The thing that excites me most about e-bikes is that they change the politics around cycling. Proponents of efforts to make roads safer for cyclists have always gotten pushback from people who think that cycling is a niche hobby of rich lycra-clad yuppies.
With e-bikes becoming more common, I know a number of people who would not have touched a bike share but are using it as a replacement for Uber/Lyft rides. People can cycle in to work without breaking a sweat.
It's a bummer that so much legislation aimed at reducing emissions subtly encourages the use of cars without throwing any bones to people who would like to ride bikes, electric or not.
> Proponents of efforts to make roads safer for cyclists have always gotten pushback from people who think that cycling is a niche hobby of rich lycra-clad yuppies.
Which I think is misguided pushback btw (which I think you agree with based on the context).
I see it as a chicken and egg thing. The roads are unsafe for bikers, so the only people who bike are those who are super dedicated to it. Then when people ask for the roads to be safer, it gets pushed back as "only biking enthusiasts use the roads now".
Safer roads means more people will bike, which means biking will stop being seen as an elitist thing.
Edit: to add on, bikes are like 1-2 orders of magnitude cheaper than cars too, both in upfront and ongoing costs also. It’s super unfortunate that it still gets the stereotype as a “rich white people” activity when it’s really so much more financially accessible than a car.
> It’s super unfortunate that it still gets the stereotype as a “rich white people” activity when it’s really so much more financially accessible than a car.
It's true that a bicycle is itself cheaper than a car, but housing within biking distance to job centers sure isn't. In my view this is the primary reason bicycle commuters are stereotypically rich folks. The bicycle itself isn't the expensive part; you need proximity, extra commute time, and infrastructure. That stuff just isn't accessible to many people.
> Edit: to add on, bikes are like 1-2 orders of magnitude cheaper than cars too, both in upfront and ongoing costs also. It’s super unfortunate that it still gets the stereotype as a “rich white people” activity when it’s really so much more financially accessible than a car.
The thought that biking is only for the rich is especially galling when I hear it said about NYC cyclists. The person saying this is thinking of the lycra'd-up dentist riding a Pinarello Dogma. The Manhattan Bridge had 180,000 bike trips on it this June. Williamsburg had 230,000.[1] Cycling is much more prevalent than non-cyclers think.
Throw into this confusion a badly implemented public transportation system that you find in most US cities.
Public transportation and city bike rental systems should be free to ride. We all pay taxes to keep roads maintained, we should all pay taxes to keep public transportation maintained.
Not charging would help busses keep their schedules with less queuing and waiting, tourists would be less likely to rent a car, and it could help that chicken and egg problem.
The problem with charging people with riding public transportation is you are taxing the very people we should be rewarding. The people who are committing to taking up less space on the road and living with a smaller carbon footprint are being penalized for their hugely beneficial decision to society not to drive.
Making public transportation better and free are the two
things that can transform a city and make it more equitable.
Poor people would have more money and more places available to spend it. Every city benefits from its people having more money to spend and more places to spend it.
> The roads are unsafe for bikers, so the only people who bike are those who are super dedicated to it. Then when people ask for the roads to be safer, it gets pushed back as "only biking enthusiasts use the roads now".
Yup. Bit like how it's hard to argue for building a bridge by the number of people swimming across the river.
> Edit: to add on, bikes are like 1-2 orders of magnitude cheaper than cars too, both in upfront and ongoing costs also. It’s super unfortunate that it still gets the stereotype as a “rich white people” activity when it’s really so much more financially accessible than a car.
Here’s a theory: road cycling is more available to those who live reasonably close to work and have time to spare, and that is relatively rich people. Poorer people literally cannot afford not to have a car because they have to travel long distances to work, and their areas are not well served by public transport.
You have a point, but the Lance Armstrong wannabes make everyone miserable. In my area, they “took over” a popular bike trail and now kids and more casual people are pushed aside.
> Safer roads means more people will bike, which means biking will stop being seen as an elitist thing.
I don't think it is just safety. Most people understand an e-bike is going to be more dangerous, but they are popular anyways.
The other factor is distance. e-bikes increase the distance that can be covered by a significant amount, which changes a lot of commutes from "too far" to acceptable. The only people who can afford to be within a bike commute are at least above-average income-wise.
Along similar lines, I think the fact that many cities aren't particularly bike-safe causes (some) cyclists to behave more assertively to the annoyance of motorists. This adversarial relationship hinders potential political cooperation. Admittedly, when I'm driving my car or riding my bike, I often find myself getting mad at people for doing things I know I also do when riding my bike or driving my car.
I rode a bike to school when my limited money would buy a very bad car or a nice bike. So I opted for the bike and had to ride it because that's all I had. I did that for a couple of years - even in the cold and ice. My commute distance varied in my biking days, from 6 to 20 miles.
I always obeyed all the traffic laws, though occasionally in the early AM I'd find lights that would not turn green for a bike no matter what I did.
I had people scream at me to get off the road, and otherwise be exceptionally rude. I occasionally had bike lanes and appreciated them, sought them out because it provided better spacing. But the busses on those routes were frequently in the bike lane and were, frankly, slower than I was. But navigating them was always a pain until I got well past them.
On slower roads (20-25 mph) with no bike lane I would take a lane to myself and keep up with traffic but only when I could reasonably keep up.
In the end, safety won out, and I abandoned the practice.
Now, as a driver, I am appalled at the behavior of cyclists. With my experience I take interest in and carefully watch their behavior.
Running red lights and not stopping for stop signs is the worst. And it's pretty universal.
Bad spacing in the lane, little to no accommodation for drivers when they could provide a bit more space for a comfortable pass. Sometimes they can't help it, and I get it, but when they can and don't... I always tried to be crystal clear about my messaging to the cars around me. I'm taking the lane here for my safety because there are parked cars in the bike lane or otherwise on the shoulder. I'm done now and look, I'm providing lots of space for everyone to safely pass me.
So the rude behavior I encountered was finally somewhat understood.
I really appreciated having good bike lanes. But cyclists do themselves no favors in how they conduct themselves, which will hurt them when pining for better road accommodations.
Even the cost factor is complicated. Everyone factors in the cost per mile of the bike, which is excellent, but the input calories are non-trivial and if you're not running the numbers on just ramen noodles it turns into quite a significant financial cost.
