The New York Times published a pair of articles this weekend highlighting the rising number of deaths of cyclists riding electric bikes. However, in one of the most impressive feats of victim-blaming I’ve seen from the publication in some time, the NYT lays the onus on e-bikes instead of on the things killing their law abiding riders: cars.
When I’m driving, and a cyclist is “in my way”, I don’t blame the cyclist. I blame the ahitty infrastructure. I’d love to ride a bike more often, but the roads and laws are just too hostile.
So you don’t live in NYC where cyclists ignore red lights, cross walks, stop signs, etc…and just expect you to jump out of their way.
I live in NY. As a pedestrian, cars are way more annoying than bicycles.
It’s safer for bikes to ignore those, that’s why some states that are smarter about it have legalized the Idaho stop
Forgot that pedestrians don’t matter and bikes should run red lights cause ignoring traffic laws isn’t dangerous at all.
@Princeali311 @buckykat bicycles and pedestrians got a long fine for decades before the invention of traffic laws
The first stop sign was literally a PR stunt from a car owner’s club
Ignoring stupid car-centric traffic laws on a bicycle is safe and reasonable.
Not for pedestrians it isn’t. Nor are ebikes driving on sidewalks or going as fast as they do in the bike lane.
Yes, for pedestrians too. And the only reason an ebike would be on the sidewalk is if there are too many cars in the road.
Lol no. They are all over Williamsburg on Kent when there is no traffic at all.
that doesn’t show why ebikes are bad, it just shows the rider is bad
Man’s gotta avoid getting run over somehow.
Just another perspective here.
Yes, it’s cars, and yes, it’s infrastructure. However…
E-bikes have been causing a spike in cyclist crashes, even in places that is considered the safest place to cycle: The Netherlands.
The problem with e-bikes is that they are more like motorcycles and less like bikes, so you get a huge number of people under 25 and people over 55 crashing these things left and right.
This article from The Verge is worth the read to get a better idea of what’s going on.
I’d say two bikes crashing would be a hell of a lot better than a car crashing with a bike. No need to demonize the better option.
80 yo or 14 yo on ebikes are menaces. One because they don’t have the reaction time and coordination to handle the speed. One because they don’t have a shred of situational awareness or respect for the rules of the road.
It’s honestly scary to share a bike path with both.
The problem isn’t 14 or 80 year olds. The problem is pretending motorbikes are bicycles because they have accessory pedals.
A bicycle as a class of vehicle moves at about 25km/h on average, doesn’t accelerate very fast and is a bit slower after hills or corners. An ebike is a bicycle that you pedal a bit less, not a vehicle that moves at at least 32km/h any time it is moving.
250W 25km/h limits are about the highest you want for the default vehicle type. And a real 250W max, not the corrupted testing process currently used for euro standards designed to test a lower bound.
Not a vehicle that moves at at least 32km/h any time it is moving.
Why 32km/h at least? E-Bikes are limited to 25km/h in europe. E-Bikes above 25km/h are only allowed on the streets and not on bike-paths, in villages and cities. In the netherlands, they are allowed on bike-paths outside of villages and cities, but those bike-paths are wide and allow those faster e-bikes.
Additionally, the aforementioned 14 and 80 year olds are usually not on those e-bikes faster than 25km/h. You need a registration and a drivers license which you only get at the minimum age of 16 for S-Pedelecs (E-Bikes faster than 25km/h are called S-Pedelecs here), 80 y/os dont buy S-Pedelecs but buy normal e-bikes which are limited to 25km/h.
E-bikes in the US (the subject) do 32 (or more on downhill stretches where the motor finally tops out and the rider is fresh). S-pedelecs are the ones with much higher fatalities for the elderly in the metherlands and do 45. Nornal pedelecs in europe also produce much more than 250W
I dont get what you want to achieve with a general 250W limit. There are 3 different motors which provide a completely different amount of power with 250W. You would need different limits per kind of motor
Edit: also the root-comment is about the netherlands, so thats why I assumed this discussion is about the netherlands. My bad
250W is an output limit not an input. And power is power.
(or more on downhill stretches where the motor finally tops out and the rider is fresh)
Downhill is the situation in which ebikes are least likely to exceed the speed of regular bikes. Since the motor is designed to cut out at 20 mph anyway then it won’t help you go faster downhill, but it will continue to have increased rolling resistance. And if it’s no worse than a regular bike, it isn’t a problem.
