The bicycle is making a comeback in US cities
bbc.com
bbc.com
Electric assistance is not uncommon in the Netherlands among the 50+ age category, and we don't even have significant hills to speak of.
They always seem to be heavier-set than your typical bike commuter, so if the motor's getting them out on the road and getting some exercise and fitness in, I think that is just fantastic. Anything to get people out of their cars! Maybe they'll even upgrade to a real bike some day :)
That was in Cupertino, California. Then in 1992 I moved to Seattle, Washington to a place on the low side of the U-distract. I got on my bike, took one ride around the block, and learned that while fat guys on bikes might work out fine in relatively flat Cupertino, not so in Seattle. That once around the block felt like it almost killed me. The bike has been in the closest/shed/garage ever since.
An e-bike sounds like it would have been perfect. Let it do the work when I need to go up hill, and let me do the work when I'm going across the hill.
(Now I'm across Puget Sound from Seattle. It's not flat like Cupertino, but it is not nearly as un-flat as Seattle. I've pulled my bike out of the garage and am trying to get it back into riding shape. I'm pretty sure I'm significantly under my Cupertino weight, so I think I should be able to find plenty of places to ride).
Several stories I've read about ebikes point to stats about nearly all ebike owners getting hooked and continuing to buy them instead of regular ones.
That said, an ebike turns into a regular bike immediately after you turn off the assistance.
To give my anecdote, I'm considering getting an e-bike for commuting, or perhaps retrofit onto my regular bike: the ride is not long (~10 miles x2), but hills on both sides are significantly easier with an assist.
Btw. I've had an ebike for 4 years and I'm a skinny 34-year-old man. It can still be plenty of work to ride it during the Finnish winter :)
As for showering, I think that will probably start to matter less as time goes on. In the last few years, in the Pacific NW, I've noticed it's become somewhat acceptable to show up to meetings a bit sweaty, if you've just gotten off your bike. At least, among the business meetings I attend, of course.
It's an honest question, really, I don't know! (though I know what I'd prefer!) What do you think?
(While a long-term trend away from sterile-squeaky-clean might be useful, I still have a strong emotional aversion to "sweaty at console": I'm not comfortable that way if it's me, plus everyone starts smelling when sweaty. At one job, I even washed up quickly using the hand sink, just to avoid this)
Denholm Reynholm in the stress episode of The IT Crowd may have been hilarious in London, but he wasn't too far off the mark in Portland.
He wasn't too far off the mark for Reading (boring town west of London, where it's set). That was entirely the point of that episode.
I don't have one myself, but I know that in Europe, they can't go over 25km/h (higher than that, they're not considered as bicycles anymore) so the interest is to lower physical effort.
> So why would I choose an electric bicycle over my traditional one?
Not everybody enjoy exercising on their way to work, but even if they do, with electric assistance, they can cycle on longer/hillier commutes than what would be possible/convenient with a regular bike.
The other appealing thing would be hailing a trailer for groceries and still being able to make it up the steepest hills.
I rode a Stromer for a while it's best feature was a top speed that could easily exceed the auto speed limit on local bike routes (some of those that are still 25 mph instead of 20). Taking the lane at the speed limit sends a clear message to cut through drivers.
The electric assistance can push these folks over the hump.
They are also useful in cities (e.g. Madrid) where hills maybe problematic for normal bikes.
But the ultimate answer is maybe you wouldn't choose an electric bicycle. That's ok.
Some electric bikes are a lot heavier than they need to be, you have a rear rack that contains brackets to house boxes that have more brackets on them and deep inside those boxes are some batteries held at the worst place for centre of gravity.
All of this needs to be done as a system with the battery made a structural part of the frame. Then the bike as a whole can go back to being performance oriented instead of senior style.
In my opinion the extra torque more than makes up for the weight when it comes to handling. Electric bikes don't feel heavy when you are riding one, it is just getting the thing up the stairs to your flat at the end of the day that is a pain.
I hope some player from outside the bicycle industry - a Tesla - re-engineers the electric bicycle to make it a whole new product. As it is the electric bicycle just does not catch the public imagination.
I would vote hard in favor of limiting speed and or requiring them to make artificial noise, unless we could get some other type of pervasive and privacy intrusive monitoring of riders' behavior.
