cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/16133154
Link to original Tweet: https://x.com/DavidZipper/status/1795048724021862898
If a city cannot manage their bicycle traffic, how should we ever expect them to handle car traffic?
Any problems with bicycles is a simple issue of infrastructure and priority.
As a cyclist in NYC the complaint that bikes are weaving through cars is hilarious.
Of course they are. Cars are almost always stuck in traffic while bikes move faster.
I can make my 12ish mile commute in 45 minutes. Until the bridge I spend every mile of that commute passing cars.
That’s all besides the point though: there shouldn’t be personal passenger vehicles in NYC. Business vehicles sure. A few taxis are personal vehicles because of Uber - sure. But there should be 0 street parking and heavy restrictions on where drivers are allowed to go. We need to take back our streets.
Ahhh, I see the problem! … The car drivers feel like fools sitting around in their enormous polluting wastes of space and resources but not going anywhere! So naturally everything good must be destroyed in the name of making the wrong thing feel better.
Having been a motorcyclist in NYC this is true. They will try to hit you to keep you from doing something they can’t. I can’t imagine how much worse it must be for cyclists.
The only advantage we have is that we have an increasing number of bike lanes parallel to major thoroughfares. While there’s the prevalent issue of trucks parking in the lanes they are, for the most part, clear and in reasonable condition.
Well, that and bikes just being inherently significantly more space-efficient so those lanes are not clogged when the car lanes are.
I mean advantage over motorcyclists
Such a shame those sleeping trucks get scratches on them :/
I’ve seen multiple instances of driving being mad that they are in traffic while bikes or buses zoom by.
If they weren’t so infected with car brain, the easiest solution is to leverage one or both of those transportation methods that zoom by you.
Yes. Yes, yes, yes. As a cyclist in NYC myself, the hate that I see bicyclists get is fucking absurd.
“That person is riding their bike in traffic! How dangerous!”
Like, motherfuckers, you’re the ones forcing us to ride in traffic. And it wouldn’t be dangerous without the car element. The danger is in the cars. A bicycle crash can hurt and cause damage, but with a helmet? You’re mostly pretty safe from deadly accidents. THE CARS ARE THE ONES CAUSING THE DANGER. Not the cyclists.
And then all this talk about congestion pricing being ridiculous. TAX THE FUCK out of them. Ban them. It’s a fucking addiction. And a crippling one. Why people take cars into the city is mind boggling. Like you said, it’s necessary, especially here, for there to be some traffic. Deliveries for businesses, cabs. That’s pretty much it. But, no. Every single road is full of parked cars, driving cars, double parked cars BLOCKING THE FUCKING BIKE LANES EVERY 100 GODDAMN FEET…it’s actual lunacy.
It’s such a bikeable city. Few hills, relatively short distances. But with cars creating so much traffic, it seems far because everyone sits in a car in stop and go traffic for 45min to get from the FiDi to the park. All these wasted resources with cops directing traffic UNDERNEATH FUNCTIONING STOPLIGHTS BECAUSE EVERYONE IS SO AGGRAVATED SITTING IN TRAFFIC THAG THEYLL ALL JUST BLOCK THE INTERSECTION BECAUSE THEYVE GONE THROUGH FIVE LIGHT CYCLES, the constant construction…it’s lunacy. There’s really no other word for it.
This is a sensitive subject for me lol clearly
deleted by creator
“Teens are dying on bikes” - it’s because of a bike of it’s because of a fucking truck that weighs like 300 bikes?
Honestly it’s both. There’s shitty infrastructure combined with 2-ton passenger trucks. But you also have a society that while creating bike lanes, doesn’t create cyclists. Instead I see motorcycles driving down the bike lane, cyclists going against traffic, scooters cutting through shit like the end of world is behind them.
Really no one person is wrong, we’re kinda all wrong for not getting fucking organized.
The street doesn’t belong to anyone, it’s there to efficiently move as many people as possible, as safely as possible. That requires everyone to participate though.
