Weight limits for bicycles need to be higher and more transparent, especially if the majority of people want to use them.

  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    A good point, but from the article it sounds like the demographic for which this would be a problem is 300lbs+. The proportion of people meeting the criteria for being overweight is in the same ballpark, but I wonder if maybe there’s a more skewed distribution of people who are overweight enough to exceed the safety margin of a standard bicycle.

    • Cort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think it starts to be more of a problem around 230-250lbs. Like they mentioned in the article, the bikes are often listed at a total weight capacity, meaning rider + cargo, with most brands at or below 300lbs. If the rear rack is meant to hold 40lbs and maybe 5lbs of accessories and water bottles then add 20lbs for a front rack/panniers; your getting into the close to the rider weight limit by being anything more than a little overweigh.

      • isaaclyman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It’s worse than that, even. Some brands (like Tern) go by gross vehicle weight, meaning rider + cargo + bike. And their most popular bike is 75 pounds.

        It’s not as much of a problem for Tern specifically because their bikes are rock solid (I’m very big and tall and don’t have a problem with mine) but still a confusing way to measure.