In Sydney they have been adding cycle lanes to a lot of roads. I don’t bike because Sydney drivers are terrible. But it’s a real half measure. They need to aggressively push out drivers I think.
I think the issue goes further than that into being a societal problem.
Majority of America is overweight, staring down at their phones day and night, and dread physical activity. They also like to flex their position and wealth to others, one of the reasons why pickup trucks and big SUVs sell in great numbers. These people are in no hurry to transition to riding bikes.
The only way biking might work is if some popular celebrities on social media or otherwise started doing it, since many Americans just like to imitate what's popular.
That has not been my observation, except for kids and people delivering food.
Consider there may be a dignity issue: If you are a lycra-clad yuppy, you're cycling because you want to. If you're poor, it looks like you can't afford a car.
Given that breakthrough is significantly more expensive e-bike, owners being too rich was unlikely to be the real issue. If more expensive tool fixes social problem, the people were more likely to be offputted by poor.
It cuts both ways. I am lucky enough to live in an area with an EXTENSIVE system of mixed-use trails for bikes and pedestrians. I worry that e-bikes, which are potentially much less pedestrian-friendly, will lead to a pushback against bikes being used on these trials at all.
Mixed-use paths are an extremely bad idea and dangerous for everybody. I actively avoid them as a pedestrian and as a cyclist. They should all disappear. If ebikes help to accelerate the inevitable dismissal of these stupid mixed-use lanes, so good!
A bike-friendly infrastructure is based on three separate networks, for pedestrians, cycles and cars. Each of the three networks must be continuous, reasonably complete and able to stand on its own.
We're in a weird situation now where I think most people riding e-bikes are doing so illegally on trails and paths. It's not being enforced yet where I live and I fear the push-back when someone inevitably gets hurt.
This is a real problem. IMO, the issue really is that ebikes are too good/too flexible. They are fast enough to get you to work quickly and more comfortably mix with city traffic. The flipside is that they're too fast to mix with pedestrian traffic. If there were some way of limiting speed on mixed use paths, e-bikes would be perfect.
> Proponents of efforts to make roads safer for cyclists have always gotten pushback from people who think that cycling is a niche hobby of rich lycra-clad yuppies.
Here in New York City, people delivering food, packages, etc are one of the major biking contingents, I guess invisible to the Hacker News community.
Sadly, here in New York City, kids can't ride bikes around for fun except once or twice a year when they close Park Avenue or if you get an open street. I don't see why kids riding casually shouldn't be a major interest of the population. If the streets aren't safe for them, maybe change the streets and disallow cars instead of depriving kids of that space.
Isn’t LA extremely sparse to the extent that cycling is a lot of effort because of long distances? I suppose e-bikes help but don’t you still lose a lot of the advantages—less time at the start and end of journeys and less distance from parking areas—to the increased travel time from large distances?
> Proponents of efforts to make roads safer for cyclists have always gotten pushback from people who think that cycling is a niche hobby of rich lycra-clad yuppies.
I'm a daily cyclist (18-20 miles round trip for work) and I don't know which one annoys me more: the lycra yuppie who wants to race me, or the e-bike Patagonia vest financebro yuppie who salmons[1] me while screaming through his AirPods :-)
While I agree with e-bikes being a generally good thing, I also think they involve a lot of secondary consequences and we still need to figure out the best solutions. For example, having more e-bikes on the already overcrowded bike path near where I live is becoming a disaster. There had already been enough problems with mismatched speeds, impatience on all sides, etc. There had even been fatalities. Adding e-bikes makes all of that even worse. While I have little love for the "rich lycra-clad yuppies" (there really are plenty of them) who are mostly just horrified by the idea of their hobby becoming more inclusive, I kind of agree with them that the path can't safely support yet another (faster, heavier) type of conveyance. I wouldn't want horses on the path for the same reason.
There's a complementary issue with e-bikes on roads. There's still going to be a speed mismatch, with e-bikes in the middle this time instead of the high end. Bike lanes are going to become more dangerous, traffic-light timings will have to change, etc. Where are the e-bikes going to be parked or stored while not in use? On my now-ended visits to Seattle I saw these problems already manifesting, and they're likely to become even worse as e-bikes continue to become more popular.
In the long term, maybe the "changed politics" will lead to improved infrastructure that supports all classes of users including e-bikes. In the short term, it's likely to be a free-for-all like I used to see in Bangalore with all the tuk-tuks and scooters mixed in with cars and trucks and buses. Not looking forward to it.
this is exactly the politics around cycling that need to change. cyclists have been asking for better infrastructure for decades, and been told to go play in traffic because we're a weird niche interest group who can be ignored.
we need better infrastructure for non-car transportation. the short-term hell is simply more people experiencing what most cyclists are already used to.
I'm a bit of a "rich lycra-clad yuppy" myself, and occasionally ride with other such cyclists. I've literally never heard anyone express horror at the idea of their hobby becoming more inclusive.
Mostly e-bike riders are just ignored. Like they don't affect us in any way and we barely even notice that they exist.
I love mine, I think it opens up some opportunities to work on relations with cars and pedestrians. I feel less in the way when I can maintain a better speed up hill. and on trails it's not a burden to slow down when passing pedestrians on foot. Nothing is worse than a bike whizzing by when you don't expect it. I just wish they'd remove those stupid speed limiters.
Those speed limiters are indeed stupid, especially because on a 'regular' bike you can fairly easily outrun a normal e-bike (though probably not for as long unless you are in very good shape). Normal ones should be limited at 35 or so and speed-pedelecs at 50 Kph so you don't end up holding up other traffic. Where I live a speed-pedelec has to be in traffic but it isn't allowed to go as fast as that traffic, which creates all kinds of dangers.
> people who think that cycling is a niche hobby of rich lycra-clad yuppies
I don’t know who “those people” are, or what regional politics are at play, but that doesn’t pass my “smell test”. How about deploying “think about the children” here for something that increases exercise and happiness, mobility, fosters growth… it’s not even contentious with respect to (e.g.) civil liberties.
I suspect the answer is people just don’t care. Especially once they’re behind the wheel of an automobile, electric or otherwise.
Keep in mind that most cyclists are also drivers, and in the latter role many of them also don't seem to care. These debates often sound like we're talking about two disjoint groups of people, with one having a grievance against the other, but in reality they're just different transport modalities that people switch between.
