ewheels - future of urban transportation?

[Luiz]

 I believe there is a place for eucs in the future of public transportation along with eletric bikes and cars . And here is why.

With the develoment of batteries and computers It will become lighter, smaller , cheaper , smarter and safer as all other eletric transports . 

The biggest current trend is for the increased useage of eletric transport in replacement of combustion motor.

The other trend is the development of a dedicated sistem of cyclepaths on the most advanced cities .

I agree that it will find lots of resistance ( the   burning euc video is reproduced daily on youtube with the title  "eucs are smoking hot" ) but the energy eficiency , cost and size of eucs make them a very atractive option for people that are already tired of filthy poluted and congestioned cities.

I agree with Barefoot Ted that the standind position feels natural for us humans as we walk and run standing with no handles in a natural flow . That probably explains why riding eucs is so fun and rewarding.

[Kroy]

Some of us don't have backsides which appreciate resting on a very small area for a prolonged period of time!
My bottom is much happier being upright, twerking in the wind.

[Luiz]

Perfect point Kroy . Agree with you 100%

[Mono]

@esaj, I doubt that you are a representative cyclist, just as I doubt you are a representative unicyclist (most of us don't use a helmet, let along a motorcycle helmet). In my experience I need far more than 1/2 hour to travel a 10km distance with a bicycle in big cities. I googled this a little bit and found, that "the average travelling speed in Copenhagen is 16 kph for cyclists and 27 kph for cars" and 

A comprehensive review by Allen et al. examines bicycling speed in general (5). They conclude that bicycle free-flow speed lies between 6.2 mph (10 km/h) and 17.4 mph (28 km/h) with a majority of the reported speeds in the literature being between 7.5 mph (12 km/h) and 12.4 mph (20 km/h).

Maybe your city is a specific case, or your data collection method hasn't been as rigorous. Wasn't it you posting the story talking to a cyclist who complained and then saying good-bye to her while pushing the throttle? Just one data point though. 

Another interesting set of slides on bicycle travel data for Portland, Oregon:

http://www.slideshare.net/otrec/where-do-people-bicycle-the-role-of-infrastructure-in-determining-bicycling-behavior

In particular: 80% of the trips are <=7 miles, 10% are >10 miles (slide 12), long trips are mainly done for exercise, not transportation (slide 13). Average speed is 10mph (exact same number as for Copenhagen), 4% of the trips have an average speed >=16mph (slide 14), my guess is that many of the "high"-speed trips are connected to exercise, not transportation. 

[esaj]

@esaj, I doubt that you are a representative cyclist, just as I doubt you are a representative unicyclist (most of us don't use a helmet, let along a motorcycle helmet). In my experience I need far more than 1/2 hour to travel a 10km distance in big cities. I googled this a little bit and found, that "the average travelling speed in Copenhagen is 16 kph for cyclists and 27 kph for cars" and 

A comprehensive review by Allen et al. examines bicycling speed in general (5). They conclude that bicycle free-flow speed lies between 6.2 mph (10 km/h) and 17.4 mph (28 km/h) with a majority of the reported speeds in the literature being between 7.5 mph (12 km/h) and 12.4 mph (20 km/h).

Maybe your city is a specific case, or your data collection method hasn't been as rigorous. 

16km/h sounds somewhat low, but maybe that's in downtown or otherwise "slower-paced" area. I'm talking about cycling lanes outside downtown area (or in here, they're usually combined walking & cycling lanes), where the speeds usually are higher.

Don't know if I'm a representative cyclist or not, the values were based on my own observations in a university town of around 130000 people and about 500 kilometers of bike lanes in total (most of which aren't in that good condition ). And of course the total average speeds are probably lower over longer stretch with hills etc, but if the EUC can't keep up with the bicycle traffic on longer faster parts, it's going to be nuisance to cyclists.

