The Report of Electric - Pedego Electric Bikes

Transcription

Outside Consumer Research Reports - Electric Bikes
Table of Contents
Report 1
ITS - UC Davis – November 2011
Can Electric 2-Wheelers Play a Substantial Role in Reducing CO2 Emissions?
--The Report of Electric Bicycle Usage of Western US Residents
Pages 2-22
Report 2
ELECTRIC BIKE 2000 PROJECT - April 2001
Transportation Development Centre, Safety and Security, Transport Canada
Centre for Electric Vehicle Experimentation in Quebec
Pages 23-92
www.pedegoelectricbikes.com
Can Electric 2-Wheelers Play a Substantial
Role in Reducing CO2 Emissions?
—The Report of Electric Bicycle Usage of Western US Residents
Zhenying Shao, Elizabeth Gordon, Yan Xing, Yunshi Wang,
Susan Handy, Dan Sperling
ABSTRACT Through this project, we interviewed 27 e-bikers in Sacramento-Davis area and
found that there are four benefits unique to the riding of e-bikes: Speed,
Acceleration, Green, and Enabling. They are fast so that e-bikers can cut down
their commute time and allow them to ride more frequently than if they ride
traditional bikes, especially during hot and windy days. The ease of acceleration
makes obeying stop signs or riding uphill less onerous and provides e-bikers with
more confidence when only vehicle lanes are available to bikers. They also provide
those who, for various reasons, don’t or can’t ride traditional bikes an option for
green transportation. Finally, they enable people with certain disabilities, because
of illness or aging or time constraint, to continue to bike, with the help of electric
motors when needed. The barriers to the expansion of e-bike ridership are Cost
($1,500 on average), Heavy weight, Infrastructure (unsafe roads and communities,
and lack of emergency charging), and policy (some bike lanes are not open to ebikes). However, those barriers can be overcome with some small government and
business interventions.
China Center for Energy and Transportation
ITS – UC Davis
2 of 21
ACKNOLEGEMENT We’d like to express our gratitude to the Department of Energy and Argonne
National Lab, especially Dr. Michael Quanlu Wang, for supporting this project.
We would also like to thank the Energy Foundation’s China Sustainable Energy
Program for its consistent support of the China Center for Energy and
Transportation at University of California at Davis for the center’s various
projects. Drs. Thomas Turrentine and Kenneth Kurani also shared their valuable
experiences with us. Credits should also go to ITS-Davis alumnus Dr. Jonathan
Weinert, a pioneer in this field with several papers we cited here, for his sage
advice at the outset of this project.
ITS – UC Davis
3 of 21
INTRODUCTION
Worldwide, electric bicycles (e-bikes) sales were projected to reach around 30 million in 2010,
with China accounting for 25 million or 83 percent of the total (Jamerson and Benjamin).
However, according to Chinese media, in 2010, China produced a total of 29.54 million e-bikes.
Chinese experts expected that by 2012, China will have 200 million e-bikes (Xinhua News
2011).
In some countries (most notably China) e-bikes are relatively inexpensive and make up a
significant portion of transportation mode share, especially in cities (Weinert et al. 2006; Weinert
et al. 2008). They are faster and require less physical exertion than a traditional bicycle and are
more maneuverable and less costly than a personal automobile. In the extremely densely
populated settings where they are most common, traffic congestion means this agility is an
important asset in terms of reducing trip times. They also don’t require gasoline, and since they
are a light vehicle with a low power demand, recharging them is within the budget of many
people. Riding e-bikes is a more environment-friendly travel mode than driving, according to the
findings of a recent research (Cherry et al. 2009). E-bikes emit substantially less pollution per
kilometer than cars based on life-cycle emissions analysis.
In the United States, e-bikes are far less widely utilized. The small size and maneuverability that
are such assets in China are perceived as less valuable here, where a much higher proportion of
the population has personal vehicles, road speeds tend to be higher on average, and infrastructure
is almost hostile to slower modes of transportation. Under these conditions, being one of the
smallest, lightest vehicles on the road may lead to a perception of the e-bike as unacceptably
unsafe. Additionally, the population is more dispersed and land use is generally less dense,
meaning that very few American cities have similar characteristics to the cities where e-bikes are
most common in China. In the United States, the e-bike, like all non-auto modes, must struggle
against decades of auto-centric development. However, some of its characteristics may allow it
to appeal to certain population groups, specifically the aging Baby Boomers, for whom the
traditional bicycle is becoming increasingly ill-suited, and possibly allow it to serve as a light
duty automobile alternative in situations that are not as acceptable for a traditional bike.
Some early adopters have started using e-bikes for (primarily) transportation and recreation in
the United States. Our research team conducted twenty seven interviews in the greater
Sacramento area to glean some understanding about the attitudes and experiences of these
individuals. Many participants had interesting comments about the way they use their e-bikes,
ITS – UC Davis
4 of 21
the feedback they’ve gotten from their peers and family members, the factors that limit their
usage and the reasons that caused them to choose to invest in an e-bike. While each participant
had a unique perspective, there were several clear themes that emerged, which could help shed
some light on the opportunities and challenges for introducing e-bikes as part of the American
transportation solution.
Characteristics of the E-bikes and Batteries
Most of our respondents use e-bikes from two companies, Pedego and BionX. The main
difference between these two companies is that Bionx also sells e-bike kits that can be installed
on most conventional bicycles, whereas Pedego only sells new e-bikes. The characteristics of the
most popular e-bikes from these two companies are listed in table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of the E-bikes and Batteries
Pedego1
BionX1
Classic Comfort Cruiser
Compact/Power/Premium Series
Batteries
Lithium
Lithium
Amps
10 Ah Standard/Optional 15 Ah
9.6/9.6/8.8 Ah
Volts
36 Volt
26/37/48 Volt
Speed
20 MPH
25 MPH
Range
15 - 30 miles2
40/56/65 miles
(65/90/105 km)3
Bicycle =55 lbs
Motor =10 lbs (4.7kg)
Battery Pack=6 lbs
Battery=8 lbs or more (3.7kg)
Motor
500 Watt
250/350/350 Watt
Price
$1795.00
$1195.00-$2195.00
Weight
1. Source: Practical Cycle website (http://practicalcycle.com/index.php), BionX website (http://www.bionx.ca/en/)
2. It depends on the rider’s weight and terrain.
3. Maximum range per battery charge is based on assistance mode level 1, under ideal conditions. Distances will
vary depending on road- conditions, cyclist weight, and assistance required.
ITS – UC Davis
5 of 21
METHODOLOGY
This report seeks to explore the experiences and attitudes of current e-bike (e-bike) users in the
greater Sacramento area, specifically in Sacramento and Davis. Given the time and financial
constraint that prevented a large-scale survey in two-months, only qualitative methods were used
to analyze the transcripts of interviews to identify commonly mentioned themes and ideas.
Two main methods were employed to recruit people who are e-bike users. First, volunteers were
recruited for the interviews primarily by distributing fliers at local businesses that sell e-bikes.
The proprietors were asked to pass on the research team’s contact information to customers who
had bought an e-bike from them. Second, snowball sampling method, i.e. asking a respondent to
refer other people who also fit the research requirements, was used to recruit more respondents.
All participants we interviewed were then asked if they knew other e-bike users who may be
interested in participating. A $20.00 gift card to Target was offered as an incentive to each
participant.
Through these methods, 27 participants were recruited. Twenty four of the interviews took place
in-person, the remaining three over the telephone. The interviews were conducted at various
locations, including some participants’ offices and homes, university facilities, and coffee shops.
The interviews took between approximately 20 and 45 minutes and were recorded using an mp3
recorder. For most interviews, two members of the research team were present, though four were
conducted by only one researcher. All interviews were based on the same set of guiding
questions. Most of the questions were open ended, but some asked for specific quantitative
information.
The research team transcribed all of the recordings after the interviews had been completed. All
transcript files were shared among the research team, and one researcher wrote a preliminary,
non-exhaustive list of common themes which was shared, discussed, and supplemented by the
rest of the team. Respondent answers to the quantitative questions were compiled into an Excel
spreadsheet, and examined for patterns.
ITS – UC Davis
6 of 21
PRELIMINARY SURVEY RESULTS
Totally 27 people were surveyed in Sacramento area, all in the cities of Sacramento and Davis.
According to their responses, descriptive characteristics of these electric bicycle users were
analyzed, as well as their travel behaviors. Additionally, the factors influencing the usage of ebikes as described by e-bike users were documented. Further, the use of e-bikes by these
participants was summarized.
Sample Descriptive Characteristics
Socio-demographic characteristics of the e-bike users we interviewed are shown in Table 2. We
also compare these attributes of the participants to California’s latest census data. It shows that
only 37% of the participants are females, which is much less than the percentage of females
(50.3%) in population, implying that relatively more e-bike users in our research are males.
People who are 65 years old or over account for a higher percentage (22.2%) in our survey than
that (11.4%) of population, indicating that older people are more likely to be e-bike users. One
possible reason is that e-bikes may provide easier mobility for older people, a point which was
frequently mentioned in their decisions to choose an e-bike. These e-bike users are also found to
have higher education and household income levels, which are usually closely correlated. On the
one hand, e-bikes, which on average cost US$ 1,500, are relatively expensive. On the other hand,
highly educated people tend to be more environmentally friendly, thus, are more likely to choose
an environment-friendly transportation mode including e-bikes.
The characteristics of e-bike users in our research can thus be described as the group of people
who are more likely to be at middle-age or over and highly educated males with higher income.
ITS – UC Davis
7 of 21
Table 2. Comparison of Socio-demographic Characteristics of E-bike Users in Sacramento Area
with Census Data
Number
Females
Age
Education
Mean
HH*
size
(s.d.)
%
Median
HH*
income
(s.d.)
20--34
CA
census
1
35-64
1
37,253,956
50.3%
27
37.0%
>=High
School
>=65
11.4%
1
80.5%
2
>=Bachelor
29.7%
Survey
1
2
14.8%
63.0%
22.2%
100%
2
2.91
2
3
$58925
2.6
$72708.3
(1.6)
(30395.3)
77.8%
2010 census data
2005-2009 census data
3
2009 census data
Cite: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
Travel Behaviors of E-Bike Users
The participants were asked to report the days and approximate miles they rode e-bikes in an
average week with good weather. For the respondents who have regular access to a car, the
current weekly days of driving were also reported. Survey questions also focus on trip purposes
by e-bike and the change of driving behavior after riding an e-bike. We summarized the e-biking
and driving behaviors of the participants in Table 3.
On average, these e-bike users ride e-bikes more frequently (4.26 days/week) than driving a car
(2.76 days/week). However, the usages of e-bikes are various. Some people only use it
occasionally, e.g. once a week, or ride it for shorter distance destinations; some ride e-bikes more
often and travel for longer distances.
ITS – UC Davis
8 of 21
Table 3. Travel Behavior of E-Biker Users in a Typical Week
Days e-biking
Miles e-biking
Days driving
Number of people reported
27
25
25
Minimum
1
2
0
Maximum
7
140
7
Mean
4.26
44.04
2.76
Std. Deviation
1.89
34.18
2.20
The purposes of e-bike trips are categorized into two general groups, transportation (including
commuting, shopping, visiting people) and recreation (exercise, pleasure rides, adventure). The
participants reported their portion (0-100%) of their e-bike rides for the two categories of
purpose. Figure 1 shows that a very high percentage of people interviewed (77.8%) stated that
they ride e-bikes mostly for transportation purpose. 37 percent said that they ride exclusively for
transportation purposes. Several respondents indicated that they had changed the usage of ebikes from recreation, which was the reason they first purchased the product, to transportation,
after they found it convenient, safe and fun to ride. This finding may suggest that unlike regular
bicycles, which are viewed as a recreational tool for many Americans, the bike with an electric
motor on it is treated more as a tool to reach relatively long-distance destinations with the faster
and easier mobility it provides.
Figure 1 Trip Purpose by E-Bike
Further, whether the usage of an e-bike can fully or partly substitute driving was examined by
asking change of the driving behaviors of the respondents after they receive an e-bike. Not
ITS – UC Davis
9 of 21
surprisingly, a higher percentage (79.2%) of people stated that they drive a lot less or a little less
now compared with the time when they did not get an e-bike. Only 20.8% of them drive about
the same as before (Figure 2). Even so, many of these people used to be regular bicyclists before
they got an e-bike.
Figure 2 Change of Driving Behavior of E-Bike Users after Riding an E-Bike Factors Influencing E-Bike Usage
Themes Identified By Respondents: Benefits
There were several themes that emerged repeatedly in the participant interviews, and many of
them were instances of wide agreement of the positive aspects of e-bikes, which make the e-bike
attractive and encourage the users to ride them more. They can be summarized as SAGE: Speed,
Acceleration, Green, and Enabling.
Speed
The first and most obvious advantage over a conventional bicycle is that the e-bike is faster (per
unit of rider effort). While this seems extremely simple, respondents described a whole range of
implications for this fact. First and most common, the users noted that the faster speed allowed
them to cut down their commute time. For some people, e-bikes allowed them to ride their bike
to work more frequently than they might otherwise, due to time constraints. Multiple respondents
ITS – UC Davis
10 of 21
expressed that they got a new job or a new housing situation and initially rode their bike to work.
After discovering the time and effort implications of continuing biking, they began using their
cars. Investing in the e-bike was seen as a way (usually motivated by pro-environmental values)
to enable a bicycle commute.
Acceleration
Another oft-cited advantage of the e-bike is acceleration. E-bikes allowed their riders to
negotiate traffic conditions and regulations. Many of the respondents noted that their ability to
travel around 20 to 25 miles an hour made them more confident on the occasions that their travel
route requires them to occupy a vehicle lane, as opposed to a bike lane or path. The pedal assist
or throttle of the e-bike also makes obeying stop signs or going uphill less onerous. Respondents
mentioned that the ability to use the throttle to accelerate quickly out of a stop sign reduced the
time it took for them to traverse downtown areas, where stop signs are frequent, made them less
worried about making cars waiting for them impatient, and greatly decreased the physical effort
needed to start from a complete stop.
All of these factors were seen as enabling the e-bike to interact, on the road, more like an
automobile. It was repeatedly mentioned that these advantages were magnified by the fact that
the current traffic rules and road facilities are overwhelmingly designed to accommodate cars. In
this way, and due to the aforementioned implications of greater speed, e-bikes are well suited to
the particular American transportation challenges presented by auto-centric design and relatively
low density land use. The e-bike can function, in some ways, more like a car, without losing
some of the environmental and economic benefits of a bicycle.
Green
The other category of advantages that respondents described had to do with their attitudes and
desires, instead of the ways that it eases the logistics of transportation. Many respondents looked
into the e-bike specifically so that they could meet their goals that were motivated by their
environmental values to drive their cars less frequently. They specifically cited desires not to
burn gas, which contributes to global warming and poor local air quality. It is fair to say that a
major portion of the respondents were people with extant environmental values (but no specific
attachment to bicycling), who invested in e-bikes because it was their best option for lowenvironmental-impact transportation. Another major group, though, were people who were
ITS – UC Davis
11 of 21
already bicycle enthusiasts and were trying to shift some of their remaining car trips to the
bicycle. Adding an e-bike to the family’s possessions allowed some respondents to get rid of one
or multiple cars, since the e-bike expands the types of trips that can be completed on bicycle,
with some motorized help. Respondents in both of these categories were very likely to note,
unprompted, that one of the things they like most about the e-bike is it’s fun. There were a few
respondents who did use their e-bikes exclusively for recreation (3.8%), but even those who
purchased one for pragmatic transportation reasons often mentioned how enjoyable the e-bike is
to ride.
Enabling
Bicycle advocates must remember that all of the potential advantages of shifting more trips to the
bicycle mode are essentially only open to the very able-bodied. This is also true, to some extent
with automobiles, so clearly any transportation mosaic that truly aspires toward equity and
accommodation of all user groups, including the disabled, should have a sizable public
transportation element. However, some of the respondents to our interviews pointed out the ways
in which the e-bike enables people with certain disabilities or symptoms of aging to begin or
continue participating in bicycle transportation. One participant has a nerve disorder that limits
her ability to ride a conventional bicycle. She has obligations at the UC Davis campus and
around Davis, and finds that even with a handicapped parking tag, it is difficult to find parking
close enough to her buildings to meet her various time constraints. When UC Davis opted to
focus so much of its energy on making biking convenient, it was also, in practice, creating a
campus environment that was convenient primarily for able bodied people. The e-bike allows her
to participate in that and fulfill her desire to use her car less frequently to save on parking costs.