I see you’ve never encountered an ebike on a hill.
Acoustic bike riders rest on the downhill.
Ebike riders who have motors that exceed their power output by a factor of 3 rest on the uphill.
The rolling resistance difference is single digit watts. Any influence from extra weight will increase coasting speed.
Actually, I was thinking of personal experience riding with my wife, with me on an ebike and her on an acoustic bike. I was surprised at how I actually needed to put in a little effort to keep up with her downhill.
New day same bullshit
I feel like the NYTimes is everyone’s well meaning out-of-touch neoliberal poly sci professor dad.
Like… they usually get to the right answer, but they’re always 3 - 10 years behind.
Well, they come to the neoliberal answer at any rate. NYT still asserts that privacy and encryption should be sacrificed so the nice law enforcement can take care of us.
yeesh. i had seen the first one but not the second. i love the heck out of my e-bike.
Not going to read the article so in response to the comment, electric bicycles put people in a strange place in terms of safety. You’ve got the speeds of a motorcycle without the ability to flow with traffic. In the presence of high density traffic I’d say an e-bike is more dangerous than a motorcycle.
I’ve been a motorcyclist most of my life and I can say you have to be super vigilant about situational awareness and ready to evade at all times. People driving in cars are not programmed to notice motorcycles. They’re always looking for cars and sometimes don’t register other hazards. It shouldn’t be that way, but nothing is going to change that as long as human beings are driving.
My recommendation to anyone who wants to use an e-bike for regular transportation is just go to a motorcycle, it’s going to be much safer in traffic. There’s some really nice electric motorcycles now. For e-bike users you have to be extra careful. Drivers don’t see bicyclists anyway and you’re going a lot faster most of the time. A head injury at 10 mph can be fatal.
Speeds of a motorcycle?? Most ebikes top out at 28mph. You can go that fast on a normal road bike if you’re in shape too.
@rm_dash_r_star @bumble you’re so close to getting the point, it’s a bit painful.
Just getting a motorcycle doesn’t work in NYC. There’s no place to keep that many motorcycles.
Getting a motorcycle license, or taking a rider safety course might help, but changing the e-bike and traffic laws to make room for them (and reduce room for cars) is what’s going to save most lives.
For context I bicycle commuted in Boston for 18 years, motorcycled in the country for a bit, and restore classic cars for a semi-living now. I watched smartphones make it riskier and riskier to ride in traffic, then saw the pandemic magnify the issue, and largely avoid doing it at this point.
You’re so close, bud.
Most ebikes have a top speed of 20mph and weigh less than a motorcycle (and MUCH LESS than a car,) so your first paragraph is BS.
2nd paragraph - right on. It’s almost like cars are big heavy death machines that are dangerous, even FATAL, at high speeds.
Motorcycles cost more, are heavier, and move much faster than ebikes. They’re absolutely more dangerous than an ebike.
Give ebikes their own infrastructure and do urban planning that reduces the speed and danger levels of large, fast-moving vehicles.
I don’t think it’s e-bikes, it’s just cyclists vs traffic in general. And I say that as a cyclist and occasional e-bike user in NYC. 30-second example of what is causing crashes:
https://youtube.com/shorts/mrBXpw9iqDU?feature=share.A video of some dipshit hooligans proves nothing.
The point is that it’s the way in which you ride a bicycle that determines the risk level. That is a much more important factor than whether it is powered by pedals, electric, or electric assist. Note that those hooligans are on regular bicycles.
I’m not going to go all in and blame cars either. The problem is infrastructure. Change will come when enough people riding bikes vote. It’s like how smoking bans were a referendum on whether you smoke. Bike infrastructure is a referendum on whether you ride a bike.
so basically America is never getting bike infrastructure
maybe when they stop electing retirement age people
So like he said - never.
Sad, but possibly accurate. Here’s hoping some cities can do enough to get a critical mass of folks making a change.
@cantstopthesignal @bumble does that work for people walking? If enough people walk in New York then they’ll get walking infrastructure? Or does it only work for car drivers?
A city is considered to have banned cars if there are any areas anywhere that pedestrians can walk without having to be hyper-vigilant against them, or if cars have less than 90% of public space dedicated to them.
The headline is a bit sensational but the main point of the article is it’s absurd to blame the bike/biker and that the main issue is the infrastructure. The last section is all about how safe infrastructure is better for every, drivers included.
I’d say it’s not just bikers who need to vote. We should all want better infrastructure that saves lives.
