Foster City leaders are weighing in on future e-bike rules and regulations, a topic that’s grown more contentious than initially anticipated.
In light of their increased usage — and a higher amount of e-bike collisions than in previous years — the City Council recently called on the school district to help develop and implement a districtwide education program focused on “e-bike use, safe bicycling and pedestrian practices, and safe driving practices for parents at student drop offs and pickups,” the letter said.
According to police data presented at a City Council meeting Dec. 15, there have been 10 e-bike collisions in the city so far this year, eight of those involving minors, compared to three collisions last year. There have been about three collisions involving traditional bicycles so far this year, down from 10 last year.
Mounting concern over e-bikes, particularly among preteens and adolescents, has led to some cities, such as San Mateo and Burlingame, conducting more training workshops for residents. The Burlingame School District recently launched a pilot program requiring students register e-bikes to park them on campus to ensure they are street legal and compliant with safety regulations. Marin County and the Menlo Park School Board banned some e-bikes in certain areas and among certain age groups.
The electric bikes can fall into Class 1-3, with Class 3 bikes going up to 28 mph and require that riders are 16 or older. Class 1 and 2 e-bikes can go up to 20 mph and do not have a minimum age restriction.
Councilmember Phoebe Venkat said she would be opposed to any potential e-bike ban, calling it “very shortsighted.”
“It’s about prioritizing the right actions rather than blame and shame kids and blame and shame parents,” Venkat said.
Councilmember Stacy Jimenez agreed with the need for better infrastructure but said that doesn’t negate the need for more discussion on e-bike safety.
“We’re looking at infrastructure,” she said. “We’re also looking at the issue with cars. We just lowered speed limits to make our roads safer, so to say that we are just focusing on e-bikes and making issues with kids is just absolutely not true.”
City Manager Stefan Chatwin added that “we’re not trying to suggest that e-bikes are the problem for everything.”
So what are the ages of the folks in these 10 e-bike collisions and who was at fault? Were these drivers/e-bike riders legal and compliant with safety regulations? We have councilmember Venkat saying she would be opposed to any potential e-bike ban. Why the line in the sand? Would she be okay with kids under 10 or 8 riding? As for blaming and shaming kids and/or parents, why not? It seems some folks are willing to blame drivers, or the sidewalk, or the fog, or… If the circumstances dictate it…blame who is responsible. Let’s stop putting lines in the sand until there’s data to support decisions. Whether in education, banning, penalties, etc.
There was no insight into any of the crashes listed in the data. We have no idea whether the ebike riders were at fault or if they were hit by distracted/drunk/speeding drivers. Nevertheless, the knee jerk reaction is to blame the kids on bikes.
Meanwhile, a driver recently killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk in Foster City in front of Costco. Not one mention by the City or Council. No arrests made. No regulations proposed. No analysis of whether the road is safe and another fatality is likely. This is why "advocates" are upset. It's not about e-bikes, it's about people getting hurt on our streets.
Nice try, pheebkat, but did you read the entire article? Per the article, “Class 1 and 2 e-bikes can go up to 20 mph and do not have a minimum age restriction.” Which means anyone can ride a Class 1 or 2 e-bike, including kids under 10 or 8. Maybe you’ll need to cross your line in the sand and be open to potential e-bike bans for kids under 10 or 8 since you say, and I quote, “So no, I would not be okay with kids under 10 or 8 riding.” Perhaps in the future, refrain from drawing lines in the sand because maybe, in this case, a shortsighted view is the right one. Especially if you insist on giving passes to kids and parents from being responsible for their actions. BTW, do the majority of your constituents believe in your line in the sand?
The article is about a council meeting I was participating in. Thanks for mansplaining it to me! I don't know what the majority of what my constituents believe as they have different views. My job is to weigh the quantitative and qualitative data, best practices (if there are any as many of these newer municipality-specific ebikes bans don't have outcomes data yet), and yes constituent feedback. I would say that based on all the different kinds of people I talk to, including teens and young adults, banning isn't the long-term solution. Most of the people I've talked to are much more concerned about how drivers are behaving. In Foster City a few examples include: a pedestrian killed by a driver last month, a driver that crashed into a home a couple months ago, and a driver who hit a kid bicycling to school last month. The goal is to make FC safer overall however one moves through it by improving infrastructure, education, and enforcement.
Nice try, pheebkat, in making an inappropriate sexist accusation to distract from explaining why you’ve drawn a line in the sand of opposing bans. A line in the sand you’ll need to cross because you’ve admitted you’re okay with banning kids under 10 or 8 from riding.
You say your job is to weigh the quantitative and qualitative data but do you verify whether the quantitative and qualitative data you review are accurate and non-biased? In this short exchange, we’ve established that you believe there are age minimums on e-bikes, but for Class 1 and 2, there aren’t. How’s your incorrect understanding factor into your line in the sand? You say that most of the people you talk to are much more concerned about how drivers are behaving. Do these folks know who is at fault for the examples you provide? Do these folks know how many cars pass through vs. how many cyclists pass through? Do they have qualitative data to support their accusations?
Again… Perhaps in the future, refrain from drawing lines in the sand. And be open to quantitative and qualitative data that doesn’t support your stance. As you say, the goal is to make FC safer overall but how will that occur if some are unwilling to compromise for the greater good? BTW, a belated Merry Christmas to you.
