[HN Gopher] The popularity of e-bikes isn't slowing down
___________________________________________________________________
The popularity of e-bikes isn't slowing down
Author : vwoolf
Score : 66 points
Date : 2021-11-08 18:27 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| fh973 wrote:
| > ... and have the potential to transform urban transit.
|
| Not in Germany. Biking is and will stay irrelevant for daily
| transport as long as the infrastructure is a joke. Electric
| propulsion isn't the missing link.
|
| Interestingly you'll find holiday areas that have biking
| infrastructure packed with older people on e-bikes.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| I was in Munich for five years and biked heavily. The bike
| infrastructure there far surpassed any major US city, protected
| bike lanes and off street bike paths within the city were
| common.
|
| That said, bike lanes were still an obvious second class
| citizen compared to car lanes in terms of ubiquity and quality,
| so there's still plenty of room for improvement.
| pjmlp wrote:
| And the weather is not inviting to cycle all year anyway.
|
| Maybe there are people that enjoy doing 30 km under heavy rain
| or negative temperatures with snow, I rather not.
| ahoy wrote:
| I can imagine a world, maybe a generation or 2 from now, where
| our suburbs have shrunk to a bike-accessible scale. That would
| really, finally, be a step in the right direction.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| I don't think it would take that long, _if_ there were the
| right policies. Especially if ebikes letting you go 20 mph were
| the norm, most suburbs aren 't so low density that you couldn't
| have, say, bakeries or small grocery stores within biking
| distance. That would often require zoning changes, in addition
| to adding bike paths, but it wouldn't take a whole generation
| to get done.
| criddell wrote:
| Self driving cars are going to fuel sprawl like never before.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Timely, I just spent some time building a very large (2150 Wh)
| pack for my high speed e-bike. The manufacturer (Bosch) doesn't
| sell anything that large, I use it as my car replacement and
| wanted a lot more range without having to swap batteries, as well
| as not to murder them by deep discharging them all the time.
|
| And the margins on e-bikes (relatively speaking) are a lot higher
| than on cars.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| The politics now are about banning ice. The electric cars being
| more expensive makes this discriminatory against low earners. I
| wonder if it would be far more effective to ban large suv's (uk).
| Of course e bikes and scooters are the way forward in cities.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Electric cars are rapidly approaching the point where they're
| actually cheaper than ICE cars, due to lower operating costs.
| As they scale up, they may well become cheaper up front, too.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| I try and follow the market closely and the numbers don't
| seem to make sense yet. Furthermore evs will not solve urban
| transport problems unless they will be unviable to many. Now,
| taking pointless, huge and very polluting SUV status symbols
| of the road (that's where they are made to go after all...)
| will bring vast benefits to everybody involved and guess
| what? It doesn't have to be the poorer people who feel the
| pain. But e bikes? That's a great idea. A government program
| to trade a car for an e bike and merits would be amazing. E
| scooters likewise are officially illegal, but i think police
| here are very wise to turn a blind eye to them.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| I'd love to believe in this, but the issue is really
| government policy, at least in the US. Most areas have road
| design and zoning that's hostile to anything that's not a
| car, especially bikes.
|
| We recently moved from Munich, and there we didn't even
| have a car, just public transport and biking for us. Now
| we're living in Kirkland, we have no car and will probably
| get another one, and biking will probably be minimal,
| honestly. We can bike okay to the closest grocery
| store/shopping center, but going further seems sketchy.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| I wonder which mapping platform will start to improve routing for
| the e-bike user. I find that currently using an e-bike I don't
| get a very accurate ETA since the routes are calculated for
| regular bicycles (at least on Google Maps!). Also with an e-bike
| hills are no longer as large an issue as they would be to regular
| bikes so route decisions could be less roundabout.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Good point. Most bike map systems (even the dedicated ones,
| such as the Bosch Nyon) absolutely suck at the basics, taking
| the shortest route, keeping up with changes and so on. UI
| usually also is way below what's acceptable. Even a decade old
| TomTom does a better job.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| They're an absolute legal minefield though.
|
| For example around here you can get a ticket for using one on
| both cycle paths and also on roads with a 40 MpH speed limit. So
| you're more legally limited than both a cyclist but also a moped
| user. The biggest reason why they're popular here at all is that
| laws are selectively enforced.