, it’s there to efficiently move as many people as possible, as safely as possible.
So you are saying you are in favor of banning cars from the street too then?
Yea honestly I’m not defending cars.
As a cyclist for decades my shit is all about safety. So running heavy motorcycles through a bike lane is a big fucking deal to me.
But I’m also smart enough to realize the solution isn’t to ban cars nor is it to force cyclists into weird positions. Got to be something in between no?
Nah let’s ban cars. The petrol ones are polluters that are killing all life on earth, and the electric ones still have PM10 pollution that gives kids asthma and allergies, plus they’re destructive to communities
Let’s ban meat and dairy farming, then, too!
Yeah!
Serious question: are you concerned that banning all cars will negatively impact some groups more than others - for instance, people living with disability? Cars are a far more preferable mode of transport for someone who has a physical disability; someone who has autism and struggles with sensory overload; or someone who is morbidly obese and struggles to walk even short distances. What are your thoughts on how their needs can be accommodated if we take all cars off the road overnight tonight?
Amazing how the existence of a single person who (may possibly) need a car means that everyone gets to drive cars and there is nothing that should be done about cars. Man isn’t that convenient for you.
Amazing how that didn’t address the question at all, and instead just dismissed it with your own preconceived notions for where this conversation might go.
I think you might’ve made an unfair assumption about my position just because I asked a question. To clarify: I am all for reducing car usage as much as possible by implementing high-quality no-cost public transport solutions. I am however concerned that a blanket ban on all cars will negatively impact already underprivileged communities, and so a more methodical approach that limits and disincentivises car usage for those who don’t need it, while still retaining options for those who do, would better address the issue with the least unintended consequences possible.
Depends heavily on the disability. For, for instance, blind people, the day cars were banned would be the best day of their lives!
I think you’re full of shit. I have autism and I can’t drive a car. I struggle too much with sensory overload. I think there is a nuanced conversation to be had about this issue, but not with your bad faith ass telling me nonsense about my own disability. A car dependent society is ableist. And here’s you defending it while using me as your prop to make a point that harms me. My disability isn’t yours to weaponise. You’re not helping me, you’re harming me.
That’s a fair call mate, but I would like to remind you that Autism is a spectrum, and many different people have many different presentations and symptomatology associated with their conditions. I’m sorry that you’re not able to drive due to your condition, but many others are able to including some of my close family members.
My bad if what I wrote made you feel like a prop - it wasn’t my intention. I was genuinely trying to spark conversation about disability accommodations in car-free world.
we’re all wrong because we’re selfish pricks and there are very few consequences for our selfish actions.
if cops would enforce traffic laws you’d see a lot more compliance… but they won’t.
Douches driving big trucks doesn’t preclude teens from doing stupid shit on ebikes. You don’t have to pick a side, you can recognize that there are multiple problems that need to be addressed.
@EatATaco @Moonrise2473 teens do stupid shit without ebikes. And them using one doesn’t increase the danger to non users by much.
Cars and trucks do.
And you can recognize that there are multiple problems with different severity and need to be adressed from most severe to lowest severe.
Awful aggro to someone just pointing out a simple fact. They never said we don’t need to address large vehicles, or even that they shouldn’t be the first thing addressed. They’re simply pointing out that these aren’t a perfect golden bullet to the issues that plague cities, and we need to be aware of the downsides to any potential solution, and be willing and able to make the changes necessary to then fix THOSE issues. I don’t expect nuance, though, everything is a dichotomy online.
Awful aggro my ass, you cunt.
But jokes aside: I interpreted the comment like they put teens on ebikes and our car favoring infrastructure on the same level. Those two problems are so far apart, that I think that my response isn’t too harsh, or even ‘Awful aggro’ (That’s an awfully aggro interpretation of my comment, by the way).
Sure, but I’m responding to a comment that is suggesting they aren’t a problem. We don’t have to turn a blind eye to all other problems just because we think one is biggest.
Well since we can’t ban cars, the most severe problem, then I guess we can’t do anything. Good job defending the status quo I guess.