More encouraging for potential e-bikers in other regions, some respondents mentioned that
acceleration helps when riding up hills and bridges.
Several respondents who were long-time bike commuters found their commute had become
difficult as they grew older and began to have knee and back pains or other physical issues. They
invested in e-bikes to help them continue to receive the benefits they see in bicycle commuting.
The e-bike was described as being particularly helpful in alleviating the pain and effort required
to start from a dead stop, and in allowing the riders to carry more of their belongings. It was also
noted that the decreased physical effort to cover the distance from home to work (in particular)
meant that e-bike riders are able to arrive at their destination and not be particularly sweaty, or
require shower facilities. These advantages are notable in the ways that they allow users to avoid
some of the usual explanations offered by people as to why they are unwilling to commute by
bike. Female respondents, in particular, were likely to note the importance of being able to arrive
ITS – UC Davis
12 of 21
to their workplace and not be as disheveled as if they had ridden a conventional bicycle. They
could ride back home without motor assistance and take shower. For doctors and nurses who
have access to shower at work, they could bike to work in the morning and return home with
motor assistance after a long and exhaustive day (The Sacramento Bee, 2011). This may
represent another way that the electric bicycle could help make bicycling possible for new
groups of people in an increasingly aging society.
Themes Identified By Respondents: Barriers
Respondents also talked about the ways in which their e-bikes were less than ideal for their uses,
the external challenges to using their e-bikes more frequently, and the factors that people they
talked to cited as barriers to getting e-bikes of their own. These themes were remarkably
consistent across the board, but to the extent that they varied, it seemed that certain factors
played a larger role according to whether the participant lived inside Davis or elsewhere in the
Sacramento Area. Those factors can be summarized as CHIP: Cost, Heavy Weight,
Infrastructure, and Policy.
Cost
The main barrier to buying an e-bike that the respondents reported hearing from their family and
peers is cost. In the Sacramento area, e-bikes sold at dealerships start at around $1,500, including
e-bikes that are electric conversion kits installed on a bicycle the customer already owns. There
are some kits available on the internet that are less expensive, but require some technical
knowledge to install. Additionally, if less expensive assembled models are found on the internet,
the difference in cost is usually a product of the fact that battery life is shorter or the battery
chemistry is less advanced and batteries are heavier per unit of charge. In China, e-bikes with
lithium batteries start at roughly the equivalent of $ 470. While these particular models may not
be perfectly suited to the American setting for the aforementioned reasons, it is clear that
bringing the cost down could be possible, particularly if a substantial market for e-bikes is
emerging. Due to the high cost, respondents often expressed that theft of their e-bike was a cause
for concern.
Heavy Weight
The weight of the e-bike was mentioned as a negative factor across all groups of participants, but
especially prominently among women and older respondents. The fact that the motor and battery
ITS – UC Davis
13 of 21
pack add about 50 pounds to the weight of the bicycle caused some respondents to have trouble
maneuvering the bike with the motor off, such as when they are trying to park it, or lock it into a
rack. The weight also contributed to the already often expressed issue of range anxiety.
Participants mentioned that the fact that the bike is very heavy means that once the battery dies
the e-bike does not simply function as a regular bike, but instead takes a great deal of effort to
pedal. This is another way in which the needs of American e-bike users are affected by the
generally less dense land use and longer commute distances; less expensive models with shorter
battery life will not be as appropriate in this setting.
Infrastructure
Many participants also mentioned that despite the increase in speed and acceleration, they still
felt unsafe interacting on the road with cars, in many settings. This particular complaint was
more common among respondents who do not live and work (or attend school) in Davis, a city
known for bike-friendly. Respondents were asked if infrastructure improvements to their
commonly used routes would increase the frequency of their e-biking. Among Davis
participants, most people expressed that infrastructure was adequate, and was not limiting their
e-biking frequency. Among respondents outside of Davis, lack of access to safe facilities was
often described as a limiting factor. Some respondents also described altering their routes to
work so as to avoid excessive interaction with automobiles.
Beside road facilities, safe and e-bike/bicycle friendly community or neighborhood is also a key
factor that works positively on participants’ e-biking/biking behavior. Most Davis participants
emphasized that the town is nice to bike; with convenient facilities, bike-friendly drivers, and
safe neighborhood. Respondents in Sacramento area worried about homeless people and other
elements that might pose unwanted intrusions when e-bikers stopped at intersections. They had
changed their e-bike routes or turned to driving facing potential threats. Several participants said
they were very cautious and nervous when they crossed the traffic, since car drivers usually
ignored them.
The charging station for e-bikes is another infrastructure improvement that almost all the
respondents expect. Because of the range anxiety, the respondents carefully calculate their
battery range. This reduces the fun and frequency of riding e-bikes for transportation and
recreation purposes. Providing charging stations will encourage people to use more e-bikes.
ITS – UC Davis
14 of 21
Policy
A few respondents mentioned one specific policy that they would like to see changed, to better
accommodate e-bikes. Currently, California state law prohibits e-bikes from using Class One
separated bike paths. Cities can override this law to allow e-bike-use within their jurisdiction and
several Davis respondents are involved in a campaign for the change. In Davis, on-road routes
between locations in the city are often much longer and perceived as less safe than routes that
involve some time on Class One bike paths. Several of these respondents noted, however, that
operating at the maximum possible speed of the e-bike (current models are governed at 20 mph)
would be inappropriate on these facilities, and may be scary or unsafe for pedestrian and nonelectric bicycle users, especially on the bike-crowded routes. Fifteen mile per hour speed limits
already exist for these paths, and if enforcement is consistent and signs are more prevalent, these
paths should be safe for both bikers and e-bikers.
Future Use of Electric Bicycle
Most participants stated that they would use e-bikes more. Many of the users feel that the more
they e-bike, the more likely they will use e-bikes for their trips. Incentives such as subsidies
given by employers to e-biking and biking to work, or at-the-pump gas price increases to
$6/gallon (E-bikes are much more popular in Europe), or improving the infrastructure on the
routes from home to work to increase safety, comfort, and range-confidence for e-biking, or
simply finding ways to reduce the cost of e-bikes, or some combination of these measures.
Furthermore, as a reflection of the aging of Baby-Boomers, some participants we interviewed
saw the e-bike primarily as a tool for transportation, as opposed to recreation (shown in Figure
1). Most of them described using the e-bike as an “equalizer” allowing them to keep up with a
spouse, friend or family member who is a faster cyclist. This widely held perception (about the ebikes being primarily for transportation) among the interview participants seems to run counter
to dominant idea in the general population that a bicycle is primarily for exercise or recreation.
When the participants were asked what their families, peers and colleagues thought about their ebiking, though some viewed as “interesting” and “cool,” a very common response was that they
were told using a bike with an electric motor was “cheating.” If the primary purpose of a bicycle
is indeed to get exercise, then this contention makes sense. However, it makes no sense when
talking about something that is primarily a transportation vehicle; it would seem ludicrous to
most people to make the suggestion that using a motorized car was “cheating.”
ITS – UC Davis
15 of 21
One participant, who sells e-bikes, eloquently expressed his frustration with this perception of
bikes and e-bikes as recreational equipment.
“I know a lot of people view them as toys, and recreational equipment. I wish people
would take it a little more seriously. This is transportation. They come in and laugh and
say, maybe when I’m old. And then put their 5,000 dollar carbon bike on the back of your
SUV because you’re too scared to ride on the road. And you call that a road bike. It’s like,
come on, let me change your life. I’ll give you an e-bike, a real one with some big fat
tires on it so you can take the potholes, and you don’t have to show up all sweaty and you
really can take this seriously as an alternate form of transportation.”
This information may indicate that the market for e-bikes is a subset of the portion of the
population that views bicycling as a legitimate form of transportation, instead of recreation. This
involves public education in the Unite State, where cycling should not only limit to recreation
and exercise. Our participants have proven the feasibility of biking for transportation. Expanding
this perception is likely an important step to increasing bicycle mode share in general; the
advantages of e-bikes that were identified by participants also have potential to expand the
subgroups for whom using a bicycle as transportation is feasible. Therefore, improving
conditions for conventional bikers is just as important as for e-bikers. A bike-friendly community
is in general an e-bike friendly one.
ECONOMICS AND CO2 EMISSIONS
We compare the fuel cost and CO2 emissions between e-bikes and cars used for two different
daily trips, one between Sacramento and Davis (15 miles) and the other within the city (5 miles).
We don’t consider motorcycles, because motorcycles were never a consideration in our
respondents’ decision for their transportation mode. Two-third of the e-bikers we have
interviewed said that they ride e-bikes for at least four days a week and 85 percent of them use ebikes for transportation or for both transportation and recreation. On average, 67 percent of those
interviewed ride e-bikes for 5 miles or more per day; 44 percent for 10 miles or more, and 22
percent for 20 miles or more.
ITS – UC Davis
16 of 21
Table 4. Assumptions and Sources
Assumptions and Sources
PG&E: 0.524 lbs CO2 per kWh
USEPA: Burning 1 gallon of gasoline produces 19.4 lbs CO2
Value
0.524
19.4
C. Cherry, etc: A standard electric bike requires about 2.1 kWh/100 km or
A standard car can go 27.5 miles per galon (current CAFE)
Average gas price as of 10/31/2011 in Sacramento (Costco+Chevron)/2
Average electricity cost per bill of PG&E in August in Davis
Distance between Davis and Sacramento
Distance within the City
29.59
27.5
$3.74
$0.123
15
5
Unit
lbs/kWh
lbs/galon
miles/kWh
miles/galon
$/kWh
$/kWh
miles
miles
Based on the assumptions listed in Table 4, we can conclude that while riding e-bikes presents
substantial economic savings, its environmental benefits are even more significant (Table 5).
Rather than subsidizing electric vehicles, a targeted, small incentive for e-bikes could reap a
much larger CO2 emissions reduction in California and in the United States. Utilities could also
provide programs that disperse the initial cost of e-bikes with a higher first year electricity rate or
arrange to purchase e-bikes in large quantity from cheap sources with discount price. In the end,
e-bikes provide new and welcome business for them, given the fact that many of the batteries
will be charged during the off-peak period of the day.
Table 5. Fuel Cost and CO2 Emissions for Daily Round Trips, e-Bike vs. Car
Distance
15 Miles
5 Miles
15 Miles
5 Miles
Round Trip per Day
by Car
By e-Bike
$4.08
$0.12
$1.36
$0.04
21
7
0.53
0.18
200 Days per Year
By Car
By e-Bike
$816
$25
$272
$8
CO2, lbs per Year
4233
106
1411
35
300 Days per Year
By Car
By e-Bike
$1,224
$37
$408
$12
6349
2116
159
53
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
From the interviews in the Sacramento-Davis area, we found that potentials for developing the
e-bike as a new transportation method in the United States is high. In our 27 interviews, all the
participants felt safe, confident and comfortable when riding e-bikes. Most respondents
expressed that they will use e-bikes more in the future. The increase in speed and acceleration
bring e-bike owners more fun when they are on road. Those who use e-bikes for commuting
could avoid sweat when they arrive at work and they can continue to exercise when they pedal
back with motor-off and take shower at home. These are key characters which encourage
ITS – UC Davis
17 of 21
respondents to ride more for transportation. For those people with certain disabilities or
symptoms of aging or physical discomfort on long range cycling, e-bike offers an ideal choice to
begin or continue or even extend their participation in bicycle riding. These advantages are
notable in the ways to involve more people using e-bike for either transportation or recreation.
Price and technology limitations are two main obstacles that stand in e-bike development. All the
respondents agree that the price becomes an obstruction. Even to those owners, the price forces
them pay extra attention on the e-bike, as safety and weather issues. The current technology on
battery and weight are two main topics that respondents discussed a lot. Since e-bikes can be
heavy when they are trying to pedal it without electricity assistance, respondents expressed
anxiety on battery range and life. This prevents them using e-bike for longer rides. The need to
pay close attention on battery usage also reduces the enjoyment of riding an e-bike. Heavy
weight is talked about among women and older respondents, who have trouble maneuvering the
bike with motor off. In addition, attached cargo or large basket is an improvement on e-bike that
the interviewers hoped, which may also increase their use frequency.
Another serious topic is on the weather influence. It surprises us that most participants enjoy
riding their e-bike in hot and windy weather, because they do not need to pedal hard as they do
with regular bikes. For extremely hot weather, several people will change to drive. However,
almost all the e-bike owners avoided e-biking on raining days. They did not want the battery and
motor kit to be wet or wringing, which they believed may cause damages to e-bikes. Again, the
high cost of e-bikes forces owners paying more attention on them. Furthermore, the quick
acceleration and speed could get riders and e-bike itself mucked up, which is probably hard to
clean up. This could mean that e-bikes work better in sunny, dry area. But due to the location
limitation, there is no feedback on how people use e-bike when it is cold or snowing.
An interesting finding is that many e-bike users we interviewed still ride their regular bicycles
occasionally. The notion that bicycle is for exercise is popular among many Americans. Most
people choose e-bikes mainly for transportation purpose because it provides a faster and easier
way to get to destinations. Furthermore, most participants think driving is still necessary and
indispensable for carrying heavy or big loads, and for traveling far distances, although they
agreed that e-bikes can substitute driving to some extent by running small errands, or going to
some destinations too long for bicycling.
ITS – UC Davis
18 of 21
However, there are examples, in the world, of e-bikes constituting a significant portion of mode
share. These examples differ in important ways from the transportation environment in the
United States. The participants in this interview process illuminated several ways in which ebike technology, infrastructure and attitudes affect the feasibility of e-bike usage here. They also
suggested that e-bikes could be an important tool for expanding the groups of people for whom
bicycling for transportation is feasible. There are not yet enough e-bikes on the roads to find
meaningful data on how e-bikes interact with conventional bicycles, but at the current
concentration there do not seem to be frequent conflicts. In the American setting, efforts to
promote and provide infrastructure for e-bikes specifically, may only be minimally necessary.
The best market for e-bikes seems to be people who are already interested in bicycling for
transportation or for low impact transportation in general. The most important steps to achieving
more e-bike mode share are probably to lower the initial cost, continue promoting and providing
infrastructure for conventional bicycling, and possibly increasing awareness of e-bikes’ existence
and potential benefits.
Given the positive externalities e-bikes bring about—good for environment as well as reducing
the traffic congestion—encouraging e-bike usage may be an effective complementary way for
developing sustainable communities in the U.S. There are several parts where the Government
can make progress on, that would increase the possibility and frequency of more people using ebikes/bikes. The facilities, including parking racks, charging stations, and pavement situations,
are the preconditions. Well designed facilities provide convenience for riding, which will
encourage people to change from driving to e-biking or even biking. Given the relatively fast
speed of e-bikes, respondents have high requirement on the smoothness of pavement in bike
paths/lanes. Legal use of bike paths is a policy-related issue that the Government can resolve.
Meanwhile, maximum speed (15 mph) should be enforced consistently on the paths, and this
could guarantee safe interaction among e-bikers, bikers and pedestrians. For long term
improvement on bicycle and e-bike friendly community, drivers’ awareness of riders is key.
Public education, including emphasis on bicycle as a transportation mode, could inspire more
people biking/e-biking in the future.
FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDED
Research on e-biking behavior in the U.S is limited, particularly in comparison with the recent
explosion of studies on bicycling. Academically, this study tries to fill this important gap in the
transportation research field, but more importantly, it sheds some light on the potential of ebiking in the United States by offering valuable insights into the importance of sociodemographical, attitudinal, infrastructure, and other factors including policies in explaining the
usage of the e-bike. Obviously, this is just the first step, additional research is badly needed.
First, a larger sample of e-bike users and perhaps non-e-bike users is needed to explore more
ITS – UC Davis
19 of 21
representative attributes of the population who may ride e-bikes in place of cars if certain
conditions are met. Second, the significant role of individual attitudes shown in the interviews
also suggests a need for further cultural and behavioral probe, e.g. why do some people like ebikes and others don’t? What leads to greater comfort riding an e-bike? Third, potential
relationships between some social factors need to be further explored. Can a bicycle-friendly
community like Davis also accommodate and welcome e-biking? Short of technology
breakthrough in battery range and cost, is there anything else a community can do to promote ebiking as a transportation mode? The answers to these questions will help policy makers to
identify special needs of e-bike users and provide effective and comprehensive strategies for
sustainable transportation.