I sometimes ride my pedal bike the wrong way, and sometimes on sidewalks (two avenue blocks out of your way in NYC to get around the block is quite a long distance) but I always do it "respectfully": slowly and yielding the right of way. Till there is a system in place to effectively educate the constant churn of the class of people who deliver goods, I am soooo anti.
electic bikes are technically illegal in NYC; it's a law that is never enforced.
edit, addition: the mix of cars vs pedestrians works as well as it traditionally has worked and I and many other people don't have a problem with it; due to various types of complexity theory, adding bikes to the mix does not work as well, it particularly degrades the pedestrian experience, and is quite dangerous for bikers.
I find electric bikes even more destabilizing and most objectionable, because they are faster and quieter, and I think because they are favored by a statistical sample that skews toward more selfish/self-interested.
Why is it so hard for discussion groups to accept that somebody has an opinion with muddying it up? What I said originally should not require so much refinement for people to grasp that it's my one little opinion and it doesn't threaten your worldview more than your worldview needs to be shaken up.
Both of those uses of a bicycle - operation on a sidewalk and riding against traffic on a one-way street - are a violation of NYC traffic law [1]. The operator is the one causing danger, not the bicycle.
[1] http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicyclerules_engli...
NYC has widespread ignoring of many traffic laws, and that does not bother me. I am talking about, in the context of widespread violations, what does bother me: the electric bikes. You could accept that there is some validity in what I say without agreeing with me.
Given the choice, I would not be in favor of pedestrians and bikers being forced to follow all traffic laws. However, I would be in favor of electric bikes being forced to follow all traffic laws, especially the one that bans them! :)
EDIT: I just read your edit,
> I find electric bikes even more destabilizing and most objectionable, because they are faster and quieter, and I think because they are favored by a statistical sample that skews toward more selfish/self-interested.
This is a good summary of my thoughts about electrical bicycles as well.
Baseball card in the spokes, enforced by government regulation.
Instead, only about 25% of the trip has bike lanes at all. And they share a curb with the buses (which might be the worst arrangement possible, since cyclists and bus drivers have to keep dodging one another in and out of the lane - endangering the cyclists and slowing the buses).
Instead, I walk when the weather is right. Cycling right beside cars would scare the shit out of me.
Only people with a deathwish would ride a bike on streets shared by other vehicles.
Don't be stupid, think of your family.
I'll grant that the risk of death in an accident is probably higher on bike, but the risk of death by being sedentary should also not be ignored in the calculation. I don't have a deathwish, and I commuted 30 miles a day on a bike for years. It was great. I've never been in better shape. We have a problem with cars killing people with alarming regularity. The solution probably isn't to avoid riding bikes or being a pedestrian.
I'm wondering how the US approaches bicycle safety as a whole, it's all well and good building a cycle lane, but in some places that's not feasible so you have to merge with traffic. How do US drivers treat cyclists?
As a whole, it doesn't. Cities and states are getting a bit better about planning alternative transit in dense areas, but it's a scattershot approach an varies widely by area.
There tends to be significant resistance from drivers to giving up any space to alternative transportation. And leaders can't seem to decide if they want normal bike lanes, separated bike "highways", or something else.
US drivers are terrible in general and awful when it comes to cyclists. Especially in urban and suburban areas, even where bikes are common. Lots of misdirected anger. I've had things thrown at me, been yelled at, passed far too closely, etc.
All that said, the nation, and urban areas in particular, seem to be moving in the right direction. It's just a slow process.
Pretty much being passed by too closely means you should be taking a lane. Sharing a lane implies room for a car, plus about 4 feet (1 foot for the cyclist, 3 feet in between car and cyclist), and that's from the door zone border.
At least as much as close encounters are speeders. In a car, I don't really car if people go much faster than me or the speed limit. When I'm on a bike in a 25mph zone and people are doing 35+ I get nervous and rather super pissy. It makes it much, much more difficult to change lanes when people aren't sharing via speeding like this.
If the resources were available to totally separate cars, cyclists, and pedestrians, that'd be great but the reality is we have to share.
Much of passing too close in done on purpose (along with an engine rev and sometimes some choice words). Taking a lane isn't going to fix that. Education, and penalties, might.
