E-bikes could be the electric revolution cities need
routefifty.com
routefifty.com
1. Cost. Sure it's a high initial outlay (3k) but I'm not paying for insurance, gas, parking, and auto loan payments.
2. Faster. I can hop on my bike, ride to my building at 20mph, and park in my office. No dealing with paid parking in the city and walking from the lot.
3. Better for my physical and mental health. The daily exercise, fresh air, and feeling of connection to the bustle of the streets makes me happier.
If nothing else, it's easily worth the experience of getting the kids to and from school. It takes less time and it's enjoyable instead of aggravating. Win-win.
I'm finding that, in my city, we tend to move faster than traffic if there's any traffic at all. Cars might go faster when they're not stopped, but they're spending most their time queued up at traffic lights and stop signs. Bikes get to go to ride right past those lines.
To clarify, ebike batteries across manufacturers should be standardized.
If only he’d thought of electrifying available people-powered systems and miniaturizing as well adding capacity rather than re-inventing things. Of course hindsight... but what if he’d seen things differently.
it was awe-inspiring and admirable from an engineering standpoint, but painfully misapplied and dorky from a societal one.
kamen could have used this technological advance on any number of (existing) personal transport machines, but he chose to invent his own, as inventors are wont to do.
The being able to easily keep up with traffic is what I miss when I switch to my regular bike, which I had been comuting with for years.
Also I ride it more than my traditional bike because it is easier. (I rode to work today) Parking is easier too though I’m still a little nervous leaving it on the street (I have bike cages at home/work)
I’ll second your recommendation of giving it a try.
I usually wear regular clothing (like jeans and hoodie) and add to it when necessary (long johns in the winter, maybe a power-stretch jacket).
Its only about 35-40 minutes for me so I can be a little lighter on the clothing. A balaclava for my face (Its a a ski mask with an big circular opening for my nose and eyes). Thats usually enough, but I have a thin hat that fits under the helmet. my work shirts are golf shirts and wick sweat away, but wool or polypro long underwear is helpful when its really really cold. You don't want to get wet from sweat, because it will suck the heat out of you. I usually just use normal pants. I have a flease jacket and a windproof shell on top.
I use wool glove liners and good windproof gloves. My hands can still get cold. Especially when its windy along the river. I'm experimenting with usb li-on glove warmers, which seem to help on the two times I've used them. They're kind bulky in my gloves and I don't love that.
(I've seen people with fixed hand warmers on there bikes but I haven't gone that far). Ski googles too (I wear glasses so that helps the wind in my eye problem).
Good socks too. I lower my seat in the winter to make it easier to touch ground if I hit ice.
Its just a much nicer platform, all-electric. I see it getting much, much wider adoption ..
Which is a given in the winter :(
I knew some researchers who were specifically looking at the question of bicyclist exposure to air pollution by pedaling around town with nephalometers (IIRC). I don’t remember what their conclusions were, if any. I should look that up.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971...
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/fuming-air-pollution-and-c...
I don’t use my ebike for small errands because it’s too easy to just rip expensive stuff off of it while locked up.
Also, the picture shows a rider with no helmet which is insane. I wear a motorcycle helmet and leathers. The speed limit for ebikes on roads in CA is 28, which is deadly with even a normal bike helmet.
Finally the article says that the new models are lighter because they’ve integrated battery in frames.
Totally false, the weight is not significantly lower and the in-frame battery means when your battery wears out in 3-10 years, you’ll have to pay the maker to replace it if it’s possible at all.
I highly recommend converting yourself using a bafang bbshd
- No safe parking anywhere. So far so good but it's only a matter of time before my bike gets stolen.
- Range. Much too short (less than 40km in my experience).
Yet, it's fantastic. It changed my life. It almost totally replaced my motorbike for every trip except the longest ones (I live in Paris so most trips are short).
I will say that I don't especially recommend it unless you want to pedal a lot (or live in a very hilly area). If you're lazy like me I'd recommend a hub motor - having to change gears constantly and every time I come to a stop gets really old really fast.
This tech is amazing...
Chargers are a pain since you want an 80-20 charge cycle.
The name brands have options for this and you know what battery cells you’re getting.
I used the meanwell hlg 54a to make my own chargers. They are the best value and ul listed if you don’t mind doing your own connections and have a voltage meter
I'd really like to see more support for class 2 bikes on bike paths around the bay area. Class 2, which does not require pedaling, gets around the "I'm too sweaty when I get to work" issue. My dream: a bike highway to the silicon valley from outlying areas.
Saying that I stick at the low end. 50W - 150W is still very noticeable assistance, but still mostly a bike. 500+W is really a very different category.
Still pretty slow for full leathers which would be heavy, hot, sweaty, horrible to pedal in and a pain changing in and out of.
A full face mounting bike helmet might be a lot lighter and offer very good protection for the speeds you are travelling as designed for fast downhill riding. The thing with motorcycle helmets is they are heavy and not designed for high intensity cardio so hard to breath in doing anything slightly intensive. Motorcross style helmets have a larger chin and visor area to allow for better air flow for breathing plus vision as motorcross can be quite physical.
Also instead of full leathers if you are interested in safety the motorcycle Kevlar jeans and tops should be a little more comfortable cycling although I’d still find them not great for any physical work. Another option would be one of the motorcycle pressure suits for your torso, I think they do them for mounting biking to and offer a bit of airflow with the padding. A bit more convenient than full leathers, abrasion wouldn’t be the main issue at your speeds, it’d be impact force.
