The E-bike Is a Monstrosity
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
E-bikes are fantastic for a ton of different uses. It’s not supposed to be a motorcycle and it’s explicitly not supposed to be exercise equipment.
I feel like the author just hates themselves and is trying to sound snide about e-bikes tbh.
I agree it doesn’t have the same aesthetic flair of a badass motorcycle or a Vespa, but that’s a lot of whining about it for someone who apparently doesn’t own either of those things and is mad that the e-bike they bought didn’t make them as cool as they had hoped.
Sadly I also know the type of people these points resonate with. I’m reminded of the sort of person who posts on r/books asking if audiobooks really count as reading, as they can’t decide what values should matter to them nor when.
His contempt of bikes in general on full display...
My ebike arrives on Tuesday and I’m getting my car ready to sell today. My car has now sat in my garage for 2+ years now with very little use since we already own another vehicle. I’ll use it to get around our Midwest city without showing up drenched in sweat a couple times a month while doing other things with the cash from my car. We’ll see how it works out.
Personally, I find that two Banjo Brothers grocery sacks on a normal bike is all I’m willing to carry.
https://www.radpowerbikes.com/collections/electric-cargo-uti...
Americans live in a world of subsidized petrol - a world that will come crashing down sooner or later. If gas is $10/gal maybe you won’t be so concerned about how cool you look with a battery on your bike frame.
All have a box under the seat and then boxes are usually bigger than what most bycicles have available.
I wonder which surfaces are we talking about when taking into consideration proper driving regulations.
I think GP was talking about "kick scooters", the ones on which you stand, whereas you're talking about "motorcycle scooters", the ones on which you sit.
I agree, the latter kind usually have much space, and can maybe even be modified to add a top case, etc.
The first ones, though, are an atrocity as far as I'm concerned. Very unstable, the small wheels need perfect pavement (I live in Paris, our streets haven't seen any maintenance since Roman times).
I don't think there is really much difference between an electric sit-down scooter and an e-bike except for ergonomics, except where you might get some weird looks - riding an ebike on a 35+mph road, vs riding a scooter on a dirt trail.
But still, google "radwagon 4" as an example of an e-cargo bike(this is what I have). It has way more capacity than a sit-down scooter. I put two (small) kids on it, and about 50 lbs of groceries, which I don't think one could do with a sit-down scooter.
https://www.piaggio.com/en_EN/piaggio-world/news-piaggio/pia...
From my point of view cargo bikes are the two wheel version of trucks/bus, and only suitable for transport inside of city traffic, whereas with the other ones they are as usable as any motorbike.
I've seen people ride these in bike lanes here in chicago even though law explicitly prohibits class 2 -3 bikes ( assist without pedaling). I've developed a real dislike for e-bikes based on how people have been riding those here.
he seems to not know what he’s talking about as well. he posits that bikes traveling 20-30mph will tempt riders to try and join traffic. who wants to tell him that that’s how fast human-powered bikes already go?
Maintaining 20-30 mph on even land takes enough effort, except perhaps on a road bike, that I doubt most commuters or utility cyclists regularly ride at those speeds for length, let alone in urban environments. A fit road cyclist will probably reach those speeds, of course, but I don't think that's what the author contrasted e-bikes with.
The article does seem perhaps a bit weird and the title is clickbaity but I can see how an e-bike at those speeds could be a bit of an inbetweener.
It's probably worth noting that if there's anything the article is probably quite right about, it's the relatively ambiguity of the entire concept of the e-bike. In many jurisdictions at least in Europe, e-bikes are legally limited in terms of powered speed (25 km/h where I live -- you can ride faster but the motor can't give power beyond that). In some jurisdictions they don't seem to be legally limited at all. There's a big difference between a bike that runs at normal commuter/utility bicycle speeds but helps you do that and what is essentially an electric moped.
Averaging 20 mph over non trivial distances puts you in elite territory. Most people can't sustain that, even experienced cyclists. Wind and climbing eats into sustainable speed even more.
Probably. I've never owned a road bike so I was leaving room for the possibility that I don't know everything. (I have ridden thousands of kilometres per year in most of the last ~15 years, mostly urban or suburban, and I have considered myself fairly fit for most of those years. But who am I to tell what other people reach on lighter equipment?)