ITS – UC Davis
20 of 21
REFERENCES
Cherry, Christopher R., Jonathan X. Weinert, Yang Xinmiao. (2009) Comparative
Environmental Impacts of E-bikes in China. Transportation Research Part D 14, 281-290
Jamerson, Frank E. and Ed Benjamin; Electric Bikes World Reports 2009
Sacramento Bee Report, 2011, Getting Around: Little Electric Motors Put The Fun Back In
Bicycling by James Raia, October 6th.
Weinert, Jonathan X., Chaktan Ma, Chris Cherry (2006) The Transition To E-bikes In China:
History And Key Reasons For Rapid Growth. Springer Transportation 34 (3), 301 – 318
Weinert, Jonathan X., Chaktan Ma, Xinmiao Yang, Christopher R. Cherry (2008) Electric TwoWheelers in China: Effect on Travel Behavior, Mode Shift, and User Safety Perceptions in a
Medium-Sized City. Transportation Research Record 2038, 62 – 68
Xinhua News Report 2011, Electric Bikes Will Reach 200 Million Next Year, April 6th. Available from: http://news.hexun.com/2011‐04‐06/128514690.html, (assessed 11.02.2011), (in Chinese). China Center for Energy and Transportation
ITS – UC Davis
21 of 21
TP 13732E
ELECTRIC BIKE 2000 PROJECT
Prepared for
Transportation Development Centre
Safety and Security
Transport Canada
By
(CEVEQ)
April 2001
TP 13732E
ELECTRIC BIKE 2000 PROJECT
By
Véronique Lamy
(CEVEQ)
April 2001
The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the contractor and do not
necessarily reflect those of the Transportation Development Centre.
MAIN PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS
Véronique Lamy
Senior Editor
CEVEQ
Pierre Lavallée
Support Group
CEVEQ
Claude Guérette
Support Group
Transportation Development
Centre, Transport Canada
René Desaulniers
Support Group
SAAQ
Fernand St-Georges
Analyst
Ce rapport est disponible également en français : Projet Vélos Électriques 2000,
TP 13732F.
ii
Transport
Canada
1.
Transports
Canada
Transport Canada Publication No.
PUBLICATION DATA FORM
2.
TP 13732E
4.
Project No.
3.
Recipient’s Catalogue No.
5.
Publication Date
9889
Title and Subtitle
Electric Bike 2000 Project
7.
April 2001
Author(s)
6.
Performing Organization Document No.
8.
Transport Canada File No.
Véronique Lamy
9.
ZCD2450-D-730
Performing Organization Name and Address
10.
Centre for Electric Vehicle Experimentation in Quebec (CEVEQ)
128 rue de la Gare
Saint-Jérôme (Quebec)
J7Z 2C2
12.
MTB-0-00512
11.
PWGSC or Transport Canada Contract No.
T8200-000506/001/MTB
Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
13.
Transportation Development Centre (TDC)
800 René Lévesque Blvd. West
Suite 600
Montreal, Quebec
H3B 1X9
15.
PWGSC File No.
Type of Publication and Period Covered
Final
14.
Project Officer
Claude Guérette
Supplementary Notes (Funding programs, titles of related publications, etc.)
Co-funded by the Program of Energy Research and Development (PERD)
16.
Abstract
This report outlines the results and consequent recommendations of an electric bicycle (e-bike) evaluation project
held in four Canadian cities − Montreal, Quebec City, St. Jerome, and Toronto − from June 12 to October 7, 2000.
The project’s main objective was to determine the safety of e-bikes in order to help the authorities decide on
appropriate regulations.
To achieve this objective, the Centre for Electric Vehicle Experimentation in Quebec (CEVEQ), creator of the
project, solicited the support of various partners and bicycle manufacturers. Two categories of e-bikes –
electrically assisted bicycles and electrically propelled bicycles – were used and 55 e-bikes in all were made
available to 369 volunteers for testing.
In Quebec, participants were asked to ride the bicycles to work for two weeks and were also allowed to use them
for recreation. At the end of this period, they had to complete a detailed questionnaire and submit their comments.
In Ontario, users had opportunities to try out the e-bikes on rides of one hour or more and then completed a
shorter questionnaire.
The project also had some secondary objectives, including: promoting e-bikes and assessing the level of interest
in their use for urban transportation; identifying appropriate sectors for use of e-bikes; stimulating people’s interest
in using the bicycles to commute to work; and supporting greater use of non-polluting and less energy-consuming
modes of transportation.
17.
Key Words
18.
Electric bicycles, electrically assisted bicycle,
lectrically propelled bicycle, CEVEQ
19.
Security Classification (of this publication)
Unclassified
CDT/TDC 79-005
Rev. 96
20.
Distribution Statement
Limited number of copies available from the
E-mail: [email protected]
Security Classification (of this page)
Unclassified
21.
Declassification
(date)
—
iii
22.
No. of
Pages
xvi, 46,
apps
23.
Price
Shipping/
Handling
Transports
Canada
1.
Transport
Canada
o
N de la publication de Transports Canada
FORMULE DE DONNÉES POUR PUBLICATION
2.
TP 13732E
4.
o
N de l’étude
o
3.
N de catalogue du destinataire
5.
Date de la publication
9889
Titre et sous-titre
Electric Bike 2000 Project
7.
Avril 2001
Auteur(s)
o
6.
N de document de l’organisme exécutant
8.
N de dossier - Transports Canada
o
Véronique Lamy
9.
ZCD2450-D-730
Nom et adresse de l’organisme exécutant
10.
Centre d’expérimentation des véhicules électriques du Québec (CEVEQ)
128, rue de la Gare
Saint-Jérôme (Québec)
J7Z 2C2
12.
MTB-0-00512
11.
o
N de contrat – TPSGC ou Transports Canada
T8200-000506/001/MTB
Nom et adresse de l’organisme parrain
13.
Centre de développement des transports (CDT)
800, boul. René-Lévesque Ouest
Bureau 600
Montréal (Québec)
H3B 1X9
15.
o
N de dossier - TPSGC
Genre de publication et période visée
Final
14.
Agent de projet
Claude Guérette
Remarques additionnelles (programmes de financement, titres de publications connexes, etc.)
Projet cofinancé par le Programme de recherche et développement énergétiques (PRDE)
16.
Résumé
Ce rapport présente les résultats et les recommandations émanant d’un projet d’évaluation de vélos électriques
(vélos É) tenu dans quatre villes canadiennes, soit Montréal, Québec, Saint-Jérôme et Toronto, du 12 juin au
7 octobre 2000. Le principal objectif de ce projet consistait à déterminer l’impact des vélos É sur la sécurité des
usagers, afin d’aider les autorités responsables à statuer sur une réglementation appropriée.
Pour ce faire, le Centre d’expérimentation des véhicules électriques du Québec (CEVEQ), initiateur du projet, a
sollicité l’appui de divers partenaires et manufacturiers de vélos. Au total, 55 vélos É de deux catégories, soit les
vélos à assistance électrique et les vélos à propulsion électrique, ont été mis à la disposition de 369 volontaires
pour en faire l’essai.
Au Québec, les participants étaient invités à utiliser le vélo pendant deux semaines pour se rendre au travail, en
plus d’avoir la possibilité de l’utiliser pour les loisirs. À la fin de cette période, ils devaient remplir un questionnaire
détaillé et formuler leurs commentaires. Du côté de l’Ontario, les utilisateurs avaient l’occasion de faire l’essai
d’un vélo É pour une ballade d’une heure ou plus, et par la suite ils remplissaient un questionnaire moins élaboré.
Le projet comportait également un certain nombre d’objectifs secondaires, dont : la promotion et l’évaluation de
l’intérêt du vélo É comme moyen de transport urbain; l’identification des secteurs d’utilisation; la stimulation de
l’intérêt des gens à utiliser le vélo pour se rendre au travail; l’appui à l’émergence de moyens de transport moins
énergivores et non polluants.
17.
Mots clés
18.
Vélos électriques, assistance électrique,
propulsion électrique, CEVEQ
19.
Classification de sécurité (de cette publication)
Non classifiée
CDT/TDC 79-005
Rev. 96
20.
Diffusion
Le Centre de développement des transports dispose
d’un nombre limité d’exemplaires.
Courriel : [email protected]
Classification de sécurité (de cette page)
Non classifiée
iv
21.
Déclassification
(date)
—
22.
Nombre
de pages
xvi, 46,
ann.
23.
Prix
Port et
manutention
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Electric Bike 2000 Project was made possible through each participating
organization’s contributions of financial support and/or services, staff and other forms
of support.
The Centre for Electric Vehicle Experimentation in Quebec (CEVEQ) would like to
specially thank all of the suppliers who kindly loaned a large number of electric bicycles
for the project, as well as participating organizations for their excellent co-operation.
CEVEQ wishes to thank all of the cyclists who rode e-bikes for this project and carried
out their duties with great enthusiasm and conviction.
CEVEQ would especially like to thank Transport Canada’s Transportation Development
Centre and the Société de l’Assurance Automobile du Québec for making this project
possible and the Moving the Economy organization for co-ordinating the project in
Toronto.
Lastly, CEVEQ thanks the Interdepartmental Electric Vehicle Group (GIVE) of France for
its co-operation with the French partners.
v
PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS AND REPRESENTATIVES
(Transport Canada)
Claude Guérette
Agence de l’Éfficacité Énergétique
Douglas Labelle
Société de l’Assurance Automobile du Québec
René Desaulniers
Quebec Department of the Environment
Jean-Claude Raymond
Quebec Department of Transport
Marcel Ayoub and
Stéphane Campeau
Hydro Quebec, Laurentians
Laurent Martineau and
Nicole Audy
Agence Métropolitaine de Transport (AMT)
Luc Couillard
City of Quebec
Claude Larose and
Yvon Jobin
City of Montreal
Pierre Le Breux and
Mario Bérubé
Moving the Economy (City of Toronto)
Sue Zielinsk and
Li-lien Gibbons
City of St. Jerome
Louis Parent
Association Québécoise du Transport et des Routes
Marie-Josée Huot
City of Lachine (GRAME)
Jean-François Lefebvre
In Toronto, the Electric Bike 2000 Project was supported by the following partners:
• Toronto Atmospheric Fund
• City of Toronto
• Human Resources Development Canada
• Transportation Options
• Independent Bicycle Dealers Association
• McBride Cycle Power Sports
• Wheel Excitement
vii
OFFICIAL SUPPLIERS OF ELECTRIC BICYCLES
Procycle
Ephrem Busque
EPS
Jean-Yves Dubé
EV Global Motors
James Goraieb
and Mark Lafontaine
Zapworld
Gary Star
Th!nk Mobility (Ford)
Ben Sullivan
AeroVironment
Michael Greenish
Renault Sport
Olivier Jauffret
Cycleurope (Peugeot)
Jean-Louis Jean
Honda
Peter Berry and Don Zaharia
Yamaha Motor
James Fukada
viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Electric Bike 2000 Project is part of an initiative to promote the use of electric
bicycles (e-bikes) and to document their performance to assist the federal and
Quebec governments as they prepare to regulate the use of this new mode of
transportation.
A pioneer in evaluating e-bikes, the Centre for Electric Vehicle Experimentation in
Quebec (CEVEQ), together with the Tremblant Resort Association, organized e-bike
tests at the world-renowned tourism site in the summers of 1997 and 1998. In 1999,
aware that this transportation method has relevance for cities because it reduces traffic
and greenhouse gases, CEVEQ suggested to the City of Montreal and other partners
that they participate in an e-bike evaluation project. For four months, 120 cyclists
assessed the first e-bike built in Quebec – the Elektron, manufactured by Groupe
Procycle in Saint-Georges-de-Beauce. The final evaluation report attracted the interest
of Transport Canada and the Société de l’Assurance Automobile du Québec (SAAQ).
With strong support from major partners, the Electric Bike 2000 Project quickly expanded
worldwide, attracting some of the world’s most prestigious manufacturers in Quebec,
Canada, the United States, Japan, and Europe (Honda, Ford, Yamaha, Peugeot,
Renault, ZAP, EV Global Motors, Groupe Procycle, etc.). Products new to the market
(Ford’s TH!NK Bike Fun) were tested by the general public for the first time. The prospect
of legislation in Canada generated considerable interest in the evaluation. CEVEQ
succeeded in expanding the testing to include four Canadian regions and close to
400 cyclists. The evaluation was held from June 12 to October 7, 2000. Each participant
had to complete a detailed questionnaire.
A communication strategy was also implemented to raise awareness of the project and
to provide the public and governments with general information on e-bikes and their
advantages in urban environments. The resulting heavy press coverage helped to
increase public awareness of e-bikes. Various government authorities and participating
organizations were also brought into the project and reaped various benefits,
depending on their interests and participation.
Regulatory issues
When the project was launched in June 2000, e-bikes were subject to the requirements
of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act because they were motorized. In particular, they
belonged to a subclass of limited-speed motorcycles under the Motor Vehicle Safety
Regulations. Amendments to have electrically assisted bicycles (EABs) removed from
the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations were submitted to Transport Canada for
consultation in November 1999. A new version of the regulations was expected in
December 2000 and adoption of the new regulations regarding e-bikes is scheduled for
spring 2001.
ix
Thousands of kilometres ridden on electric bicycles
During the project, 369 people travelled a total of 25,205 km on the e-bikes. Of this
number, 211 Quebec cyclists chalked up 24,343 km, an average of 115 km per user.
In Ontario, the project had to deal with the refusal of the Ministry of Transportation of
Ontario (MTO) to allow e-bikes on public thoroughfares. The project was modified and
the e-bikes were ridden in parks and on bicycle paths within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the City of Toronto. A total of 158 users accumulated 862 km on rides of one hour or
more.
Feeling of safety
Eighty-three percent of respondents felt as safe on an e-bike as on a conventional bike.
Ninety-five percent of those who rode electrically propelled bicycles (EPBs) and
96 percent of those who rode electrically assisted bicycles (EABs) felt they had full
control of their bicycles when the motor was running. Reducing the weight of the e-bike
and improving the braking system on certain models were the main elements that
would contribute to an increased feeling of safety.
Electrically assisted bicycles and electrically propelled bicycles
The findings demonstrated that the two e-bike systems – electrically propelled and
electrically assisted – were equally safe. Therefore, the new regulations should not
include restrictions on the motor’s operating apparatus. In addition, users also noted
that e-bikes encourage users to obey the Highway Safety Code more strictly (for
example, they are more likely to stop at mandatory stops) because the bikes’ motor
power makes standing starts easier.
E-bike performance
In general, respondents were highly satisfied with the user-friendliness, braking and
reliability of the e-bikes, whether they were EPBs or EABs. However, they clearly disliked
the weight of the bikes and wanted more power assistance in some circumstances,
such as on steep hills.
The survey findings also clearly indicated the cyclists’ dissatisfaction with the electric
motor’s power-assist limit being set at 24 km/h, which was below their usual speed on
a conventional bicycle. Above that speed, they had to exert much more effort than on
a conventional bicycle, because of the e-bike’s weight. Users said that an increase in
the power-assist speed to 30 km/h would provide more latitude without compromising
safety.
x
Interest in e-bikes as a mode of urban transportation
According to 79 percent of the cyclists surveyed, exercise was the main reason that
would encourage them to use an e-bike to commute to work. Reduced pollution
(51 percent) and low cost (41 percent) were other significant reasons. Participants also
saw an advantage in being able to deal more easily with adverse travel conditions.
Sixty-four percent of all participants said they would use an e-bike to travel to work;
65 percent of those who usually travel to work by car said they would opt for the e-bike;
and 71 percent of conventional bicycle enthusiasts expressed interest in using e-bikes to
get to work. Obviously, many people find this new technology very attractive.
Conclusion
E-bikes are a great success when judged by the level of user interest and the media’s
e-bike infatuation. Participants’ comments indicated their potential to become popular
and, for some, to replace the automobile as a mode of transportation to work,
particularly from May to October. Overall, respondents thought that the federal
government (Transport Canada) and the Quebec government (SAAQ) should legislate
and permit the use of electric bicycles.