When you're hit by a motorist and slide to a stop on asphalt, there's really no such thing as overkill when it comes to road rash protection. Speaking from personal experience.
Kelvar should be sufficient for abrasion at 28km/h, it’s used in motorcycle gear where you go much faster. Also gear with 1000d ballistic nylon in the abrasion zones, same deal used for motorcycle clothing.
I’ve had a few offs 60-80+ kmph wearing textile gear on unsealed roads, dirt tracks etc and textiles have stood up well, just picked myself up and the bike and jumped back on.
Cycling on the road impact will be a far bigger issue than abrasion.
I can’t imagine cycling in leather, they are designed to be tight fitting, cut for sitting in a fairly static position, hot and sweaty. Leathers are not comfortable in hot weather on a motorcycle, I just can’t imagine having to pedal wearing them or doing anything physical.
I live in Austria where few cyclists wear helmets yet my girlfriend who works in the local hospital sees patients coming in with serious head injuries on a daily basis from biking accidents that could have easily been prevented by wearing a helmet. Since then we both wear our helmets religiously.
You don't even have to get hit by a car. An unfortunate collision with a texting pedestrian, some dog on a leash jumping in front of you or another cyclist could be enough to smack your melon on the asphalt.
Just because you hear Europeans aren't wearing helmets doesn't mean it's the model to follow. I see wearing a helmet the same as wearing a seatbelt. Sure I never needed it since I never had an accident and it feels slightly uncomfortable but I know it could save my life.
It's up to you how much you value your head.
I highly doubt ebikes have a 50% share in Belgium. Do you have any references on that claim? Last year I visited Belgium's 4 major cities and almost every cyclist I saw was on some old half broken bicycle.
Once I hit a curb, went over the handlebars, and skinned up my hands/knees and my wrists hurt pretty bad for a week or so after. Another time I wiped out at the bottom of a hill, tore a huge gash in the side of my knee. Then there was the time I chipped a tooth on a curb when trying to ride no-handed.
In all the falls I experienced, none of them involved a head injury that a helmet would have prevented (the chipped tooth incident could have been prevented by wearing a mouth guard, or by not being stupid). So based on that, it feels like helmets are useless.
Of course, in reality there is a huge difference between a kid riding a bicycle at single-digit MPH on neighborhood streets and back-woods trails, vs. going 15 - 20 MPH on roads or paved trails. At those speeds, it would probably be impossible for me to break my fall using just hands and feet, not to mention the possibility of getting distracted hand running into a street sign or tree branch. Logically I'm aware of all this, but still I have trouble with maintaining proper helmet discipline.
analysis: https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/why-dont-americans-wear-hel...
A head injury that results from speed or post-strike collisions is still recorded as a "cyclist head injury" so I don't think your points change the numbers.
Please note, I'm not trying to argue against helmets. The point is that arguments over helmets deflect the conversation away from the people sailing around recklessly in two ton metal boxes. Every time there’s a collision involving a cyclist, the question is "was he wearing a helmet?", not, "was the driver paying attention?"
The safest places to bicycle are in the nations where there's the lowest rates of cyclists wearing helmets. This is a car problem, not a bicycle problem.
You can lock helmets with bikes if you want. I used to lock my helmet with my u-lock on my bike, so if they cut off the helmet, then it isn't a very useful helmet. I now bring it with me in my bag mostly for hygenic reasons although.
Expanded foam helmets are fragile by design. They are design to be disposable with even small knocks. So even accidentally banging them against your frame, dlock or solid post is a bad idea even if you can’t visibly see any damage.
You’re recommended to replace them at regular intervals also due to sweat damage.
Then again 3cm of expanded polystyrene foam vs a metal box with a engine in it... probably like a surfer forgetting to replace their “anti-shark bite” medallion anyway.
Very popular here in Sweden. A little easier to stuff in your bag.
"According to the Velofollies survey as well as other sources last year’s [2018] e-bike sales stood at slightly over a quarter million units; some 251,500 to be more precise. This accounts for a big 14.3 percent growth compared to the total of the year before. It makes electric bicycles by far the biggest category of the Belgian market with a market share that stands at close to 50 percent."
https://www.bike-eu.com/sales-trends/nieuws/2019/07/market-r...
Also, the style of bicycle is often different. Hybrid and town bikes are far less common the US than Europe. I suspect that an easy-step over, big tire, upright town bicycle is easier (and this safer) to use.
An acquaintance of mine was killed running into a slightly raised piece of ground that he didn’t see... wasn’t wearing a helmet and was thrown over his handlebars. Doctors say he would have walked away if he had been wearing a helmet.
There's also evidence that requiring helmets reduces cycling among the general population. Partially because it's an extra thing to buy/maintain, but it also creates more work for commuters - they have to redo their hair at the office.
Residents of Amsterdam don't seem to wear helmets at all, except for high-speed training rides/racing. And they seem to do ok like that.
1)Most cities suck at biking infrastructure, including Europe if you exclude the poster childs like Amsterdam or Copenhagen.
2)It's not wearing a helmet that reduces cycling throughout the population it's the lack of infrastructure. Helmet necessity is a direct effect of that not the cause.
3)You can't make helmets a requirement, it's up to you if you can live(pun not intended) with the consequences of an accident without a helmet or not.
No, it's easy to argue because cars inarguably cause way more deaths than bikes. So when people switch to cars from bikes, it's indirectly killing more people. Any measure that prevents bike use leads to more deaths.
There's potentially more damage from that, to society.
Mostly, I'm suggesting better bicycle infrastructure is one reason people may be less likely to wear helmets in Europe vs the US. And not making any claims about how safe a helmet in the US actually is or is not.