|
| None of this is e-bike's fault of course, and the original Segway
| mostly failed because it too was banned from both footpaths but
| also many roads. Local city and states haven't evolved much to
| include new modes of transport outside the traditional (although
| some would call that a blessing as they don't want
| licensing/mandatory insurance/tax on e-bikes/e-scooters).
| monkmartinez wrote:
| I just built one with recycled laptop batteries... super fun to
| ride. It was a shit ton of work to do the batteries right, but I
| learned so much. Endless-Sphere is where my build thread is...
|
| My bike is 2004 Specialized mountain bike. Bought the motor from
| ebay and just bolted it on. The battery lives in a home sewn bag
| I made which I velcro strapped to the frame. I have gone about
| 35mph on it. Do not recommend super high speeds unless you are a
| capable bike rider.
|
| It looks like a mad max experiment. I just wanted to ride the
| thing and wire management is def an afterthought. I do not ride
| anywhere I can't take it inside with me even though I only have
| about $500 into it. Too much work to risk theft.
|
| So much fun to ride. Peeling out in dirt is thrilling on bicycle.
| strombofulous wrote:
| I've been thinking about doing the same thing but am worried it
| will explode on me. Are there any tips you have for starting
| out or mistakes to be sure to avoid?
|
| I was hoping to use this as a project to learn electricity with
| and it sounds like you did something similar.
| jacquesm wrote:
| How much range do you have at that kind of assist level?
| r00fus wrote:
| My local bike shop ran out of bike models due to the supply chain
| issues and the only bikes available were e-bikes. Add to this
| that e-bikes have much higher revenue/margin - most bike shops
| are converting shop space to sell e-bikes. I wonder if this
| contributed to e-bike sales?
|
| Also I know a bunch of people waiting for legislation to promote
| EVs (ie, extend the tax credit) all year (may never happen).
| kccqzy wrote:
| I really enjoyed my e-bike when I bought it in 2018 or so. The
| pedal assist really felt seamless: you can get to the top speed
| of 20mph by pedaling with as much effort as it took to get to
| maybe 12mph on a regular bike.
|
| Unfortunately, the bike being worth thousands of dollars, it was
| a prime target for theft. My bike was stolen in San Jose and I
| decided to replace it with a sub-$1000 regular bike.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| This really is my biggest fear with owning these. I think going
| to and from the office is a safe one since you can park the
| bike indoors, but for errands or outdoor casual riding it feels
| too risky!
| jacquesm wrote:
| Yes, this is a problem. I have a pretty beefy lock with my
| e-bike and still I don't feel comfortable leaving it outside
| a store for more than three minutes or so (which is probably
| still plenty of time to steal it).
| akvadrako wrote:
| You should probably get them insured then you don't need to
| worry much about theft. It's not very expensive - like
| EUR10-15/month for a good bike.
| acomjean wrote:
| My cousin tried the really cheap bike route. I think a little
| over $100. Lamentably it didn't matter, it was still stolen.
| rnotaro wrote:
| I bought a 80$ used bike at my local community bike repair
| shop earlier this year and I'm keeping it outside every day
| without getting it stolen.
|
| I just bought a Kryptonite + a Kryptoflex and nobody tried to
| steal it yet. My locks were more expensive than my bike but
| it seems to work for now.
| dddddaviddddd wrote:
| I think the goal of that strategy is to reduce the cost of
| replacement as much as it is to deter theft.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| >sub-$1000 regular bike.
|
| Sounds expensive to me. I ride a Decathlon Triban 100 FB that
| cost me 150EUR (new). Better than most 1K+ gravel bikes and not
| a target for thieves in Paris bc it's too common.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.md/PpdzC
|
| http://web.archive.org/web/20211108112001/https://www.nytime...
| zwieback wrote:
| I'm a year-round non-e-bike commuter in Oregon. I love e-bikes
| but until you can ride without getting soaked it'll be successful
| only part of the year in most of the US. We need something
| between the e-bike and golf-cart style EVs to fill the gap, some
| kind of sophisticated fairing or a 3 wheel format that isn't
| super dorky.
| freeAgent wrote:
| There seem to always be a ton of three wheel "car" companies
| close to making their vehicles a reality (Elio, anyone?). I
| hope that one of them succeeds eventually. I'd love to own one
| someday.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Right. A lot of times you see 3 wheel vehicles instead of 4 for
| regulatory reasons. That's silly.