The project results also identified the expectations of potential clients, namely:
• An e-bike that can reach 30 km/h in power-assist mode;
• A high-performance, ergonomic product that is, most importantly, lighter, and that
can assist the user on steep hills and provide good acceleration;
• Useful accessories providing greater safety in urban environments;
• Anti-theft devices and workplace facilities to help ensure bicycle security in all
circumstances.
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Objectives.............................................................................................................. 1
2.
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 3
2.1
General .................................................................................................................. 3
2.2
Electric bicycles .................................................................................................... 3
2.3
Types of electric bicycles..................................................................................... 4
2.3.1 Electrically assisted bicycles (EABs)........................................................ 4
2.3.2 Electrically propelled bicycles (EPBs)..................................................... 4
2.4
Regulations applicable to e-bikes...................................................................... 5
2.5
Canadian situation............................................................................................... 6
2.6
CEVEQ’s mission and objectives ........................................................................ 6
2.7
1999 Electric Bicycle Evaluation Project ........................................................... 6
2.8
Special study framework ..................................................................................... 7
3.
METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 9
3.1
Project method ..................................................................................................... 9
3.2
Project implementation ....................................................................................... 9
3.2.1 CEVEQ: Project designer and manager ............................................... 9
3.2.2 Partners..................................................................................................... 10
3.2.3 Suppliers ................................................................................................... 11
3.2.4 Implementation ...................................................................................... 12
3.3
Selecting the target clientele ........................................................................... 13
3.4
Data gathering ................................................................................................... 14
3.4.1 Overall method....................................................................................... 14
3.4.2 Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 15
3.4.3 Cyclists’ comments................................................................................. 15
3.4.4 Special characteristics of the Ontario tests ........................................ 16
3.5
Approvals ............................................................................................................. 16
3.5.1 Transport Canada approval ................................................................. 16
3.5.2 Authorization from the Société de l’Assurance Automobile
du Québec .............................................................................................. 17
3.5.3 Special problems in the Ontario evaluation ....................................... 17
3.6
Communication strategy .................................................................................. 17
3.6.1 Promotional tools .................................................................................... 17
3.6.2 Press conferences................................................................................... 18
4.
LIST OF TESTED BICYCLES AND SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS ....................................... 19
5.
EVALUATION RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 23
5.1
General ................................................................................................................ 23
5.1.1 Distance travelled by cyclists................................................................ 23
5.1.2 Cyclist profile ........................................................................................... 24
xiii
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
E-bike safety ........................................................................................................ 25
5.2.1 General .................................................................................................... 25
5.2.2 Comparison of EPB and EAB handling capabilities ........................... 25
5.2.3 Impact of speed on e-bike safety........................................................ 28
5.2.4 Impact of ergonomics on e-bike safety .............................................. 29
5.2.5 Protective helmets .................................................................................. 30
5.2.6 Minimum age .......................................................................................... 31
5.2.7 E-bikes versus conventional bicycles on bicycle paths .................... 31
5.2.8 Highlights .................................................................................................. 32
E-bike performance............................................................................................ 33
5.3.1 Overall performance.............................................................................. 33
5.3.2 Motor power............................................................................................ 34
5.3.3 Maximum e-bike speed ......................................................................... 35
5.3.4 Highlights .................................................................................................. 36
E-bikes as a mode of urban transportation .................................................... 36
5.4.1 Cyclists’ current modes of transportation ........................................... 37
5.4.2 Reasons for commuting to work on e-bikes........................................ 37
5.4.3 E-bikes advantages ................................................................................ 38
5.4.4 Influence of external factors ................................................................. 38
5.4.5 E-bike parking.......................................................................................... 39
5.4.6 Use of bicycle paths ............................................................................... 39
5.4.7 Highlights .................................................................................................. 39
Project impact..................................................................................................... 40
5.5.1 Impact on the public and cyclists........................................................ 40
5.5.2 Impact on government authorities ...................................................... 40
5.5.3 Impact on participating organizations................................................ 40
6.
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 43
6.1
E-bike safety ........................................................................................................ 43
6.2
E-bike performance............................................................................................ 43
6.3
E-bikes as a mode of urban transportation .................................................... 43
6.4
Future of e-bikes.................................................................................................. 44
7.
RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 45
7.1
Cyclists’ needs..................................................................................................... 45
7.2
Government regulations.................................................................................... 45
Appendix A Summary of Qualitative Analysis of Cyclists’ Comments
Appendix B List of Newspaper Articles and Radio/Television Coverage
xiv
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 3
Photo 4
Photo 5
Presentation to the media of several models of electric bicycles
at a press conference on June 12, 2000 ........................................................... 2
Electrically assisted bicycle (EAB)....................................................................... 5
Electrically propelled bicycle (EPB).................................................................... 5
A group of e-bike users being trained at the Agence de l’Efficacité
Énergétique ......................................................................................................... 13
Two e-bikes on display during taping of the “Technofolies”
television show .................................................................................................... 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Summary of Study Parameters.......................................................................... 14
Official E-bike Suppliers ...................................................................................... 19
Characteristics of Electric Bicycles on the Market......................................... 20
Distribution of E-bikes by Identification Number and Partner
Organization........................................................................................................ 22
Distances Travelled and Number of Cyclists................................................... 23
Percentage Breakdown of Cyclists with Reasons for Feelings of
Insecurity .............................................................................................................. 26
Evaluation of E-bike Versus Conventional Bicycle Safety
– Ontario Cyclists................................................................................................. 27
Preferred Maximum Power Assist Speed – Ontario Cyclists .......................... 28
Percentage Breakdown of Satisfied Cyclists by Motor Power Output........ 34
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Breakdown of Cyclists by Age Group.............................................................. 24
Satisfaction with E-bike Handling Capability .................................................. 26
Perceptions of Maximum Power Assist............................................................. 29
Feelings of Safety at Higher Power Assist Speeds........................................... 29
Perceptions of Greater Safety by Motor Start-Up Method ........................... 30
Suggested Minimum Age for Riding E-bikes ................................................... 31
Perceptions of Electric and Conventional Bicycle Speeds
on Bicycle Paths ................................................................................................. 32
Preferred Maximum Power Assist Speed ......................................................... 36
xv
1.
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of an electric bicycle evaluation project conducted
by the Centre for Electric Vehicle Experimentation in Quebec (CEVEQ) in co-operation
with partners and bicycle manufacturers. The project targeted a specific type of cyclist
and involved tests in four Canadian cities (Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto and St.
Jerome) in the summer of 2000.
1.1
Objectives
The primary objective of this study, initiated at the request of Transport Canada, the
project’s principal funding partner, was to determine the impact of e-bikes on the
safety of users in order to help responsible authorities decide on appropriate
regulations.
Other project objectives included the following:
• Promote e-bikes and assess interest in them as a mode of urban transportation;
• Identify appropriate sectors for e-bike use;
• Stimulate people’s interest in commuting to work on e-bikes and making less use
of cars;
• Promote greater use of less polluting and energy-consuming modes of
transportation.
The project enabled CEVEQ and its partners not only to ascertain cyclists’ perceptions
of safety when riding e-bikes but also to identify from their comments what they thought
about the advantages, disadvantages and marketing potential of e-bikes. More
specifically, answers were sought to the following questions: Should the e-bike be
considered a motorbike or a conventional bicycle? Should the electrically propelled
bicycle be classified in the same category as the electrically assisted bicycle? Should
the motor’s power assist disengage at 24 km/h, 30 km/h or 32 km/h? How much power
output should the motor have?
Fifty-five e-bikes were tested in an urban setting largely because of the significant
voluntary commitment of ten participating manufacturers, who kindly agreed to lend
their products.
This report provides an overview of the role of e-bikes throughout the world and of the
international regulations currently in force. It also covers the evaluated products as well
as the methodology adopted by CEVEQ to ensure that the 55 e-bikes were used by
cyclists in a co-ordinated fashion.
Based on the data collected with respect to the tested products, an analysis of the
responses was carried out to identify cyclists’ perceptions of e-bikes and feelings of
safety. The report ends with conclusions and recommendations.
1
Photo 1
Presentation to the media of several models of
electric bicycles at a press conference on June 12,
2000
2
2.
BACKGROUND
2.1
General
The automobile is the mode of transportation used by most Canadians to commute
to work. In 2000, the rate of automobile use in Canada was 524 automobiles per
1,000 inhabitants.
Although the transportation industry continues to be a major employer that contributes
significantly to the national economy and provides countless services for the travelling
public, it is unfortunately still responsible for about 38 percent of greenhouse gas
emissions.
Since the green movement emerged in the 1980s, bicycles have generated keen
interest and made a real comeback in Canada, primarily in Quebec. The bicycle
market across Canada is soaring with 656,000 bicycles sold in 1995.
The bicycle fad should gain momentum if parallel measures, such as the building of
bicycle paths and bicycle parking areas, as well as the adoption of policies promoting
the inclusion of bicycles in community transportation systems, are developed and
widely implemented.
According to a Vélo Québec study on the status of bicycles entitled L’état du vélo au
Québec en 1995 et 1996, 79 percent of cyclists use their bicycles only for recreation,
13 percent occasionally use them as a mode of transportation and 8 percent use them
as a primary mode of transportation. The study also says that the use of bicycles for
physical exercise decreases with age and that only 12 percent of cyclists are over 65.
Although generally used by active people and for recreation, bicycles would improve
the physical fitness and efficiency of the population and help lower health costs by
reducing city pollution and smog levels.
2.2
Electric bicycles
Because of technological advances in storage cells and electric propulsion systems in
recent years and in response to the growing demand for clean, efficient methods of
transportation in our urban communities, electric bicycle development and marketing
has surged ahead, especially in Asia and Europe.
E-bikes are not a replacement for conventional bicycles. However, they allow a greater
number of people to travel on two-wheeled vehicles. In the future, they could even
become a means of locomotion that could substitute for the automobile, particularly in
warmer weather.
E-bikes are for everybody, especially those who are not very active in sports, those with
physical disabilities and seniors. They are also for veteran cyclists who commute to work
on conventional bicycles to save money on fuel but wish to avoid arriving at the office
covered in perspiration.
3
Growth in e-bike use has skyrocketed since the electrically assisted bicycle (EAB) was
introduced in 1997 by the Japanese firm Yamaha. This version of the e-bike has a small
motor mounted on the back wheel to double the power generated by the cyclist. In
1998, the company scored a major commercial success by selling 500,000 units
worldwide, making Japan the e-bike market leader.
The European market is growing as well, with more than 100,000 units sold in 1999.
However, there are no clear, standardized regulations for all European Economic
Community countries.
2.3
Types of electric bicycles
Today there are many types of e-bikes, which can be classified into two main groups:
electrically assisted bicycles (EABs) and electrically propelled bicycles (EPBs).
2.3.1
Electrically assisted bicycles (EABs)
An EAB works like a conventional bicycle with an electric motor added to assist the
pedalling action. It is simple to use: press the start switch and the electric motor assists
you when you apply pressure on the pedals. The motor increases the amount of power
transmitted to the wheel. A special characteristic of the EAB is that it only runs when
pedalled.
2.3.2
Electrically propelled bicycles (EPBs)
When the electric motor is not providing assistance, the EPB also works like a
conventional bicycle. When the cyclist turns the function switch to “on” and presses
the hand accelerator, the cyclist is propelled effortlessly by the electric motor without
having to pedal. The propulsion of this type of e-bike is similar to that of a moped.
EABs and EPBs are divided into several categories depending on the maximum power
output ratio (1:1, 1:2, 1:3), the power output rating (average 250 W) and the speed limit
at which the power assist cuts out.
4
Photo 2
Electrically assisted bicycle (EAB)
Photo 3
Electrically propelled bicycle (EPB)
2.4
Regulations applicable to e-bikes
Japan was the first country to consider EABs to be conventional bicycles provided the
power assist was limited to a speed of 30 km/h. The Japanese now consider e-bikes a
full-fledged mode of transportation.
In France, EABs are considered to be conventional bicycles if the power assist is limited
to 24 km/h. At speeds beyond that limit, current French regulations require the rider to
wear a moped helmet.
In the United States, manufacturers and consumers are more interested in electrically
propelled bicycles (EPBs). In 1995, ZAP was the first American company to offer EPBs
and has been distributing its products worldwide ever since. In 1999, EV Global Motors,
headed by Lee Iacocca, entered the market with the launch of a line of futuristically
designed e-bikes.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recognizes that the EAB has
specific characteristics that distinguish it from a moped. It defines it as a bicycle
equipped with a low capacity electric motor that weighs less than 100 lb. (about 45 kg)
5
and is capable of reaching a maximum speed of 20 mph (about 30 km/h) with
assistance from the motor.
2.5
Canadian situation
Canadians are still unfamiliar with electric bicycles because of the newness of the
product and lack of regulations in Canada to allow or encourage their marketing
and use.
In Canada, the importing of and interprovincial trade in e-bikes is prohibited by the
Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Under this Act, each province or territory may allow e-bikes
to be sold and used in its jurisdiction. Groupe Procycle was thus able to obtain special
authorization to sell the Elektron model (100-W motor and power assist up to 24 km/h) in
Quebec only. Transport Canada is currently studying amendments to the Motor Vehicle
Safety Regulations that would permit the marketing and use of EABs and EPBs upon
agreement among the provinces. To promote the marketing of these bicycles, it is
crucial that the future regulations governing e-bikes correspond to the needs of the
product’s potential customers.
2.6
CEVEQ’s mission and objectives
The Centre for Electric Vehicle Experimentation in Quebec (CEVEQ) is a private, nonprofit company founded in 1996. Its mission is to promote the use of electric vehicles or
hybrid electric vehicles from the perspective of the environmental, economic and
energy-saving benefits they may generate.
CEVEQ’s overall objectives include the following:
• Manage EV evaluation and demonstration projects;
• Participate in industrial development projects;
• Test EVs or components in actual-use climate conditions;
• Promote efficient and non-polluting modes of transportation;
• Develop expertise in EV maintenance;
• Help develop technical training with specialized organizations.
2.7
1999 Electric Bicycle Evaluation Project
In the summer of 1999, CEVEQ conducted an EAB demonstration and evaluation
project in the Montreal area. The project’s main objective was to assess the relevance
of electric bicycles in urban environments and whether they were in a position to
occasionally replace cars for commuting to work.
With the co-operation of financial partners and cyclists (Agence de l’Efficacité
Énergétique; Transport Quebec; Hydro Quebec; City of Montreal; Groupe de
Recherche Appliquée en Macroécologie (GRAME); Transports 2000 Québec; and
Citizens on Cycles), 16 identical EABs were assigned to the cyclists. A total of 120 people
participated in the evaluation and filled out a comprehensive questionnaire at the end
of the test period.
6
When the test results were analysed, it was found that the tested bicycles could meet
the needs of a clientele of moderately physically active working people travelling a
distance of less than 20 km, but were not suited to the needs of a clientele of regular
cyclists because their speed limit was restricted to 24 km/h. The cyclists particularly liked
the reduced physical effort required in more strenuous situations. Overall, they found
the bicycles’ strong points to be user-friendliness, reliability and riding pleasure, and
elements in need of improvement to be weight, speed and range. Most cyclists felt safe
on these e-bikes.
CEVEQ was able to use this study to identify consumer needs and potential market
niches for electric bicycles. It also provided Transport Canada with relevant information
for drafting new regulations for power-assisted bicycles.
2.8
Study framework
To permit the possible marketing and use of electric bicycles in Canada, Transport
Canada published a proposed amendment to Canada’s Motor Vehicle Safety Act
in the Canada Gazette, Part I, in November 1999. Under this proposed amendment,
electric bicycles would be excluded from the limited-speed motorcycle category,
provided they met the following principal criteria:
• Maximum speed of 24 km/h;
• Maximum power of 500 W;
• Maximum pedal-to-power assistance ratio of 1:1;
• Pedal-activated motor (Pedal Assist (PAS)).
Many manufacturers and consumers commented that this proposed amendment was
too restrictive and would not allow the marketing of EPB-type electric bicycles, while
others thought the maximum permitted speed was too low, among other things.
The Electric Bike 2000 Project was therefore developed partly in response to the
observations and comments that were made. To expand the scope of the project
beyond a regional or Quebec frame of reference, it was agreed to carry out the
evaluation project in four Canadian cities, including one in Ontario.