Whether those in the higher category are e-bikes is a matter of definitions, not legality.
That is, again, at least where I live. Last time I took a glance, I got the impression there wasn't EU-wide consistent regulation on that.
In Europe, this means you need at least a helmet and approved gloves when riding the faster bikes. They're legally considered a form of "motorcycle", so have the requirements: license + registration + insurance. Although, in practice, for smaller bikes, basically everyone already has the license.
I join traffic (on single carriageways up to 60mph), as does my 6yo daughter, accompanied. If we didn't, we'd never get anywhere.
This idea that roads are for cars has to die. The guidance here in the UK has recently been adjusted to emphasise that you're responsible for the safety of vulnerable road users around you, but that's long been the letter of the law. Educating people (and police) to follow that law is still catching up.
I'e always seen driving as something I needed to do. I've never really minded it, but never really liked it either. On the other hand, I really, really love my bike. It takes me everywhere reasonably fast. I do not need an insurance. No paperwork. Low maintenance as well. Should I run out of battery, well, it's still a bike. I don't really have to think about parking either.
I won't make cycling my identity, but I really enjoy the sense of freedom that came with my bike.
That's just not a good controller. In other words: yes there are bikes like that but do your research before using it as an argument in what reads like a weird unfounded overly generalized crusade against a complete segment of transportation.
Counter argument, by means of anecodte just like the OP's: I have ridden quite a lot of different ebikes and speedpedelecs and the vast majority doesn't ride like this. In fact I have the impression often the controller is programmed to slowly ramp up, taking a while to reach full power. And of the ones that do have the tendency to behave like the OP's, there was only one on which is was annoying but not yet such that it would send me off course.
To align with the author, the assist levels allow safer travel on streets, you no longer slow below 10mph on a hill. I was already beating cars off the line on a bike, now I can start and even switch lanes before cars are barely moving.
And it is definitely exercise, and you can choose levels of assist if you want to make it easier. A stationary bike also makes exercise easier, I hope the author writes down those next /s.
1. We're supposed to sweat and "earn" our bicycling. I guess people who drive 4,000 pound vehicles around get a pass on this one. Oh, and fuck you if you've got bad knees or are elderly or need to go up steep hills, you'd better go buy a car or ride the bus.
2. E-bikes can go kind of mildly fast...just like bicycles. If you're in really good shape you can definitely ride a bicycle at faster speeds than your bog-standard bike share e-bikes, which are governed to 25mph of assistance and feel like a lead weight once you go over that speed. The male world record for unassisted flat bicycle speed is over 80 mph.
3. E-bikes are more expensive than regular bikes. Okay? I guess people driving around $35,000 cars get a pass here, too. I also Googled "best cheap e-bike" and I found quite a few models under the "minimum" $1000 that the author quotes. People spend almost $2,000 a year on gas, but somehow an e-bike is "expensive."
> Anytime you pedal with the motor engaged, it will push you forward more than you’ve pedaled. I thought I’d acclimate to it, but I still haven’t; especially when pedaling from a coast out of a turn, I forget the motor is in gear, and when it engages it sends me off course, flying into the curb (or worse, into traffic).
4. The author sucks at riding e-bikes. lol, I've never had any of these problems. Maybe the author bought a shitty e-bike. Maybe the author sucks at riding them. I don't know, I've never heard of this complaint from anyone. Since the author likes sweating so much, maybe just take a regular bike and leave the rest of us alone.
5. Bicycle and e-bike riders are blamed for traffic safety issues caused by cars and caused by bad city planning. Literal victim blaming.
Imagine if everyone rode e-bikes instead of single occupant personal vehicles. Most of us burn gallons and gallons of fossil fuel driving our empty F-150 trucks around 8 lane highways, blasting our A/C to drown out the effects of climate change that surround us. But e-bikes are the monstrosity, apparently.
I agree that ebikes are relatively new and they are clunky and heavy and imperfect. But they certainly also feel like a revolution.
I also have commuted with my regular, non-fancy bike. I have seen people riding slowly, but comfortably their dutch style bikes. It seems like a non-issue. You ride what fits you or what you have available.