So it's a conversation, to increase the number of better informed drivers. This job should be the state's since they license drivers, ostensibly they should know the rules or fail the test.
But politics being a factor, you're probably right. In the U.S. maybe cyclists should join the NRA en masse, buy guns, and start using them to shoot out tires when threatened. Oh yes, this is surely illegal self defense, but then, the car also was being used illegally to target a much smaller vehicle and its rider. Tit for tat.
But somehow I keep wanting to think the U.S. can be more civilized than regression back to wild west era. Stealing or killing a man's horse would get you shot back then, and the sheriff wouldn't have anything much to say about the matter. My bicycle is kinda like my horse. But I really don't want to carry a gun when I'm biking, if that's what it comes down to, I think I give up riding in the streets.
I'd estimate my near misses, bike vs car, are 1 in 1000. It's really small. Smaller than when I'm in a car, and it's car vs car. I've only had one driver intentionally try to drive me off the road while yelling that bikes belong on the sidewalk (illegal in Denver) not in the street (a legal right). I think he might have behaved differently if his world view weren't so totally backwards.
Bicycles are much closer to pedestrians in terms of protection and kinetic energy than cars in every conceivable measure, so ideally they belong on the sidewalks which can accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists. Or on separate bike lanes.
Unfortunately, the US doesn't have any biking infrastructure, so the legislators decided to dump cyclists on the road with the motorists, which is the easy (and stupid) way out.
Yet there is a trend for bicycle renting, with automated bicycle rental stands in many areas of several large cities. In a way, it expresses the duality of American culture as well as any other measure.
Here's information on a national bicycle route system. It's actually not impossible at all. Many one-lane highways have generous enough shoulders that allow for safe cycling. I've crossed the country now 3 times on bike (and visiting 8 other countries while cycling). The first cross country route was established in 1976.
[0] https://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-...
A lot of drivers express a sort of authoritarian entitlement: Roads were made for cars, and paid for by drivers. There's no good reason to ride a bike on the roads, and cyclists are endangering themselves for no good reason.
It does seem that driver behavior tends to improve when cycling gets more popular in a region.
Being nice might momentarily appease an impatient driver, but it puts the cyclist at risk and makes them appear erratic to other traffic.
Not well in my experience. Cyclists dying from accidents is unfortunately more common than it should be. Perception is changing and trending in the right direction, but the attitude that roads are meant for cars and not cyclists is too prevalent.
That being said there are a lot of cyclists who don't obey traffic laws and bike dangerously as well.
It will improve in time as cycling becomes more common and more people do it.
So yeah, considering the high number of barely qualified drivers, it works remarkably well (although I'm sure this is of no comfort to the families of tens of thousands killed in car accidents every year).
In the netherlands you take lessons and once the teacher thinks you will succeed you can take the practical exam. There is records available about the successrates per school so there is some healthy competition. You are not allowed to drive without a license. Only if you are paying a licensed teacher who is registered as a driving teacher and had education for just that.
It is expensive but our roads feel safe. Very much for cyclists as well.
http://www.kansasgdl.org/restricted-license.htm Age 15, and now you can drive by yourself and siblings from home to work or school.
It use to be pretty popular to take driver's education in public schools, but this is not as common in smaller highschools. It wasn't offered at my school. My parents sent me to a private driver's education company to learn to drive where I learned to drive automatic and stick, and also how to get into and recover from slides on wet sand and snow. But most of my friends were taught by a family member or a friend of the family.
Don't think about cycling on the roads you usually use, which are presumably the big ones you drive down or take the bus down.
Look for the parallel roads, which are smaller and little used by cars. For instance, I used George Street and New Cavendish Street instead of Oxford Street.
Or a different example, look at the roads south of Fulham Broadway Station, and see that the small ones are blocked for cars but allow cyclists to pass.
TfL print free maps with the nicer streets marked.
Pretty poorly. Anecdotally:
My friend was driven off the road intentionally by a driver.
I was hit from behind in the hills and had to be helicoptered to a hospital.
Most of the drivers don't know to share the road with bicycles and don't respect cyclist in general. The other day I was hit by a car on purpose.