7
3.
METHODOLOGY
3.1
Project method
This study was planned and developed to achieve the objectives described in section
1.1 while keeping in mind the specific interests of the various partners. The expertise
acquired in the 1999 Electric Bicycle Evaluation Project was used to set up the study
and ensure that a representative sample of bicycle models and users, as well as valid
test periods were considered.
The following were key elements of the method used to define the content of the
project:
• Define the scope of the project with the partners;
• Request and receive co-operation from technical and financial partners to
participate in the project;
• Determine the number and types of e-bikes required to assess the merits of various
characteristics that have an impact on safety, such as the following: two or threewheel bicycles, motors with outputs ranging from 200 to 500 W, EABs versus EPBs,
power-assist ratios from 1:1 to 1:3 and maximum speeds ranging from 25 to 35 km/h;
• Obtain bicycles from manufacturers on either a loan or lease basis;
• Solicit the participation of employers whose employees would use the bicycles;
• Prepare questionnaires and logbooks to be used for information gathering;
• Make necessary logistical arrangements to set up the project and manage it on a
daily basis;
• Prepare a report to update the final content of the project.
3.2
Project implementation
The Electric Bike 2000 Project was made possible through each participating
organization’s contributions of financial support and/or services, staff and other forms
of support.
3.2.1
CEVEQ: Project designer and manager
CEVEQ was the creator and manager of the project. Its mandate for this study included
the following:
• Define a project in co-operation with the planning partners and e-bike suppliers;
• Look for e-bike suppliers that are developing innovative, interesting technologies
and are favourable to the idea of participating in tests;
• Determine the impact of e-bikes on the safety of potential e-bike users in actual
cycling situations;
• Manage the operating budget;
• Target potential users in various categories of people in the labour force;
• Manage cyclist training and supervision;
• Co-ordinate media relations;
• Develop and propose promotional tools;
9
•
•
Design questionnaires and logbooks;
Produce an evaluation report based on the data gathered from questionnaires
filled out by participants.
3.2.2
Partners
Planning and financial partners
The main planning and financial partners of this study were the Transportation
Development Centre of Transport Canada, the Agence de l’Efficacité Énergétique and
the Société de l’Assurance Automobile du Québec (SAAQ).
As the federal government institution responsible for transportation, Transport Canada
was interested in obtaining information on the various types of electric bicycles as well
as their characteristics, advantages and disadvantages in order to focus its associated
policies, programs and regulations more effectively. For Transport Canada, this project
was an excellent opportunity to promote e-bikes, evaluate interest in them as a clean
mode of urban transportation, identify the most promising areas for their use and, most
importantly, to ask cyclists for their perceptions concerning the safety aspects of these
bicycles.
The SAAQ’s interest in the project consisted of determining the impact and issues
involved in possibly implementing e-bike legislation in the province of Quebec. From
the SAAQ’s standpoint, the project’s objective was to gather information on electric
bicycle use on roads and bike paths that the organization would use as a guide in
establishing standards for the use of these bicycles.
Quebec’s Agence de l’Efficacité Énergétique supported the project as part of the
Energy Efficiency Partnership Program. Also to be highlighted are the contributions of
the Moving the Economy (MTE) organization and the City of Toronto, which conducted
the evaluation in Toronto.
In co-operation with CEVEQ, MTE carried out the following activities:
• Co-ordination of the project in Toronto;
• Evaluation, by means of a questionnaire, of a minimum of five electric bicycles
made available to the public;
• Promotion and awareness campaigns for the media and the general public;
• Organization of a press conference in Toronto;
• Co-ordination of a working group to study possible legislation on e-bike use
in Toronto and throughout the province of Ontario.
The following is a list of all of the financial partners involved in the project:
• Agence de l’Efficacité Énergétique
• Agence Métropolitaine de Transport
• Hydro Quebec
• Quebec Department of the Environment
• Quebec Department of Transport
• Société de l’Assurance Automobile du Québec
10
•
•
•
•
•
Transport Canada
City of Montreal
City of Quebec
City of St. Jerome
City of Toronto
Organizations participating in the evaluation
Following the 1999 Electric Bicycle Evaluation Project, which was conducted in the
Montreal area in the summer of 1999, CEVEQ contacted the participating organizations
– the City of Montreal, Transport Quebec and the City of Lachine (GRAME) – and
obtained their enthusiastic agreement to become involved in this new project.
So that the evaluation could be carried out in various regions of Quebec and the rest of
Canada, Quebec City, St. Jerome and Toronto were invited to participate in the
project and they promptly accepted.
In keeping with the project’s objectives, financial partners such as Transport Canada,
the SAAQ, the Quebec Department of the Environment and Quebec’s Agence de
l’Efficacité Énergétique also expressed interest in being directly involved in the
evaluation.
The following organizations participated in the evaluation project:
• Agence de l’Efficacité Énergétique
• Association Québécoise du Transport et des Routes
• Hydro Quebec
• Quebec Department of the Environment
• Quebec Department of Transport
• Société de l’Assurance Automobile du Québec
• Transport Canada
• City of Lachine (Groupe de Recherche Appliquée en Macroécologie (GRAME))
• City of Montreal
• City of Quebec
• City of St. Jerome
• City of Toronto
3.2.3
Suppliers
It was important to select and procure certain types of e-bikes in order to obtain
evaluation results that were valid and representative of all products that might be
considered by potential users. A number of manufacturers were contacted based on
the types of bicycles sought for the project.
11
The following manufacturers kindly provided the e-bikes used for this project:
• Procycle
• EPS
• EV Global Motors
• Zapworld
• Th!nk Mobility (Ford)
• Yamaha Motors
• AeroVironment
• Renault Sport
• Cycleurope (Peugeot)
• Honda
3.2.4
Implementation
Set-Up
Upon their arrival in Canada and after having cleared customs, the bicycles were
assembled, adjusted and inspected by specialized dealers.
CEVEQ made sure each e-bike was working properly and familiarized itself with the
various products. Small, simple user manuals were prepared in French for later
distribution to cyclists.
The e-bikes were then distributed among the participating organizations, depending on
model availability, and tested in the order in which they arrived (in several stages).
Information meeting
Potential cyclists were selected beforehand and a meeting was held with the cyclists
from each participating organization. The meetings, facilitated by the Project Manager,
were held to inform the cyclists of the project issues, introduce them to the products
(and allow them to try out the bicycles) and outline their role and responsibilities in the
project.
For the purposes of the project, each cyclist was given a bicycle helmet to wear during
the evaluation period and each volunteer received a T-shirt printed with the slogan Je
roule électrique au travail or Biking Electric to Work.
Technical monitoring
Throughout the project, CEVEQ’s Technical Unit made sure the e-bikes were in good
operating condition and corrected any technical or electrical problems. Nine bicycles
were temporarily withdrawn from the project because of missing spare parts. In most
cases, replacement e-bikes were assigned so that the evaluation could proceed
smoothly.
12
Supervision
Each participating organization assigned a resource person to supervise its group of
cyclists and act as a liaison person with CEVEQ, which co-ordinated and oversaw the
project.
Photo 4
A group of e-bike users being trained at the Agence de l’Efficacité Énergétique
3.3
Selecting the target clientele
The cyclist selection criteria were based on distance from home to work (between 5
and 20 km), physical condition (low or moderate level of fitness), age and sex so that a
representative sample could be obtained. Special priority was given to people who
usually commuted to work by car.
The 1999 Electric Bicycle Evaluation Project results had shown that, in the case of
Montreal area residents in the labour force, while age was not a significant criterion for
acquiring an e-bike, physical condition was a major criterion. For this study, in selecting
people in the labour force between the ages of 25 and 60, it was important to give
initial priority to moderately fit people who were active in sports and likely to fit the
profile of potential buyers.
13
A mini-questionnaire was sent to the resource people of the organizations that had
expressed interest in participating in the Electric Bike 2000 Project. Cyclists had to
promise to follow certain instructions: ride the e-bikes to work every day for a two-week
period; record the number of kilometres travelled each day and average speed
maintained; and fill out the logbook and detailed questionnaire at the end of the test
period.
Table 1
Summary of Study Parameters
Study Parameter
Description
Number of bicycles
55 e-bikes
Number of participants
369
Locations
Montreal, Quebec City, St. Jerome
and Toronto
Period
June 12 to October 7, 2000
Bicycle characteristics
•
•
Terms and Conditions
1. Test electrically assisted and electrically
propelled bicycles for two weeks
(Quebec) and test e-bikes loaned to
the general public for short rides
(Toronto).
Electrically assisted bicycles
Electrically propelled bicycles
2. In Quebec, cyclists had to commute
to work by e-bike every day, fill out
a logbook and complete a detailed
questionnaire at the end of the twoweek test period.
3. In Ontario, cyclists could try out an
e-bike for two hours, then filled out
a short questionnaire.
3.4
Data gathering
3.4.1
Overall method
Data was compiled using the answers provided by the cyclists to the questionnaire
developed by CEVEQ. The questionnaire was based in part on the 1999 e-bike
evaluation.
14
3.4.2
Questionnaire
The questionnaire sent to the Quebec cyclists consisted of 126 questions and an
additional page reserved for comments. The questions were grouped into nine sections
covering the following topics: Overall User Profile (9 questions); E-Bike Use (20 questions);
E-Bike Comfort, Design and Economy (15 questions); E-Bike Performance (7 questions);
E-Bike Technical Follow-Up (5 questions); E-Bike Personal Safety (38 questions); E-Bike
Anti-theft Measures (9 questions); Overall Evaluation (6 questions); and Purchasing
(17 questions).
The data obtained from some of the questions were not analysed for this report
because their subject matter did not pertain to the study’s main objectives. However,
this data was gathered for informational purposes and for possible future use.
The questionnaire was structured according to the profile of the volunteers and
designed to take into account the elements required to achieve the project’s main
objective. It was intended to provide respondents with a maximum number of choices
while controlling the way in which the questions could be answered. Replies were
accurate and objective because the questionnaire was carefully controlled, except for
the comments section.
This approach was adopted to ensure consistency in the cyclists’ answers as well as to
facilitate data entry and use. Cyclists were asked to answer Yes/No questions and
multiple-choice questions. They were then free to give specific comments at the end of
the questionnaire.
A database was developed based on the Yes/No and multiple-choice questions. The
data from the questionnaires were then entered into a relational database. MS Office
software was used to integrate all of the data in order to reproduce the questionnaire
profile. All analysis results were prepared using a query generator and tables produced
by a spreadsheet program.
The results entered in the database were obtained from the information provided by
cyclists following their e-bike testing. Among the operations carried out was a
comparison of the data for electrically propelled bicycles and data for electrically
assisted bicycles. This comparison made it possible to assess the various impacts,
including the impact on safety, which was a primary objective of this study.
These results were also expressed as ratios (percentages) to indicate the relationship
between a specific group of cyclists and the entire pool of evaluators. In some cases,
cyclists chose not to answer questions, which explains why the accumulated totals of
various percentages do not always add up to 100 percent.
3.4.3
Cyclists’ comments
As mentioned in section 3.4.2, the questionnaire included space for entering additional
comments or observations in addition to the objective multiple-choice questions.
15
These comments were grouped by topic according to a table outlining ten different
subject areas to which the questionnaire questions related. They were also grouped
according to whether they applied to EABs or EPBs.
Appendix A presents a qualitative analysis of these groupings. The analysis sought to
determine whether some of these comments confirmed or qualified the data obtained
through the questionnaire questions or provided additional information. It also tried to
establish the significance of these comments, depending on the subject area, in
relation to the complete set of data, or whether they were only isolated remarks made
by just a few cyclists. It is important to note that not all cyclists provided comments.
A meeting was held on November 23, 2000 to validate some of the analysis elements
and results. This meeting involved a very small group of cyclists who had tested several
types of e-bikes. This report refers to them where relevant.
3.4.4
Special characteristics of the Ontario tests
Table 1 shows that a total of 369 people answered the questionnaire. Of this number,
211 were Quebec residents and 158 were Ontario residents.
Because the e-bikes were tested under different conditions in Quebec and Ontario,
care had to be taken in the final comparison of results.
It must be noted that adjustments had to be made to the Ontario project. The
questionnaire filled out by Ontario cyclists was much shorter because of the more
limited scope of the tests. It consisted of 31 questions and included space for
comments. The questions covered the following topics: Overall Profile (8 questions);
E-Bike Use (4 questions); E-Bike Performance (4 questions); Personal Safety (8 questions);
Overall Evaluation (4 questions); and Purchasing (3 questions).
The 158 Ontario cyclists rode the e-bikes for one to two hours on bicycle paths before
filling out the questionnaires. In Quebec, the 211 cyclists kept the e-bikes for two weeks
and used them on weekdays on public thoroughfares to commute to work and on
weekends for personal or recreational use.
Obviously, the two sets of results could not be compared directly. To ensure accuracy
and avoid distorting the results, attention was focused primarily on the Quebec test
data. If necessary, a separate analysis of the Ontario tests may be conducted to
confirm the Quebec results.
3.5
Approvals
3.5.1
Transport Canada approval
Once an agreement had been reached with the American, European and Japanese
manufacturers, CEVEQ submitted a request to bring e-bikes into Canada temporarily
for demonstration and test purposes in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
16
Transport Canada’s approval was essential in order to bring the e-bikes into Canada
temporarily and, of course, carry out the project.
3.5.2
Authorization from the Société de l’Assurance Automobile du Québec (SAAQ)
The SAAQ allowed the e-bikes to be used in Quebec under certain conditions in the
context of a pilot project. It classified the project’s e-bikes as conventional bicycles
subject to all of the requirements, obligations and privileges of the Highway Safety
Code and the Automobile Insurance Act.
3.5.3
Special problems in the Ontario evaluation
When the evaluation project was developed for the fourth participating Canadian
city – Toronto – authorization to ride e-bikes on public thoroughfares could not be
obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Transport (OMT). Despite the efforts of CEVEQ and
its partners, the OMT refused, citing the Highway Traffic Act which, in the current
wording of one its Regulations, places electric bicycles in the Motorcycle category and
thus requires users to take a recognized motorcycle driver training course to obtain a
permit. The project had to be modified and the e-bikes were ridden in areas under
municipal jurisdiction, such as parks and bicycle paths. Two bicycle rental stores made
the e-bikes available to the public for test periods varying from one to several hours.
3.6
Communication strategy
The two main objectives of the project were to promote the bicycle as a mode of
urban transportation with the potential to replace the automobile, and to raise public
and government awareness. A communication strategy was implemented, which
helped significantly to promote this project across Canada.
3.6.1
Promotional tools
Bicycle identification
For identification purposes, the bicycle seats were fitted with licence plates sporting the
project colours along with an individual number to simplify co-ordinating activities.
Information brochure
A colour brochure printed on glossy stock – 4,000 copies of the French version and 1,000
of the English version – was distributed at all activities throughout the summer. The
slogan Biking Electric to Work underlined the environmental impact and generated
interest.
T-shirts
Four hundred and fifty colour T-shirts with the project logo were produced: 350 with the
French slogan Je roule électrique au travail and 100 with the English slogan Biking
17
Electric to Work for Toronto participants. The logos of the partners were printed on the
backs of the T-shirts.
A T-shirt was given to each cyclist as well as to organizers, media representatives, and
others.
Posters
One hundred large-format colour posters printed on glossy paper were produced in
French and each participating organization received a copy. Thirty additional posters
in English were printed.
A 24" x 36" poster on stiff-backed paper was also produced for use at special events
and press conferences.
3.6.2
Press conferences
Four press conferences were held in the participating cities on the following dates:
• Quebec City, June 13, 2000;
• St. Jerome, June 22, 2000;
• Montreal, July 11, 2000;
• Toronto, August 17, 2000.
Photo 5
Two e-bikes on display during filming of the television show “Technofolies”
18
4.
LIST OF TESTED BICYCLES AND SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
For the purposes of the Electric Bike 2000 Project evaluation program, it was vitally
important to test a large sample of products. It was a priority to obtain a sufficient
number of EABs and EPBs from Canadian, American, European and Japanese
manufacturers so that the two technologies could be tested by a large number of
people.
CEVEQ also tried to obtain e-bikes with power output ratios greater than 1:1 to study
whether the extra power supplied by the motor would place cyclists at risk when the
ratio was higher than human power output (power output ratios of 2:1 and 3:1).