People already do buy very expensive bikes that are without a motor. People buy different cars. Some buy expensive sports cars, some buy expensive luxury cars, some buy hybrids for their fuel economy, some buy whatever that was cheap and good enough. All sorts of people have all sorts of reasons to buy all sorts of things. Wether it is bikes or cars. I think if the author has those kind of problems with e-bikes he is not in a mindset to commute with a regular bike either.
I take my kid to school on my bike. I go shopping on it, including weekly food shopping. I commute on it, if I'm not working from home.
I have essentially no transport needs it can't meet (that can't also be met by a train). As such, my outlay of £1500, annual service of £50, and £2/month to charge the battery is.. incredible. No car can compare.
To live in a world where that is a choice is an epic privilege, and to not acknowledge it is fundamentally a better option than a car is, in my view, epic obtuseness.
Vehicles have symbolic value, like it or not. Cars denote freedom; commuter bikes imply, for better or worse, jerkitude or tweeness; motorcycles are cool; e-scooters are for douchebros. But e-bikes bear no clear character.
Even the sonic pleasures of motorized or nonmotorized two-wheelers are up for grabs. A motorcycle signals power (and maybe a caricature of outmoded masculinity) from its exhaust. But a bicycle makes no noise apart from the whir of its crankshaft and the chu-chunk of its derailleurs. My e-bike is pretty quiet, but the motor does whine at me when it engages. The battery, attached to the frame like a water bottle, also rattled like a jalopy before I strapped it fast to the down tube. At every moment, the e-bike reminds you that it’s not quite a bicycle, nor yet a motorbike.
A certain Fran Blanche shouts "Get a grip, dude" when reading out viewers' comments like this, shakes her head and moves on to the next one. "A motorcycle signals power [...] from its exhaust", and the exhaust is where these power-signalling exhaust-tuners can go together with their deafening noisy, dangerous and pollution-heavy vehicles. as can this crap article that is predicated on an almost completely unreflected, superficial report of the author's irrational and arbitrary value perceptions. Earned a [flagged] for the right reasons IMO.
The identity crisis is that they are electric motorcycles/mopeds pretending to be bicycles. Here's a good video on this by someone who has both an e-bike and a motorcycle.[1] He points out that for his commute in traffic, they get about the same performance. But on the motorcycle, he's more visible, has better protective gear, and has a lower center of gravity.
The difference between a class I e-bike (20mph, no helmet required) and an electric motorcycle capable of 45 MPH is a switch. The trouble is, e-bikes with motorcycle speed capabilities lack motorcycle safety features. They're under-braked, under-tired, have crap suspensions, don't have full lights and turn signals, and the rider is up too high, so accidents are worse.
There's a video of someone who put an e-bike motor hub in a small motorcycle frame, which got him something that's a better e-bike than most e-bikes, but is classified as a motorcycle. But low-end electric motorcycles have not caught on in the US. Bikers think they're uncool, and bicyclists think they're uncool. They're popular in parts of Asia. So, yes, there is an identity crisis.
I see e-bikes that can go 35 or so for $2500. Which is great! I just wish we could have that without the bullshit regulation that they need to be human-powerable.
It all comes down to bad regulations giving perverse incentives not to build a low-cost electric vehicle for short-distance personal urban travel. We have e-bikes or we have Fiats.
Also, this line is an attitude that is endemic in the bike-hating world:
> tempting riders into joining actual traffic.
Riders are actual traffic. I got shouted at once (in the UK!) for blocking "actual" traffic while I waited to turn right. "Get out of the traffic". Fuck you dude, I am the traffic. The alternative to me blocking you on a bike is not nobody blocking you - it's me blocking you in a car.
Admittedly without electric assist it would suck somewhat..
Probably this is more significant in places where the simple city bikes and casual commuters are in the minority and many/most bikers on the road are some kind of serious hobbyists.
Furthermore, with motor and battery tech as good as it is, it would be nice to take the concept of e-bike (get places efficiently with a small vehicle that keeps me from sweating) and move it one step up: Some kind of vehicle with sun protection, perhaps some stability (add a wheel or two) , even a windscreen! But now, that's a "car" and that needs to weigh 3500 lbs and withstand and F-15 crashing into it at Mach 1.5.