Where I'm at there is a major project to overhaul a road, let's call it "Broadway", with conservation drainage, walkability(like 10ft wide sidewalks), medians, trees, and bike paths.
The project kept getting derailed due to bicycle special interests having a literal fit because a section of the road was too narrow to have the walkable sidewalks(priority number 1), the cycle lanes with adequate safety, and not congest the rest of the road. A consulting company made recommendations based on traffic simulations and the requirements to have the bicycle route go off onto a parallel side street through this section.
Oh man, what a shit show it turned into. But most of the pushback against what the cyclist special interests wanted(lanes through this section, fuck everything else) had to do with the practicalities of balancing the requirements. Not the meme arguments people who hate cars often throw out as scarecrows.
“Think of the children” usually only works when the idea is that children could be violently harmed by something, and thus only works when deployed in cases where freedom is being restricted. It’s not a good faith argument that can be “use your enemy’s force against them”-ed for other causes.
I think people should start pushing for cycling infrastructure on fiscal responsibility grounds. A good cycle path system is an extremely cheap way to provide mobility options to a city, all considered.
>People can cycle in to work without breaking a sweat.
This is a big one for me. Cycling into work doesn't take too much time (30 minutes), and it's good to be active. But showering at work you often need to wait, you need to bring all your clean clothes with you, and after going back you need to shower again.
It just costs too much time to cycle because of the sweating.
With e-Bikes I'm able to cycle into work slightly faster (saving a few minutes when going up hill) and I'm still fresh when I arrive.
Sure it's not as sporty, but it's something, especially compared to driving.
> Proponents of efforts to make roads safer for cyclists have always gotten pushback from people who think that cycling is a niche hobby of rich lycra-clad yuppies.
i've seen this pushback come from two camps. 1) people with cars who get pissed when street parking or automobile lanes get turned into bike lanes (i prefer bike lanes, but i can at least understand this.) 2) professional users of the roads who saw early construction of bicycle infrastructure as something that would attract more cyclists and therefore make their jobs harder/riskier.
i feel like construction of bike infrastructure in many us cities is something that really blossomed in the late 00s/early 10s when urban cyclists were often more ragtag jorts with tattoos than "lycra-clad yuppies."
I support the efforts to make cities more friendly to cyclist traffic but the increased popularity of both ebikes and electric scooters in downtown areas has made life as a pedestrian and a motorist stressful, especially around closing time. All the things that annoy me about cyclists (running stop signs when driving in the street and driving on the sidewalk are my two biggest annoyances) have gotten worse.
Cycling advocates like to talk about sharing the road but I've yet to see any sort of acknowledgement that there's plenty of bad behavior on the part of cyclists that needs some curbing as well.
That's generally because of terrible infrastructure. Lanes designed for cars are everywhere. Most cities, sidewalks are just about everywhere.
What percentage of streets have physically separated lanes for biking, the way we have them for walking?
Bikes don't fit well with pedestrians or cars, and painted bike lanes are a joke -- imagine if you replaced every sidewalk with "painted walk lanes".
In places where there is good infrastructure, like the Netherlands, cyclist reputations for behaving badly are basically no different from pedestrian or motorist reputations.
For what it's worth, in the state I live in it is legal for bike riders to treat stop signs as yield signs. It started in Idaho in the 80s and has been adopted by a growing number of states since then.
It's also legal in my state to ride bikes on the sidewalk. That doesn't cause much of a problem for pedestrians because unfortunately there are few bike riders or pedestrians.
I only mention this to make people aware that what's legal depends on where they live.
As much as I appreciate the freedom e-bikes provide to people who wouldn't otherwise venture outside, without proper cycling infrastructure, e-bikes are quickly becoming a serious hazard to pedestrians. As a long-time runner who is usually struck by at least one cyclist on the sidewalk per year, e-bikes are in a completely different class. The other day, a kid on an e-bike was careening down a bridge while my kids and I were running up. I'm a decent judge of speed, and the cyclist was definitely going over 40 km/h with dog walkers and other children nearby. I didn't do the math, but that's a great deal of kinetic energy to transfer to a pedestrian (I assume e-bikes are heavier, and most cyclists going that fast are dedicated cyclists on the road). I caught up to another e-bike at a stop light and asked him why he wasn't on the road, "Too dangerous," was his answer - sadly typical. A non-trivial number of cyclists are adopting the "Uber" mindset - break the law until laws or infrastructure changes, but with complete disregard for fellow citizens in the meantime. I've expressed my concerns several times on local biking forums (when a "cycling on the sidewalk doesn't hurt anyone" message is raised)- it's usually met with ridicule, anger and disbelief, but I experience it practically every day.
I find it odd that stop sign is a go to complain about cyclists, given that those do nothing for bike. And I say that as someone who drives car way more often as bike. Cyclist ignoring stop sign is not an issue at all, stop signs exists because of cars.
The red light, yes, that is valid complain. But stop sign, meh.
But also, pretty much any transport mode features people with bed behavior: cars, pedestrians, roller skaters. Those people are not even that much demographically different, unless the transport ends up tied to politics.
Maybe because it's because within the three groups (cyclists, drivers, pedestrians), cyclists are the only ones who haven't got their own infrastructure.
If cyclists had 90% of the road, and cars were forced to share the remaining 10% with pedestrians, everyone would be complaining (with reason) that's it's incredibly dangerous
I cycle to work now on an ebike and it's awesome. Just need to dress warm when it's cold. One catch is there's an obvious range limitation. If it takes longer than other forms of transport, people are going to choose the other forms of transport. On the other hand, as congestion in a particular area increases, that equation shifts in favour of ebikes, meaning they can be considered organic efficiency regulators of the transport system.
Another catch is safety. Forcing bikes to share the road is dangerous. Cities really need bike lanes.
> The thing that excites me most about e-bikes is that they change the politics around cycling. Proponents of efforts to make roads safer for cyclists have always gotten pushback from people who think that cycling is a niche hobby of rich lycra-clad yuppies.
Is this even a thing outside of USA? Nobody thinks that where I live, and it's not a particularly bike-friendly country like Netherlands, just average EU country.
My wife and I experienced eBiking around downtown Chicago (Divvy's eBike), and it literally re-ignited my love for biking, I really recommend it if you're visiting Chicago! The bike path next to the lake is beautiful & so fun! I think we biked about 15+ miles without breaking a sweat. We did it multiple times in the summer.