If you are shunted in the rear on the way to work in your car you might have a inconvenient morning and an insurance claim. If the same thing happens on your bike you could quite literally die from a head injury.
I skated for a long time and didn't wear a helmet because of comfort/looks. I've become a bit more wise since and won't share the road with cars without my helmet when I'm cycling
Bike helmets are designed for low speed crashes NOT involving vehicles.
Now I still wear one myself but I don’t fool myself that doing so brings me any protection from someone driving an SUV who thinks they’ll be late getting to a 24 supermarket if don’t just squeeze by me.
It’s like putting an oven glove on an egg and hitting it with a hammer.
A quick look a Strava’s stats will show you that even weak club cyclists like me, living somewhere pretty flattish, can already cruise about at over 20mph pretty easily.
Pedal assist ebikes just expand that ability to a wider number of people.
Just look at the number of people who regularly crash in amateur crit races.
We generally survive non-vehicle related crashes at these speeds pretty well and people on ebikes will too.
- Driver mergers in to me too soon
- Passenger or driver opens door in to my path
- Driver making turn cuts me off and I have to swerve or brake suddenly
- Driver does a right-hand hook across bike lane to make a right turn.
In almost all these cases I’m going to be crushed by a moving vehicle. A helmet won’t save me.
As for being rear ended... I’ve personally never felt like I had a “rear end” close call on a bike.
And with the boom of food delivery,mostly done by bike, the situation got a lot worse
Just two hours ago a guy working for glovo merged on the sidewalk while I was trying to cross on the zebra walks and almost hit me.
He was using one hand, wasn't looking, with the other hand was speaking at the phone and didn't stop at the red light
No need to specify they are not allowed on sidewalks, but who's gonna fine them?
It happens constantly, but bikers usually think that cars are to blame, when cars usually let me cross when the light is green, they usually stop at the red light and they usually don't ride on the sidewalk
Give people bikes that can go at 30km/h and you have the recipe for a disaster
We already have regular and e-mopeds but at least they are heavy regulated and need a mandatory insurance (at least in Italy)
That said, unless someone is already frail being hit by a bike is nothing like being hit by a car. I’ve had two red-light running bicyclists crash in to me (once while biking, once while skateboarding). I’ve also been in three separate cars that got rear-ended (none of those times was I driving). The level of pain is an order of magnitude different.
You're completely right!
Cars are engineered to reduce the damages of a direct impact.
Bikes are not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_safety_through_vehi...
Studies agree that the damages are mostly caused by speed
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24435732
E-bikes can go at very high speeds (30km/h is more than enough to be deadly) and can do it effortlessly, which means the even bikers that aren't expert can go at such high speeds, increasing the risk of hurting someone else or themselves.
Add to that the fact that a car can break or avoid obstacles in a much more efficient way than a bike could ever do (think about heavy breaking with a bike at 25 km/h under heavy rain on the pavet and then think about it on a car).
I'm not a supporter of cars, I've been car free for a few years now, but I don't think bikes are less dangerous for pedestrians.
There are simply less of them around.
> The level of pain is an order of magnitude different
The maximum level of pain I suffered was because of my bad teeth
I was in a very bad car accident (a tire detached from my car while driving on the highway and I lost control), the pain was a joke compared to that.
Pain is not a strong indicator of dangerous physical damage.
For example internal bleeding is usually painless.
>Add to that the fact that a car can break or avoid obstacles in a much more efficient way than a bike could ever do
That's obviously false. Just consider the stuff that BMX bikes can do in terms of maneuvering. Or even normal bikes. Try driving on a car through a busy pedestrian street. On a bike it's a piece of cake, and you won't have to stop even once.
First of all, it's all in the news, I'm not making things up
https://nypost.com/2019/08/31/nyc-bicyclists-are-killing-ped...
Or you can look at this, specifically the chapters "Cyclist Deaths and Impairment", "Cyclist Helmets Statistics" and "Staying Safe while Cycling"
https://bayareabicyclelaw.com/safety-laws/bike-stats/
and we don't have enough data (AKA it's not been collected until few years ago) to say that "it's barely even an issue"
Secondly, bikers most of all kill themselves.
"One in five people injured on Australian roads and paths is a cyclist, according to a new Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report"
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/injury/pedal-cyclist-injury-...
Is it because of the road conditions, the presence of cars or other vehicles?
Or is it because cyclists underestimate the risks?
According to the same study, motorcyclists only account for 2.7% of the hospitalizations.
They share the road with cars as well, they go faster than bikes on the same roads.
What could be different?
Could it be that the safety measures engineered in motorbikes and the safety measures motorbikers take to protect themselves are actually useful to reduce physical damages?
Even Netherlands has a big problem with bikers dying more than ever because of underestimating risks.
https://www.iamexpat.nl/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/death-toll-...
> That's obviously false. Just consider the stuff that BMX bikes can do in terms of maneuvering
An expert biker on a BMX you mean!
If I give a BMX to my mother, 71 years old, she couldn't even ride it.
It's like saying "now look what this rally pilot can do on terrain with their fine tuned 4wd monster car"
It's just that piloting multi-ton metal vehicles at bone-shattering velocities has been normalized. It's always been insane and deadly, but there was an actual concerted effort to normalize it and that worked. I'm not even joking. "Speed demons" were replaced by "Jay walkers" and people have been getting maimed and killed ever since.
"The Real Reason Jaywalking Is A Crime" (Adam Ruins Everything) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM
If you stop a moment and think carefully, they already do!
it's called airbag and it's been a required safety feature for more than a decade now...