Your list of ideas what we actually can do is pretty short, we obviously need to spread more information. Good to know, thanks.
@PowerCrazy @glasgitarrewelt why can’t we ban private cars in suburban and urban areas?
(We can’t do it tomorrow, but we can work towards it)
You are right, banning private cars for only a few streets would be a great success for any city.
Lower hanging fruits would be to allow bikes to drive in both directions in one way streets, put some asphalt on cobble stone streets, get an inner city speed limit of 30 km/h, use many zebra crossings, design narrower streets (the narrower the street, the faster a driving person feels, without going faster), remove parking space in the inner city and make cars park outside of the center,…
Many many things that should be done before even starting to try to regulate ‘rude teens on ebikes’ with idiotic ideas presented here (driver license for ebikes?!)
The fast ebike problem would solve itself with an infrastructure that stops favoring cars and starts to seperate pedestrians and bikes with the gained space.
Once you realize that all sides are wrong, then you are free.
Id say option 3. Both of the above.
People suck driving. They also suck at riding.
Frankly just like driving needs a better training/licensing system - so does bike riding.
Especially any sort of self propelled bike.
I realize this is fuck cars, but let’s not pretend the biggest issues don’t boil down to stupidity of people.
They also suck at riding.
I keep encountering cyclists riding against traffic, on roads with no shoulder and around blind turns. It’s just about the most insane thing you can do on a bike, second only to sailing through red lights without looking. And it’s people of all ages doing it, not just young people like I would expect.
Those three scenarios you mentioned are all only dangerous because of cars.
Actually, the closest I’ve come to colliding with someone doing this shit is when I was riding my bike - on the correct side of the road - and suddenly encountered a cyclist (a mom towing her two kids on a trailer, no less) head-on coming the wrong way around a blind turn. I was barely able to avoid hitting her; if I’d been in a car going 25 mph I almost certainly would have hit her.
It’s just fucking stupid because it’s contrary to other drivers’ (and cyclists’) expectations and gives them virtually no chance of avoiding the situation or reacting correctly, and it also happens to be straight-up illegal.
And yet had you collided, it’s very unlikely that anyone would have died.
Unsafe behavior isn’t made okay just because the risk of death is minimal. The mother could have been concussed or had a broken bone, for all we know. If things go pear shaped and the trailer tips over, you could have the kids dumped out into traffic on one side, or down a ditch on the other, for all we know. This line of thinking, that it’s okay as long as it’s not equally dangerous as it would be in a car, makes no sense.
There will always be people who do not act with regard to the safety of others. I would rather those people be on bikes than in cars.
I’m not discussing the morality of this action in a vacuum. I’m discussing it in comparison to the same person behaving equally as unsafely in a car.
Bikes can be lethal. See my other comment here.
An old lady at the hospital I used to work at was killed by a bike rider crashing into her at a high rate of speed. She hit her head on the pavement & fell unconscious - person on the bike bailed, when she was found after a few minutes it was too late.
It is far easier to protect pedestrians from 4-wheeled vehicles with simple measures such as concrete bollards and fences, but a 2-wheeled vehicle can go basically anywhere a pedestrian can, and now with EVs they can do it way faster without much effort.
Momentum is the biggest factor in the severity of the crash, and an ebike is never going to have as much momentum as a car. Severe incidents can happen with bikes and they should be sensibly regulated, but it is far less common than crashes involving cars.
Going against traffic is actually the safe option in some situations. Being able to see oncoming traffic is a good thing.
Personally, I prefer a helmet mirror. Riding against traffic means that you reduce the reaction time for drivers. If you’re going 15 mph and the driver is going 30 mph, you are approaching at 45 mph. If you are both going the same way, the driver is approaching at 15 mph, giving three times more time to react. It also tends to place you in spots on the road where you are not expected. A helmet mirror isn’t as good as a straight-on view, but the tradeoffs are worth it.
Agreed. It’s definitely situational.