I live across the border in Indiana, and have wanted to bike on the beach/dunes/trails for years. I just bought a Specialized Fatboy with a BBSHD motor, can't wait to get back out there.
I like that e-bikes are getting more people on two-wheeled transportation.
I dislike that people are effectively riding motorcycles on dedicated bike paths.
I especially dislike that companies get to profit from cluttering public spaces with bicycle and scooter litter.
My hope is that long-term we get the e-bikes into the street where they belong and combine that with traffic calming measures to make scooter commuting feasible from a safety perspective.
> I especially dislike that companies get to profit from cluttering public spaces with bicycle and scooter litter.
Then you must hate on-street parking and parking lots.
I think the speed and power limits of ebikes are actually pretty reasonable. A fit cyclist can go faster on the flats, and I don't just mean a pro, anybody young and healthy who cycles a few times a week should be able to manage it.
Bikes should have their own transport spaces, not sharing with cars. Cars should be limited access from many areas. And pedestrians should be as mindful of bikes as they are of cars.
> Then you must hate on-street parking and parking lots.
Here in Seattle we actually reclaimed on-street parking for dedicated bike-share parking because people park them so inconsiderately. Like sideways blocking entire bike paths and sidewalks.
If you are in a wheelchair you can forget about curb ramps, they’re blocked by bike shares.
Parking lots are dedicated for that purpose. And in here, if you park the car on the sidewalk, you get ticket. Shared e-scooters are regularly parked in the middle of the sidewalk, making it impossible to go around with stroller.
But to those companies credit, they do have at least token process of punishing bad parking.
As long as they're speed-limited to conventional biking speed I don't think this is much of a problem. E-bikes have similar mass to normal bikes so the forces are basically the same.
They aren't limited to conventional biking speed. The rental bikes are close but they're still significantly faster than any human-powered vehicle on the bike path.
A buddy of mine bought a Super73 which has speed limiting modes but operates purely on the honor system. In the "unlimited" mode it can do 28mph, without pedaling. In the "limited" mode it can still do 20, which is faster than most people are capable of for any extended period of time without a power assist.
A Super 73 weighs 73lbs. That's double a regular bike. Moving at 2-4x the speed. Sure the rider is more than that but e-bike numbers are a lot closer to mopeds than bicycles.
> cluttering public spaces with bicycle and scooter litter.
I think this is a disingenuous description of "provide a valuable service that many people appreciate".
I also don't see why speed-limited e-bikes shouldn't be on bike paths, unless you're living in an area where they are unthrottled or have a ridiculously high limit.
Here in Seattle people park them inconsiderately. Like block the entire path with the bike sideways inconsiderately.
They’re a nuisance. The city actually marked off some specific parking areas and is asking the ride share companies to require drop off in those areas. It got that bad.
I regularly see bike shares and scooter shares blocking curb ramps in crosswalks. Good luck to anyone in a wheelchair.
E-bikes might provide some value but proponents and users are ignoring the negative externalities to existing cyclists and pedestrians.
It will get better but we need to educate people on how to use these things responsibly.
How do you think people under the age of 16 should get around? For some examples, if they want to go to a friend's house a mile or two away, or from their home to a train station, or to the supermarket.
That's ass-backwards. If you can't drive safely around children then you shouldn't be licensed to operate a 3-tonne death machine in residential areas.
I'm not sure I agree to an outright ban, but some sort of required training before using electrical vehicles (in general, not just on roads) would be a good idea. As others say these are effectively low power motorcycles, not bicycles.
Last week in my city an electric scooter pulled out of a junction - where the light was red - in front of a bus. The bus performed an emergency stop, causing minor injuries that required hospitalization to a number of people onboard. The scooter just continued without stopping. Police are trying to track down the driver, but it seems pretty much impossible (it was privately owned, not rented from an app).
I've also seen countless accidents from people driving at 25km/h across pedestrian crossings, and the car not seeing them before it's too late. Here you are supposed to dismount from vehicles and walk across, but most people do not.
Near my office there is a junction where you can turn left - crossing a lane coming in the other direction - and go up a hill, at the same time the light is green for pedestrians to cross, and cars are supposed to give way. If a scooter is coming along the pavement at full speed, in the same direction as you are travelling before you turned, there is no way you will see it until it's right in front of you and it's too late to stop.
I just built one with recycled laptop batteries... super fun to ride. It was a shit ton of work to do the batteries right, but I learned so much. Endless-Sphere is where my build thread is...
My bike is 2004 Specialized mountain bike. Bought the motor from ebay and just bolted it on. The battery lives in a home sewn bag I made which I velcro strapped to the frame. I have gone about 35mph on it. Do not recommend super high speeds unless you are a capable bike rider.
It looks like a mad max experiment. I just wanted to ride the thing and wire management is def an afterthought. I do not ride anywhere I can't take it inside with me even though I only have about $500 into it. Too much work to risk theft.
So much fun to ride. Peeling out in dirt is thrilling on bicycle.
I've been thinking about doing the same thing but am worried it will explode on me. Are there any tips you have for starting out or mistakes to be sure to avoid?
I was hoping to use this as a project to learn electricity with and it sounds like you did something similar.
This is exactly what I did. I wanted to learn DC circuits and battery technology and I did that in spades.
Batteries are really simple, just need to respect them. If you are going to use recycled batteries, I suggest you buy a Opus c3400 tester. Run them through a complete charge/discharge cycle to identify capacity and bad cells. If they get hot, take them out and properly recycle them at Autozone. Otherwise, write down the capacity on the cell.
You can use repakr once you have 100 cells or so. I went with a 13s6p configuration for a 48volt system. I learned a ton from Micah Toll's DIY Lithium Battery book. Also, register at Endless-Sphere and start reading. Eventually the information will coalesce and you can start to buy bits and bobs. Take your time and don't rush buying right away... lots to learn.
There's usually no explosions, they burn vigorously.
But before that they get too hot to hold. Cell management requires thermal cutoffs for this reason.
I really enjoyed my e-bike when I bought it in 2018 or so. The pedal assist really felt seamless: you can get to the top speed of 20mph by pedaling with as much effort as it took to get to maybe 12mph on a regular bike.
Unfortunately, the bike being worth thousands of dollars, it was a prime target for theft. My bike was stolen in San Jose and I decided to replace it with a sub-$1000 regular bike.