|
| I agree it'd be super awesome to get car-like protection from
| rain and wind, better stability than a bike, but maintaining
| the very low mass (and therefore low inertia and low pedestrian
| risk) & low cost & low footprint & high efficiency of bikes.
| hectormalot wrote:
| I see these around the city:
| https://www.estrima.com/en/models/biro-winter/
|
| approximately 360kg, so def not as light as a bike, but not
| incredibly heavy either. 100km range.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Too heavy to allow driving in the bike lane, IMHO. Needs to
| be a weight, speed, and footprint limit. But the number of
| wheels shouldn't matter, regulation-wise.
| lappet wrote:
| an electric auto rickshaw (tuk tuk) maybe?
| criddell wrote:
| > until you can ride without getting soaked it'll be successful
| only part of the year in most of the US
|
| I'm in Austin, TX and get soaked for a different reason -
| sweat. We get about 3 months of 100 degree days. I'd love a
| golf-cart EV with good A/C.
| notatoad wrote:
| i live in a place that's not quite as rainy as oregon, but the
| combination of proper full-coverage fenders and bike paths
| where i'm not getting splashed by cars means there's only a
| couple days a year where i'm going to get "soaked" and am going
| to choose not to ride.
|
| biking in the rain mostly sucks because of splashback from the
| road. once you've eliminated that, it's no worse than walking
| in the rain.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Have you looked at the Organic Transit ELF or Better Bikes
| PEBL?
| gnarcoregrizz wrote:
| Not surprised. They are a lot cheaper, easier to own than a car
| in cities, and are a lot of fun to ride.
|
| A loud contingent view them as a scourge, calling for ebikes to
| be banned, or otherwise licensed, registered, and insured, which
| would eliminate them as a common mode of transport. Most of the
| people I see riding them around here are high-school aged who
| probably don't care enough to deal with that. The next step up
| (moped) licensing requirements are more onerous than those of a
| car.
| paulgb wrote:
| The thing that excites me most about e-bikes is that they change
| the politics around cycling. Proponents of efforts to make roads
| safer for cyclists have always gotten pushback from people who
| think that cycling is a niche hobby of rich lycra-clad yuppies.
|
| With e-bikes becoming more common, I know a number of people who
| would not have touched a bike share but are using it as a
| replacement for Uber/Lyft rides. People can cycle in to work
| without breaking a sweat.
|
| It's a bummer that so much legislation aimed at reducing
| emissions subtly encourages the use of cars without throwing any
| bones to people who would like to ride bikes, electric or not.
| bch wrote:
| > people who think that cycling is a niche hobby of rich lycra-
| clad yuppies
|
| I don't know who "those people" are, or what regional politics
| are at play, but that doesn't pass my "smell test". How about
| deploying "think about the children" here for something that
| increases exercise and happiness, mobility, fosters growth...
| it's not even contentious with respect to (e.g.) civil
| liberties.
|
| I suspect the answer is people just don't care. _Especially_
| once they're behind the wheel of an automobile, electric or
| otherwise.
|
| (Edit: expand/clarify suggested benefits)
| pjmlp wrote:
| And free baths on rainy days.
| notacoward wrote:
| > once they're behind the wheel
|
| Keep in mind that most cyclists are also drivers, and in the
| latter role many of them also don't seem to care. These
| debates often sound like we're talking about two disjoint
| groups of people, with one having a grievance against the
| other, but in reality they're just different transport
| modalities that people switch between.
| notacoward wrote:
| > they change the politics around cycling
|
| While I agree with e-bikes being a generally good thing, I also
| think they involve a lot of secondary consequences and we still
| need to figure out the best solutions. For example, having more
| e-bikes on the already overcrowded bike path near where I live
| is becoming a _disaster_. There had already been enough
| problems with mismatched speeds, impatience on all sides, etc.
| There had even been fatalities. Adding e-bikes makes all of
| that even worse. While I have little love for the "rich lycra-
| clad yuppies" (there really are plenty of them) who are mostly
| just horrified by the idea of their hobby becoming more
| inclusive, I kind of agree with them that the path can't safely
| support yet another (faster, heavier) type of conveyance. I
| wouldn't want horses on the path for the same reason.