An article about possible lower speed limitations for light traffic lanes had a mention that police in Helsinki had used radar gun for one friday afternoon to find out the average cycling speed, and they found out that it was 23km/h (source: http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/a1402196956316 , in Finnish. the average speed is mentioned in the image caption of the police with a radar gun). Currently the bike lane speed limits are same as the car lane going besides it, or if there isn't a car lane next to it, the local zone "general" limit, which is usually 40km/h or more (there's a common misconception in Finland that there would be some general speed limit for bike lanes, that would be in effect everywhere, but that's wrong).

http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/1103/what-is-a-reasonable-speed-for-long-distances-on-a-bike : (these are again just somebody's own observations, but pretty close what I've observed too):

Speed varies widely by cyclist, depending on fitness, road conditions and traffic. Some of my observations (cruising speed based on a flat, paved road in good condition):

• 20km/h - many "occasional" cyclists ride around this speed
• 25km/h - most commuters
• 30km/h - fast commuters, slower roadies
• 35km/h - fast roadies
• any faster than that on a long flat and they're probably a racer

(based on who I pass and who passes me when riding around 30km/h)

But my main point was mostly in regards to the planned 25km/h technical maximum speed for self-balancing electric vehicles, and how the limiting would be done (since the people who drafted the law clearly have no idea how an EUC works or how it's ridden). If it shuts down at 25km/h, that's bad, and if the full tilt-back is reached at 25km/h, nobodys' going to ride that fast on the long stretches of the cycling lanes, as it's uncomfortable, and the shutdown could be initiated by a slightest bump, so they drop speed and become road blocks  

While I've said that Firewheel is a dangerous wheel due to missing tilt-back, personally I actually like the fact that my Firewheel has no tilt-back (it won't shutdown either, as the battery's shunted), so I can go faster comfortably when needed, and usually cruise around 25km/h, which is enough to keep up with the bicycle traffic. Technically, if the new law is passed as it currently is written, this would still be illegal wheel, because there's nothing in the wheel itself preventing me from going over 25km/h. Better system would be speed limits for the cycling lanes, not for the vehicles. I don't see cars being sold that are limited to not go above 100 or 120km/h (the highest speed limit in here), and yet almost all people drive within limits.

 

[Mono]

16km/h sounds somewhat low, but maybe that's in downtown or otherwise "slower-paced" area. I'm talking about cycling lanes outside downtown area (or in here, they're usually combined walking & cycling lanes), where the speeds usually are higher.

well, we talk about urban transportation and unicycles, so why would we look only at suburban cycle lanes for this purpose?

Don't know if I'm a representative cyclist or not, the values were based on my own observations in a university town of around 130000 people and about 500 kilometers of bike lanes in total (most of which aren't in that good condition ). And of course the total average speeds are probably lower over longer stretch with hills etc, but if the EUC can't keep up with the bicycle traffic on longer faster parts, it's going to be nuisance to cyclists.

An article about possible lower speed limitations for light traffic lanes had a mention that police in Helsinki had used radar gun for one friday afternoon to find out the average cycling speed, and they found out that it was 23km/h (source: http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/a1402196956316 , in Finnish.

I assume they looked at a place where cyclist go rather high speed (that's what they are concerned about), it's very unlikely to be representative as average speed and IMHO consistent with an speed average of 16km/h. 

the average speed is mentioned in the image caption of the police with a radar gun). Currently the bike lane speed limits are same as the car lane going besides it, or if there isn't a car lane next to it, the local zone "general" limit, which is usually 40km/h or more (there's a common misconception in Finland that there would be some general speed limit for bike lanes, that would be in effect everywhere, but that's wrong).

http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/1103/what-is-a-reasonable-speed-for-long-distances-on-a-bike : (these are again just somebody's own observations, but pretty close what I've observed too):

Speed varies widely by cyclist, depending on fitness, road conditions and traffic. Some of my observations (cruising speed based on a flat, paved road in good condition):

• 20km/h - many "occasional" cyclists ride around this speed
• 25km/h - most commuters
• 30km/h - fast commuters, slower roadies
• 35km/h - fast roadies
• any faster than that on a long flat and they're probably a racer

(based on who I pass and who passes me when riding around 30km/h)

 

I'd rather go with the data from actual studies with a protocol to data collection etc. than someones personal observations. What about you? If you have reasons to believe that the data collection of actual studies is systematically flawed, I am interested to learn about the flaws. 

