices, including power chairs and mobility scooters, which may have a motor up to 1,500 W • devices or vehicles with power above 300 W and up to 600 W officially declared to not be a motor vehicle, e.g. the Yike Bike. Some of the LPVs studied do not currently fall into any New Zealand class. Overseas, some of the vehicles included in this research are grouped into categories such as personal mobility devices or powered mobility devices (PMDs), personal light electric vehicles (PLEVs), personal electric transportation devices (PETDs), other power-driven mobility devices (OPDMDs), or low-speed electric vehicles (LSEVs). The results of an extensive literature review and Internet research on existing and new technologies in development have been incorporated throughout this report. Chapter 3 summarises an online survey of 1,356 interested stakeholders (including LPV users, other road and path users, advocates, manufacturers, importers and retailers) undertaken to better understand the current climate of LPVs in New Zealand. Key stakeholders were consulted through telephone interviews, workshops in Christchurch and Wellington, a meeting with the RCA Forum Shared Footpath Working Group, and visits with retailers. The researchers also attended events such as the Motorhome Show and the Active Ageing Expo to learn about the marketplace from the perspective of older persons, and the Evolocity FESTT where high school students and engineers collaborate to innovate with electric vehicles. The research revealed a wide range of often conflicting views on issues such as the use of footpaths and whether throttle e-bikes should be permitted. Chapter 4 describes a market prediction undertaken to predict sales of e-bikes and mobility scooters in future years, based on sales trends in New Zealand and other countries. Unit sales of e-bikes have climbed rapidly from about 2,300 in 2014 to about 14,000 in 2016. Based on a medium growth rate scenario, unit sales are predicted to be over 35,000 in 2026. In a high growth scenario such as we are currently experiencing, sales may exceed 65,000 units in 2026. For mobility scooters, about 6,000 are sold per year but a growth trend is not clear. It was not possible to forecast sales for other LPVs due to limited data. A safety analysis (chapter 5) based on overseas studies yielded inconclusive results, perhaps due to poor reporting methods and the relative newness of LPVs. Older studies in particular should be treated with caution as the devices included may have different characteristics than what is now becoming available. New Zealand’s Safer journeys strategy (MoT 2010) sets out four principles of a Safe System: • Safe speeds are associated with decreased likelihood and injury severity of crashes. Throughout this report, two main approaches to mitigating speed are discussed — controlling the speed capability of LPVs and encouraging or requiring users to travel at a speed appropriate to the conditions (e.g. when sharing space with pedestrians). • Safe vehicles in the context of LPVs include features such as the ability of self-balancing devices to travel at very low speeds without wobbling, as discussed in chapter 7. • Safe road use in the context of LPVs is addressed through an assessment of existing rules (chapter 8) and educational messages (section 9.1). • Safe roads and roadsides such as geometric design for LPVs is covered in section 9.3. Longstanding issues of inadequate footpath width and surface smoothness are beyond the scope of this research. E-bike safety research suggests there are both increased safety risks and safety benefits associated with e-bike use compared with unpowered bicycles. The higher average speed (about 3 to 8 km/h faster, refer section 5.1) and greater mass (typically 4 to 8 kg heavier) of e-bikes may increase the likelihood and injury severity of crashes. On the other hand, e-bikes help address many barriers to cycling and therefore are likely to support the ‘safety in numbers’ effect. If e-bikes replace car trips, then they may reduce the social cost of crashes as they cause less damage and injury to others than motor vehicles. Mobility scooters have the highest involvement in fatal crashes (at least 20 deaths in the last 10 years). Most non-fatal incidents are related to falls from the scooter or crashes into stationary objects rather than collisions with motor vehicles. Safety evidence for other LPVs is scant. One American study showed e-kick scooter injuries were over three times as likely to be severe than non-powered scooter injuries — although at the time the study was conducted, most scooters available in the US were the toy variants aimed at children. Collision modelling for self-balancing devices indicates lower head injury severities than the equivalent pedestrian collisions. Segways were not found to have a serious adverse safety record, and are permitted in most public places in the US and increasingly in Europe and Australia. The ability of users to control LPVs is considered in chapter 6. As the human brain is not fully developed until adulthood, younger people are less equipped to make decisions and more likely to take risks. Conversely, elderly people suffer a decline in motor skill, sensory function and cognitive ability, which can affect their ability to operate devices. Unfortunately, the information available is not detailed enough to suggest upper and lower age thresholds. Chapter 7 presents the technical features affecting safety. Manufacturers often restrict speed and/or power to manage safety, comply with regulations and maximise vehicle durability. However, some users defeat