This really is my biggest fear with owning these. I think going to and from the office is a safe one since you can park the bike indoors, but for errands or outdoor casual riding it feels too risky!
Yes, this is a problem. I have a pretty beefy lock with my e-bike and still I don't feel comfortable leaving it outside a store for more than three minutes or so (which is probably still plenty of time to steal it).
Here in Finland best you can do is 1% depreciation a month. So after two years you’ve lost 24% value of your bike if it’s stolen. That’s a significant amount of money on top of a deductible to cough up to replace a stolen bike. Considering the probability of having it stolen is far far higher than a car too…
I know people who have had 2-3 of these bikes stolen. I use mine for commute at the moment and that’s it.
Sounds expensive to me. I ride a Decathlon Triban 100 FB that cost me 150€ (new). Better than most 1K+ gravel bikes and not a target for thieves in Paris bc it's too common.
For example around here you can get a ticket for using one on both cycle paths and also on roads with a 40 MpH speed limit. So you're more legally limited than both a cyclist but also a moped user. The biggest reason why they're popular here at all is that laws are selectively enforced.
None of this is e-bike's fault of course, and the original Segway mostly failed because it too was banned from both footpaths but also many roads. Local city and states haven't evolved much to include new modes of transport outside the traditional (although some would call that a blessing as they don't want licensing/mandatory insurance/tax on e-bikes/e-scooters).
Not a criticism of e-bikes, but I discovered an unexpected danger related to e-bikes which was much less an issue with traditional bikes: when driving a car, it's now much more difficult to judge how much time you need to pass a bike. I would say without hyperbole that it's much more dangerous now, to the cars and the bikes.
I currently live in a Dutch village, so bikes and cars share rather narrow roads. The roads are narrow enough that two cars barely fit side by side. Normally when you're approaching a bike from behind, you know you only need 2-3 seconds to pass it. If there's oncoming traffic, you can easily judge if you have time to safely pass the bike, or if instead you should slow down and wait behind it.
But now that bike which would normally be moving 10-15kph may actually be an e-bike doing 24-ish kph. That's quite a big difference. And if you're doing 50-70 as you approach, it's _very_ difficult to identify from a distance if that bike is going 12 or 24. It matters too, because it might take twice as long to pass as you would normally expect.
Of course we can adapt and take the safe approach, always slowing to the bike speed before deciding to pass. But not only is that rather aggravating to go from 70 to 15 and then accelerate to pass, but it's wasteful on brakes and fuel. Also, if there's any oncoming traffic further down the road, you're much more likely to now be stuck behind that bike for an agonizingly long time.
For the cyclist, they will now be more at risk of a passing car misjudging and pulling back into the lane, cutting the bike off.
Tangentially related is the (new for cars) Tesla problem. That's when you're merging or needing to pass someone, and that someone is driving a Tesla and has a bad attitude. Historically it was pretty easy to judge if you had enough speed to pass someone; but now if that someone is driving a Tesla (or other new, performance oriented electric), they can decide to not allow you to pass by simply stepping on the throttle. They can so quickly accelerate that they can fill that spot which was safely available. If you're not paying close attention (being prepared for something like that), or if you have nowhere else to go (merging, lane ending), you're at great risk of accident.
So in summary, electric vehicles are dangerous! I jest, but they do indeed present some new challenges that don't make them more welcome on the roads.
If you're used to (slow, heavy) Dutch style bikes, 12-15 km/h is reasonable. However any "road" bike (rather than commuter bike) can easily go 25+km/h on flat ground. 45km/h is not unusual of for racers.
Of course, these are easier to spot than ebikes...
As a vaguely competent cyclist, cars have frequently pulled in way too soon after overtaking and cut me off, so ebikes are making the roads much safer.
In my experience driving, the car is now more likely to misjudge and not allow enough time to pass, thereby pulling back into your space while you’re still there (if you’re on a faster e-bike).
I think one of the big challenges with e-bikes is the acceleration. An electric motor combined with the relatively light weight means they accelerate seriously quickly.
I'm not familiar with this problem since I don't ride them. But as a motorist, their ability to accelerate quickly really isn't an issue regarding me passing them on the road.
Do you mean it only takes the Tesla a very short time to close the gap between it and the car upfront? If so, won’t passing make one stuck behind the next car? What’s the point? To leave less of a gap between the car than the Tesla was doing or to continually pass all the cars?
Imagine you're merging onto a freeway. You have limited runway before you have no more lane. The lane you need to merge into has a Tesla next to you, and some cars behind it.
You could slow down and hope one of those cars behind the Tesla slows to allow you to merge, but not only is that unlikely but it screws up traffic flow. Naturally you step on it so you can speed ahead and merge. But that Tesla drive has the ability to show you that he's boss, and he's faster than you. Now you're going faster and have even less lane remaining, so you must hit the brakes hard and try to merge into the new gap behind the Tesla. That's dangerous, but it's now about your only option.
Or you simply want to change into a lane and fill in the space between the Tesla and the car some distance in front of him. Maybe you see congestion ahead in your lane, or perhaps you're about to encounter traffic merging into your lane.
There are tons of legitimate reasons you might want to get in front of that Tesla. And if you already were going faster than him, it would normally be no problem for anyone. But in angry driver traffic with the new electric capabilities, people can basically use their cars as weapons.
It may sound dramatic, but it was already a bad behavior some people would exhibit when they were angry, competitive drivers. Now they have much more ability to fight.
Readit News
http://web.archive.org/web/20211108112001/https://www.nytime...
With e-bikes becoming more common, I know a number of people who would not have touched a bike share but are using it as a replacement for Uber/Lyft rides. People can cycle in to work without breaking a sweat.
It's a bummer that so much legislation aimed at reducing emissions subtly encourages the use of cars without throwing any bones to people who would like to ride bikes, electric or not.
Which I think is misguided pushback btw (which I think you agree with based on the context).
I see it as a chicken and egg thing. The roads are unsafe for bikers, so the only people who bike are those who are super dedicated to it. Then when people ask for the roads to be safer, it gets pushed back as "only biking enthusiasts use the roads now".
Safer roads means more people will bike, which means biking will stop being seen as an elitist thing.