|
| There's a complementary issue with e-bikes on roads. There's
| still going to be a speed mismatch, with e-bikes in the middle
| this time instead of the high end. Bike lanes are going to
| become more dangerous, traffic-light timings will have to
| change, etc. Where are the e-bikes going to be parked or stored
| while not in use? On my now-ended visits to Seattle I saw these
| problems already manifesting, and they're likely to become even
| worse as e-bikes continue to become more popular.
|
| In the _long_ term, maybe the "changed politics" will lead to
| improved infrastructure that supports all classes of users
| including e-bikes. In the short term, it's likely to be a free-
| for-all like I used to see in Bangalore with all the tuk-tuks
| and scooters mixed in with cars and trucks and buses. Not
| looking forward to it.
| notatoad wrote:
| this is exactly the politics around cycling that need to
| change. cyclists have been asking for better infrastructure
| for decades, and been told to go play in traffic because
| we're a weird niche interest group who can be ignored.
|
| we need better infrastructure for non-car transportation. the
| short-term hell is simply more people experiencing what most
| cyclists are already used to.
| notacoward wrote:
| > the short-term hell is simply more people experiencing
| what most cyclists are already used to.
|
| Did you miss the part where the cyclists are the ones
| _inflicting_ that hell on others sometimes? Cyclists haven
| 't been the only ones demanding better non-automotive
| infrastructure. I've supported the local path with both my
| dollars and the sweat of my brow, only to have freeloading
| cyclists tell me that they have priority (exactly opposite
| to how the laws are written) and I should get out of their
| way. One political change that needs to happen is that
| cyclists need to stop looking down their noses at other
| non-automotive users. When cyclists stop treating
| pedestrians _exactly_ the same way they complain about
| being treated by cars, maybe greater cooperation will be
| possible. Nobody likes the smell of hypocrisy.
| notatoad wrote:
| again, this is exactly the sort of politics that
| hopefully will change as more people ride bikes.
|
| yes, there's some bad cyclists. but because there's few
| enough cyclists, people who aren't cyclists like to group
| us all together. when a driver or pedestrian is an
| asshole, you say the person was an asshole, because you
| understand that they don't represent all drivers or all
| pedestrians any more than you do. but when a cyclist is
| an asshole, you jump to treating that as the behaviour of
| all cyclists, as if we're all the same, because we're
| just a group of weirdos that you don't feel a part of.
| notacoward wrote:
| > when a cyclist is an asshole, you jump to treating that
| as the behaviour of all cyclists
|
| No, I don't, and even if that was meant as a generic
| "you" it seems a bit like attempted mind-reading. How
| about not doing that? FWIW, the people I've worked with
| on maintaining my local path are mostly cyclists. No
| friction there. When people call out "on your left"
| (interestingly that's most of the women and damn few of
| the men) I always say "thank you" in return. I'm well
| aware that most cyclists are good people and I treat them
| as such, but there are enough - and an even higher
| percentage among cycling _activists_ which I should have
| specified more explicitly - that it 's a problem.
| gnarcoregrizz wrote:
| Maybe the problem is that bike paths are too small? Cars are
| granted 12 feet per-lane, often with multiple lanes.
| notacoward wrote:
| That is very much part of the problem. The solution is
| going to run into both financial and legal obstacles, so
| it's _imperative_ that the various stakeholders cooperate
| instead of one group consistently trying to lord it over
| the others.
| paiute wrote:
| I love mine, I think it opens up some opportunities to work on
| relations with cars and pedestrians. I feel less in the way
| when I can maintain a better speed up hill. and on trails it's
| not a burden to slow down when passing pedestrians on foot.
| Nothing is worse than a bike whizzing by when you don't expect
| it. I just wish they'd remove those stupid speed limiters.
| multjoy wrote:
| If you remove the speed limiter you are riding an electric
| motorcycle, which needs to be somewhere other than with
| pedestrians and cyclists.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That depends on the conditions. If you adapt to the
| conditions then that would be fine, if you don't then even
| at normal e-bike speeds you are a danger. I never got why
| we have 200 Mph cars but a moped that can go 30 over the
| legal limit gets confiscated.
| multjoy wrote:
| Because a moped that can go 30 over the legal limit is no
| longer a moped, it is a motorcycle and needs to be taxed,
| insured and tested as such.
| jacquesm wrote:
| My e-bike is taxed, insured and tested to the same
| standards as a light e-moto (in Germany, a Riese &
| Mueller 'charger'). The only difference with the bicycle
| version is the speed limiter setting.
| multjoy wrote:
| That and it's not a motorcycle so you're not going to get
| stuck on for riding it on a bike path, surely?