Yeah, some of the e-bike circlejerk sounds like it’s from people who have never been in a major city where they get used by people with no regard for others. I’ve nearly been run down by app delivery drivers on ebikes and mopeds turning onto the sidewalk going the wrong way down one way streets at 30+ mph, people riding both acting crazy in the bike lanes, running red lights and cutting through traffic with no regard for their own safety or anyone else’s. You’ll have to excuse me when I lack sympathy for the guys on souped-up ebikes doing 30mph over a blind hill with no lights or helmet that get mad and start threatening me because they had to swerve to dodge since they were riding in the wrong lane.
Some of it could be app delivery drivers struggling to make ends meet while being subject to unreasonable and dangerous metrics, along with unlivable pay. I feel for them, but their struggle to earn a living doesn’t give them carte blanche to put other people’s lives at risk. On the other hand, a lot of people I see riding these tricked out ebikes and mopeds are the same people I know that were riding dirt bikes on NYC streets a few years back and moaning about how misunderstood they were and how the cops are picking on them just because they want to ride 40 deep down Third Ave and do wheelies while the streets and sidewalks are full of other vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.
I’m all for encouraging people to use other modes of transportation, but people are being assholes and demonstrating why there’s going to be a need to regulate the ebike and moped industry more rigorously, and probably introduce some sort of licensing requirement to enable tracking dangerous riders and enforcing safety rules. You have people riding devices rigged up to go at highway speeds, being careless while riding and disregarding pedestrians, riding the wrong way, and just generally being reckless and putting other people at risk. This is also ignoring the issue of people being cheap and buying aftermarket batteries that cause some nasty fires.
If you’re on an ebike, scooter or moped that exceeds 25mph, I don’t think you have any business being in the bike lane. Yes, it’s riskier for those riders to be in vehicular traffic, but even ignoring the mass of the bike, just a person’s body hitting you at 30mph or more can do some serious damage. If you’re riding at a massively higher speed than those around you in the same lane, you’re a safety hazard to others in your lane, whether you’re on a moped doing 40mph in a 15-20mph zone, or in a car doing 70mph in a 45mph zone. People still need to be held accountable for putting others at risk with dangerous behavior, too, whether it’s a car driving erratically, ebikes going down one way streets the wrong way, cyclists taking blind corners at speeds that don’t let them stop for pedestrians, or even just pedestrians doing stupid shit like insisting on walking in the bike lane, rather than using a perfectly good sidewalk or pedestrian path right next to them. That said, they need to be enforced across the board, not just singling out people on ebikes or cyclists, while ignoring others.
There is no regulation for ebikes in the US?
Here if the ebike goes >15mph it is like any other vehicle (must have insurance and plate) and is not allowed on bike lanes.
Of course uber drivers and many others people use home made set-up on their bike which exceed legal regulations and drive recklessly but heh that’s an other problem.
There isn’t a federal standard, but there is a common state-level standard in the US with class 1, 2, and 3. Class 1 cuts out at 20 mph and must be assist-only. Class 2 also cuts out at 20 mph, but may also have a throttle that works without peddling. Class 3 cuts out at 28 mph and may or may not have a throttle. Technically there are laws around not taking class 3 e-bikes in some spots, but I have found with mine as long as I ride it like a class 1 (15-20 mph max), no one bothers me. However, none of them require a license or insurance.
Elijah Orlandi makes deliveries for Grubhub in the evening after his 9-to-5 job.
“There are scenarios where people have the right to be upset,” said Orlandi, who lives in the Bronx and has been making e-bike deliveries for Grubhub — in addition to his 9-to-5 job — since October. He has seen e-bike riders “swerving in between cars and all that kind of stuff.” But Orlandi is also hoping for compassion. “People got to understand, we’re working,” he said. Delivery apps, he noted, keep track of how quickly workers make their drop-offs — and ding them if they take too long. “Sometimes you’ll be going somewhere and Grubhub will send you another order, and then no matter what you do, you’re going to be late,” he said. “So that’s why you’ll see a lot of people rushing.”