Also, you really -want- to have a helmet on in a race car - you'll typically have an unpadded roll cage right by your head, and the FIA-approved padding for roll cages is designed to work well with helmets, not with heads. I used to dread long road sections on rallies as I knew that an accident would be a real mess if there was any contact with the cage. There's more room in a road car, and there's padding / airbags etc to cushion you from impact on hard structures.
I have a 1500w motor and share a road with semi trucks
Once you factor in all the variables, the helmet is only a small part of the equation, and probably not going to do you much good should you find yourself under the wheels of a semi-truck. Yet having that piece of styrofoam strapped to your head has given you the (possibly misplaced) confidence to go fast with semi-trucks.
Alternatively, if it's a modified bicycle, it's simply illegal on public roads.
Now I do wear a bike helmet when biking for other reasons, but I give trucks wide leeway.
0. Ivers R. Systematic reviews of bicycle helmet research. Inj Prev. 2007;13(3):190. doi:10.1136/ip.2007.015966 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598379/
By the way, helmets on bicyclists tend to make car drivers behave like even bigger jackholes than usual. https://psyarxiv.com/nxw2k "... public health research might be best served by shifting focus to risk elimination rather than harm mitigation."
EU vehicle category L1e, if you want to look up the exact word in your own language.
I don't think there are specific speed limits for bike lanes, or bikes, anywhere in the EU (but of course I could be wrong).
My 18 miles commute is 2 miles of sleepy suburban traffic and 16 miles on the SF Bay Trail (IOW: flat dirt track with no cars allowed.) Even if it were all dirt track, I'd still be wearing my helmet.
My big issues with motorized bicycles are lanes to ride and rules of the road. I see people riding them on sidewalks, in streets, and in bike lanes. It is almost like people on motorcycles who ride in the break down lane or lane split (both of which are illegal in Texas).
We already had/have a HUGE problem with the escooters, people getting run down by kids on the sidewalks and riding them in traffic downtown.
I am for this 100%, but please put down infrastructure and some sort of rules of the road and enforce it.
While the rented scooters downtown have been a mess during the roll out they have visibly reduced downtown auto traffic (much of which my hypothesis is was Lyft / Uber / Taxis).
Where are you suggesting that they ride?
Adding high-speed (i.e., greater than five mph) vehicles to that mix is a recipe for disaster.
This not only makes it easier to share the sidewalk with vehicles, it also improves the flow when there are a lot of foot commuters with different walking speeds.
I live in a city where pedestrians frequently share the sidewalk with both bicycles and electric mopeds. It works because people pay attention to what's going on around them and generally work together to try keep the traffic flowing smoothly.
I am not against dedicated roads for bikes (although depending on the city's density, they can just end up as a second sidewalk), but I also think it shouldn't be treated as a prerequisite for developing a bike culture.
If bicyclists want this mode of transportation to be taken seriously, they need to start self-policing in a major way. So far I'm seeing not even a hint of that.
How much of a huge problem is that that you have seen personally? I personally have found that everyone loves to complain about them, but I never find much evidence of people being run down by them (in what I've seen)
My wife drives for lyft and spends a considerable amount of time downtown and has almost had accidents with people riding escooters in the street, to the point we engaged our insurance agent and asked about liability (we were assured if hit in the middle of the road and not in a bike lane, crossing lane or sidewalk we would bee free of liability and she now has 3 cameras in her vehicle).
An last year at PAX south in downtown SA I was walking on the sidewalk and hearing people yelling to move because they were having all sorts of fun chasing each other and almost running people down.
So I am not complaining to complain. I assume you live in San Antonio and are downtown quite a bit? People leave them everywhere, they fall over in the streets, you cannot say you don't see this.
Hence the situation you end up with here: some go into the meager bike lanes, some feel more comfortable taking the lane, and some feel safer on protected walk lanes, aka sidewalks.
As far as I can tell the (by far) biggest issue is the perceived risk involved which boils down to mostly two things: infrastructure and adoption.
Better infrastructure demands you not to be as hardcore to start riding the bike — more adoption makes cycling more normal and therefore safer (motorists and pedestrians start to think more about cyclists, which means less dangerous situations occur).
How to get people to cycle is also something that you can figure out by places where this worked (e.g. the Netherlands, Denmark etc.) instead of trying to create new products to sell.
Ebikes will absolutely change that. Risk is a factor but not a hugely significant one (at least in Europe - possibly in America where you'd have to be a bit crazy to cycle on most roads).
The main barrier to ebikes being popular is their cost, and the perception of them being for lazy people.
Ebikes are cool for older people tho: I know a guy who has one and he told me, since he has it he hardly uses anything else. His incentive was to be able to cycle normally, but take the electric aid when there is a steep hill or when he gets tired.
I think this is a much more realistic use case: people who really want to cycle, but live in hilly areas, feel insecure about their energy managment or have long distances to cover.
The real lazy ones you descripe will take the subway, the train or the car if they can afford it. Because sitting in the wind and weather on a bicycle takes a little bit of motivation, regardless of electrification. Having the courage to drive through a big city plays a even bigger role, as I mentioned. This obviously depends on where you are — certain cities are a charm to cycle in, where others make you feel downright suicidal even as a live long cyclist.
In most cities there is no subway or train. And cars have significant downsides in cities even if you can afford them - you have to deal with traffic and parking, and you have to take the car with you - no one-way journeys.
Why do you think electric scooters are popular?
