Firstly, I find it pretty surprising that the author would want to remove the drivetrain. I frequently do 75km (47 miles) in a weekend on a single charge on my bike, and I imagine that a lot of that range is due to the power that I’m providing to the bike rather than relying entirely on the inbuilt motor. The ability to go far is central to the goal of replacing as many car journeys as possible with sustainable transport such as bikes. In addition, bikes provide decent exercise with relatively little effort, built into day to day. Cycling makes us healthier. Also, if you run out of battery then you’ll just have to push the bike, rather than cycle a bike roughly the weight of a city-share bike back home, which isn’t a particularly difficult task for most. I do however see the benefit of this type of bike for some who use bikes as an accessibility tool, although maybe in those cases a scooter with a seat would be more convenient since it’s smaller.
The second idea in the article which made me double-take is the idea of removing direct mechanical brakes from the bike. As somebody who commutes around a busy city on a daily basis, this had me wondering if the writer actually cycles in a city or not. As a bike commuter I need to deal with drivers who want to kill me, pedestrians who jump out from behind obstructions with no warning, and other cyclists are too indifferent to their surroundings that they’re likely to injure the both of us. I need to fully trust that when I squeeze that brake lever that my bike will come to a stop in the exact way that I intend. Including if the electricals fail for some reason.
Finally, not bike related, the writer demonises the idea of making specific streets bike and pedestrian only, banning cars, and even seems to dislike the idea of the 15 minute city, where you aren’t required to leave your local neighbourhood on a day to day basis. This might be coming from the perspective of living in American city where the car is king, but it seems incomprehensible to me that somebody wouldn’t want to have all of their daily necessities easily accessible by foot, and be able to bike, or scoot, or take public transport to pretty much anything else they could need within a 15 minute window. There are both social and economic benefits to this, as it increases neighbourliness as people get to know each other, and also moves away from a small number of big box shops to a much greater number of local green grocers, butchers, book shops, and so on. Reduction of emissions is another huge benefit of course.
Overall I agree with the article directionally but think it gets a few pretty important things wrong.