Surely the problem here this dude’s e-bike. Not that people need to do gig job on top of 9-5 work day, unaffordable rent, inflation, and exploitative gig economy platform
Yeah I was reading that and I’m like… ok so what does this have to do with an e-bike? This is just a condemnation of the gig economy. One can only assume that they are implying that none of these problems would exist if this dude was using a car, but they’d actually be 10x worse if he was
How dare he zip past the congestion with a low-density vehicle instead of contributing to it, wasting fuel (whatever type) and making things worse for everyone like a proper, respectable, carbrained citizen?
Almost as bad as subways, I tell you! Those bastards take a whole chunk of people past the traffic at once, the audacity 😤
Sarcasm aside, I do think people need this angle pointed out to them: Low-density transport options for those where they make sense help those for whom it doesn’t. The more short-range traffic happens on bikes, in busses and (light) rail, the more space there will be on the streets.
First New York Times came for the Palestinians. And I didn’t speak out because I was not a Palestinian.
Then they came for my e-bike and there was no one left to speak for me.
The NYTimes has always been the US empire’s paper of record. You won’t find a US-backed war or coup they didn’t support.
Truly a filthy rag since at least the leadup to WWII.
I wonder if it has anything g to do with all the advertisements for luxury cars in every edition of the paper… :-/ Cheers for the post.
Or oil companies selling gas.
Listen here now I’ve played simcity and good transport is the backbone of a strong economy.
With ICE, you control the population by controlling the oil. Like rest of the world has to eat up price raise without much retaliation, what else you’re going to do, you have to work and you depend on oil. But since China is the major producer of batteries and EVs, the nations that dictate the policies are losing that control.
So US does what it does best, propagandize the masses. Mass produced solar panels are bad, EVs are unreliable, e-bikes are a menace.
The world powers will turn the world to ruins if it serves their interests.
To be fair electric cars are still cars. Fuck them.
They really aren’t that much better for the planet compared to ICE and when compared to transit or active transport they really are the least effecient “green” option.
Its not just about reducing carbon, we should be trying to reduce overall energy usage and focus on effecient systems.
Everyone driving their electric SUV to park in a sea of pavement is not effecient land or energy use.
There are select instances where they are a greener option than transit. If you live in rural areas with really low density it is often cheaper and greener to not build mass transit systems there. But I’m really just splitting hairs here.
@Tak @FireRetardant Yes, when a bus route will result in a larger vehicle with 1 occupant they are bad.
That is a very small % of passenger mileage.
Ideally busses shouldn’t even be used in situations like that as rail is significantly more efficient but a train wouldn’t want to slow for one passenger either.
@Tak Or build stations and tracks where so few people will use them.
Building more tracks for everything would be good, but still not an answer for everything.
A world where we only had trains and push bikes would be nice, but not likely to happen.
@LovesTha @Tak
People act like you need a huge population to have rail, but #Germany moves people around smaller towns just fine by rail.#PublicTransit #PublicTransportation #FuckCars #WarOnCars #urbanism #de
You mean using same road cars would use for buses, while optionally removing extra lanes, is less green and cheap than building and maintaining 18-lane monstrosities in the middle of nowhere?
18 lane monstrosities are connections between the dense cities/burbs. We’re talking two lane highways here, nobody builds an 18 lane freeway to a town with 50 people in the middle of nowhere. At best they will build a freeway THROUGH the middle of nowhere but the nowhere wasn’t the purpose of the freeway, the connection to another major city was.
18 lane monstrosities are connections between the dense cities/burbs.
All those 18 lanes are built ONLY because of cars.
And there are fewer cars per km in rural areas. Do you think the dirt owns cars?
God how do you get out of bed every day.
A lot of people are able to recognize the shit side of the world and be strong enough to not fall apart because of it.
What a silly thing to say.
Every man woman and child thinks they understand how the world works, yet we are all of us burdened by misconceptions.
