• prismaTK [any,use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    One the one hand, fuck the NYT’s smear campaign against e-bikes, but on the other hand, fuck e-bikes.

    The ease of pedaling is great, they get people riding bikes, and the acceleration capacity feels a lot safer in stop and go traffic, which is nice. Obviously in the presence of cagers I will defend e-bikes, because they’re better than cars, but I have a lot of issues with them if I’m talking with other cyclists. To do 20 on a real bike, you’re at least going to have the experience to to handle the bike at those speeds. Additionally, a road bike takes some space to get up to 20- you won’t be doing that on a sidewalk or an urban bike lane, which I have seen with e-bikes.

    Look up something like a Sur Ron and tell me you’d want to share a bike path (or god forbid a MUP) with a 12 year old on that 50 kilo electric motorcycle. They’re heavier, less maneuverable, and objectively more dangerous than a real bike.

    • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not really an argument against e-bikes though, it’s an argument for lowering the maximum speed they’re allowed to reach using assistance from the motor.

          • prismaTK [any,use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago
            1. these speed limits are easily circumvented and some bikes are designed to make that possible
            2. the acceleration of an e-bike is way higher, which means that riders can get going at very high speeds in tight spaces where regular bikers couldn’t.

            A better solution might be capping the power output of the rider and motor combined at something like 300W (ie a good sustained effort for a strong cyclist), and disabling power assist if the rider breaks that threshold.