Electric Bike Accident Follows Electric Bike Community Forum

[XLFD]

On Thursday, September 11, the Ludington Police Department (LPD) held an open forum on what to do about bicycles, scooters, and coaster toys in the city as they consider the possibility of making a future ordinance to address what they see as a problem.  The Ludington Torch was not able to attend the full meeting, only the first 35 minutes of the meeting due to a Hamlin Township Board conflict , but it appears that we may have a slew of new rules for these vulnerable users of the road, and that usually turns out counterproductive when other traffic considerations like education and engineering are left out of the solution. 

Which it appeared to be at this meeting.  The organizing LPD provided two sheets, one that showed existing local laws, 58-157 and 158, the other sheet indicating possible additions under consideration.  These amounted to:

-limiting the right to be on the road for children under 8

-limiting bicycles to carry only the number of riders the bike is designed for

-multiple requirements for electric coaster toys (e-bikes, e-scooters, assistive mobility vehicles):

---prohibitions from trunklines and sidewalks

---age requirements of 14 to use, 12 if under direct adult supervision

---15 mph speed limit, or no greater than reasonable for existing conditions

---lighting/reflective requirements for driving between dusk and dawn

When Mayor Barnett came to Ludington over 20 years ago to serve as police chief, he ushered in a lot of bicycle and coaster toy regulations which the council readily passed into law, and it made them all feel good.  At that time, he used the local school's Youth Advisory Council to rubber stamp an agenda that seemed less focused on actual safety and more on broadening laws to hamper those who commute around with alternate transportation methods, some because they have no other means to get around. 

The LPD and the Ludington City Council are looking to roll out more unreasonable laws against people exercising their right to travel.  The reason why they held this forum was so that they can justify whatever laws they eventually devise.  The problem is that when the enforcement agency drafts the law, as it appears is being done here once again, the laws become less about traffic safety and more about traffic 'control'.

The audience for the most part, seemed willing to comply with whatever would be determined, with a round robin of them indicating many had their own horror story about encounters with poorly operated electric scooters or bikes.  I've seen much the same.  What I see primarily are engineering issues for streets and parking areas that were never designed for these vehicles that could be corrected but aren't even being addressed.  The city's solution is to create laws that go against safety, by pushing old ladies riding on assistive mobility devices out on Ludington Avenue and South James Street because it would be illegal to use the sidewalk for them.  

While a lady came to the meeting with a tragedy involving a family member and an e-bike that happened elsewhere, Police Chief Jones would not elaborate over any stats or incidents, recent or deeper into the past, which indicated there was a local problem that existed that required new laws-- at least in the 35 minutes I was there.  In listening to those there and in other places, the general chatter is that the e-scooters and e-bikes seem to be zipping around awfully fast and loose, not that they're getting into accidents...

But then I went downtown the next night to catch Stearns Park for perhaps the best Friday evening weather left in the year and saw the aftermath of an accident that involved an e-bike.  Though I plan on getting security cam videos from Wesco to supplement the information I got from bystanders and observation (via a FOIA request to the LPD), what follows is the recap made by the LPD shortly after the scene cleared:

On September 12, 2025, at approximately 6:50 PM, Ludington Police Department was dispatched to the intersection of Ludington Avenue at Robert Street for a motor vehicle collision with injuries, involving a bicyclist. When Ludington PD officers arrived, they located an unresponsive 42-year-old male victim, from Ludington, lying by the roadway with critical injuries. Personnel from Ludington Police Department and Ludington Fire Department provided immediate care to the victim. The victim was transported by Life EMS to Corewell Health Ludington Hospital, then promptly transferred to Corewell Health Butterworth, by helicopter. The 42-year-old male victim was reported to be in critical condition.

The preliminary investigation indicated that the 42-year-old male victim was operating an electric bicycle, northbound on Robert Street, approaching the intersection of W. Ludington Avenue. At the same time a 2023 Ford Escape, operated by an 82-year-old female, from Ludington, was traveling westbound on W. Ludington Avenue, in the left westbound lane. The operator of the bicycle failed to remain stopped at the stop sign, on northbound Robert at W Ludington Ave, continuing north through the intersection. The operator of the Ford Escape observed the bicyclist enter the intersection and attempted to turn left to avoid a collision. The front passenger corner of the Ford Escape struck the bicycle, causing the 42-year-old male victim to be ejected. The driver of the Ford Escape was not physically injured as a result of the collision.

An investigation by the Ludington Police Department is still underway, assisted by the Collision Reconstruction Unit of the Mason County Sheriff’s Office. Anyone with information about this collision is asked to contact Sgt. Jared Versluis by email ([e-mail]), or by telephone at [phone].

The pictures I took (with deference to the e-bicyclist who was moving and conscious before being removed from the scene) show that the LPD's account of what happened is believable by the damage to the two vehicles.  The highlighted section says that the rider "failed to remain stopped at the stop sign".  This indicates that the rider had stopped at the sign, but for one reason or another didn't properly judge enough clearance for him to get across the 5-lane street. 

It appears he was hit when he was midway through the fourth lane taking most of the impact on middle-back end of his bike, which stood up well except for the condition of his back tire, which was flat and had an inner tube on the outside.  Both rider and bike ended up near the curb on the north side, consistent with motion vectors:

We will likely hear about this incident when the discussion heats up over the topic of adding more laws to prevent electric coaster vehicle accidents like this, but we really shouldn't if the investigating LPD and Mason County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) are consistent in their crash investigation.  Let's look at two of those.

>In 2020, Jaramie Jones was riding his bike down Dennis Road, when a car that stopped at the stop sign pulled out in front of him.  No fault was given to the driver of the vehicle because he had stopped at the sign and then started again causing an accident.  Jones died as a result of having his right-of-way stolen.  Authorities had the audacity to blame this on Jones for driving too fast, despite having no evidence for it.

In 2015, Scott and Melanie Butler were riding their bike on Stiles Road when the same thing happened to them, a young Texas driver stopping at the sign, then pulling out in front of them.  The MCSO never went after the driver for her negligence, but they tried to pin the blame on the victims.

These incidents, and many other local ones that we cover here in the BUMPS group show that vehicles are not held to account for pulling out in front of bikes, if they stop at stop signs and then pull a boo-boo. 

That's what happened here if we are to believe the report and if the witnesses and videos verify it.  Thus, if and when this event is used to support an ordinance that is light on safety measures and heavy on control measures, remember that at worst it was an error in judgment by the e-biker, nothing that new regulations would remedy.