 

But my main point was mostly in regards to the planned 25km/h technical maximum speed for self-balancing electric vehicles, and how the limiting would be done (since the people who drafted the law clearly have no idea how an EUC works or how it's ridden). If it shuts down at 25km/h,

I don't understand why that would or should be the case. It seems easy to accomplish that the wheel just doesn't go faster, period (OK, the involved control strategy must be a little more sophisticated, because loosing balance and increase speed generate the same input signal). Only if you lean so strongly and quickly forward that you get close to the limits of power flow, you will get a warning (e.g. via pedals or beep). Otherwise, and in any case, the wheel just does't go faster, regardless of pedal inclination angle. IIRC, this has already been implemented by KingSong for Germany to sell a perfectly legal device, where by law 6km/h are allowed on sidewalks for any device. Of course, you can remove the 6km/h limit with a few clicks in the app (which makes, of course, the EUC illegal then). 

I don't think a speed cap at 25km/h will be of any hinderance for the broad acceptance of EUCs (including guys like you, as you will just find simple ways around). Most current models come not even close to 25km/h anyway.

There is anyway no choice, as not limiting the speed is no realistic legal option. 

Better system would be speed limits for the cycling lanes, not for the vehicles. I don't see cars being sold that are limited to not go above 100 or 120km/h (the highest speed limit in here), and yet almost all people drive within limits.

You might be right, though your argument is somewhat flawed. If I am not mistaken, power-assisted vehicles that allow unlimited speed require invariably a drivers license. This seems in general a good thing and it won't change just because of the beauty of EUCs. Requiring a license for EUCs would be a significant hinderance in their broad acceptance, so limiting their speed seems to be the preferable alternative to me. 

With the risk to become very unpopular here: balancing all pros and cons including number of fatalities, a 20km/h cap is probably even better. It would not be my personal preference, but that's probably what the data would tell us when we would compare both scenarios (which we will probably never be able to do reliably enough), of course depending on how you balance saved minutes with prevented serious injuries and deaths.

[MetricUSA]

I wish, I lived more south hemisphere, I would ride eu everyday, as I live in a snowbelt, and they don't clear the sidewalks of snow, so it would be all road riding with bad car drivers, if you can handle snow via studded tire ue. But the eu is a godsent, I can ride any bus/car with it, and skip the bus if I have to. But my problem is distance, I can ride to destination or ride around destination but not both, battery is a limiting factor.

[esaj]

well, we talk about urban transportation and unicycles, so why would we look only at suburban cycle lanes for this purpose?

Well, I'm looking at the situation from Finland's point of view, here the distances usually are longer as towns and cities are more sparsely populated. People living downtown don't need cars for their commutes, so they are not the target audience for people switching to electric vehicles instead of cars, but the people who live farther away. If I'd need to visit a friend or shop or go to work 500m-1km away, I probably wouldn't take the wheel, but either walk or go by bike, especially downtown (where there are many car lane crossings and lots of curbstones). On the other hand, I know people who live outside the downtown and ride their cars to go buy a carton of milk 1km away.  

Light electric vehicles will be attractive option when it gets you to your destination "fast enough" and with little effort, otherwise people will always pick cars instead (outside downtown). And outside downtown, people ride fast in cycle lanes (at least here), so having to go in the midst of fast bikes with a slower vehicle might turn people off from picking a light electric vehicle instead of car (for such people who think cycling is too much effort). But that's just my point of view.

 

I assume they looked at a place where cyclist go rather high speed (that's what they are concerned about), it's very unlikely to be representative as average speed and IMHO consistent with an speed average of 16km/h. 

I'd rather go with the data from actual studies with a protocol to data collection etc. than someones personal observations. What about you? If you have reasons to believe that the data collection of actual studies is systematically flawed, I am interested to learn about the flaws. 

I don't understand why that would or should be the case. It seems easy to accomplish that the wheel just doesn't go faster, period. Only if you lean so strongly and quickly forward that you get close to the limits of power flow, you will get a warning (e.g. via pedals or beep). Otherwise, and in any case, the wheel just does't go faster. IIRC, this has already been implemented by KingSong for Germany to sell a perfectly legal device, where by law 6km/h are allowed on sidewalks for any device. Of course, you can remove the 6km/h limit with a few clicks in the app (which makes, of course, the EUC illegal then). 