Given that motor power output would be a key parameter in future regulations,
products equipped with motors whose power outputs ranged between 200 and 750 W
were requested.
Ten manufacturers from around the world answered the call and provided 55 e-bikes in
15 different models, making the Electric Bike 2000 Project one of the world’s biggest
e-bike evaluation projects.
Owing to production and delivery delays (ship transport and customs clearance), the
e-bikes were introduced into the evaluation project at different times.
Table 2 lists the manufacturers by the date on which products were delivered and
made available for the project.
EV Global
ZAP
AeroVironment
Yamaha
Honda
Renault
Peugeot
Procycle
Dubé Motors
Ford
EV Global
Honda
TOTAL
Table 2
Official E-Bike Suppliers
Quantity
Country
Propulsion
Method
U.S.
EPB
10
U.S.
EPB
6
U.S.
EAB
2
Japan
EAB
4
Japan
EAB
5
France
EAB
2
France
EAB
1
Canada
EAB
4
Canada
EAB
1
U.S.
EAB
10
U.S.
EPB
1
Japan
EPB
9
55
Delivery
Date
End of May
June 10
July 1
July 10
July 10
July 17
July 17
July 18
July 11
August 1
mid-August
August 25
19
Table 3
Characteristics of Electric Bicycles on the Market
Characteristics
Company
AeroVironment
EPS
Brand
Charger
Amigo
Country
of origin
Motor
U.S.
375 W
Canada
400 W
Power
Output
Ratio
½:1
1:1
2:1
3:1
½:1
Speed
Limit
(km/h)
Propulsion
Method
Battery
Range
(km)
Number
of
Speeds
Time to
Recharge
(hours)
Weight
(kg)
Number
of
Bicycles
Provided
32
EAB
Pb 24V
32
7
4
29
2
32
Bi-modal
Ni-Cd
24V
30
21
3
24
1
32
10
1:1
2:1
EV Global
Motors
E-Bike (24V)
U.S.
400 W
24
EPB
Pb 24V
32
7
4
E-Bike (36V)
U.S.
400 W
32
EPB
Pb 24V
32
7
4
Honda
Racoon Compo
Japan
200 W
1:1
18
EAB
Ni-Cd
24V
20
3
2
22
5
Grand Racoon
Japan
220 W
1:1
24
EAB
30
3
3
25
9
Velectron
France
200 W
1:1
24
EAB
35
4
3½
28
1
Peugeot
Charger
Amigo
E-Bike
Ni-Cd
24V
Ni-Cd
24V
Racoon Compo
1
Velectron
Table 3 (cont.)
Characteristics of Electric Bicycles on the Market
Characteristics
Company
Procycle
Brand
Elektron II
Number
of
Bicycles
Provided
Country
of Origin
Motor
Power
Output
Ratio
Speed
Limit
(km/h)
Propulsion
Method
Battery
Range
(km)
Number
of
Speeds
Time to
Recharge
(hours)
Weight
(kg)
Canada
250 W
1:1
24
EAB
Ni-Cd
24V
50
3
4
24
4
2:1
3:1
Renault
Equation
France
250 W
1:1
24
EAB with
accelerator
Ni-Cd
24V
35
4
4
33
2
Th!nk Mobility
Th!nk Bike Fun
U.S.
400 W
1:1
32
Pb 24V
40
7
2-4
33
5
Th!nk Traveller
U.S.
250 W
1:1
29
EAB with
accelerator
30
4
1-4
24
5
Japan
235 W
1:1
24
EAB
Ni-MH
24V
50
4
3½
28
4
Yamaha
PAS XPC26
ZAP
Bianchi
U.S.
400 W
29
EPB
Pb 12V
13
7
3
24
2
Diamondback
U.S.
200 W
21.5
EPB
Pb 12V
25
21
10
24
2
Smith & Wesson
U.S.
400 W
29
EPB
Pb 12V
20
21
3
24
2
Elektron
Equation
Th!nk Traveller
PAS XP
Diamondback
Table 4
Distribution of E-Bikes by Identification Number and Partner Organization
Bicycle
Partner
AERO
EPS
EV Global
HONDA
1
1
PEUGEOT
PROCYCLE
RENAULT
TH!NK
YAMAHA
ZAP
TOTAL
MONTREAL
Transport Canada
AMT
1
1
1
2
AQTR
City of Montreal
1
3
1
2
1
City of Lachine
(GRAME)
1/#203
1
1/#204
6
3
3
QUEBEC CITY
AEE
1
City of Quebec
1
1
1
1
1
1
Environment Quebec
1/#206
5
1/#205
4
1
Transport Canada
1
1
1
SAAQ
1
2
1
1/#201
5
Transport Quebec
1
2
1
1/#202
5
1
2
1
1
1
1
10
12
ST. JEROME
Hydro Quebec
City of St. Jerome
1
1
1
5
1
4
TORONTO
City of Toronto
TOTAL
2
1
4
1
10
2
1
7
3
1
9
7
54
5.
EVALUATION RESULTS
5.1
General
5.1.1
Distance travelled by cyclists
As indicated in Table 5, 369 people travelled a total of 25,205 km on e-bikes in four
months. In the three Quebec cities – Montreal, St. Jerome and Quebec City –
211 people travelled a total of 24,343 km to commute to work, an average of 115 km
per cyclist during the two weeks of evaluation. In Ontario, 158 people travelled 862 km,
an average of 5.4 km per cyclist.
Most of the volunteers normally used cars for their transportation purposes. Of the total
number of participants, 49 percent had never used a bicycle to commute to work,
18 percent cycled to work a few times per month, 15 percent commuted to work by
bike one to four times per week and 16 percent cycled to work every day.
Table 5 shows the breakdown of the cyclists who participated in the evaluation and
completed questionnaires, and the number of kilometres they travelled.
Table 5
Distances Travelled and Number of Cyclists
Province
EPBs
EABs
Total
106
105
211
12,823
11,520
24,343
Number of cyclists
31
127
158
Number of km travelled
150
712
862
Total number of cyclists
137
232
369
12,973
12,232
25,205
QUEBEC
Number of cyclists
Number of km travelled
ONTARIO
Total number of km
travelled
Although there were more electrically assisted bicycles than electrically propelled
bicycles available for the project, the number of returned questionnaires was identical
in both cases because the EPBs began to be used in the project starting in June,
whereas the delivery of the EABs was delayed and some brands, such as Honda, were
introduced into the project fairly late.
It is interesting to note that a similar number of kilometres was travelled in both cases,
which allowed more relevant and consistent comparisons to be made between the
characteristics of EABs and EPBs.
Because e-bikes could only be ridden on bicycle paths and in parks in Ontario, the
resulting insufficient data gathered in Ontario could not be compared with the Quebec
23
data. Although the number of Ontario cyclists was fairly similar to that of Quebec, the
analysed results could not be viewed in the same way. For example, the 158 Ontario
cyclists who answered the questionnaire only travelled 3 percent – a statistically
insignificant 862 km – of the total number of kilometres and only rode the e-bikes for
very short periods. Some Ontario e-bike users said they were unable to properly judge
elements of the answers they were asked to provide.
5.1.2
Cyclist profile
While Table 5 provides a summary of the distances travelled and number of cyclists in
the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, the following section provides an analysis of
Quebec cyclists.
Quebec cyclists
Of the 211 questionnaires collected in the Quebec tests, 74 percent were provided by
male respondents and 26 percent by female respondents.
Figure 1
Breakdown of Cyclists by Age Group
60
% of Cyclists
50
40
30
20
10
0
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
over 60
Age Group
All of the e-bike users participated on a voluntary basis. Figure 1 shows that interest in
e-bikes was greater in the 40-49 age group than in any other age group. It also shows
that 8 percent of cyclists were between the ages of 20 and 29, 27 percent were
between 30 and 39, 51 percent between 40 and 49, 11 percent between 50 and 59
and 2 percent over the age of 60. Most of the cyclists (55 percent) were university
educated and earned more than $46,000 per year.
As mentioned in section 3.4.4, it is interesting to note that all of the Quebec cyclists rode
their e-bikes to work, which was usually between 5 and 25 km from home.
24
Ontario cyclists
Overall, the Ontario cyclists were fairly well-educated (56 percent had university
education); most were over 40 years old (63 percent); and 46 percent earned more
than $46,000 per year. They considered physical exercise important (94 percent) and
felt they had a moderate level of fitness (80 percent).
5.2
E-bike safety
5.2.1
General
One of the evaluation’s objectives was to assess the feelings of safety of e-bike users. To
date, e-bikes do not have a specific classification in federal regulations. Throughout this
study, it was interesting to determine whether the cyclists felt as safe riding on e-bikes as
on conventional bicycles, whether they felt in full control on e-bikes and whether the
power assist of the motors enhanced their feeling of safety.
Assuming that the cyclist’s feeling of safety is related to the speed of the bicycle and
given that the two types of e-bikes accelerate in different ways, it was worth
determining whether the EPB, which is activated by a lever, should be classified in the
same category as the EAB, which only propels itself when pedalled.
Sections 5.2.2 to 5.2.7 provide a comparison of these two types of e-bikes to determine
whether they have a different impact on cyclists’ feelings of safety. The safety aspect is
discussed under the following headings:
• E-bike control/handling capability
• Effect of maximum power assist speed
• Ergonomic features
• Feelings of safety related to wearing a protective helmet
• Minimum age for riding an e-bike
• Safety of e-bikes on bicycle paths
5.2.2
Comparison of EPB and EAB handling capabilities
Quebec cyclists
Figure 2 shows that of the 106 people who rode EPBs, 95 percent felt very satisfied and
in full control of their bicycles when the motor was on. Of the 105 people who rode
EABs, 96 percent felt they also had full control of their bicycles. Cyclists in both cases,
therefore, felt they had firm control of their bicycles and did not feel any particular
concern for their safety.
The questionnaire answers were also used to determine how safe the cyclists felt on ebikes as compared to conventional bicycles. It was found that 85 percent of the cyclists
who had ridden EPBs and 83 percent of those who had ridden EABs felt as safe as they
did on conventional bicycles.
25
Figure 2
Satisfaction with E-Bike Handling Capability
100
% of Cyclists
80
60
EABs
EPBs
40
20
0
Felt in full control of e-bike Had same feeling of safety
Satisfaction with E-Bike Handling Capability
The cyclists who did not feel safe (16 percent) were asked to describe the
characteristics causing this perception and were given the opportunity to indicate
more than one reason. Table 6 provides a breakdown by method of propulsion and by
total percentages of cyclists who reported specific reasons for reduced safety in
relation to all cyclists who did not have feelings of insecurity.
Table 6
Percentage Breakdown of Cyclists
With Reasons for Feelings of Insecurity
Reported reason for feeling of
insecurity
EPB
EAB
All E-Bikes
Lack of control
16%
41%
28%
Too heavy
89%
65%
78%
Too fast
5%
6%
6%
Insufficient braking
5%
41%
22%
Difficult to handle in traffic
21%
35%
28%
Table 6 shows that e-bike weight was the main reason for feelings of insecurity. It
appears that the weight of the e-bikes made them difficult to handle.
Only a small percentage of people who rode EPBs wanted the bikes to have gentler,
more gradual acceleration. They represented 10 percent of the group of e-bike users
who reported one or more reasons for feelings of insecurity.
It is necessary, of course, to have quick reflexes when riding an e-bike in traffic, as it is
with a conventional bicycle, to avoid accidents and potential harm. Cyclists were
26
asked whether they had had to take special measures or precautions when riding an
e-bike. It was found that 31 percent had had to avoid potential harm when riding an
e-bike with the motor on. Without exception, all of the cyclists had had quick enough
reflexes to avoid potential harm. Speed was at issue in 18 percent of cases.
All of the e-bike users agreed that a good way to reduce feelings of insecurity on
e-bikes or conventional bicycles was to provide good reliable brakes. However, except
for two specific EPB models included in the evaluation, most cyclists (95 percent)
considered the braking capability of the bicycles appropriate and satisfactory,
92 percent felt they had full control of the bike and 93 percent considered the brakes
sufficiently powerful given the weight of the bicycle.
All of these data indicate that the EPBs have interesting features that may encourage
people to make greater use of them.
Although very optimistic, the figures for EABs are nonetheless slightly less positive, with
72 percent of the cyclists saying they felt the braking was satisfactory, 77 percent saying
they felt in full control of the bike and 70 percent saying they thought the bike had
sufficient braking power in relation to its weight and sturdiness. Although it could not be
confirmed that brake adjustments were made, 3.8 percent of the cyclists actually
reported poor brake reliability on some e-bike models.
The study also revealed that a total of 77 percent of the cyclists felt comfortable riding
the bicycles in automobile traffic.
At the meeting mentioned in section 3.4.3, a small group of five cyclists said they
attributed this feeling of additional safety to the availability of increased start-up power
on the EPBs, which helped riders to react more quickly and satisfactorily in traffic. The
group also thought that this slight advantage of the EPBs increased riders’ tendency to
obey Highway Safety Code regulations, for example, by making mandatory stops,
because they knew that the motor would help with standing starts and therefore they
would expend less energy throughout the trip.
Ontario cyclists
The data analysis indicated that 93 percent of the 158 Ontario cyclists felt as safe on an
e-bike as on a conventional bicycle.
Table 7
Evaluation of E-Bike Versus Conventional Bike Safety Ontario Cyclists
Safer
17%
Just as safe
76%
Not as safe
3%
27
The very small number of cyclists (5) who did not feel safe gave the following reasons:
• Lack of control;
• Bike too heavy;
• Bike too fast;
• Insufficient braking.
Each reason was cited by only one or two cyclists.
In addition, a high percentage of cyclists (88 percent) specified that speed was not a
factor in feelings of insecurity. Most of them wanted the motor power assist to enable
them to achieve a speed above 25 km/h, as shown in Table 8.
Table 8
Preferred Maximum Power Assist Speed Ontario Cyclists
5.2.3
15 km/h
9%
20 km/h
22%
25 km/h
25%
30 km/h
33%
Impact of speed on e-bike safety
Since motorized vehicles are generally associated with “a faster mode of travel,” it
should be emphasized that, although e-bikes are propelled by two complementary
power sources – human power and electric power – these power sources are not
considered a way to break speed records, but rather a way to stabilize the e-bike and
help the cyclist reach a steady average speed. Cyclists feel the power assist of the
motor when they cannot pedal efficiently, particularly during start-ups, on hills and in
windy or adverse weather conditions.
Cyclists’ answers indicated that instead of exhausting their own physical resources and
quickly tiring, they felt “assisted” and were able to climb hills easily at a speed of 20
km/h. Cyclists were therefore able to maintain an average speed without inordinate
effort over the entire distance.
Figure 4 shows that most (more than 70 percent) of the cyclists felt they were no longer
assisted by the motor at speeds higher than 23 km/h, the reason being that most of the
tested e-bikes did not achieve maximum speeds above 24 km/h. Some of these
bicycles – both EABs and EPBs – had power assist up to 30 km/h.
28
Figure 3
Perceptions of Maximum Power Assist Speed
% of Cyclists
40
30
EABs
20
EPBs
10
0
14
17
20
23
26
29
Speed (km/h)
On the basis of these observations, a correlation was established between the
maximum speed to be adopted and the cyclists’ feelings of safety on electric bicycles.
Figure 4
Feeling of Safety at Higher Power Assist Speeds
% of Cyclists
80
60
EABs
40
EPBs
20
0
Just as safe
Safer
Not as safe
Feeling of Safety
Most of the cyclists felt that e-bikes, whether assisted or self-propelled, were as safe and
sometimes even safer than conventional bicycles. Only some 4 percent of the cyclists
felt that increasing the speed would result in feelings of insecurity.
5.2.4
Impact of ergonomics on e-bike safety
Figure 5 shows that the cyclists thought it was safer to activate the motor using a lever
attached to the handlebar. This view was shared by EAB users (37 percent approved).
29
The relevance of this suggestion is interesting because a large majority of the cyclists
were not able to try both types of e-bike start-up methods.
Figure 5
Feelings of Greater Safety by Motor Start-Up Method
50
% of Cyclists
40
30
EABs
EPBs
20
10
0
Pedals
Lever on handlebar
Motor start-up method
Many comments indicated that the cyclists’ feelings of safety on an e-bike were often
related to the design of the bicycle itself, particularly the motor control levers.