Edit: to add on, bikes are like 1-2 orders of magnitude cheaper than cars too, both in upfront and ongoing costs also. It’s super unfortunate that it still gets the stereotype as a “rich white people” activity when it’s really so much more financially accessible than a car.
It's true that a bicycle is itself cheaper than a car, but housing within biking distance to job centers sure isn't. In my view this is the primary reason bicycle commuters are stereotypically rich folks. The bicycle itself isn't the expensive part; you need proximity, extra commute time, and infrastructure. That stuff just isn't accessible to many people.
The thought that biking is only for the rich is especially galling when I hear it said about NYC cyclists. The person saying this is thinking of the lycra'd-up dentist riding a Pinarello Dogma. The Manhattan Bridge had 180,000 bike trips on it this June. Williamsburg had 230,000.[1] Cycling is much more prevalent than non-cyclers think.
1: https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bike-counts.sh...
Public transportation and city bike rental systems should be free to ride. We all pay taxes to keep roads maintained, we should all pay taxes to keep public transportation maintained.
Not charging would help busses keep their schedules with less queuing and waiting, tourists would be less likely to rent a car, and it could help that chicken and egg problem. The problem with charging people with riding public transportation is you are taxing the very people we should be rewarding. The people who are committing to taking up less space on the road and living with a smaller carbon footprint are being penalized for their hugely beneficial decision to society not to drive. Making public transportation better and free are the two things that can transform a city and make it more equitable. Poor people would have more money and more places available to spend it. Every city benefits from its people having more money to spend and more places to spend it.
Yup. Bit like how it's hard to argue for building a bridge by the number of people swimming across the river.
Here’s a theory: road cycling is more available to those who live reasonably close to work and have time to spare, and that is relatively rich people. Poorer people literally cannot afford not to have a car because they have to travel long distances to work, and their areas are not well served by public transport.
It’s like dealing with serious lap swimmers.
I don't think it is just safety. Most people understand an e-bike is going to be more dangerous, but they are popular anyways.
The other factor is distance. e-bikes increase the distance that can be covered by a significant amount, which changes a lot of commutes from "too far" to acceptable. The only people who can afford to be within a bike commute are at least above-average income-wise.
Even satire news sites have caught onto this: https://www.thebeaverton.com/2020/09/i-bike-everywhere-brags...
I rode a bike to school when my limited money would buy a very bad car or a nice bike. So I opted for the bike and had to ride it because that's all I had. I did that for a couple of years - even in the cold and ice. My commute distance varied in my biking days, from 6 to 20 miles.
I always obeyed all the traffic laws, though occasionally in the early AM I'd find lights that would not turn green for a bike no matter what I did.
I had people scream at me to get off the road, and otherwise be exceptionally rude. I occasionally had bike lanes and appreciated them, sought them out because it provided better spacing. But the busses on those routes were frequently in the bike lane and were, frankly, slower than I was. But navigating them was always a pain until I got well past them.
On slower roads (20-25 mph) with no bike lane I would take a lane to myself and keep up with traffic but only when I could reasonably keep up.
In the end, safety won out, and I abandoned the practice.
Now, as a driver, I am appalled at the behavior of cyclists. With my experience I take interest in and carefully watch their behavior.
Running red lights and not stopping for stop signs is the worst. And it's pretty universal.
Bad spacing in the lane, little to no accommodation for drivers when they could provide a bit more space for a comfortable pass. Sometimes they can't help it, and I get it, but when they can and don't... I always tried to be crystal clear about my messaging to the cars around me. I'm taking the lane here for my safety because there are parked cars in the bike lane or otherwise on the shoulder. I'm done now and look, I'm providing lots of space for everyone to safely pass me.
So the rude behavior I encountered was finally somewhat understood.
I really appreciated having good bike lanes. But cyclists do themselves no favors in how they conduct themselves, which will hurt them when pining for better road accommodations.
Even the cost factor is complicated. Everyone factors in the cost per mile of the bike, which is excellent, but the input calories are non-trivial and if you're not running the numbers on just ramen noodles it turns into quite a significant financial cost.
There are definitely health benefits.
Deleted Comment
Majority of America is overweight, staring down at their phones day and night, and dread physical activity. They also like to flex their position and wealth to others, one of the reasons why pickup trucks and big SUVs sell in great numbers. These people are in no hurry to transition to riding bikes.
The only way biking might work is if some popular celebrities on social media or otherwise started doing it, since many Americans just like to imitate what's popular.
This has never been true, of course. As you would expect for something that costs a hundredth as much as a car, bicycling to work has always been more common among the poor: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/05/08/low-income-americans-...
Consider there may be a dignity issue: If you are a lycra-clad yuppy, you're cycling because you want to. If you're poor, it looks like you can't afford a car.
A bike-friendly infrastructure is based on three separate networks, for pedestrians, cycles and cars. Each of the three networks must be continuous, reasonably complete and able to stand on its own.
Deleted Comment
Here in New York City, people delivering food, packages, etc are one of the major biking contingents, I guess invisible to the Hacker News community.
Sadly, here in New York City, kids can't ride bikes around for fun except once or twice a year when they close Park Avenue or if you get an open street. I don't see why kids riding casually shouldn't be a major interest of the population. If the streets aren't safe for them, maybe change the streets and disallow cars instead of depriving kids of that space.
1. convert curbside parking into dedicated and protected bike lanes (not everywhere, but extensively)
2. require bike parking (preferably covered and right next to entrances/foot traffic) and liability requirements anywhere that has a (car) parking lot
this would put biking on par with cars and would encourage businesses to reorganize around mixed traffic, rather than car only.
I'm a daily cyclist (18-20 miles round trip for work) and I don't know which one annoys me more: the lycra yuppie who wants to race me, or the e-bike Patagonia vest financebro yuppie who salmons[1] me while screaming through his AirPods :-)
[1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/05/15/3124556...
While I agree with e-bikes being a generally good thing, I also think they involve a lot of secondary consequences and we still need to figure out the best solutions. For example, having more e-bikes on the already overcrowded bike path near where I live is becoming a disaster. There had already been enough problems with mismatched speeds, impatience on all sides, etc. There had even been fatalities. Adding e-bikes makes all of that even worse. While I have little love for the "rich lycra-clad yuppies" (there really are plenty of them) who are mostly just horrified by the idea of their hobby becoming more inclusive, I kind of agree with them that the path can't safely support yet another (faster, heavier) type of conveyance. I wouldn't want horses on the path for the same reason.