I don't think a speed cap at 25km/h will be of any hinderance for the broad acceptance of EUCs (including guys like you, as you will just find simple ways around). Most current models come not even close to 25km/h anyway.

There is anyway no choice, as not limiting the speed is no realistic legal option. 

I don't think they're flawed, but don't think they are universally applicable results either. You can't say "everywhere in the world everyone rides at an average speed of 16km/h with a bicycle" (and I don't think that's what the study says either, but you get my point). And it isn't the average speed, but the faster (several kilometers long) stretches here, where the slow EUCs would be hinderance to flow of bike traffic, so they should be capable of reaching that speed safely (not riding near the cut-off speed & not riding with constant tilt-back), whether it's 15 or 25km/h, they should be able to ride at the speed of the "general" flow of traffic in my view. People will use bikes less (which probably are at least more healthier, if not environmentally better) if the lanes are blocked by too many slower vehicles, and start using cars more.

Also for longer commutes, I don't think people will switch their cars to light electric vehicles and there will be no mass adoption, if it means their commute is going to take significantly longer due to low speed, it's a matter of convenience.

 

You might be right, though your argument is somewhat flawed. If I am not mistaken, power-assisted vehicles that allow unlimited speed require invariably a drivers license. This seems in general a good thing and it won't change just because of the beauty of EUCs. Requiring a license for EUCs would be a significant hinderance in their broad acceptance, so limiting their speed seems to be the preferable alternative to me. 

Here, you need  a drivers license for power- and speed-limited combustion engine vehicles also, like mopeds (50cc, max 45km/h) and light motorcycles (125cc, max. 9kW). Both are very common, the drivers' license requirement doesn't seem to have hindered them much.

Requiring a licence for faster top speed EUCs could be a good middle-ground, but it would be hard to distinguish faster and slower EUCs on the road. And as a matter of a fact, the proposed law here DOES separate between self-balanced electric vehicles that have a max speed of 15km/h (pedestrian traffic rules) and 25km/h (bike traffic rules), and there are different rules for them, but I have no idea how they're going to tell two EUCs apart that have different max speeds on the road ... If the 25km/h max EUC rides at 15km/h or below, does it then belong to the other class, as long as it doesn't accelerate above 15km/h?  It just makes no sense...

 

With the risk to become very unpopular here: balancing all pros and cons including number of fatalities, a 20km/h cap is probably even better. It would not be my personal preference, but that's probably what the data would tell us when we would compare both scenarios (which we will probably never be able to do reliably enough).

My personal preference would be mandatory safety gear for everyone, that's going to save more lives than lower top speeds. You can get a fatal blow to the head even if riding 10km/h. Most bike fatalities aren't related to the speed of the bike, but usually a car hitting the bike and lacking a helmet. But many people seem to be against using safety gear, I don't get it why, good gear is comfortable and at least I think I ride better, as I don't have to worry about my own safety as much... less nervous, plus if need be, I can even ride off the road myself to prevent a crash, people without gear would probably not do it so eagerly.

 

[Mono]

 

My personal preference would be mandatory safety gear for everyone, that's going to save more lives than lower top speeds.

Mandatory safety gear is quite likely the death penalty for wide acceptance. 

You can get a fatal blow to the head even if riding 10km/h.

sure, you can drown in a puddle, c'mon. It's not about what is possible, it's about what is probable. 

But many people seem to be against using safety gear, I don't get it why, good gear is comfortable and [...]