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| >with pedestrians
|
| Do some cities actually let cyclists bike on sidewalks? I
| bike 24/7 but this seems crazy. Bicycles needs their own,
| separate, protected paths, at the road level. Period.
| fknorangesite wrote:
| > Do some cities actually let cyclists bike on sidewalks?
|
| Not sidewalks per se, but combined, mixed-used paths are
| very common. Whether this is a good idea or not is
| another issue.
| bink wrote:
| In DC it's specifically allowed except for a prohibited
| section near the Mall downtown. And in that section the
| law is widely ignored by both cyclists and police either
| way.
| pcwalton wrote:
| Yes. Several cities in the Bay Area have shared
| sidewalks; e.g. Embarcadero in San Francisco, and Foster
| City has a ton of them. I don't know of any cities that
| allow _all_ sidewalks to be used by bikes, but I 'm sure
| some exist.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Definitely, quite common on European cities.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| I live in a city that explicitly allows cyclists to bike
| on sidewalks, and I'd never bike otherwise. One time I
| tried road-riding the mere 15m home from the gym and had
| 3 close calls from drivers. We also have separate,
| protected paths at the road level. Anybody who wants me
| to ride on the road can send me a blank check to cover
| medical expenses in the case of an accident if they are
| so invested in my riding according to their preferences.
| TrevorJ wrote:
| More specifically, you have and electric motorcycle with no
| traction, no safety features and an untrained rider.
| zip1234 wrote:
| Except in many places pedestrians and cyclists have no
| choice but to share the road with cars and I don't see too
| many people clamoring for speed limiters on those...
| multjoy wrote:
| If you remove the limiter and pedal assist requirement,
| you have an electric motorcycle. If you want one of
| those, then you'll need to be licensed to ride one.
|
| Do you want an e-bike you can ride like a bicycle, or do
| you want an e-bike you can ride like a motorcycle?
| paiute wrote:
| only because we have brain dead laws on e bikes. why not
| 24.5 mph? I see actual electric motorcycles on our bike
| paths all the time, I have never seen them cause a real
| problem. People on normal bikes cause all the problems
| because they have so much invested in their current
| speed.
| sgarman wrote:
| I don't think this is a fair take. People on normal bikes
| do cause problems because of the reason you listed but
| it's surely not ALL of the problems.
| Arainach wrote:
| Because kinetic energy is proportional to the square of
| velocity, and 25mph is 56% more energy which is a huge
| problem in a collision with a pedestrian or a crash.
|
| https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/05/31/3-graphs-that-
| explain...
|
| It's also a big issue with response time and with the
| rate pedestrians expect bicycles to be travelling. You
| shouldn't bike on the sidewalk because no one is looking
| for vehicles going more than a few miles per hour
| (walking). You shouldn't bike more than 15mph on
| trails/lanes shared with pedestrians for similar reasons.
| 20mph is a tolerable compromise, 25mph is flat out
| dangerous.
| White_Wolf wrote:
| tbh I wouldn't mind the peed limit being higher but
| introduce some sort of driving lic and exam for it with
| periodic re-testing. Also re-testing should be mandatory
| for car drivers too. Both theory, practical, reflex
| testing.
|
| I ride a bicycle, bike and drive a car and the ammount of
| crazies on all sides leaves me speachless sometimes. I
| see cyclist cutting off cars and shooting into a
| roundabout just because cars will avoid them. I actually
| had a crash becasue of a retard like this and I chased
| him until I caught him. Took him to court and won. On the
| other side of the coin - I see cars taking turns without
| checking their mirrors, overtaking while in a queue
| without making sure no cyclists are passing by. Smashed a
| bike to bits because of 1 twat. His insurance paid for
| the bike and treatment.
|
| P.S. I'm not a perfect driver but people these days lack
| consideration and defensive driving(even the notion of it
| is foreign now)
| jacquesm wrote:
| Those speed limiters are indeed stupid, especially because on
| a 'regular' bike you can fairly easily outrun a normal e-bike
| (though probably not for as long unless you are in very good
| shape). Normal ones should be limited at 35 or so and speed-
| pedelecs at 50 Kph so you don't end up holding up other
| traffic. Where I live a speed-pedelec has to be in traffic
| but it isn't allowed to go as fast as that traffic, which
| creates all kinds of dangers.