If you don’t think major media outlets run propaganda to protect the interests of the countries they work in, and the people they work for, I have bad news for you.
Of course they do, but that doesn’t mean that every bat shit crazy conspiracy theory has any credibility.
In this case, ebikes and scooters are controversial. Controversy generates engagement. Engagement sells ads. End of.
@fine_sandy_bottom @Jiggle_Physics there is a tiny bit of truth to the above conspiracy theory. It is the forces that have fed the “e-bikes are controversial” narrative. But it doesn’t need governments involved, just corporate pressure to fight change.
(Arguements about how integrated big companies and governments are clouds the distinction)
And choosing selling ads vs being a decent news company and having good, balanced, reporting they nefariously choose to take profit by manufacturing controversy. They, as in the the news in general, also have a history of coming to the defense of the oil industry, and shitting on anything in competition to it, because it is a vital venue for US imperialism, or economic influence, as they might say. It has proven so intentional that they call everything they say on this subject into question. You are free to feel that these economic interests don’t play a significant factor in the broader operations of why they release the articles they do, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t that way.
America held the printing press invention dear to the heart. It was the best way to manufacture and distribute propaganda.
News is a profit driven industry and it’s written by the sponsors. This is as true for NYT as it is for Alex Jones. The sooner people realize this the sooner we can dig ourselves out of this whole mess.
Well yeah, NYT is profit driven, there’s no nefarious intent.
Yes, this is why all news should be treated as “Trust but verify”. And if that verification consistently turns up as bunk, that’s a bad news.
Problem is nearly everybody is bad news. It’s always either lying through omission, single-sided story telling, assumed guilt, or just straight up misinformation.
Being driven by profit is not mutually exclusive to being malicious. Taking greed over things like truth, better quality of life, life, etc. has long been considered a nefarious thing to do.
If a news story comes along that could interfere with the profit of the owners of the NYT, what do you think their intent would be?
Ebikes will be banned in most of North America in 5 years, calling it now :/
I don’t know what this is about, but it reminds me of the constant ev-bashing in most major newspapers over the last two decades (since the beginning). I believe it’s oil money in the press, and definitely had effect on the overall conversation, especially discouraging small evs, but not clear effect on policy. It just keeps consumers from adopting.
Car manufacturers and oil producers have a vested interest in making bikes, ev bikes in particular, illegal.
Basically the same playbook that Henry Ford used to make cities less walkable.
Those articles pulled a lot of weight because my province over the last few years have removed all purchase incentives for EVs. The gov used to give up to $10k CAD rebates for electric vehicles. They recently got rid of it and after the election next year, they’ll fully get rid of all remaining incentives.
Incentives are great for a few years but then they just become part of the price. Most provinces will eventually remove their incentives towards EV as they become mainstream or at least transition to a subset of EVs maybe leaving out those considered luxury.
What they shouldn’t stop investing in is the infrastructure making those EVs a reliable alternative.
Do you see EVs being mainstream anytime soon? There are no places to charge (spare for a few big businesses in the bigger cities) and EVs are often double the price of their gas counterparts.
The infrastructure is growing quite fast considering how young the whole EV market is.
As for the price that’s exactly what blanket incentives would do. Affordable EVs are hardly developed currently because people buy larger more expensive (profitable) vehicules that would normally be 10k+ over their budget and that 10k is free money in the pockets of the manufacturers. Start giving incentives only for affordable EVs and they will start appearing all over the place
The smaller affordable EVs are not available in the North American market. The only choice North American consumers have is the large over the top unaffordable EVs. If consumers literally have no choice, surprise surprise they do with what they have access to.
Incentives in this sense really do nothing except subsidize luxury cars for the rich. Cheap EVs are available all over Europe and China but they are purposefully kept out of North America.
There is no political will or interest to actually switch over.
We can still build our own!
the fuck? how do you hate on e-bikes but are okay with e-cars?
Because they’re e-diots
E-diots, I like that term
The companies hawking e-cars have much larger advertising accounts with NYT than those hawking e-bikes.