Although the EPBs seemed safer because of their start-up method, the following four
comments about this type of bicycle suggest that improvements are necessary:
• “I have to let go of the lever to signal.”
• “The motor lever on the handlebar is too hard to operate.”
• “The lever for starting the motor is in a bad spot.”
• “The motor control lever is in a bad spot; it should be placed on the right handlebar
because the cyclist has to use the left hand to signal.”
5.2.5
Protective helmets
Although current regulations state that cyclists are advised to wear protective helmets,
they are still optional for riders of conventional bicycles. This study sought to determine
volunteers’ perceptions about wearing helmets when riding e-bikes. First, it should be
explained that 78 percent of the cyclists wore helmets during the tests, even though
CEVEQ formally advised everyone to wear a helmet! Of the total number of cyclists,
62 percent suggested that helmets be made mandatory for cyclists on e-bikes.
The data also revealed that 11 percent of the cyclists wanted to take special training in
the use of e-bikes. This comment was difficult to assess because it was unclear whether
they wanted to take a training course on how to operate an e-bike or simply be given
more technical information on e-bikes.
30
5.2.6
Minimum age
Most of the cyclists (70 percent) felt that the required minimum age for riding an e-bike,
either an EPB or EAB, should be at least 14 years. Figure 6 also shows that a large
percentage (37 percent) felt that the minimum age could even be set at 12 years.
Figure 6
Suggested Minimum Age for Riding E-Bikes
40
% of Cyclists
30
EABs
20
EPBs
10
0
10
12
14
16
18
Age
5.2.7
E-bikes versus conventional bicycles on bicycle paths
Cyclists who had opportunities to ride on bicycle paths, either to commute to work or
for recreation, provided assessments of the handling capabilities of e-bikes, compared
with those of conventional bicycles, on bicycle paths. In answer to the question “Do
e-bikes belong on bicycle paths?”, 94 percent of respondents said yes and 3 percent
said no. In all, 2 percent of cyclists felt that e-bikes were not suited because of their
potential speed. After these answers were studied more closely, it was found that most
of this 2 percent segment had ridden e-bikes with power assists that disengaged at
24 km/h. The notion of speed in this case remains questionable.
As shown in Figure 7, between 55 and 70 percent of volunteers felt that their travelling
speed on a bicycle path was similar to or lower than that of ordinary cyclists
(conventional bicycles), while 30 percent of EAB riders and 22 percent of EPB riders
thought their speed was higher.
31
Figure 7
Perceptions of Electric versus Conventional Bicycle Speeds on Bicycle Paths
60
% of Cyclists
50
40
EABs
30
EPBs
20
10
0
Slower
Similar
Faster
Perceptions of E-Bike Speeds
Versus Conventional Bicycle Speeds
5.2.8
Highlights
In short, where e-bike safety is concerned, 90 percent of cyclists felt they were in control
and more than 80 percent said they felt as safe on an e-bike as on a conventional
bicycle. Weight, not the motor’s maximum power assist speed, was the characteristic
cited most often as a reason for feeling insecure. Most of the cyclists thought a
maximum power assist speed higher than what they had experienced on the tested
bicycles would be an additional safety factor. Moreover, a maximum power assist
speed of 30 km/h was preferred.
The cyclists considered brake reliability and performance to be the most important
safety components on both electric bicycles and conventional bicycles, although they
wanted to see some improvement in these areas.
The cyclists also pointed out that e-bike ergonomics, particularly the location of levers,
were important for operating safety. Close to two thirds of participants suggested that
wearing protective helmets be made mandatory. Some 70 percent also thought that
the required minimum age for riding an e-bike should be set at 14 years.
Lastly, with regard to whether e-bikes belonged on various thoroughfares to which they
had access, more than two thirds of cyclists said they felt comfortable in city traffic,
while close to 95 percent thought that e-bikes should be allowed on bicycle paths.
32
5.3
E-bike performance
5.3.1
Overall performance
Quebec cyclists
Participants were asked to evaluate the overall performance of the e-bikes and use
their judgement to assign ratings from excellent to mediocre. To meet the objectives of
this study, the performance of the EPBs was compared with that of EABs and no
significant differences were found.
The following percentages in descending order represent the “excellent” or “good”
ratings given by all of the cyclists:
90%
• User-friendliness
88%
• Braking
82%
• Reliability
74%
• Acceleration
68%
• Recharging time
48%
• Range
46%
• Speed
21%
• Weight
This information confirmed the overall findings, namely, that weight was the least liked
aspect. Speed was rated “excellent” by 15 percent of the participants and “good” by
30 percent. The other participants gave speed an “average” or “mediocre” rating.
Ontario cyclists
The results listed above can be compared with those of the Ontario cyclists who were
asked the same questions:
86%
• User-friendliness
77%
• Braking
66%
• Reliability
70%
• Acceleration
37%
• Range
46%
• Speed
57%
• Weight
Overall, there were many similarities between the perceptions of Quebec and Ontario
cyclists. The major difference lay in their perceptions of e-bike weight, which the
Ontario cyclists rated as “excellent” or “good”. The difference may be explained by the
fact that the Quebec participants were allowed to keep their e-bikes for two weeks
and were able to handle them much more (e.g., carry them up stairs, place them on
bicycle racks, etc.). Battery recharging time was not mentioned because the cyclists
could not test this characteristic.
33
5.3.2
Motor power
This study clearly established that cyclists felt the e-bikes were not fast enough.
However, they liked the speed of acceleration, which made it easier for them to get
back up to speed in difficult circumstances.
It is important to note that the key attraction of e-bikes was their ability to start up as
quickly as possible and climb hills without difficulty. The collected data made it possible
to compare the motor power of the two categories of e-bikes and assess user
satisfaction rates.
Table 9 compares e-bikes equipped with motors with nominal power outputs between
100 and 250 W and those with motors with nominal power outputs between 250 and
400 W. The results show that motor power was not a determining factor in evaluating
the power assist for hills and start-ups.
Table 9
Percentage Breakdown of Satisfied Cyclists by Motor Power Output
Motors with power output of
250 W or less
EABs
EPBs
(83 cyclists)
(28 cyclists)
Steep hills
24%
11%
Start-ups
80%
57%
Low or average hills
60%
68%
Motors with power output of
more than 250 W
EABs
EPBs
(18 cyclists)
(77 cyclists)
Steep hills
17%
21%
Start-ups
44%
75%
Low or average hills
50%
62%
According to the Table 9 data, EAB riders had a higher satisfaction rate with less
powerful bicycles. Although it is difficult to quickly draw conclusions, this surprising fact
may be attributable to bicycle quality rather than motor power. It should also be noted
here that the final numerical ratio between the chain-wheel and the gear ratio used at
start-up has a direct impact on the bicycle’s accelerating capacity because of the
torque value applied to the rear wheel. This value directly affects the bicycle’s
capacity to start up quickly or climb steep hills easily.
In any case, these specific characteristics related to motor power certainly make it
possible to dissociate motor power from e-bike performance. There may be other
factors to take into account, such as motor location and gear-changing
characteristics, before looking at motor power.
For the purposes of this project, the cyclists were also asked whether the motor should
disengage according to the gear levels. In all, 44 percent of cyclists said yes and
36 percent said no. The other cyclists did not answer the question.
34
It was therefore very difficult to make firm observations about motor power for the
following reasons: the EPBs were generally more powerful than the EABs; most cyclists
did not test both types of e-bikes; and there was apparent confusion in the minds of
some respondents between power and acceleration, and between speed and gear
ratios or levels.
The cyclists were also not very satisfied with the performance of either type of e-bike on
steep hills, regardless of motor power. It was, in fact, on steep hills that they made the
greatest demands on the motor, which sometimes had difficulty providing enough
assistance. In such cases, cyclists had to compensate by pedalling harder. However,
on low or average hills, cyclists found the EPBs to be the most satisfactory vehicles.
5.3.3
Maximum e-bike speed
It was found during the study that, depending on the cyclists’ opinions of the e-bikes
and their experience with conventional bicycles, there was considerable similarity in the
speeds obtained with the bike in conventional mode and electric mode. According to
the data collected on both EABs and EPBs, cyclists obtained average maximum speeds
of about 30 km/h with or without power assist.
Once it is taken into account that the cyclists did not rely on the power assist of the
e-bike motors to obtain higher speeds, it follows that the speed of e-bikes should at
least be equal to the average speed of conventional bicycles. This was one of the
reasons the vast majority of cyclists said they preferred that the motor assist them up to
30 km/h, as indicated in Figure 8.
The questionnaire gave cyclists a choice of several maximum assisted speeds. The
selection of 30 km/h as the maximum speed was based on various considerations,
including the preferences of some government authorities, perceptions of community
stakeholders of what constitutes a reasonable, practical maximum speed, and
practices in Europe where speeds above this level are not permitted.
35
Figure 8
Preferred Maximum Power Assist Speed
60
% of Cyclists
50
40
EABs
30
EPBs
20
10
0
15
20
25
30
Speed (km/h)
Most of the cyclists were understandably dissatisfied with motors that did not provide
power assist above 23 km/h and saw no advantage in riding e-bikes at speeds below
what they usually obtained. In addition, because e-bikes are heavier, cyclists also had
to exert more effort above that speed than on a conventional bicycle.
5.3.4
Highlights
In terms of overall performance, Quebec and Ontario cyclists had similar evaluations
and high levels of satisfaction relative to the following characteristics (in descending
order )of e-bikes, whether they were EABs or EPBs: user-friendliness, braking, reliability
and acceleration.
By comparison, the bicycle’s weight, especially, and lack of power assist at high speeds
were the least liked characteristics. In addition, many cyclists would have preferred
greater power assist, especially on steep hills. Given that the maximum average speed
obtained was approximately 30 km/h for both types of bicycles, with or without power
assist, most cyclists said they also preferred a maximum assisted speed of 30 km/h.
5.4
E-bikes as a mode of urban transportation
Nowadays, transportation in urban areas is a complex economic, social and
environmental problem. Since e-bikes may provide an alternative to increased pollution
and urban congestion, this evaluation has sought to determine whether e-bikes could
be an alternative way to commute to work.
36
5.4.1
Cyclists’ current modes of transportation
Quebec cyclists
The following is a breakdown of the usual modes of transportation used by the
211 Quebec participants to commute to work:
• 44% by car
• 25% by bicycle
• 20% by bus
• 7% by subway
• 4% on foot
Ontario cyclists
The following is a breakdown of modes of transportation currently used by Toronto
participants to commute to work:
• 27% by car
• 25% by bicycle
• 18% by public transit
• 14% on foot
5.4.2
Reasons for commuting to work on e-bikes
Quebec cyclists
When asked what would encourage them to ride an e-bike to their place of work,
79 percent of cyclists said that physical exercise was the main reason. For 51 percent,
environmental concerns and reducing pollution were an incentive, while for 41 percent,
the low cost of e-bike use was a major reason.
Close to two thirds of the participants (64 percent) were prepared to use e-bikes to
commute to work. Of those who usually travelled by car, the percentage climbed to
65 percent, while for bicycle users, the rate was 71 percent. Many people are clearly
attracted by the new technology.
Cyclists felt that e-bikes were well suited for commuting to work. Forty-four percent
expressed this opinion, as opposed to 9 percent who thought e-bikes should only be
used for recreational purposes.
E-bikes cost between US$1,000 and US$3,000, which may seem expensive at first, but
when the cost of electricity for recharging the battery (i.e., just a few pennies), and the
lower expenditures incurred with this mode of transportation (less money spent on
parking, gas, maintenance and purchasing or leasing a second vehicle, for example)
are taken into account, it can be advantageous to buy an e-bike.
37
Ontario cyclists
As previously mentioned, volunteers in this part of the evaluation did not have sufficient
time to form strong opinions on e-bikes. However, they were forthcoming in their
opinions about the possible uses for e-bikes. When asked to give their straightforward,
unreserved assessments, they said that e-bikes could be used instead of cars for
commuting to work, occasional travel and recreation.
Other results were similar to the Quebec findings: 37 percent of respondents believed
that e-bikes were suitable for commuting to work, while 23 percent said they were only
suitable for recreation owing to the limited range of the battery (30 km on average).
Moreover, 68 percent of the participants who filled out the questionnaire were
interested in using e-bikes to commute to work for environmental reasons, greater
speed in traffic and the benefits of cycling (physical exercise in the fresh air) without
having to worry about hills and adverse weather conditions (heat and wind).
However, they found it difficult to believe that the city would allow unrestricted use of
e-bikes. A similar percentage as in Quebec – 34 percent – did not believe that the city
would give cycling commuters priority by adopting supportive measures.
In reply to the question “In your situation, do you think that the e-bike can replace the
car for: (1) commuting to work; (2) occasional travel; (3) recreation?”, the respondents,
who were allowed to check off several answers, provided 251 data items. According to
the data, more than half of the cyclists (83 out of 158) would commute to work on an
e-bike instead of by car. This percentage shows that e-bikes are perceived as a mode
of transportation for both commuting to work and recreation.
5.4.3
E-bike advantages
When asked about the advantages of e-bikes, respondents said that they made it
easier to climb hills (59 percent), ride into the wind (58 percent) and travel in the open
air (51 percent). Their liking for the e-bikes’ hill-climbing ability was quite understandable
given that 84 percent of cyclists could not avoid hills when commuting to work.
Regardless of whether they had ridden EABs (42 percent) or EPBs (45 percent),
88 percent of respondents said the e-bike made their rides easier.
Similarly, 79 percent of volunteers said the e-bikes enabled them to expend less effort
and sweat while riding, and 59 percent said this mode of transportation was now a
significant option for them.
5.4.4
Influence of external factors
With regard to external factors influencing the use of e-bikes, 79 percent of cyclists said
they were very influenced by the weather. Fear of adverse weather conditions, such as
rain (71 percent), was the major drawback, with appropriate apparel following far
behind (35 percent).
38
5.4.5
E-bike parking
Further to the topic of commuting to work by e-bike, the study confirmed that
74 percent of cyclists were able to find safe parking for their e-bikes at work. The cyclists
believed (64 percent) that their employers would make arrangements to provide them
with safe parking, if necessary. This was a significant finding because 56 percent of
respondents felt that there were not enough parking spots for conventional bicycles. In
addition, 89 percent said that during the test phase, they had places that were
considered suitable for parking their e-bike.
Theft was a concern for many of the cyclists, who rightly thought these bicycles would
be very attractive to thieves. Anti-theft devices need to be improved in most cases to
prevent thefts of bicycles and batteries. Some bicycles were difficult to lock in the
parking spots provided.
Companies could therefore provide safe parking places for their fitness-minded
employees, which would naturally promote the use of e-bikes.
5.4.6
Use of bicycle paths
The e-bike users said they rode mostly on bicycle paths for recreational purposes
(65 percent) because they did not think (34 percent) that the city in which they lived
gave priority to cycling commuters.
However, of those who used e-bikes to commute to work, 49 percent preferred to ride
them on bicycle paths. Furthermore, 9 percent did not think that motorists were
accommodating toward them.
An e-bike weighs between 27 and 35 kg, which makes it difficult to carry or set in
motion from a stationary position. In their comments, many cyclists expressed
disappointment about not being able transport most e-bikes on the bicycle racks
of their cars, because of their weight and shape.
5.4.7
Highlights
Nearly two thirds of respondents said that the primary reasons they were prepared to
use e-bikes as a mode of transportation for commuting to work were exercise and
environmental concerns. They also mentioned the ability to deal more easily with
physically demanding situations as a key advantage.
Most respondents also said they were able to park their e-bikes in a safe place when
they got to work. However, possible theft of their bicycle was a concern for many.
Almost two thirds of the cyclists rode the e-bikes on bicycle paths.
39
5.5
Project impact
The project was given outstanding press coverage. Although it is difficult to provide the
exact content of the coverage, many newspaper articles, television and radio
interviews, and special televised features were produced after each press conference.
See Appendix B for a list of newspaper articles and radio/television coverage
particulars.
Overall, the Electric Bike 2000 Project generated considerable interest and excitement.
5.5.1
Impact on the public and cyclists
The public was unaware of this new type of bicycle because it has not been marketed
in Canada.