One issue is it seems silly to invest properly in security. For example a good lock is $60-100 no matter how much your bike costs, and locking pins for my wheels/seat would be $50 more.
Another thing is getting your bike stolen has a mental effect that I find exceeds the financial. If every time I go somewhere I'm not sure if I will lose my bike, it makes me want to ride my bike less. So I use it mostly to commute where I can keep it indoors on both ends.
I suggest using Google street view to look around. Usually, you can see a bike path off on the side of the road that's nicely separated from the cars. I don't think that Google has gotten around to taking street view pictures in all the bike-only paths in more rural areas, although I hear they've done that in some places.
The Netherlands has been committed to improving bicycle use and safety since the 1950s, so they've built up a lot of infrastructure with that in mind. In fact, I hear that in any accident in the Netherlands involving a car and bicycle, the car is always at fault unless they can prove that the bicycle was being reckless. It makes cars a lot more careful, and encourages riding a bike instead of driving.
From what I hear, the effect is from all this that automobile traffic in is pretty congested and slow. The Dutch government seems to be making a general policy of discouraging car driving and encouraging alternate forms of transportation, as a means to unclog the roads and reduce pollution. The Netherlands is very dense, so pollution would be very bad if all those people were driving everywhere.
I'm not Dutch, but sometimes I wish I were, because I would very much like to bike to work on a regular basis. My city in California has some bike lanes, but they aren't very wide and are right next to the cars. They've been starting to build bike paths that are completely separate from roads, but we don't yet have a city-wide bike path network yet. I suspect we'll eventually get one, but it will be decades away. I'll go biking with my children on quiet residential streets or the bike paths, but there's no way I'd take them on the bike lanes on the bigger roads.
http://abc7chicago.com/technology/car-auto-dials-911-to-repo...
its never too hot, too cold, to windy, to wet, to anything, for driving a car versus a bicycle or any other exposed mode of transport.
hence you can have all the articles you want about how there is a resurgence but it never amounts to any substantial numbers because weather is the greatest factor against it
Too cold, windy, and wet? You invest in some proper clothes, and you change when you get somewhere.
Cars are expensive. What I think of when I think of the inconvenience of cars is their cost, and how that translates into how many hours of my life I give up to pay for them.
If riding a bike all year also meant getting two months off every year from work every year (or just pocket/invest in the money you saved with car ownership/upkeep/taxes/gas), would you do it?
If biking can take off, it should start here. Alas I feel that car culture might be too ingrained in the very fabric of our culture and cities. It's a shame.
>a bike lane next to [...] church infringed on religious freedom by preventing members from parking.
That's a pretty bizarre interpretation of "religious freedom".
I can even forgo # 1 if I get to change and shower at the end.
So... you want cyclists? Find out what's really keeping them off bikes, and fix it.
P.S. And theft. You can just park your car and walk away from it -- mostly.
Sadly, this is a myth.
https://practicalfrugalliving.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/busti...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbuste...
The only article that seems to support your assertion is the mythbusters one, which doesn't refute the claim that motorcycles are more fuel efficient, but instead cites the fact that proportionally more pollution is emitted by motorcycles than by cars which is a completely separate issue altogether. That would be easily solved by stricter pollution control standards on bikes which would absolutely happen if more people started riding. The article then goes onto admit:
"Despite the MythBusters' findings, emissions are only part of the story of a vehicle's true greenness. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council, motorcycle manufacturing requires thousands fewer pounds of raw materials than automobiles. They require less fossil fuel, so they require less energy to pull that fossil fuel out of the ground. They use fewer chemicals and oils than cars. And motorcycles produced today are 90% cleaner in California than they were 30 years ago."
So I stand by my original statement. Did you even read the articles, or did you just whip off a quick google search and link the first three articles that seemed to support your claim?
But a pretty big one, that you're side-stepping by quoting a special interest group from the motorcycle industry. Fuel efficiency could be better, but emissions are always worse.
Here's another source for you, Ana-Marija Vasic and Martin Weilenmann. Comparison of Real-World Emissions from Two-Wheelers and Passenger Cars http://josiah.berkeley.edu/MiniProjects/Vasic2006.pdf
I would wager that ab bicycle will have a better fuel efficiency, emissions, and environmental cost of production than a car, or a motorcycle.