Are they really? Where I live the numbers dropped as soon as the summer ended and where I saw at least ten people a day I didn’t saw a single one in two weeks even when the weather was nice.
However the plural of annecdote is not data — do you happen to know any data on that?
The not-getting-hit-by-a-car argument is quite understandable to me: if you don't feel comfortable and feel like you lack the awareness needed to move safely on a bicycle taking it slow and easy is the rational thing to do (electric bikes won't help you with that).
I also get the weather-is-always-shitty-and-I-need-to-look-good argument (although this can be solved by having the appropriate rain-gear).
What I usually don't get (in the case of average health people without any blocking issues) is the sweaty thing: Energy wise cycling is more efficient than walking (unless you go at high speeds where air resistance very quickly starts to get a thing). If you don't go at top speed and feel confident with staying at your pace this should make you sweat less than walking there, even if you are physically untrained (queue pictures of the countless pensioners on bicycles).
And if you are physically untrained, cycling is perfect to improve your health, because it won't strain your joints and tendons as much as e.g. walking or running, unless (as mentioned) you get into an accident, but these are usually much more dangerous with electrified bikes, because it involves people going at speeds they can't handle.
My former argument was: the issue why people don't take the bicycle (in my experience) has less to do with sweat and much more with fear of traffic/accidents/weather. This obviously depends a lot on where you live, how "normal" it is to take the bike there and maybe even on the season.
I used to cycle (about a year) to my previous work, where there was a place I could take a shower afterwards. I arrived there absolutely soaked up, and so do most people.
Not all people e.g. can park their car in the shade, subways and busses can be more humid than the jungle etc. If you cycle very relaxed you shouldn’t sweat more than anybody else.
Sadly I think SF is a good special case where it works well most of the year:
1. City is pretty compact. It's not exactly 7mix7mi, but not far off either.
2. Weather is pretty good most of the year. (no ice/snow/freezing rain, etc) Yes you can cycle in fog. ;)
3. Speed limit is 20mph in residential, and 30mph on busier roads, but congestion generally makes the impossible. Bike lanes are normally free.
4. Bike lanes/paths/routes are expanding throughout the city. Including nicely protected routes.
5. Parking and Gas are expensive here. I was just in Texas and filled up a car for < $20. I can't remember when I did that last.
Sure it's a dream, and I wish the article would come true here. Imagine how cool it would be to have tons of bikes on the road and so many less cars/ICE zooming around? Ok, maybe I'm just not a car person. ;)
There are hiccups though:
1. Carrying groceries/etc. You can't get a shopping cart full and take it home.
2. Kids...getting them to school. Cargo bikes here are an option, but they need to be a certain age and I do worry about safety. :/
3. It does rain...and ridding in the rain sucks. Most parts of the US get it so much worse though, it feels hard to complain.
4. Commuting via bike to work does take time/effort. Carrying a change of clothes, showering, etc, etc.
I also use it regularly to carry groceries via saddle bags and find it to be much more convenient than fighting the parking lot at my local trader joes. Also, it is generally flat here so I don't find the need to shower and change clothes but then again, I bike to work in jeans and a t-shirt so maybe it would be different in a suit?
We don't necessarily need an one-size-fits-all solution to fix traffic emissions, it's fine if people in different cities end up doing different things.
If I was to own an e-bike, I would want to not have to worry about it getting stolen. Everything would have to be like e-bikes you rent. All the parts would need to be integrated and not easily removable (lights, seat, etc). I don't want to waste 5 minutes locking/unlocking my bike every time I want to stop somewhere and have to carry around my lights. I would also want GPS so I can track my bike if it gets stolen. Until I have I bike like that, I will continue to buy the cheapest crappiest bikes I can find or rent bikes because people suck.
It's really quite simple to make your bike a less attractive target for theft.
As a alternative to using a bike lock I just fold it up and bring it with me.
It’s still a heavy lump to carry any distance but it fits under a desk just great.
(Amusingly they now make an ebike Brompton too).
That's what the telescopic seatpost is for. "550mm but will extend up to 710mm so suits taller riders up to approximately 6'6" or 1.98m."[1]
Working on the saddle to handlebar drop is another thing. But the H-Type handlebar with the 60mm higher stem will likely solve that.
Of course you can bring your folded Brompton to a restaurant. Leave it in the wardrobe! :)
[1] https://www.brompton.com/brompton-swe/uk-store/parts/essenti...
There are some very clever e-bikes, and perhaps their prices are reasonable. But there are a lot of bikes which are standard models with an added Bosch motor on the crank and a battery clipped to the frame.
I use the building's freight lift and keep the cycle behind my desk. Work visitors INSIST on touching the handlebars whilst talking to me.
I wear hi-viz (ISO 20471 Class III) hardshell jacket/softshell jacket and cycle helmet. I have daylight blinkers at front and back of cycle. Also, Bring-Bring bell.
I get "Nice Bike" on the way in, and on the way out. Car appears to be moping.
But trying to convince people of that without putting them on an e-bike is kind of hard.
For that kind of money, you're buying a pretty solid scooter or a cheap car. Nevermind if you want a cargo bike or Bakfiets. Having the infrastructure / city planning to make this worthwhile is definitely an important second part. I'm not going to park a $4K bike just anywhere.
These bikes are available for rent nearly all of the time, except for when we close down a few streets for the spring fair. So, adoption isn't going to happen very fast in places where there is no appetite. We have cheap gas here and A/C in our cars.
No one is proposing e-bikes for 40+ mile commutes. That can only be replaced by commuter rail and in-fill housing.
Half of all car trips are less than 15 miles and a lot of those could be replaced with e-bikes.