In Rio de Janeiro happened something like this. An old woman and a children were walking on the bike lane and an ebike crashed to them and killed the old woman. A city councilperson hurried up to make a law banning e-bikes from bike lanes, saying that they should use the car infrastructure, but the Mayor vetoed the project.
This isn’t particularly plausible. Searching for news about it, I see stories about a collapsing bike lane and a story about an ebike operator being killed by a truck (this woman was Brazilian but the accident happened in Ireland). Nothing about an ebike killing someone else.
They don’t really go that fast. Anyone can be knocked over and killed by basically any vehicle (including a regular bike) if you land incorrectly, but ebikes are about as dangerous as regular bikes to pedestrians.
The article the screenshot is from links directly to a case of an elderly woman being hit and killed by someone on an ebike. It also links to a story of another woman has suffered brain damage and lasting effects after being hit by someone riding a moped.
They don’t really go that fast.
You really can’t say that, categorically. Part of the issue is that when people speak about e-bikes, there is a huge range of vehicles that fall under that category. You have ebikes that hit 80mph these days, yet generally are sold no differently in terms of registration or licensing than a pedal assist bike that cuts out the engine at 20mph or if the rider stops pedaling. A lot of these delivery drivers in NYC are riding illegal electric mopeds that go at high speeds and weigh much more than a normal bike, but are sold as though they were equal to an e-bike that goes much slower.
Even a lighter e-bike, like a Citi Bike, weighs about 45lbs. That’s 15lbs heavier than my regular bike, which will make a difference if you get hit at higher speeds. Something like the Surron bike mentioned in that video is advertized as street legal, but according to their specs page, their bikes clock in at 47 kg, or 103.6 lbs! Sure, that guy could be riding a slightly different model, but there is an absolutely massive difference for a pedestrian between getting hit by a 150 lbs rider on a 30 lbs bike doing 20 mph, and getting hit by the same rider on a bike that’s three times as heavy and going at four times the speed. Heck, there’s a big difference for the rider themselves if they just eat it on their own.
I think you’re right and I confused the argument the counselperson gave for the law to something that actually happened.
Genocide deniers and enablers also happen to be in the pocket of the regime that wants us all wasting our lives in traffic when we are not working to make them rich.
Yeeeep
I love my e-bike.
I love that you ride one! Stay safe ❤️
Thank you kind person of the Internet. I will do my best.
Having an ebike in New York is what having a car in any other major American city is supposed to work like (but can’t because car-centric infrastructure is terrible city design)
Nothing is more than 30 minutes from me. There’s parking everywhere. Only requires low cost infrastructure to be usable. Traffic jams are infrequent and short-lived. Ownership and fuel costs are low. Environmentally friendly. Quiet. Great for recreation. Is very safe for the user and pedestrians.
Is bike theft not a major issue in New York It’s the main thing keeping me from getting one. Bikes get stolen so frequently that I prefer my 100 buck bike, much more easily replaced.
Not as major as most news outlets make it out to be. I try not to lock my bike outside if I can avoid it, but I can lock it indoors both at work and at my apartment
Yeah I should say, I’m not worried about theft as a phenomenon, I just wouldn’t have an electric bike outside considering I don’t earn enough to lose something like that. Theft is a tragic symptom but I also prefer not to be affected by it lol
But smart, having inside places is cool. Most places I go and bike to wouldn’t have that
You can actually buy bike insurance if you are particularly worried. And some home/renters insurance includes protection against bike theft.
Whether the yearly cost of it plus the deductible ends up being higher than just replacing it is the gamble you always take with insurance, however.
I live in São Paulo and have everything on a 30-40 minutes ride, but because my bike insurance demands a proper bike rack or the policy is null, I have a lot of problems with the parking part. Like supermarkets, bakeries, pharmacies and others always have 2-5 cars parking space, but is extremely rare finding one of those with a proper bike rack.
Yet, electric trains are a better alternative to most people’s transport.
