America Has an E-Bike Problem That Can’t Be Solved with More E-Bikes | Hacker News Reader

America Has an E-Bike Problem That Can’t Be Solved with More E-Bikes

vice.com

10 pointsharambae20 comments

I disagree with the issue being that eBikes are too fast for cyclist lanes. At least in Silicon Valley (long uninterrupted blocks), the main problem is that eBikes accelerate much faster than normal bikes, but a typical road biker cruises at 22-25 mph. This means some inconsiderate eBikes overtake regular bikes in the 100ft immediately after a stop, then block the bike lane for the next few minutes because they're capped below normal bike speed.

If they're going to have mandatory governors, they should govern the acceleration curve, not the top speed (that would solve the NYC problem), and/or bump the max speed to 25mph (solving the suburbs problem).

A cyclist is annoyed by being stuck behind slower traffic? I am amused.

I'd love the irony if they complain about the slower e-bike not moving over or maneuvering to the middle of the lane because "it's not safe to pass".

One of my biggest gripes about cycling in SF was shoaling[1] -- when slower riders pull in front of faster ones at a red light, only to be immediately passed when the light turns green.

One thing that Portland has (in some places) is two lane bike lanes [2], which makes it really easy ride at a comfortable pace and pass other riders when needed.

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/shoaling-ottawa-cbc-bi...

[2] https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5129863,-122.6609881,70m/dat...

It's rare for road cyclists to cruise at 22 mph. That takes a pretty high level of fitness. I do group road rides in Silicon Valley with some decently fast cyclists and getting stuck behind e-bikes just isn't an issue. Either they stay ahead of us, or we just pass them like any other slower bike. No problem.

Really? I’m cruise at 21mph on a touring bike, and regularly get passed by road bikes. (With stop lights I average 11mph.)

Group rides are a different scenario entirely.

This is a problem that would exist without ebikes since some cyclists are just much fitter and faster than others. It’s just becoming more exacerbated since there are more vehicles in the lane and a little more variation in speed. The ebike contribution to the problem is most relevant on uphill stretches naturally.

The solution is infrastructure.

I think so many of these issues can be solved by going on road diets and dedicating an entire car lane to bikes.

Use the carrot and the stick to incentivize a healthier mode of transportation.

> He says e-bikes have an “identity crisis” because they do not fit within any neatly defined buckets in American transportation and therefore don’t pass on any identity to their users.

> The article was widely panned on Twitter, mostly by the usual pro-bike, pro-active streets, anti-car constituency. To be clear, I am a member of that constituency;

What the hell is wrong with people. Is this really how people think?

I think some people like to build their identity by what brands of clothes/food/etc. they buy, what actions they take to "make the world better" in their eyes.

I don't know - I think identity is more how you interact with people on a social, talking level and not what you decide to trade in your simoleons for on payday.

What are you referring to? The “member of that constituency” type thinking?

If so, people definitely think that way, where “that way” just means holding a political viewpoint outside the standard left/right buckets.

The first part of the article is basically “I’m sorry, so sorry, that I’m about to say something online cosmopolitan types won’t like, please, I’m so sorry, I promise I don’t mean it like that, I’m sorry, I promise I am not saying that, did I mention that I’m sorry”.

This is what it’s like to share ideas under your real name in modern America.

> This is what it’s like to share ideas under your real name in modern America.

Pretty much all Tesla buyers, when complaining about their car, says "I love the car but". Even if you're anonymous, you need to pay lip service to your groups online, otherwise the online mob well... mobs you.

Its just the internet. In real life, we use subtle clues, like hair-cuts, styles, tattoos, clothing, to differentiate ourselves and indicate our viewpoints / set expectations.

Here on the internet, we only have words to set expectations. "I love the car but" says "I'm a fan of Tesla, don't hate me too badly".

"I like public transportation and live in a city but..." and other such indicators are just real-life emotions seeping into the discussion. As it should be. Its how humans act and its probably best if we accepted it rather than pretended we were unemotional, perfectly rational beings typing away on a keyboard over here.

People didn't used to be like this. There was more tolerance for people you didn't agree with.

Not really. Lived in the 90s in the US, people were even more tight-lipped because dissenting opinions on a lot of things were not even mentioned in the first place.

Remember when Obama had to stress that he didn't want to allow gay people to get married so he could be elected in 2008?

What? When?

The vi vs emacs flamewars were intense. I've seen literal death threats thrown out online over which assembly language to use, or PS2 vs XBox flamewars. Trolls, even back in the day, would try to trick people into clicking pornography on children video game forums.

People have always been assholes online.

------

Offline, casual racism and stereotypes rule. Which is why people focus so much on dress and mannerisms, so that your first impression is "correct", and you have a reasonable social interaction. How you talk, or stutter, or accents, or skin color, etc. etc. It matters more often than not.

It "shouldn't", but it does. These things seep into the online discussion space.

Here’s a list of people who probably disagree:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lynching_victims_in_...

There might have been more tolerance for racism and sexism and stuff, but not more tolerance for everyone.

In America the majority raises very formidable barriers to the liberty of opinion: within these barriers an author may write whatever he pleases, but he will repent it if he ever step beyond them. Not that he is exposed to the terrors of an auto-da-fe, but he is tormented by the slights and persecutions of daily obloquy. His political career is closed forever, since he has offended the only authority which is able to promote his success. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. Before he published his opinions he imagined that he held them in common with many others; but no sooner has he declared them openly than he is loudly censured by his overbearing opponents, whilst those who think without having the courage to speak, like him, abandon him in silence. He yields at length, oppressed by the daily efforts he has been making, and he subsides into silence, as if he was tormented by remorse for having spoken the truth.

-- De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, published in 1835.

Actually, what you’ve noticed is a symptom of the opposite case being far to prevalent in America.

Because it’s so common that utterly specious and biased critiques are plonked down and basically screamed out by individuals or groups with vested interests the public has become jaded. And on the internet it’s doubly so.

Due to those wolf criers, people have to go above and beyond to establish their credibility and motive to show they are worth taking seriously.

It makes a lot of sense given how things are

Reply on news.ycombinator.com