You honestly don't get it? Here is why (sorted by estimated importance): 

• it takes time and is annoying to put on and off and take care of inbetween. Of course, if unicycling is a hobby of yours and not a necessary means of transportation, the ritual becomes enjoyable and almost indispensable (I know, I have been riding motorbikes for years). But there also is a reason why you would rather take your bicycle than your EUC for a 1km trip then. 
• it is not comfortable (of course, if it's a hobby of yours, wearing it becomes a rather enjoyable ritual...)
• it makes you sweat more (not much of a concern in Finland)
• it messes up your hair and original clothes (remember, we talk about a means of transportation, not a hobby for which this would be perfectly acceptable for most people)
• it makes you look ugly (of course subjective, but certainly not the opinion of a small minority only)
• it reminds you that driving could be dangerous (regardless of whether it is or not)
• it might increase the risk to be involved in an accident (oneself and others become less risk-adverse)

When I think of global acceptance of EUCs in urban transportation, I think of distances typically somewhat shorter than those taken with bicycles (which is, according to the studies, typically around 5km). I believe a few others have expressed similar views here. I don't think EUCs will become very popular for traveling larger distances than bicycles. This is the spot where pedelecs are more likely to succeed. This seems to deviate from the prominent use cases you have in mind.

[MarkoMarjamaa]

http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets

[Jason McNeil]

If we look at most EUC accidents, they're typically bad knee injuries & road-rash to the palms. Would it not be an acceptable to require (or at least strongly suggest) that if using your Wheel in a bike lane at speeds above 20kph then wrist/knee guards should be worn? 

[vespaman]

Being a bicycle commuter in Stockholm, 13km each direction through town, my average is about 23km/h due to red lights etc. I don't consider myself cycling faster than others (maybe up the bridges though, since I am anyway travelling too far to use my office clothes, and I don't mind the extra 'work out' going to work).

With my Ninebot One E+, I would definitely not be able to keep up with the commute 'train'. But really, I don't see that as a problem, bicycles just need to pass me, just as then pass the slower bicyclists. But the bicycle lanes are quite good on my route, mostly made for 60km/h meetings (30 each direction).

Regarding protection, I think this is just how used to it you are. I would never commute without helmet, be it EU or bicycle - I have been into too many accidents to realize that this is a small price to pay, to keep your skull more protected. Here it is by law to use bicycle helmets for kids, and about half of the commuters has helmets anyways. I also use gloves.

Last summer an old man steaming-on on his electric bicycle came over on my side, and we crashed heads on. Had I not had my helmet then, I would have been seriously injured (I was injured anyway, but even after flight time, and landing practically on my back head, my head was ok.) My bicycle where totally destroyed of course.

 

[Mono]

http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets

Great points, I feel this is pretty spot on. I also agree with Chris Bruntlett, that

... it is hard to overstate how our unnatural obsession with head protection is stifling the growth of our bicycle culture. It achieves little, except deterring the most casual cyclists, who also happen to be the slowest and safest ones on the road.

which would equally apply to EUCs (and various kind of protections), except that I don't think we have developed this collective obsession so far.

[esaj]

Mandatory safety gear is quite likely the death penalty for wide acceptance. 

sure, you can drown in a puddle, c'mon. It's not about what is possible, it's about what is probable. 

You honestly don't get it? Here is why (sorted by estimated importance): 

• it takes time and is annoying to put on and off and take care of inbetween. Of course, if unicycling is a hobby of yours and not a necessary means of transportation, the ritual becomes enjoyable and almost indispensable (I know, I have been riding motorbikes for years). But there also is a reason why you would rather take your bicycle than your EUC for a 1km trip. 
• it is not comfortable (of course, if it's a hobby of yours, wearing it becomes a rather enjoyable ritual...)
• it makes you sweat more (not much of a concern in Finland)
• it makes you look ugly (of course subjective, but certainly not the opinion of a small minority only)
• it messes up your hair and original clothes (remember, we talk about a means of transportation, not a hobby for which this would be perfectly acceptable for most people)

When I think of global acceptance of EUCs in urban transportation, I think of distances typically somewhat shorter than those taken with bicycles (which is, according to the studies, typically around 5km). I believe a few others have expressed similar views here. I don't think EUCs will become very popular for traveling larger distances than bicycles. This is the spot where pedelecs are more likely to succeed. This seems to deviate from the prominent use cases you have in mind.

It's probably true that many people would rather not ride than wear safety gear, which in my opinion is a pity. And even if it were made mandatory, I'm not expecting everyone to put on as much safety gear as I personally do, but wrist guards and a light biking helmet would be a good start. Not that inconvenient and fast to put on.