The project significantly enhanced the visibility of e-bikes and helped raise public
awareness of the importance of developing non-polluting modes of transportation. The
project promptly received extensive media coverage; CEVEQ was inundated with
interested visitors; and telephone calls were received from many potential e-bike users.
The cyclists were also keenly interested in the experiment in which they participated
and in the e-bikes themselves. Very few withdrew from the project after their initial
involvement. They were also conscientious and thorough in filling out their evaluation
questionnaires.
5.5.2
Impact on government authorities
It should be remembered that this project was developed jointly with Transport
Canada, Transport Quebec and the Société de l’Assurance Automobile du Québec,
and that the results were intended to be a relevant source of information for drafting
government regulations.
Various government departments and agencies provided encouragement for this
environmental initiative by providing funding and involving their employees.
This evaluation gave the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, through the Moving the
Economy (MTE) organization in Toronto, an opportunity to observe the tests and assess
the relevance of amending its policy and regulations relative to e-bikes.
5.5.3
Impact on participating organizations
Participating firms were very pleased with this innovative project and encouraged their
employees to commute to work on e-bikes. They also helped set up internal
mechanisms to co-ordinate the bicycle testing.
Aside from its environmental character, participatory nature and overall scope, the
project enhanced the corporate images of the participating organizations.
40
E-bike manufacturers benefited from the media coverage and through their
participation obtained useful information on cyclists’ perceptions of their various
products as well as improvements they wished to see incorporated in the bicycles.
41
6.
CONCLUSIONS
That the Electric Bike 2000 Project was a tremendous success can be seen in the level of
interest it generated in cyclists and participating organizations. Moreover, the sustained
media attention received throughout the evaluation project was an indication of the
enthusiasm felt for this new mode of transportation.
Because the e-bikes were tested in actual-use situations by people of all ages in various
cities, the study and its findings are widely applicable.
6.1
E-bike safety
The study showed that cyclists did not view the e-bikes as a safety risk, whether they
were assisted (EABs) or propelled (EPBs) by a motor. The test findings also showed that
both types of e-bikes were considered equally safe. It was suggested that no restrictions
on motor start-up methods should be included in the new regulations.
6.2
E-bike performance
The survey findings clearly indicated a feeling of dissatisfaction among cyclists who
tested e-bikes with a limited speed of 24 km/h, which was lower than the usual speed
they obtained on conventional bicycles. Above this speed, the cyclists had to exert
much more effort than on conventional bicycles to compensate for the weight of the
bicycles. Top priority should therefore be given to reducing the weight of the bicycles.
Based on cyclists’ observations, an increase in the power assist speed to 30 km/h would
provide greater latitude without compromising safety.
With respect to the variations in motor power of the e-bikes, it was noted in some cases
that motors with low power output made more work for the cyclists who had to
compensate by pedalling harder. The ideal e-bike for cyclists would be one on which
they could pedal at the same pace up hills and along flat stretches. The motor should
be able to compensate for the additional energy required to pedal up hills.
6.3
E-bikes as a mode of urban transportation
The study found that most of the cyclists were prepared to use e-bikes for commuting to
work primarily because they provided good physical exercise within an ecological
framework while providing power assistance in difficult parts of their journey.
The findings also revealed that improvements should be made in urban communities to
make them more accommodating for e-bike users and thus enhance conditions for
e-bike use in general.
Because e-bikes have good acceleration and can easily weave through traffic, cyclists
can quickly react and avert situations that may compromise their safety. The tests
demonstrated that e-bikes could become very popular and replace automobiles as
a way to commute to work, particularly in warm weather.
43
6.4
Future of e-bikes
E-bikes admittedly have little appeal for competitive cyclists or mountain bike
enthusiasts. However, they are a feasible mode of transportation for commuting to work
or travelling short distances.
During these tests, many people were attracted to the e-bikes, which rekindled their
interest to travel by different means than a car. Some of them had given up on
conventional bicycles because it was difficult to climb the steep hills on their route.
Others were hesitant about riding bicycles because of weather conditions.
The evaluation results and the excitement generated by this new vehicle suggest that
a segment of the population would leave the car at home and commute to work by
e-bike, at least in fine weather.
Seniors and people with respiratory conditions, cardiovascular problems or muscular
disabilities can rediscover the pleasures of cycling without having to expend a lot of
physical effort.
It appears that a new market niche will open up for e-bikes without compromising the
traditional bicycle market. As with conventional bicycles, the more varied the choice of
e-bikes, the greater the number of consumers who will find a product that meets their
needs.
44
7.
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1
Cyclists’ needs
Further to analysing the answers obtained from participating cyclists in the e-bike
evaluation and the conclusions drawn, the study outlined the following needs of
potential customers that must be met to promote the use of e-bikes:
• Maximum electric power assist speed up to 30 km/h;
• A high-performance, ergonomic product capable of assisting cyclists on steep hills
and providing good acceleration;
• A lighter product;
• A product equipped with accessories that promote greater safety in urban
environments (rearview mirror, lights, saddlebags and effective brakes);
• Improved anti-theft devices to prevent the theft of bicycles or batteries;
• Safe parking places provided by employers for fitness-minded employees.
7.2
Government regulations
For the purposes of government safety regulations, the study raised the following points:
• It was found that motors with the highest power outputs did not provide the e-bikes
with the greatest amount of power assist. The regulations currently proposed by
Transport Canada do not cover this aspect. However, it would be worthwhile to
enact regulations on acceleration speeds rather than motor power so as not to
restrict research and development in the e-bike industry;
• Because the test results demonstrated that both types of e-bikes (EABs and EPBs)
were equally safe, it is recommended that no restrictions on the type of power assist
provided by the motor be included in the new regulations.
45
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF CYCLISTS’ COMMENTS
Introduction
The approach used in the methodology, as described in section 3 of the report, gave
respondents very little leeway in their answers, except for a space reserved for personal
comments. These comments provided additional elements for the responses to the
questionnaire and reflect the perceptions of a certain number of cyclists, keeping in
mind that not all respondents provided opinions and that respondents were free to
provide details according to their interest in the subject.
More specifically, the analysis was designed to identify a certain number of elements
that would group respondents’ comments having similar subject matter and put them
in a more consistent form. This was done to extract potentially useful information that
had not been provided in the answers to the questions.
Comments were classified according to the following categories: acceleration,
minimum driving age, range, control, brakes, interest in this mode of transportation,
weight, power, safety and speed. A short qualitative analysis of these comments was
carried out.
Overall perceptions
There were 211 participants in these tests. On average, each participant commented
on two of the ten characteristics described above and, altogether, there were
441 comments. However, interest in this mode of transportation, weight, speed, range
and safety – in descending order – were the e-bike elements that generated more
interest on the part of the respondents (all categories of electric bicycles combined).
Surprisingly, volunteers were less interested in elements such as acceleration, minimum
driving age and motor power. Because of this low level of interest, these elements are
not dealt with in the following paragraphs.
Interest in e-bikes as a mode of transportation
It was found that 87 percent of test participants expressed in their comments an interest
in e-bikes as a mode of transportation. These comments represent 37 percent of the
total number provided.
A-1
Among the overall observations, some interesting comments made about both types of
e-bikes include the following:
• With an e-bike, I am much less short of breath and exert less effort in windy
conditions and on hills;
• E-bikes give older people and those with heart conditions and other problems the
chance to exercise and get back into cycling again;
• E-bikes are not very advisable for long trips in power-assist mode because of their
limited range; they are better for short trips;
• E-bikes are too expensive in comparison with conventional bicycles;
• E-bikes can reduce pollution and congestion in urban centres;
• E-bikes make it easier to stop and start frequently in city traffic;
• Greater provision should be made for e-bikes in city traffic (lack of bicycle paths,
pavement in poor repair and lack of services).
Many other comments were made about a broad range of accessories and
equipment, most importantly the following:
• Need for a very reliable anti-theft system;
• E-bike frame is not suitable for conventional bicycle racks;
• Need for headlight, mirrors, horn, saddlebags and mudguards.
Speed
Nearly 34 percent of cyclists commented on this characteristic, which accounted for
nearly 15 percent of all comments received. It was found that many cyclists seemed to
confuse the concept of travelling speed with front and rear wheel gear ratios and
levels.
Cyclists generally complained that their e-bikes performed poorly in terms of speeds
achieved with power assistance from the motor. It was more difficult to reach or
maintain normal cruising speed than with conventional bicycles.
Many cyclists also complained about an insufficient number of gear ratios, which did
not help them reach the desired or appropriate cruising speed.
Weight
About 32 percent of cyclists commented on this aspect of the e-bikes, which
accounted for about 14 percent of all comments made.
Regardless of the type of e-bike, EAB or EPB, cyclists preferred a lighter bike. The
following are the comments most frequently made about this characteristic:
• The gains achieved on hills are lost on the flat stretches;
• It is difficult to lift the bike onto the sidewalk, place it on the roof of a car or position it
on a bike rack;
• There is too much weight in relation to its maximum speed;
• The bicycle’s weight should be distributed better;
• The weight noticeably increases acceleration when you go down hills.
A-2
Range
Some 25 percent of cyclists commented on the e-bikes’ range, which accounted for
about 10 percent of the total number of comments. The range in power-assist mode
was generally rated as insufficient.
The following are some typical comments:
• Hills reduce the range of the bicycles significantly;
• The limited range of the battery causes stress because the charge runs out quickly;
• Two chargers are needed: one at work and one at home;
• The range is too limited to use the e-bike for recreation.
Safety
About 18 percent of participants commented on the safety of the e-bikes, which
accounted for nearly 7 percent of all comments. E-bike safety was not an element
identified by cyclists as a factor that would limit the use of this new mode of
transportation. None of the cyclists said that this type of bicycle was potentially
dangerous or unsafe for their physical well-being because of the power-assist feature.
Contrary to expectations, feelings of insecurity were associated more specifically with
the bicycles’ technical components, for example:
• A pedal touches the ground (crankset too close to the ground);
• The battery is unstable during travel;
• The location of the accelerator lever can be mistaken for that of the brake lever;
• The positioning of the motor is a cause for concern (possible burns) or start-up
problems (rider must turn to start it);
• There is a risk of falling if going up on a sidewalk diagonally;
• The motor slides on the wheel when it rains.
The following comments indicate that the e-bikes are a fairly safe mode of
transportation:
• The power assist is not a factor in reduced safety;
• The e-bike is safer than a conventional bicycle.
Overall findings
The comments provided by participants are reflected in the report’s conclusions. They
show that the cyclists were very pleased for the most part with this mode of
transportation and in favour of its further development. They would like to see changes
made to e-bikes, as with conventional bicycles, to make them more suitable for all
types of users.
There was also nothing to indicate that this mode of transportation posed a risk for users,
especially since it was viewed as a wise choice for seniors and people with disabilities,
and because volunteers chose not to say anything in their answers to suggest that
electric bicycles were in any way unsafe. This is significant in light of the study’s specific
objective to determine whether electric bicycles are potentially dangerous.
A-3
APPENDIX B
LIST OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND RADIO/TELEVISION COVERAGE
The following is an incomplete list of newspaper articles and electronic media
coverage following CEVEQ’s implementation of the study’s communication strategy.
Newspapers
Le Soleil
Le Journal de Québec
Le Devoir
Le Nord
Le Devoir
La Presse
The Montreal Gazette
Le Messager Lachine Dorval
Le Soleil
Today
The Globe and Mail
The Toronto Star
National Post
Accès Laurentides
“Ça roule, ces vélos électriques,” June 14, 2000
“Vélos électriques,” June 14, 2000
“Vélos branchés,” July 1, 2000
“Des vélos électriques à Saint-Jérôme,” July 5, 2000
“À quand des rues réservées au vélo à Montréal?”
July 12, 2000
“Le vélo électrique pour vaincre la pollution,”
July 12, 2000
“Electric Bikes, A Threat to Sweat,” July 12, 2000
“Je roule électrique au travail,” July 16, 2000
“Vélos électriques à l’essai,” July 26, 2000
“City to Study Electric Bikes as Solution to Traffic
Pollution Woes,” August 17, 2000
“From Sweat to Svelte: Electric Bikes Promise Pep
Without Perspiration,” August 18, 2000
“Electric Bikes to Get Trial Run”, August 18, 2000
“Pilot Project Promises to Empower Cyclists,”
August 18, 2000
“400 cyclistes propulsés à l’électricité,”
September 29, 2000
Radio coverage
Radio-Canada
CKAC
CIME FM
CKOI
Radio Ville-Marie
July 11 &12, 2000
July 13, 2000
July 17, 2000
July 19, 2000
July 15, 2000
Television coverage
TQS; Radio Canada; TVA; RDI; LCN; “Technofolies” show on Canal Z; Télé Québec;
and various Toronto television stations.
B-1
Tech people love stories about breakthrough innovations—gadgets or technologies that emerge
suddenly and take over, like the iPhone or Twitter. Indeed, there’s a whole industry of pundits,
investors, and websites trying feverishly to predict the Next New Big Thing. The assumption is
that breakthroughs are inherently surprising, so it takes special genius to spot one coming.
But that’s not how innovation really works, if you ask Bill Buxton. A pioneer in computer graphics
who is now a principal researcher at Microsoft, he thinks paradigm-busting inventions are easy to
see coming because they’re already lying there, close at hand. “Anything that’s going to have an
impact over the next decade—that’s going to be a billion-dollar industry—has always already
been around for 10 years,” he says.
Buxton calls this the “long nose” theory of innovation: Big ideas poke their noses into the world very slowly, easing gradually into
view.
Can this actually be true? Buxton points to exhibit A, the pinch-and-zoom gesture that Apple introduced on the iPhone. It seemed
like a bolt out of the blue, but as Buxton notes, computer designer Myron Krueger pioneered the pinch gesture on his experimental
Video Place system in 1983. Other engineers began experimenting with it, and companies like Wacom introduced tablets that let
designers use a pen and a puck simultaneously to manipulate images onscreen. By the time the iPhone rolled around, “pinch” was a
robust, well-understood concept.
A more recent example is the Microsoft Kinect. Sure, the idea of controlling software just by waving your body seems wild and new.
But as Buxton says, engineers have long been perfecting motion-sensing for alarm systems and for automatic doors in grocery
stores. We’ve been controlling software with our bodies for years, just in a different domain.
This is why truly billion-dollar breakthrough ideas have what Buxton calls surprising obviousness. They feel at once fresh and
familiar. It’s this combination that lets a new gizmo take off quickly and dominate.
The iPhone was designed by Apple engineers who had learned plenty from successes and failures in the PDA market, including, of
course, their own ill-fated Newton. By the time they added those pinch gestures, they’d made the obvious freshly surprising.
If you want to spot the next thing, Buxton argues, you just need to go “prospecting and mining”—looking for concepts that are
already successful in one field so you can bring them to another. Buxton particularly recommends prospecting the musical world,
because musicians invent gadgets and interfaces that are robust and sturdy yet creatively cool—like guitar pedals. When a team led
by Buxton developed the interface for Maya, a 3-D design tool, he heavily plundered music hardware and software. (“There’s normal
spec, there’s military spec, and there’s rock spec,” he jokes.)
OK: If it’s so easy to spy the future, what are Buxton’s predictions? He thinks tablet computers, pen-based interfaces, and
omnipresent e-ink are going to dominate the next decade. Those inventions have been slowly stress-tested for 20 years now, and
they’re finally ready.
Using a “long nose” analysis, I have a prediction of my own. I bet electric vehicles are going to become huge—specifically, electric
bicycles. Battery technology has been improving for decades, and the planet is urbanizing rapidly. The nose is already poking out:
Electric bikes are incredibly popular in China and becoming common in the US among takeout/delivery people, who haul them inside
their shops each night to plug them in. (Pennies per charge, and no complicated rewiring of the grid necessary.) I predict a design
firm will introduce the iPhone of electric bikes and whoa: It’ll seem revolutionary!
But it won’t be. Evolution trumps revolution, and things happen slowly. The nose knows.

The Report of Electric - Pedego Electric Bikes

Transcription

Similar documents

Map Inside 2002.qxd (Page 1)

A Special A Special A Special A Special A Special

Spring 2012 - Quest - The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Reports on info days

WE ARE THE PLACE TO CHILL AT THE LAKE

Best Places to Work Genumark

colnago - bikeTaiwan

Friday, Sept. 18