There's a complementary issue with e-bikes on roads. There's still going to be a speed mismatch, with e-bikes in the middle this time instead of the high end. Bike lanes are going to become more dangerous, traffic-light timings will have to change, etc. Where are the e-bikes going to be parked or stored while not in use? On my now-ended visits to Seattle I saw these problems already manifesting, and they're likely to become even worse as e-bikes continue to become more popular.
In the long term, maybe the "changed politics" will lead to improved infrastructure that supports all classes of users including e-bikes. In the short term, it's likely to be a free-for-all like I used to see in Bangalore with all the tuk-tuks and scooters mixed in with cars and trucks and buses. Not looking forward to it.
we need better infrastructure for non-car transportation. the short-term hell is simply more people experiencing what most cyclists are already used to.
Mostly e-bike riders are just ignored. Like they don't affect us in any way and we barely even notice that they exist.
I don’t know who “those people” are, or what regional politics are at play, but that doesn’t pass my “smell test”. How about deploying “think about the children” here for something that increases exercise and happiness, mobility, fosters growth… it’s not even contentious with respect to (e.g.) civil liberties.
I suspect the answer is people just don’t care. Especially once they’re behind the wheel of an automobile, electric or otherwise.
(Edit: expand/clarify suggested benefits)
Keep in mind that most cyclists are also drivers, and in the latter role many of them also don't seem to care. These debates often sound like we're talking about two disjoint groups of people, with one having a grievance against the other, but in reality they're just different transport modalities that people switch between.
The project kept getting derailed due to bicycle special interests having a literal fit because a section of the road was too narrow to have the walkable sidewalks(priority number 1), the cycle lanes with adequate safety, and not congest the rest of the road. A consulting company made recommendations based on traffic simulations and the requirements to have the bicycle route go off onto a parallel side street through this section.
Oh man, what a shit show it turned into. But most of the pushback against what the cyclist special interests wanted(lanes through this section, fuck everything else) had to do with the practicalities of balancing the requirements. Not the meme arguments people who hate cars often throw out as scarecrows.
This is a big one for me. Cycling into work doesn't take too much time (30 minutes), and it's good to be active. But showering at work you often need to wait, you need to bring all your clean clothes with you, and after going back you need to shower again.
It just costs too much time to cycle because of the sweating.
With e-Bikes I'm able to cycle into work slightly faster (saving a few minutes when going up hill) and I'm still fresh when I arrive.
Sure it's not as sporty, but it's something, especially compared to driving.
i've seen this pushback come from two camps. 1) people with cars who get pissed when street parking or automobile lanes get turned into bike lanes (i prefer bike lanes, but i can at least understand this.) 2) professional users of the roads who saw early construction of bicycle infrastructure as something that would attract more cyclists and therefore make their jobs harder/riskier.
i feel like construction of bike infrastructure in many us cities is something that really blossomed in the late 00s/early 10s when urban cyclists were often more ragtag jorts with tattoos than "lycra-clad yuppies."
Deleted Comment
Cycling advocates like to talk about sharing the road but I've yet to see any sort of acknowledgement that there's plenty of bad behavior on the part of cyclists that needs some curbing as well.
What percentage of streets have physically separated lanes for biking, the way we have them for walking?
Bikes don't fit well with pedestrians or cars, and painted bike lanes are a joke -- imagine if you replaced every sidewalk with "painted walk lanes".
In places where there is good infrastructure, like the Netherlands, cyclist reputations for behaving badly are basically no different from pedestrian or motorist reputations.
And I fully agree that there are a lot of bad bikers, but a bad biker is a nuisance to a driver while a bad driver is a potential fatality to a biker.
It's also legal in my state to ride bikes on the sidewalk. That doesn't cause much of a problem for pedestrians because unfortunately there are few bike riders or pedestrians.
I only mention this to make people aware that what's legal depends on where they live.
The red light, yes, that is valid complain. But stop sign, meh.
But also, pretty much any transport mode features people with bed behavior: cars, pedestrians, roller skaters. Those people are not even that much demographically different, unless the transport ends up tied to politics.
If cyclists had 90% of the road, and cars were forced to share the remaining 10% with pedestrians, everyone would be complaining (with reason) that's it's incredibly dangerous
Another catch is safety. Forcing bikes to share the road is dangerous. Cities really need bike lanes.
Is this even a thing outside of USA? Nobody thinks that where I live, and it's not a particularly bike-friendly country like Netherlands, just average EU country.
I'm curious about this - do you have specific examples? HOV/EV lanes?
I live across the border in Indiana, and have wanted to bike on the beach/dunes/trails for years. I just bought a Specialized Fatboy with a BBSHD motor, can't wait to get back out there.
I dislike that people are effectively riding motorcycles on dedicated bike paths.
I especially dislike that companies get to profit from cluttering public spaces with bicycle and scooter litter.
My hope is that long-term we get the e-bikes into the street where they belong and combine that with traffic calming measures to make scooter commuting feasible from a safety perspective.
Then you must hate on-street parking and parking lots.
I think the speed and power limits of ebikes are actually pretty reasonable. A fit cyclist can go faster on the flats, and I don't just mean a pro, anybody young and healthy who cycles a few times a week should be able to manage it.
Bikes should have their own transport spaces, not sharing with cars. Cars should be limited access from many areas. And pedestrians should be as mindful of bikes as they are of cars.
Here in Seattle we actually reclaimed on-street parking for dedicated bike-share parking because people park them so inconsiderately. Like sideways blocking entire bike paths and sidewalks.
If you are in a wheelchair you can forget about curb ramps, they’re blocked by bike shares.
But to those companies credit, they do have at least token process of punishing bad parking.
A buddy of mine bought a Super73 which has speed limiting modes but operates purely on the honor system. In the "unlimited" mode it can do 28mph, without pedaling. In the "limited" mode it can still do 20, which is faster than most people are capable of for any extended period of time without a power assist.
A Super 73 weighs 73lbs. That's double a regular bike. Moving at 2-4x the speed. Sure the rider is more than that but e-bike numbers are a lot closer to mopeds than bicycles.
I think this is a disingenuous description of "provide a valuable service that many people appreciate".
I also don't see why speed-limited e-bikes shouldn't be on bike paths, unless you're living in an area where they are unthrottled or have a ridiculously high limit.