these restrictions by tampering with software, sensors, or motors, or by using higher-voltage batteries. Most LPVs have permanently mounted lights providing a reliable means of seeing and being seen. Production e-bikes generally have powerful disc or hydraulic rim brakes in compliance with applicable overseas standards. Most other LPVs have adequate braking capability via the motor. Automatic curve speed reduction for certain mobility scooters reduces the probability of a tip-over injury. In future, autonomous technologies could reduce many perceived and actual safety issues with LPVs. Chapter 8 presents an overview of New Zealand’s existing vehicle classes and current legislation by country for each LPV category. Chapter 9 assesses potential classes and rules. The three key criteria for vehicles are power, speed and presence/type of throttle control. Maximum continuous power output is a useful regulatory criterion to (a) differentiate from other motor vehicle classes, (b) limit acceleration to a level compatible with other path and cycle lane users, (c) reduce the incentive for owners to tamper with speed restrictions set in the LPV system, and (d) ensure high power and weight systems are not fitted to bicycles that are not designed to cope with such additions. Some overseas jurisdictions allow power levels higher than New Zealand’s current 300 W limit. Increasing the power limit would support the adoption of e-bikes in hillier locations, cargo e-bikes, and a broader range of LPVs designed for those overseas jurisdictions. Self-balancing devices require a higher peak power to ensure stability for sudden leans or bumps, so manufacturers do not publish continuous power ratings. Maximum power- assisted speed is referred to in the legislation of all other countries reviewed. For ebikes, three maximum motor assisted speeds commonly used overseas (25, 32 and 45 km/h) have been assessed. A limit of 25 km/h would be safest but would make e-bike users slower than many unpowered cyclists, reduce travel time competitiveness, limit model choices and reduce uptake of e-bikes. 32 km/h would be consistent with the existing ungoverned and US market e-bikes while reducing the incentive to tamper with speed restrictions. 45 km/h would be consistent with the EU’s S-pedelec (a type of moped) and the US class 3 speed e-bike (a bicycle); offers New Zealand consumers an option that minimises the speed differential with other motorised modes in urban areas and makes longer distance commutes more viable. All countries with this class also have a lower speed e-bike class. For other LPVs, three maximum motor assisted speeds (10, 15 and 25 km/h) have been assessed. The lower values maximise safety in pedestrian interaction situations but are lower than the capabilities of most LPVs, may be difficult to enforce and do not account for potential use on roads. A maximum vehicle speed of 25 km/h aligns with the capabilities of many devices while a maximum user speed of 15 km/h could be applicable to footpaths, in line with the speed of unpowered scooters and runners. Throttles are perhaps the most contested component of LPVs. Major e-bike brands are moving towards mid-drive pedelec road and hybrid models, without throttles. All major brand e-mountain bikes are pedelecs (without throttles) due to the reduced surface erosion and superior control. Prohibiting throttles would increase the average e-bike cost and therefore reduce uptake and potentially the ‘safety in numbers’ benefit. Notwithstanding the market implications, a pedelec system (pedal assist with optional start-assist throttle limited to 6 km/h) is more desirable from an overall safety and health perspective than e-bikes with throttles. Chapter 10 presents ideas for positive, aspirational education and encouragement campaigns to boost safe usage and reinforce the ‘safety-in-numbers’ effect. With higher usage, improved engineering and increased facility capacity will be needed to support the desired safety outcomes. It is recommended considering: • including any LPVs intended for or primarily used by mobility impaired users within the definition of a mobility device • classifications for e-bikes and other LPVs based on speed capability • a maximum power-assisted speed and size for vehicles using footpaths • relaxing maximum power limits for e-bikes and other LPVs designed for road use • minimum age limits and driver licensing for higher speed e-bikes and LPVs • helmet wearing by LPV users depending on speed capability • further promotion of user behaviours that minimise conflict with existing path and roadway users (e.g. Road User Rule 11.1). A more detailed summary of findings is presented in appendix A: Findings and indicative regulatory framework based on international experience. The degree and nature of existing legislation varies greatly between the different devices and different countries. Aligning New Zealand legislation with that of other countries will clarify rules for the industry, the public, regulators and the Police. Australia and the UK are generally adopting the EU standard for ebikes, but we could also adopt a framework that comprises the most appropriate components from various overseas rules. As no reviewed countries have rules covering the full range of other LPVs, the pros and cons outlined in this report may serve as a basis to create a regulatory framework that simplifies the process of approving or rejecting new LPVs. The next steps might be to consider the issues and recommendations included in this report as part of a policy-making exercise, with rule-making to follow. (Author/publisher)
Abstract