For a short trip when actually going somewhere, I see the EUC more as an inconvenience (the wheel itself I mean), as I'd probably have to cart it around more than ride it (in a store for example), which, while doable, isn't much fun (have to take a shopping cart, even if I'm going to buy something very small). Leaving my bike outside is easier, leaving the EUC there would probably get it stolen or vandalised. That being said, I have visited stores farther away with the EUC (and full gear) many times, I put the wheel, helmet & wrist guards into a shopping cart and take them with me to the store.

And yes, my riding is probably very different from the "general population", as I don't need to commute to work and mostly just ride as long trips as possible, just for the fun of riding. That's the only reason I'm getting the 768Wh battery packs, I want to go farther, there are many routes I cannot go to because I'd run out of battery on the way. For my use, I'd be totally OK if faster wheels were accepted with or without mandatory safety gear (I'd still wear it), but of course my opinion has nothing to do with how the laws are going to be made. 

There's also a slight hint of trolling and/or provocation in some of my posts, but it does usually get the conversation started  

 

 

http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets

Interesting read, and I've seen similar ones before, but at least in this one, the writer admits that:

Let’s first get one thing out of the way: if you get into a serious accident, wearing a helmet will probably save your life. According to a 1989 study in the New England Journal of Medicine, riders with helmets had an 85% reduction in their risk of head injury and an 88% reduction in their risk of brain injury. That’s an overwhelming number that’s backed up study after study. Nearly every study of hospital admission rates, helmeted cyclists are far less likely to receive serious head and brain injuries.

So, although the possibility is low, I'd rather be wearing a helmet if I get into such an accident, and even if wearing the helmet gives a statistically higher chance of getting into an accident (although, correlation is not causation). I still feel this type of argumentation is used as an excuse, and the real reason is more about the looks of the person or "helmet hair" some other similarly (in my point of view) ridiculous reason... Probably not in all, but in most cases.   But that's just my opinion, no need to take it personally. I've never been concerned about how I look while riding a bike or an EUC. I don't need the "wow, you look cool"-comments from other people to accept myself as I am, or feel bad if someone laughs at my safety gear.

 

If we look at most EUC accidents, they're typically bad knee injuries & road-rash to the palms. Would it not be an acceptable to require (or at least strongly suggest) that if using your Wheel in a bike lane at speeds above 20kph then wrist/knee guards should be worn? 

In my opinion, the bare minimum would be wrist guards and a light bike helmet, of course the more the better, but at some point you just can't wear more armor due to movement restrictions and weight (otherwise police officers would probably wear 20 bulletproof vests on top of each other ).

 

[Jason McNeil]

A cyclist has a much higher center of gravity than an eWheeler, with concomitant result that cyclists are head-over-handle-bars in a front on collision, whereas when an eWheeler gets into a scrape (pedal-clipping, cut-outs, etc.) he seems to impact his knees & instinct places the hands in front. Not saying a helmet is superfluous to eWheeling, just that it's has a different set of risks to cycling & that an intelligent rider should be aware of. 

Using the empirical content of the FB page has at least 8 different major knee/hand injuries, 0 to the head.   

[esaj]

A cyclist has a much higher center of gravity than an eWheeler, with concomitant result that cyclists are head-over-handle-bars in a front on collision, whereas when an eWheeler gets into a scrape (pedal-clipping, cut-outs, etc.) he seems to impact his knees & instinct places the hands in front. Not saying a helmet is superfluous to eWheeling, just that it's has a different set of risks to cycling & that an intelligent rider should be aware of. 

Using the empirical content of the FB page has at least 8 different major knee/hand injuries, 0 to the head.   

I would have probably broken some of my teeth, and maybe my jaw, on my head-on asphalt crash on my very first day, had I not been wearing a full-face helmet. I've also seen at least one picture, where a man was showing his fractured front teeth (I think the text said it happened with 14" Gotway MCM), and one comment in some youtube-video, where a guy said he had broken his teeth when crashing with a wheel.

In any of my other 3 falls, my head has not hit the pavement, but in that first case, it did and hard (the chin part of the helmet). It happened so fast that I either didn't have time to react and put my hands in front of me, or my reflex was to grasp the strap tighter... hard to say afterwards, especially since it's been over 3 months.