They’re a nuisance. The city actually marked off some specific parking areas and is asking the ride share companies to require drop off in those areas. It got that bad.
I regularly see bike shares and scooter shares blocking curb ramps in crosswalks. Good luck to anyone in a wheelchair.
E-bikes might provide some value but proponents and users are ignoring the negative externalities to existing cyclists and pedestrians.
It will get better but we need to educate people on how to use these things responsibly.
Last week in my city an electric scooter pulled out of a junction - where the light was red - in front of a bus. The bus performed an emergency stop, causing minor injuries that required hospitalization to a number of people onboard. The scooter just continued without stopping. Police are trying to track down the driver, but it seems pretty much impossible (it was privately owned, not rented from an app).
I've also seen countless accidents from people driving at 25km/h across pedestrian crossings, and the car not seeing them before it's too late. Here you are supposed to dismount from vehicles and walk across, but most people do not.
Near my office there is a junction where you can turn left - crossing a lane coming in the other direction - and go up a hill, at the same time the light is green for pedestrians to cross, and cars are supposed to give way. If a scooter is coming along the pavement at full speed, in the same direction as you are travelling before you turned, there is no way you will see it until it's right in front of you and it's too late to stop.
My bike is 2004 Specialized mountain bike. Bought the motor from ebay and just bolted it on. The battery lives in a home sewn bag I made which I velcro strapped to the frame. I have gone about 35mph on it. Do not recommend super high speeds unless you are a capable bike rider.
It looks like a mad max experiment. I just wanted to ride the thing and wire management is def an afterthought. I do not ride anywhere I can't take it inside with me even though I only have about $500 into it. Too much work to risk theft.
So much fun to ride. Peeling out in dirt is thrilling on bicycle.
I was hoping to use this as a project to learn electricity with and it sounds like you did something similar.
Batteries are really simple, just need to respect them. If you are going to use recycled batteries, I suggest you buy a Opus c3400 tester. Run them through a complete charge/discharge cycle to identify capacity and bad cells. If they get hot, take them out and properly recycle them at Autozone. Otherwise, write down the capacity on the cell.
You can use repakr once you have 100 cells or so. I went with a 13s6p configuration for a 48volt system. I learned a ton from Micah Toll's DIY Lithium Battery book. Also, register at Endless-Sphere and start reading. Eventually the information will coalesce and you can start to buy bits and bobs. Take your time and don't rush buying right away... lots to learn.
Unfortunately, the bike being worth thousands of dollars, it was a prime target for theft. My bike was stolen in San Jose and I decided to replace it with a sub-$1000 regular bike.
I know people who have had 2-3 of these bikes stolen. I use mine for commute at the moment and that’s it.
I just bought a Kryptonite + a Kryptoflex and nobody tried to steal it yet. My locks were more expensive than my bike but it seems to work for now.
Sounds expensive to me. I ride a Decathlon Triban 100 FB that cost me 150€ (new). Better than most 1K+ gravel bikes and not a target for thieves in Paris bc it's too common.
https://www.decathlon.fr/p/velo-route-homme-cyclotourisme-rc...
For example around here you can get a ticket for using one on both cycle paths and also on roads with a 40 MpH speed limit. So you're more legally limited than both a cyclist but also a moped user. The biggest reason why they're popular here at all is that laws are selectively enforced.
None of this is e-bike's fault of course, and the original Segway mostly failed because it too was banned from both footpaths but also many roads. Local city and states haven't evolved much to include new modes of transport outside the traditional (although some would call that a blessing as they don't want licensing/mandatory insurance/tax on e-bikes/e-scooters).
I currently live in a Dutch village, so bikes and cars share rather narrow roads. The roads are narrow enough that two cars barely fit side by side. Normally when you're approaching a bike from behind, you know you only need 2-3 seconds to pass it. If there's oncoming traffic, you can easily judge if you have time to safely pass the bike, or if instead you should slow down and wait behind it.
But now that bike which would normally be moving 10-15kph may actually be an e-bike doing 24-ish kph. That's quite a big difference. And if you're doing 50-70 as you approach, it's _very_ difficult to identify from a distance if that bike is going 12 or 24. It matters too, because it might take twice as long to pass as you would normally expect.
Of course we can adapt and take the safe approach, always slowing to the bike speed before deciding to pass. But not only is that rather aggravating to go from 70 to 15 and then accelerate to pass, but it's wasteful on brakes and fuel. Also, if there's any oncoming traffic further down the road, you're much more likely to now be stuck behind that bike for an agonizingly long time.
For the cyclist, they will now be more at risk of a passing car misjudging and pulling back into the lane, cutting the bike off.
Tangentially related is the (new for cars) Tesla problem. That's when you're merging or needing to pass someone, and that someone is driving a Tesla and has a bad attitude. Historically it was pretty easy to judge if you had enough speed to pass someone; but now if that someone is driving a Tesla (or other new, performance oriented electric), they can decide to not allow you to pass by simply stepping on the throttle. They can so quickly accelerate that they can fill that spot which was safely available. If you're not paying close attention (being prepared for something like that), or if you have nowhere else to go (merging, lane ending), you're at great risk of accident.
So in summary, electric vehicles are dangerous! I jest, but they do indeed present some new challenges that don't make them more welcome on the roads.
Of course, these are easier to spot than ebikes...
You could slow down and hope one of those cars behind the Tesla slows to allow you to merge, but not only is that unlikely but it screws up traffic flow. Naturally you step on it so you can speed ahead and merge. But that Tesla drive has the ability to show you that he's boss, and he's faster than you. Now you're going faster and have even less lane remaining, so you must hit the brakes hard and try to merge into the new gap behind the Tesla. That's dangerous, but it's now about your only option.
Or you simply want to change into a lane and fill in the space between the Tesla and the car some distance in front of him. Maybe you see congestion ahead in your lane, or perhaps you're about to encounter traffic merging into your lane.
There are tons of legitimate reasons you might want to get in front of that Tesla. And if you already were going faster than him, it would normally be no problem for anyone. But in angry driver traffic with the new electric capabilities, people can basically use their cars as weapons.
It may sound dramatic, but it was already a bad behavior some people would exhibit when they were angry, competitive drivers. Now they have much more ability to fight.
People just don't ride that fast on non e-bikes here in the Netherlands, not normally.