| TrevorJ wrote:
| I'm of the mind that it's up to every individual to decide
| how much risk they want to take, but I think an e-bike that
| can do 55 mph is significantly more dangerous than a
| motorcycle. Tiny amount of traction, no ability to maneuver
| or speed up further to get yourself out of a dangerous
| position. Crude/no suspension. No traction control, no turn
| signals, silent. Cars on the road see a pedal bike and
| expect you to behave like one. Rider unlikely to be wearing
| the correct safety gear. If you lay down a bike at 55 and
| you aren't wearing leathers you can literally bleed out
| right there on the pavement. The list goes on and on.
|
| Again, not saying it should not be allowed, but man, at
| that point please just take care of yourself and get a
| little honda motorbike and a full face helmet/leathers.
| [deleted]
| stefan_ wrote:
| It's intentional to limit these to $regular_speed - 5km/h,
| same as with mopeds. I assume it's so you are converted to
| a real vehicle (car) by virtue of being assaulted on the
| roads by those driving them?
|
| I certainly don't agree with 35km/h on bike paths. The
| current 25km/h is plenty and given their popularity with
| older ages, already producing outsized numbers of injuries
| and deaths.
| kevincrane wrote:
| > Proponents of efforts to make roads safer for cyclists have
| always gotten pushback from people who think that cycling is a
| niche hobby of rich lycra-clad yuppies.
|
| Which I think is misguided pushback btw (which I think you
| agree with based on the context).
|
| I see it as a chicken and egg thing. The roads are unsafe for
| bikers, so the only people who bike are those who are super
| dedicated to it. Then when people ask for the roads to be
| safer, it gets pushed back as "only biking enthusiasts use the
| roads now".
|
| Safer roads means more people will bike, which means biking
| will stop being seen as an elitist thing.
|
| Edit: to add on, bikes are like 1-2 orders of magnitude cheaper
| than cars too, both in upfront and ongoing costs also. It's
| super unfortunate that it still gets the stereotype as a "rich
| white people" activity when it's really so much more
| financially accessible than a car.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| > The roads are unsafe for bikers, so the only people who
| bike are those who are super dedicated to it. Then when
| people ask for the roads to be safer, it gets pushed back as
| "only biking enthusiasts use the roads now".
|
| Yup. Bit like how it's hard to argue for building a bridge by
| the number of people swimming across the river.
| The-Bus wrote:
| > Edit: to add on, bikes are like 1-2 orders of magnitude
| cheaper than cars too, both in upfront and ongoing costs
| also. It's super unfortunate that it still gets the
| stereotype as a "rich white people" activity when it's really
| so much more financially accessible than a car.
|
| The thought that biking is only for the rich is especially
| galling when I hear it said about NYC cyclists. The person
| saying this is thinking of the lycra'd-up dentist riding a
| Pinarello Dogma. The Manhattan Bridge had 180,000 bike trips
| on it this June. Williamsburg had 230,000.[1] Cycling is much
| more prevalent than non-cyclers think.
|
| 1: https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bike-
| counts.sh...
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| you can also look at it from another angle - those e bikers are
| now a threat to regular bikers as they are driving much faster.
| TrevorJ wrote:
| It cuts both ways. I am lucky enough to live in an area with an
| EXTENSIVE system of mixed-use trails for bikes and pedestrians.
| I worry that e-bikes, which are potentially much less
| pedestrian-friendly, will lead to a pushback against bikes
| being used on these trials at all.
| enriquto wrote:
| Mixed-use paths are an extremely bad idea and dangerous for
| everybody. I actively avoid them as a pedestrian and as a
| cyclist. They should all disappear. If ebikes help to
| accelerate the inevitable dismissal of these stupid mixed-use
| lanes, so good!
|
| A bike-friendly infrastructure is based on three _separate_
| networks, for pedestrians, cycles and cars. Each of the three
| networks must be continuous, reasonably complete and able to
| stand on its own.
| bink wrote:
| We're in a weird situation now where I think most people
| riding e-bikes are doing so illegally on trails and paths.
| It's not being enforced yet where I live and I fear the push-
| back when someone inevitably gets hurt.
| parineum wrote:
| I support the efforts to make cities more friendly to cyclist
| traffic but the increased popularity of both ebikes and
| electric scooters in downtown areas has made life as a
| pedestrian and a motorist stressful, especially around closing
| time. All the things that annoy me about cyclists (running stop
| signs when driving in the street and driving on the sidewalk
| are my two biggest annoyances) have gotten worse.