If this was about 'Safety', Foster City would have an active Safe-Routes-To-School program and more bike lanes.
But this is what San Mateo Democrats have been doing for decades: bullying children off the roads.
Just in the last few months:
- an elderly woman crashed her large SUV into the ACE hardware in RWC
- an elderly drunk man crashed his car at 100 mph into the Los Gatos coffee shop
- an elderly woman in San Mateo crashed her Tesla into a house after jumping over the swimming pool
- an elderly driver smashes into a Safeway and "can't remember what happened"
All these crashes caused millions in damages.
Not one California Democrat asked for better safety measures to either reduce the size, the weight, the speed of cars nor did anyone mention the age of these drivers and their diminishing mental capacities to drive.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(8) comments
I have seen a huge increase in underage kids riding these dangerously on my street and the sidewalks. Education that's voluntary may not be enough.
So what are the ages of the folks in these 10 e-bike collisions and who was at fault? Were these drivers/e-bike riders legal and compliant with safety regulations? We have councilmember Venkat saying she would be opposed to any potential e-bike ban. Why the line in the sand? Would she be okay with kids under 10 or 8 riding? As for blaming and shaming kids and/or parents, why not? It seems some folks are willing to blame drivers, or the sidewalk, or the fog, or… If the circumstances dictate it…blame who is responsible. Let’s stop putting lines in the sand until there’s data to support decisions. Whether in education, banning, penalties, etc.
There was no insight into any of the crashes listed in the data. We have no idea whether the ebike riders were at fault or if they were hit by distracted/drunk/speeding drivers. Nevertheless, the knee jerk reaction is to blame the kids on bikes.
Meanwhile, a driver recently killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk in Foster City in front of Costco. Not one mention by the City or Council. No arrests made. No regulations proposed. No analysis of whether the road is safe and another fatality is likely. This is why "advocates" are upset. It's not about e-bikes, it's about people getting hurt on our streets.
There are already age minimums on ebikes. So no, I would not be okay with kids under 10 or 8 riding. Nice try, though!
Nice try, pheebkat, but did you read the entire article? Per the article, “Class 1 and 2 e-bikes can go up to 20 mph and do not have a minimum age restriction.” Which means anyone can ride a Class 1 or 2 e-bike, including kids under 10 or 8. Maybe you’ll need to cross your line in the sand and be open to potential e-bike bans for kids under 10 or 8 since you say, and I quote, “So no, I would not be okay with kids under 10 or 8 riding.” Perhaps in the future, refrain from drawing lines in the sand because maybe, in this case, a shortsighted view is the right one. Especially if you insist on giving passes to kids and parents from being responsible for their actions. BTW, do the majority of your constituents believe in your line in the sand?
The article is about a council meeting I was participating in. Thanks for mansplaining it to me! I don't know what the majority of what my constituents believe as they have different views. My job is to weigh the quantitative and qualitative data, best practices (if there are any as many of these newer municipality-specific ebikes bans don't have outcomes data yet), and yes constituent feedback. I would say that based on all the different kinds of people I talk to, including teens and young adults, banning isn't the long-term solution. Most of the people I've talked to are much more concerned about how drivers are behaving. In Foster City a few examples include: a pedestrian killed by a driver last month, a driver that crashed into a home a couple months ago, and a driver who hit a kid bicycling to school last month. The goal is to make FC safer overall however one moves through it by improving infrastructure, education, and enforcement.
Nice try, pheebkat, in making an inappropriate sexist accusation to distract from explaining why you’ve drawn a line in the sand of opposing bans. A line in the sand you’ll need to cross because you’ve admitted you’re okay with banning kids under 10 or 8 from riding.
You say your job is to weigh the quantitative and qualitative data but do you verify whether the quantitative and qualitative data you review are accurate and non-biased? In this short exchange, we’ve established that you believe there are age minimums on e-bikes, but for Class 1 and 2, there aren’t. How’s your incorrect understanding factor into your line in the sand? You say that most of the people you talk to are much more concerned about how drivers are behaving. Do these folks know who is at fault for the examples you provide? Do these folks know how many cars pass through vs. how many cyclists pass through? Do they have qualitative data to support their accusations?
Again… Perhaps in the future, refrain from drawing lines in the sand. And be open to quantitative and qualitative data that doesn’t support your stance. As you say, the goal is to make FC safer overall but how will that occur if some are unwilling to compromise for the greater good? BTW, a belated Merry Christmas to you.
If this was about 'Safety', Foster City would have an active Safe-Routes-To-School program and more bike lanes.
But this is what San Mateo Democrats have been doing for decades: bullying children off the roads.
Just in the last few months:
- an elderly woman crashed her large SUV into the ACE hardware in RWC
- an elderly drunk man crashed his car at 100 mph into the Los Gatos coffee shop
- an elderly woman in San Mateo crashed her Tesla into a house after jumping over the swimming pool
- an elderly driver smashes into a Safeway and "can't remember what happened"
All these crashes caused millions in damages.
Not one California Democrat asked for better safety measures to either reduce the size, the weight, the speed of cars nor did anyone mention the age of these drivers and their diminishing mental capacities to drive.
But kids are the problem.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.