Had I been on a e-bike/scooter/moped I would have certainly been badly injured and possibly killed.
Give me 3000 lbs of steel, multiple crumple zones, smart 3 point seatbelts, anti-lock brakes, traction control, active head restraints, forward-collision warning, automatic emergency braking, blind-spot warning and 23 airbags if I am traveling over 20mph. Especially if I've got family in the car.
It's my understanding that the toxins produced from mining the minerals for batteries, and recycling them isn't great for the environment.
I'm still interested in an e-bike though, or adding a motor to a bike for the days where everyone else's pollution causes an inversion, and I can't breathe too well.
Some people will need to sit while riding. Some people need to haul stuff. Some people may need to travel farther. Some people may prefer having weather-shielding. Future cities should allow for a range of micromobility options, not just one thing.
Especially in situations where there's a lot of traffic or when for safety purposes one needs to ride slowly (e.g., in a shared-use space where there are also pedestrians around, like a college campus or something), being able to bike slowly is really nice.
On a real bike, I can bike slowly just by gearing down and pedaling very slowly. But on an e-bike, any pedaling at all makes it zip forward. I find that, frankly, terrifying, like I'm about to plow into cars or objects all the time, or I'm just riding the brakes.
I switch to my steel frame street/mountain bike without power assist and it just feels like I’m riding a heavier bike (which it isn’t)
I've been on the fence about getting one, and normally ride a crappy hybrid bike to and from work every day, which an e-bike would be useful for. But I also do 40+ mile trips on weekends and am afraid that if the battery dies, I'll be lugging a heavy bike around and exerting extra effort compared to a bike without a battery.
What you should understand about these bikes is the power delivered by the motor, and the power needed to recharge batteries in a useful time frame, greatly exceeds the continuous power a human would normally exert on the pedals.
Note that I have fond memories of pedalling girls around on the back of my unassisted bike back in the day, so I might not be an average rider.
But there are also top of line electrified road bikes which are almost (almost!) like the road bikes they use in Tour de France but with an engine strapped onto them. They weigh about 11-13 kg and you'd have no trouble riding them without the assist. Of course those aren't cheap...
40 mile trips (60km?) are doable on e-bikes, but you'd have to conserve the battery. Like turning off the assist on flat terrain and only using it for riding uphill. Since you have a display indicating how much charge there's left you won't all of a sudden run out of power.
I did see an ad for some electric moped with removable batteries. You simply pull up to a gas station and swap your empties for charged ones, just like propane tanks. No waiting on a charger, but it would require total adoption like gasoline did for it to be practical.
Why not use both? E-bike for commuting and regular bike for fun? Or why not get a spare battery to carry on long rides just in case?
(Hmm, I can't reach their site at the moment.)
The geoorbital comes off in a jiffy and you can take it with you (e.g. when you have to lock you bike outside) but the Copenhagen is so stylish.
I'm personally using EUC to work in food delivery and I commute to and from area of work. I can make 130km a day with peak speed of 25mph. This is my between-programming-jobs endeavour. I also commuted 10miles one way to my office and it allowed me to skip traffic jams.
Even when I had my bike, I would never lock it out of sight. Cable lock or $200 U lock, they all fail.
You still have no real cargo capacity, you can't transport passengers, you are exposed to the elements, and more. While the power assist is of considerable benefit, it puts the price of the bike up immensely; many are the prices of a used motorcycle or scooter.
I feel its much better to get a 4 cycle scooter or motorcycle for that; if i'm spending 3k plus on a bike, getting one that can actually do traffic or be on roads is a plus. Yes there is licensing, but ebikes will fall under your states moped laws anyways and may require having an actual drivers license instead of a motorcycle endorsement.
I just went to the site where I do all my purchases, and that same bike is at the same price tag as an ebike of medium quality.
I reckon this country is a little particular when it comes to economics, but buying an ebike is far from cheap around here. Until that changes, the bulk of people will use just regular means of transport in this country.
Besides that, I do think that electric vehicles are the best way to move around for distances in the low miles.
They even have e-models..
Don't get me wrong, I bike every day there's no ice on the streets and really enjoy driving those Uber e-bikes too, but seriously: any mobilty solution that's aimed as a "revolution" can't go around people with disabilities, heavy rain, northern winters, multiple kids, 10km+ commuters, elderly people and transportation of more than 10kg of cargo.
If you're coming with cargo bicycles, you haven't tried parking one in an "already-convinced" city, also go read the above sentence again.
It feels like a "gotcha". "Aha! because I cannot do this, no one can!"
How much better would the lives of everyone else down there be with the reduced traffic?
Here are bikes for disabled people: https://www.vanraam.com/en-gb/advice-inspiration/news/bike-f...
Similar trike type bicycles have been used for ages by elderly & disabled people. In northern winters even with more than 10kg of cargo :)
6 million people drive a car every day in LA. The scale is huge. Getting some sliver of the pie off of fossil fuels and single occupant vehicles would make a huge dent in congestion and pollution, and make it easier for people with disabilities/kids/junk who need cars to move around the city.
I do suggest some bike handling skills and helmet for anyone who tries though: You're still on a bike fully exposed to the world. Only now you're doing 25mph down a trail beset by jaywalking peds and lane jumping cars.
Do some high speed stops / slick road training - learn how to handle bad situations. Ride safe and wave at us on manpowered models :)
come join our discussion at the ebike discord https://discord.gg/6fRvwSx
No, the bigger issue with front drive is that the front wheel has less weight over it (so significantly less traction) and that should it ever lose traction, you are more or less guaranteed to crash while the rear wheel slipping is perfectly recoverable. This is exacerbated since a human motor knows not to turn the power on going through a turn in the wet, but e-bike motors don't bring any such intelligence.