|
| Cycling advocates like to talk about sharing the road but I've
| yet to see any sort of acknowledgement that there's plenty of
| bad behavior on the part of cyclists that needs some curbing as
| well.
| kevincrane wrote:
| Most bikers only use the sidewalk when the road
| infrastructure as-is isn't safe enough for bikers.
|
| And I fully agree that there are a lot of bad bikers, but a
| bad biker is a nuisance to a driver while a bad driver is a
| potential fatality to a biker.
| notacoward wrote:
| > a bad biker is a nuisance to a driver while a bad driver
| is...
|
| You're leaving out an entire category of users. Not that
| I'm surprised, having been in many of these debates
| regarding the _multi use_ path near my home. "Share the
| road" turns into "get off the path" rather quickly, in my
| experience.
| parineum wrote:
| > Most bikers only use the sidewalk when the road
| infrastructure as-is isn't safe enough for bikers.
|
| You have to see how this is a completely selfish position
| right?
|
| The road is dangerous for cyclists so cyclists make the
| sidewalk dangerous for pedestrians. Sure there's a
| difference in degree but that's not a justification.
|
| > And I fully agree that there are a lot of bad bikers, but
| a bad biker is a nuisance to a driver while a bad driver is
| a potential fatality to a biker.
|
| To me, the "bad cyclist" is generally creating havoc on
| both the sidewalk and the street, alternating between
| street, sidewalk, crosswalks, alleys, etc. as it's
| convenient. This is really what I'm referring to when I
| said "especially at closing time". Those people are
| creating a dangerous environment for even safe drivers who
| may either hit them or get in an accident avoiding them.
|
| I don't often find the hobbyist biker doing things like
| that which are dangerous to themselves except treating stop
| signs like yields.
|
| I'm not nearly as concerned about the hobbyist as I am
| about the guy who thinks driving his ebike home from the
| bar is a great way to get home without drinking and
| driving. And that is definitely happening, especially with
| electric scooters.
| pcwalton wrote:
| Regarding running stop signs, "Why Bicyclists Hate Stop
| Signs" is an important read: https://nacto.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2012/06/Fajans-J.-and-M...
| parineum wrote:
| I've ridden a bicycle before, I don't need this explained
| to me. Unfortunately for cyclists (including me), it being
| more strenuous to obey the law isn't an excuse to not obey
| it.
| joshlemer wrote:
| I thought this video addressed nicely this criticism of
| cyclists https://youtu.be/HT_KdFCVEdc
| parineum wrote:
| It doesn't. The law is that they have to stop. Motorists
| should stop too.
| joshlemer wrote:
| If basically 100% of people are breaking a law dozens of
| times per day, the law is wrong.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| That's generally because of terrible infrastructure. Lanes
| designed for cars are everywhere. Most cities, sidewalks are
| just about everywhere.
|
| What percentage of streets have physically separated lanes
| for biking, the way we have them for walking?
|
| Bikes don't fit well with pedestrians or cars, and painted
| bike lanes are a joke -- imagine if you replaced every
| sidewalk with "painted walk lanes".
|
| In places where there is good infrastructure, like the
| Netherlands, cyclist reputations for behaving badly are
| basically no different from pedestrian or motorist
| reputations.
| parineum wrote:
| You're not going to get any push back from me that bike
| lanes aren't plentiful or especially safe. The push back
| you get from me is that "the streets are dangerous" isn't
| an excuse to make sidewalks dangerous.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Being a pedestrian around cyclists is dangerous, but not
| as dangerous as being a cyclist around cars. So I find it
| hard to fault cyclists who go onto the sidewalk.
| notacoward wrote:
| Well put. Shifting the problem around doesn't solve it.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| It does reduce the total danger. Cyclists are killed by
| cars all the time, whereas pedestrians dying to bikes is
| extraordinarily rare.
|
| In Germany, protected bike lanes are mostly extensions of
| the sidewalk, and while it's not ideal, it still works
| pretty well.
| notacoward wrote:
| > It does reduce the total danger.