[Jason McNeil]

Perhaps you're right then, maybe a helmet should be used, but it's really hard to image anyone wearing a full-face helmet with their Wheel. Out of curiosity, do you know at what speed you were travelling at? Was it the Wheels fault or your own?

[esaj]

Perhaps you're right then, maybe a helmet should be used, but it's really hard to image anyone wearing a full-face helmet with their Wheel. Out of curiosity, do you know at what speed you were travelling at? Was it the Wheels fault or your own?

On the first fall, I don't know my exact speed, but very low. It was something like, I mounted, got going, felt that I leaned too much forwards, leaned back too much (braking hard) and then just fell forwards, as the wheel decelerated so fast. Purely my own fault.

[Mono]

A cyclist has a much higher center of gravity than an eWheeler

Really? How do you figure this? What does "much" mean? To my feeling my head ends up being higher when standing on an e-wheel compared to sitting on a bike.

EDIT: just did the experiment. On my bike with very moderate seating position (in terms of forward body inclination) my head ends up about 2cm lower compared to standing on the e-wheel.

[Jason McNeil]

For cyclists most of the weight is carried by the seat, which raises the center of gravity. 

http://www.wheelfanatyk.com/blog/wheel-trick-three-braking/

Before any serious deceleration can occur, this geometry wants to tip forward. The tip over danger in cycling did not end with high wheelers. Owing to its motor, no motorcycle has a high center of gravity. This instability makes you wonder if public cycling would be permitted were it invented in the 21st century. This also means that bicycle brakes have little to do. 

[Mono]

If we look at most EUC accidents, they're typically bad knee injuries & road-rash to the palms. Would it not be an acceptable to require (or at least strongly suggest) that if using your Wheel in a bike lane at speeds above 20kph then wrist/knee guards should be worn? 

For making it mandatory I would request solid data (i.e. several independent studies) that confirm and quantify its net positive effect (i.e. also take into account possible harm due to such regulation).

Besides the frequency, one should also consider the seriousness of injuries for recommendations. Having said that, the first thing I personally put is gloves and I would put wrist guards next, if I had them. 

[Mono]

For cyclists most of the weight is carried by the seat, which raises the center of gravity. 

http://www.wheelfanatyk.com/blog/wheel-trick-three-braking/

The sentence is factually wrong. What carries (most of) the weight is completely irrelevant for the position of center of gravity.

Right, if the seat of a bike is positioned correctly (i.e. not "too low", which it often is), it raises the hip by somewhat above 10cm (compared to standing up-right), but 10cm is also the lift with an e-wheel due to the pedals (in low-position). That wouldn't give us much of a conclusive reasoning on which has the higher center of gravity, besides that they are likely to be pretty close to each other.

EDIT: Another measurement: the pedal hight of my EUC / bike is around 11cm / 13cm, respectively.

[esaj]

Picture of me in full gear, feel free to laugh as much as you want  

I still might get a separate spine-armor...

[Mono]

@esaj, I have been riding motorbikes for years and a suggestion to make :-) For me, the fun-factor of riding increased significantly when I started using an open (cross-)helmet^1 and glasses^2, instead of a visor. It's hard to say why, but getting the air in the face, the nose in wind, just feels so much better. I can't remember the lowest temperature which I found tolerable without visor though.

^1 https://www.louis.eu/artikel/madhead-x2b-helmet/215563?list=100450365

^2 https://www.louis.eu/artikel/spare-glasses-shark-raw-vancore/20015551?list=100450745

[esaj]

@esaj, I have been riding motorbikes for years and a suggestion to make :-) For me, the fun-factor of riding increased significantly when I started using an open (cross-)helmet and glasses, instead of a visor. It's hard to say why, but getting the air in the face, the nose in wind, just feels so much better. I can't remember the lowest temperature which I found tolerable without visor though.

It's a systems helmet, the entire front rises up, so I can use it as an "open" helmet when I want to.

The red lever near the bottom also drops/raises internal sun-visor (that look a bit like sunglasses), but they're pretty useless