Why? Because it glorifies the pattern of copy/pasting.
Your argument goes like: some biking commuters already bike too fast in crowded places, so what harm will it do to incentivise them to put an engine on their bikes so they can go even faster, even on hills?
That depends on ones point of view I guess. Besides that I don't want to add. I'd favour substracting cars, because they are like the plague, a nuisance, and loud if going fast enough, no matter if ICE or BEV.
Furthermore I'm thinking of anybody thinking of 30kph as absurdly fast for a city bike as an outlier, even if they are the majority.
> huge nuisance on the bike paths because they're faster than everybody else
I doubt this, there is a huge range of people traveling at different speeds, from road bike users, to ebike users, to kids and parents. Why pretend everyone is doing the same speed?
> Making cars and bicycles rivalries can be an anti-progress idea actually.
More people using bicycles is better for everyone, even car users, since congestion is the biggest problem for car users and bicycles make much more efficient use of road space.
People don't like cycling within the current infrastructure. Not only would most bikes have to share the road with vehicles (and semis!), but car dependency creates vast distances to traverse - massive parking lots, wide roads, highways, etc.
Uh, what? Reaching 15km/h is not unheard of for running either, so why would that be waaaaay too fast on a bike in mainly pedestrian areas? Sure, the bike should slow down to lower speeds than their norm to ensure safety for all people involved in traffic, but isn't that no different from how cars shouldn't go 100km/h+ in city centers?
> "Efficient enough" ? All of the land-speed records for human-powered vehicles are held by recumbents. http://www.ihpva.org/home/
I am not trying to break the land speed record on the way to work. I just want to get there in one piece.
The point I was making is just because something is on paper technically better there are other considerations, for someone that commutes regularly being able to go to the local bicycle shop and pick up a spare whatever is more important to me than any perceived efficiencies.
I own a fixed gear with some rather fancy kit on it. Despite the simplicity of the bike, getting replacement parts requires me having to order things online. The cheap 1990s Marin Hawk Hill mountain bike I cycle to work on, I can literally get parts for it anywhere and an be fixed with a set of allen keys and a spanner.
> The funny thing though is that, in most urban settings, this is completely untrue. Cyclists actually speed things up by creating less traffic.
Citation please.
> Every cyclist on the road means less cars on the road.
While that part is certainly more true than not, the implications of fewer cars but several bottlenecks added to the traffic system is far from certain and likely relies on so many other factors than just the number of bikes on the road.
> Cars and bikes are a bad solution to long commutes
Yes, exactly.
Long commutes are the problem.
> The best solution is short commutes or WFH. In that situation bikes are fine and even cars are less bad
Except for traffic jams, I agree.
The more time people spend on the road, the more accidents are going to happen.
It's true for cars, bikes, mopeds, motorbikes, but not for walking or using the subway.
So every time a person says "we should all be cyclist" is only expressing an opinion, not a fact!
--------
For those who want some crude numbers.
Stop here if not interested
--------
An e-bike that goes 20-25mph in a park full of people, it's actually more dangerous than a moped at the same speed, also because mopeds don't access to pedestrian areas usually.
In my country every year a report on pedestrian accidents is released.
The most recent issue is about year 2019, that says:
- 352 bikes were in accidents involving a pedestrian, they killed one and injured 366 of them.
- 325 mopeds in the same period killed no one, injured 271.
- 1,831 motorbikes killed 26 people and injured 2,131
But there are 7 million motorbikes, going around every day, while bikes are only 1.5 million and most of them aren't used daily.
E-bikes are basically mopeds, but are statistically more dangerous than mopeds for pedestrian and have a death rate that's only 20% of the deaths by motorbikes, that are much heavier (15x) and can run a lot faster (10x).
If there were as many bikes as motorbikes (4.6x) it's possible to predict at least 352 * ( 7 / 1.5) = 5 deaths and 1,685 injured people.
Add that a safe +20% If they traveled for as long as motorbikes (5 days a week instead of 1 or 2), and you get 2.022 injured and 6 deaths, worrisome numbers if you ask me.
Also, due to COVID-19 and people ordering delivery more than ever (usually delivered by bike), Milan have seen an increment on bike accidents of 30% year on year, in the face of only a 7% increase of traveled distances.
In this case it can't even be said it's because of cars, cars could hardly run during the lock downs!