I converted an old trek steel frame touring bike and moved the conversion kit to a modern hardtail after a month of commuting. It didn’t feel safe.
That said what you want is a mid drive bafang bbshd. Dead simple conversion for any bike.
"Here Come the Electrics. Could E-Bikes Be the Electric Revolution Cities Need?"
You can also apply Betteridge's Law of Headlines to the real one easier :-)
That's nice as a sport but we are mostly talking about commuting here. The assist an e-bike gives you is nice if you don't want to sweat and have to go uphill.
Agreed on the second point.
We have waaaay too many overweight/obese people. And, as other comments point out, there would have to be a sacrifice in terms of automobiles for this to truly work. I find it highly doubtful that Americans would be willing to make that trade. Also, I think that if it came up there would be significant push back from groups you wouldn’t expect, like the disabled or union trade workers. This “bicycles will fill the gap” is a fantasy of Boujie urbanites and the aristocracy. We talk about how the middle/lower class feels a sense of generational wealth loss, a major push to move people to bicycles from cars would really drive(no pun intended) that message home.
And this is coming from someone who enjoys taking a bike instead of driving.
The biggest barriers to people in the US riding bikes more are having enough safe bicycling infrastructure to make trips feasible without having to go too far out of their way for a safe trip and having secure parking at their destination. These are solvable problems if we have the will to do so.
I admit I'm lucky, I live in Portland where we have a pretty good greenway network -- I encounter very few cars on my commute -- and I work at Oregon Health & Science University, so I get to park my bike at the largest bicycle parking lot in North America before I hop on the Portland Aerial Tram for the last leg of my commute. Plus I get a commute incentive of $1.50 every day I ride. OHSU does have unique incentives to limit employee driving -- the city limits how much employee parking we have, so spots are limited. Daily parking passes are expensive and sell out quickly; you can expect to wait at least seven years for a permanent parking pass. The bus takes 20-40 minutes longer than my bike ride depending on transfer connection timing. The e-bike is my best commute option, hands down. Even in the rain, it's far more enjoyable.
I'm actually on my second e-bike; my first one was my old bike converted with a GeoOrbital Wheel. That was great until it started malfunctioning, and it was the second time I sent it back to the company for service that I decided to invest in a new e-bike with a larger battery and more range. Now I not only commute by bike, I've acquired a cheap cargo trailer so I can do my grocery shopping, I ride it to therapy appointments, and I even rode it to a Trail Blazers game once (we have a set of secure BikeLink lockers at the Rose Quarter Transit Center, which I first used in the Bay Area and something Portland needs more of). Portland's climate means I can ride nearly year-round; I won't ride when the streets are icy but that's pretty rare around here.
I am really, really close to being car-free and my e-bike is the reason why. I recommend everyone try riding one at least once.
But back to my main point. I just don’t see Americans as a whole adopting bicycles. Able bodied people will routinely wait in line in for minutes in parking lots to park 100’ closer and wait in line(also for minutes) for the elevator to go up three floors. Not everyone is overweight/obese because they are unmotivated, you obviously aren’t, but I would wager based on my experiences that most Americans aren’t motivated(by much beside sloth), and I don’t see how an elected body is going to change our infrastructure enough to motivate people. AARP is a big lobby, and have 0 interest in cedeing roads or sidewalks to bicyclist.
Some of your arguments ring true for traditional bikes but I think they are less true for e-bikes. They're faster, so you don't need enough free time to bike everywhere, you need 20 minutes instead of 15, and it's often much easier to find parking. It's a lot easier to physically exert yourself to get to work when the bike reduces the amount of exertion. And a bike ride provides just as much, if not more, respite than driving a car -- you're not frustrated stuck in traffic and you get a nice endorphin rush.
The way to fix that is with a multi-faceted approach of engineering (protected bicycle facilities, dedicated bicycle signals at intersections), education (classes for both drivers and cyclists that focus on appropriate behavior around bicycles), enforcement (focused on those with the ability to do the most harm, which is to say car drivers), encouragement (bike to work week! December bike light giveaways! Financial incentives to meet or exceed those available to drivers or transit-takers), and equity (making all of these things available to all citizens, not just a privileged few).
The League of American Bicyclists has a nice write-up on the 6 Es, as it's called, https://bikeleague.org/content/5-es
>engineering
The US has so much infrastructure debt it’s crazy. Our bridges are falling apart, I don’t see bicycle infrastructure being a priority any time soon. The spice must flow and so semi-trucks must be made roads to drive on. Also a Billion dollars is chump change in California infrastructure terms. The upgraded eastern span of the bay bridge was 6.5 Billion, and required no land acquisition. I try not to think about the HSR boondoggle.
>education
I don’t see this being realistic at all. AARP will fight any sort of further drivers-ed, and the US already has very lax driving standards. Even in California people resent cyclists.
>enforcement
How does this mesh with (5)equitable? Being able to bike to work is super privileged. It means you have a job where arriving tired and sweaty is okay. It means you have time and energy to bike to and from work, the average US commute is something like 16 miles. It also means you are financially secure enough that you don’t need a backup place to sleep just in case, and you have adequate healthcare as biking is obsentsibly more (especially at fault) injury prone than driving. Enforcement primarily on cars would be a covert regressive income tax.