|
| I think that's kind of missing the GP's point. AIUI they
| weren't saying cyclists shouldn't move to the sidewalk
| when necessary. They were saying cyclists should do so
| _with respect for the sidewalk 's primary users_
| especially with regard to safety. A sidewalk is a kind of
| commons, to be shared. "I need this now so you all get
| out of my way" isn't good sharing, and in many places
| (where the law explicitly gives pedestrians right of way)
| should deserve a ticket.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Oh, absolutely. I try to be respectful when I ride on the
| sidewalk.
|
| But realistically, "cyclists should be nicer" isn't a
| policy prescription. We're just shouting into the void
| here, you can't actually accomplish anything significant
| with, I dunno, billboards shaming dickhead cyclists.
| Whereas zoning or road design changes _could_ result in
| actual, meaningful change. And that would also result in
| cyclists being a lot nicer.
| mountain_peak wrote:
| As much as I appreciate the freedom e-bikes provide to people
| who wouldn't otherwise venture outside, without proper
| cycling infrastructure, e-bikes are quickly becoming a
| serious hazard to pedestrians. As a long-time runner who is
| usually struck by at least one cyclist on the sidewalk per
| year, e-bikes are in a completely different class. The other
| day, a kid on an e-bike was careening down a bridge while my
| kids and I were running up. I'm a decent judge of speed, and
| the cyclist was definitely going over 40 km/h with dog
| walkers and other children nearby. I didn't do the math, but
| that's a great deal of kinetic energy to transfer to a
| pedestrian (I assume e-bikes are heavier, and most cyclists
| going that fast are dedicated cyclists on the road). I caught
| up to another e-bike at a stop light and asked him why he
| wasn't on the road, "Too dangerous," was his answer - sadly
| typical. A non-trivial number of cyclists are adopting the
| "Uber" mindset - break the law until laws or infrastructure
| changes, but with complete disregard for fellow citizens in
| the meantime. I've expressed my concerns several times on
| local biking forums (when a "cycling on the sidewalk doesn't
| hurt anyone" message is raised)- it's usually met with
| ridicule, anger and disbelief, but I experience it
| practically every day.
| clairity wrote:
| i'd personally like to see two policy changes (especially in a
| city like LA that's perfect year-round for biking):
|
| 1. convert curbside parking into dedicated and protected bike
| lanes (not everywhere, but extensively)
|
| 2. require bike parking (preferably covered and right next to
| entrances/foot traffic) and liability requirements anywhere
| that has a (car) parking lot
|
| this would put biking on par with cars and would encourage
| businesses to reorganize around mixed traffic, rather than car
| only.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| They also don't last as long (miles-wise, possibly time-wise as
| well?), so you may have the same person buying multiple bikes
| over time when the first one wears out or breaks or is stolen.
| Usually for electric cars, the vehicle enters the used market and
| doesn't leave (for the junkyard) until 15-20 years and 200,000
| miles later.
| missedthecue wrote:
| Are there any 20 year old electric cars?
| truffdog wrote:
| Probably some EV1s kicking around still-
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
| Robotbeat wrote:
| There are 20 year old used hybrid-electric cars, which work
| exactly the same way. Older Priuses are still around. I found
| several used 2002 Priuses (have to go to Japan to find
| earlier, I think). (Although Prius didn't really start
| selling a lot until the 2004 refresh.) https://www.edmunds.co
| m/inventory/srp.html?make=toyota&model...
|
| People regular go hundreds of thousands of miles on their
| used Priuses.
|
| I own a 2012 Leaf and a 2013 Tesla that I intend to drive for
| another 6-10 years. Both work great. (Also selling a 2012
| Volt which is fantastic but doesn't have enough seats so I'm
| selling.)
| packetlost wrote:
| I've long been of the opinion that the real winner in the EV
| market will be personal vehicles (such as eBikes) and electric
| mass transit, not larger EVs such as cars in most urban
| environments.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| That's unlikely. From a revenue standpoint, ebikes are cheap
| and you don't need that many e-buses. Even if we go to
| Netherlands-level bike-friendliness, that's only a 40%
| reduction in per capita car/truck ownership at best.
|
| Doesn't mean we won't do a lot of miles by bike or bus, but as
| long as people have the money for it, they'll still buy at
| least one car per household for cornercases that buses and
| bikes (& ride share) don't address.
|
| If we get really good public transit and bike infrastructure,
| the median American household will probably have a couple
| electric bikes, one or two electric cars, and at least one
| person will commute via electric bus or train. It's gonna be
| "both and."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-08 23:00 UTC)