Cities that want to court a more European, renewable, Gen-z WFH mindset should be building controlled infrastructure for such styles of transit.
Other people I've never met: non-bicyclists writing 1500 words in the Atlantic about bicycles.
In the case of bicycles, people who aren't particularly interested in the subject won't be able to notice the difference between a $100 supermarket bike and a $10000 Tour de France bike (or however much that costs). Both bikes will simply register as "bike".
So if someone buys an expensive bike for the status, but only ever crosses paths with people not knowledgeable enough, no one will notice it's an expensive bike, so the bike won't be perceived as a status symbol.
Just the fact that people will get on a bike daily to commute to work or get groceries, likely doesn't make them care enough about the finer points of the discipline to notice "status tells".
utter asshole
But I'll at least give his premise one point: We're actually seeing two parallel surges in micromobolity, pedal-assist e-bikes, and electric mopeds. In NYC, we're seeing many folks on what are effectively electric motorcycles taking advantage of bike lanes.
I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time before I get nailed by one of these heavier beasts, and if their attitude is anything to judge by, it'll be a hit-and-run for sure.
You can ride with family or friends of all abilities.
You can get exercise while they cheat. They can keep up with you if you are faster, or vice versa. You're even with your spouse or kids in ability and excitement.
You can increase the assist to pass someone or for tricky uphill bits.
And if you went and explored and it's getting late, the bike will help get back to the car or back home even as your energy and patience wane.
I'm glad this is flagged accordingly.
For bonus points: every title by this author is clickbait [1]:
The only mode of transportation that needs to be discouraged from an activity-perspective is car travel.
No, it's not, at least not in an urban environment with traffic and red lights (assuming you don't run them). Cycling is a non-load-bearing exercise. Overweight people, having excess weight, would stand to benefit much more from having to support their excess bodyweight during exercise than sitting the whole time. And being non-load bearing, cycling does nothing for bone density, and if done to excess, actively harms it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230645/
Jump on a bike and ride three miles to get some Del Taco, no problem.
I had to get rid of my pickup a few years ago because I was riding my bike everywhere and it had too many problems from sitting. Without a bike I’d have just driven anywhere farther than the corner gas station and would have gotten zero exercise.
E-bikes seem to be quite popular around where I live. What's of more interest is the identity crisis that e-bikes have triggered in the author.
Would we design a two-wheeler from scratch, to be run by electric motors, we would just have a motorcycle again?
Ditch the bike chain and traditional propulsion. Make the pedal angle determine the speed of the e-motor and use hands for turning and brake.
Wouldn't this lead to you accelerating right after a bump, as your body first gets "propelled" up and then brought down again with gravity, making you shift your foot position?
I'd like to remind my fellow denizens of HN that pedalling being an option is a strength of ebikes, making them operable once batteries have discharged, and giving riders the opportunity to exercise on their equipment as well. The bike is an excellent piece of design and is going nowhere :)
Edit to answer hawski's question:
The author has properly identified many, probably even most, challenges facing us as we try to integrate ebikes into our societies. Some of these are fundamental contradictions in what we ask. They don't work like bicycles; they don't work like any other motorized vehicle. For both commercial and ecological reasons we would love for them to take on a larger role but this is unlikely until such contradictions are resolved, which also requires acknowledging them across a variety of domains (legal, technical, cultural).
As to the responses, I feel like people are jousting with some hypothetical version of themselves who they imagine would write this article, rather than what's actually written. Constant projection of the article saying some people will be concerned about X, to thinking the author is passing some judgement on ebikes due to X. Ian Bogost's for lack of a better word, schtick, for the past decade has been making a problem of what seems to be some kind of mundane ontological situation. That he's decided to turn his eye on ebikes this time says of his personal life only that he's recently gotten an ebike. (When it's about, like, shipping crates, HN eats this shit up despite it being equally indulgent!)
Edit again: You can even see the discussion recapitulating his points of contention as they're also mostly agreeing the article is bad. Total projection.