> Bicycling is also for people that already find it way more convenient/enjoyable/cheaper/faster/ to move through a city.
I don't get the "enjoyable" part. Maybe it's because I live in the country, but the thought of taking deep breaths in an environment saturated with car exhausts would stop me.
Quote: "The bicycle is a tremendously efficient means of transportation. In fact cycling is more efficient than any other method of travel--including walking!"
The hidden agenda is that such an efficient mode of transport is difficult to tax based on conventional measures like fuel used or CO2 emitted -- although it's apparent that people will try.
I think bicyclists should be taxed based on what their existence costs society as a whole -- freeway construction, pothole repair, global warming, health care for those dying of heart disease and diabetes. By that reasoning, bicyclists should receive a tax credit, like those who install solar panels or buy electric cars.
>A couple billion Chinese and Indians are moving up in the world and they aren't going to be riding bicycles.
But wait, bicycles are more fuel-efficient than even the best cars -- that should imply that the Chinese will want to use them instead, right? Because the problem is as simple as discovering greater fuel efficiency?
Or is this the bizarro world you mocked where higher fuel efficiency is bad?
> Bikes don't go 60 miles an hour, which is necessary for some individuals who work an hour or more from their residence. And no, people don't do that sort of thing because they enjoy it. They do it because they have to. Please don't ruin people's lives with your ideas.
Reread my post, as I don't think you're responding to what I wrote. I don't advocate taking away someone's license because of debts, which I believe I made clear in the last paragraph.
> Throttle enabled e-bikes are even easier to use as they don’t even require pedaling – they can basically be used as 20 mph (32 km/h) mopeds. At that speed, they’re fast enough for people to cruise through a city easily yet don’t come with the same power and speed concerns that have traditionally turned most commuters away from motorcycles.
Hard disagree. In my opinion throttle enabled bicycles should be classed (and taxed) as mopeds with license plates and all.
At 32 Km/h you are already hauling ass to be a danger for other cyclists and pedestrians. Throttle enabled e-bikes are very much part of the problem in the reputation around e-bikes.
The fact that you have to put human effort into accelerating in a pedal assist e-bike absolutely curbs your behaviour, reduces your average speed, and makes you much less reckless.
> you'll wonder if it's the technology doing all the work.
We’re talking about manually propelled bikes here. The bike isn’t doing all the work, but it is pretty essential in reaching the speed and sustaining the pace.
Sure you can argue that if you strap a rocket to your bike then you aren’t doing any work, but that’s not the case in either of these examples, so what’s the purpose of going down that tangent?
Actually the article points to the fact that other studies have shown that bikes have either no effect, or improve traffic speeds, because one of the biggest misconceptions in traffic planning is the solution is to increase roadways, when in reality, the answer is usually to reduce.
Actual relevant reasons may be the growth of Uber, the change of speed limits, and/or the increase in population.
This reeks of intelligence signaling, and isn't an argument.
> an urban context
Yes, in an urban context, where one lives close enough to work and other conveniences, and one happens to have a shower in their office building. Most people don't live that close to work and they don't want to constantly show up to work sweaty. Bicycling certainly does work for same people, but it's not practical or sustainable for most people.
What do you think is going to happen in a scenario where most people are bicycling everywhere? They'd potentially spend just as much time on the road as they would in car traffic, have to constantly dodge other bikes and vehicles, and city officials would make them pay for parking.
People don't want to experience riding a bike day in and day out. Cars are a bestseller for a reason. If riding a bicycle was as obvious as you think it is, more people would be doing it.
> On a macro level cars are fundamentally incompatible with density because there is literally not enough space in a city for everyone to store and drive their cars.
And yet most cities are able to make it work with cars.
> Oh I suppose you could argue about the environmental cost of producing the extra calories consumed by the cyclist.
The human body is very efficient. I'd be extremely surprised if my 15 minute bicycle commute to work burned more than 100 calories on top of my BMR. There's just no comparison.
> I guess all you valley dwellers should probably cycle to work to save the planet for us all. We will applaud you from our AWD monstrosities here in the North East.
I'd link to icebike.org where they used to have pictures of people cycling in Chicago in winter and articles on suitable clothing and tires, but that domain got bought out and commercialized into some mountain bike advertising site.
Your argument goes like: some biking commuters already bike too fast in crowded places, so what harm will it do to incentivise them to put an engine on their bikes so they can go even faster, even on hills?
reply