As the article points out, there is already high demand for e-bikes. So build appropriate infrastructure, and then add subsidies to speed adoption and reduce reliance on automobiles.
Electric cars can't be driven safely, but that hasn't stopped us subsidising them.
> Do they belong in streets, along with cars? No, the rider is at great risk.
Imagine subsidising a form of transport that only endangers the user themselves. That might subtract from vital pedestrian-killing funding.
How do these averages compare? If the ebike is a lot faster, then I would expect the differences to cause problems, since both are traveling in the same lanes.
On what grounds?
Since most collisions happen at junctions, I would think the biggest source of potential conflict would be differences in acceleration from a dead stop - but again that's a problem that exists in the same form (if anything, a more severe form) for ecars.
> Do they belong in streets, along with cars? No, the rider is at great risk.
You could equally ask do cars belong in the streets, along with pedestrians and regular cyclists? They put every other street user at great risk. Yet we subsidize new electric cars with up to $15,000. How many people die in car accidents every year? How many die from bicycles?
I intentionally say city area not city, so it's understood I mean certain districts like downtowns and CBDs. Suburbia is what it is, you need a car there at this stage.
To achieve this, take one lane from roads and streets with any number of lanes and dedicate it to bikes with a buffer between it and the car lanes. Two lane roads and streets would become one way.
I disagree with that part. Most e-bikes are speed limited to 20mph, a speed plenty of unassisted bikes can achieve if the rider feels like it, and plenty do. Bike lanes already have a variation in speed.