>equitable
How are we going to restructure the US to make biking equitable? Most of the wealth is concentrated in a dozen or so urban areas. Is the solution for middle class people to sell their house in the burbs so they can rent in the city so they can ride an ebike to work? such equity.
I think cars are fine, probably one of the greatest aspects of the modern human experience. I think all this “cars are horrible” talk is just edgy millennials who are now parents, worried about their out of control and highly distracted children. They’ve got their life in a situation that they can do without a car and as a result think that everyone else should do without too.
To say nothing of the costs car culture forces on individuals, the climate, the economy, etc.
Your "greatest aspect of the modern human experience" entails an enormous amount of human suffering too, you just choose not to see it or acknowledge it.
How many people die each year to get us high tech? I can’t find good numbers, but with all the mining and refining required(and done under lax/no labor/environmental laws) I’m sure it’s shocking. Fossil fuels(4.5M) kill far more people than cars(1.24M) globally[1] so lets shut off the lights too, while we’re at it.
I clearly do not see eye to eye with you at all about death(which I find to be (relative to you) really not that big of a deal, especially children), so I’d rather not go there.
[1] https://qz.com/568450/fossil-fuels-kill-more-people-every-ye...
An e-bike doesn't care if you're overweight or obese. It might reduce range a little bit... But it's not an impediment to riding. Additionally in Denmark one can see a lot of out-of-shape people riding manual (non-electric) bikes. Urban biking does not require athleticism, just as suburban driving does not require the skills of a NASCAR driver.
> there would have to be a sacrifice in terms of automobiles for this to truly work. I find it highly doubtful that Americans would be willing to make that trade
Cities that are investing in better non-automobile infrastructure are seeing people move to other modes of transportation. In many places there's literally no more room to expand highways. That's why voters in places like LA and Seattle are writing billion-dollar checks to build out sustainable transportation infrastructure.
> We talk about how the middle/lower class feels a sense of generational wealth loss, a major push to move people to bicycles from cars would really drive(no pun intended) that message home.
The average American pays about $800/month in auto-expenses. I think I spend an average of $20/month maintaining my bike. All that extra money can be used for whatever your interests might be... eating at interesting restaurants, travel, indulging in a hobby, paying down student loans, etc.
A big part of that $800 monthly cost is related to how cars are treated as status symbols. My monthly cost of ownership is closer to $100, all thing included, and I can travel to and from work at 70 mph comfortably in virtual any conditions. People are going to feel absolutely miserable biking to work at their minimum wage job in inclement weather.
Also
>Urban biking doesn’t require athleticism
While I agree in principle seems factually untrue in the US in my experience. The people I know who haven’t been hit by a car/bus on their bike skews strongly towards the fit crowd. You have to be fast, agile and alert to not get hit in the US, sadly.
I’m also going to call BS on the west coast actually getting anything done on the mass transit front, possibly Seattle, I’m less familiar with how things get done there, but in California a billion dollars doesn’t go very far at all in the construction biz, don’t forget that the Eastern span of the bay bridge cost $6.5B, took over a decade, and had 0 costs associated with land acquisition and zoning. The high speed rail project is proving to be also be an enormous boondoggle.
For fit people in good weather, 250 W is plenty enough. But not for overweight people or people with movement disabilities. The energy required for movement is proportional to the weight, so it makes a ton of difference if the rider weights 100 kg or only 70 kg. To ride in rain or snow you need sturdier tires which means that the frame and motor needs to be heavier further contributing to the weight.
This issue is solvable but legislation is way behind. If, or when, e-bikes running at 30 - 35 km/h with 750 W motors becomes street-legal, they would become usable by almost anyone. You'd easily do a 15 km commute without breaking a sweat. I know because I've owned a bike like that which I used to ride in the winter. I sold it and bought a regular bike because I realized that I got zero exercise from it. The e-bike was more like a moped than a bike.
>I sold it and bought a regular bike because I realized that I got zero exercise from it.
I don't know why you are asking for more powerful bikes and then complain about getting less exercise. You can turn on eco mode on most e-bikes and get partial assist.
> I don't know why you are asking for more powerful bikes and then complain about getting less exercise.
Powerful e-bikes are nothing for me, but would be very useful for the rest of the population.
Allowing for more powerful motors is fine, and up to 30km/h for top speed is fine, but I think instant acceleration should be the thing that's somewhat more limited than now.
"Dump legistration" is the way it is as increasing the power and speed limits with inadequate infrastructure can significantly increase risk for pedestrians and bike riders, likely more than risk posed by cars.
Most places already have adequate infrastructure for cars to be safe enough.
Infrastructure changes such as adding more ebike only lanes need to come first, and this will cost a lot and even infeasible without first reducing the number of car lanes. This will result in conflict of interest between car owners and people who want to introduce such infrastructure changes.
Conflict of interest can only be resolved by politics, and it will take a long time for politics to work out as changing people's perception generally takes a long time.
This is accurate. I really don’t see this sort of legislation taking off. Too many special interests would be against any sort of encroachment on the car infrastructure we have. AARP would definitely fight this, and so would the oil lobby. That by itself makes it an unlikely proposition in my view.
For fit people in good weather.
The second part is more important than the first. You do leave out convenience and more with regards to carrying goods that these cannot offer.
Of course, with higher top speeds you will probably want a windshield to protect the driver from bugs, debris, or precipitation. Hard to concentrate when you are getting hit in the face with stuff at 45 kph.
And really once the windshield is there, you should put a roof on too to provide better protection from the elements.
And a passenger seat or two. Maybe some storage. Maybe another wheel (or two) for better stability.
And then you have an e-car.