Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 756 posts

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#361

Post by david-gpu »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #295
Glide wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a positive vision of where society can go rather than having to sacrifice and buckle down. Do people not remember riding bikes as kids? Riding a bike is _still_ fun. It never stopped being fun. Now you can do that and get to work.

Riding a bike is not fun if you're doing it to commute - having to do it in all weathers, in traffic that feels unsafe, even if you don't feel like it and got poor sleep etc. It's really fundamentally not the same.

> Driving a car is not fun if you're doing it to commute - having to do it in all weathers, in traffic that feels unsafe, even if you don't feel like it and got poor sleep etc. It's really fundamentally not the same

In a town that is minimally designed to facilitate the movement of people instead of cars there are multiple modes of transportation available to commuters, including but not limited to public transit for those days when you don't feel like walking or riding a bike.

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#362

Post by ponector »

Muromec wrote: post #325
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Riding a bike is not fun if you're doing it to commute - having to do it in all weathers, in traffic that feels unsafe, even if you don't feel like it and got poor sleep etc. It's really fundamentally not the same.

Then don't commute in bad weather and in unsafe conditions. Working from home and improving road infrastructure is totally an option.

Work from home is an option only for some office folks.

Would you be happy if your baker, barber, car mechanic will not commute to the workplace if it is raining?

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#363

Post by slothtrop »

thelastgallon wrote: post #2

We don't need a 4000 lb vehicle to move a ~200 lb person. In order of efficiency: (1) Walk (2) Unicycle, roller skate, scooter (no battery, very little material) (2) Bike (3) Electric bike (and all forms of newfangled electric: escooters, segways) (4) Electric motorbike or scooter (5) Mass transit (can be public/private) transportation: Electric trains (6) Mass transit (can be public/private) transportation: Electric…

> We don't need

Let me stop you right there. We "don't need" most of the possessions you currently own, including the one you're using to browse HN. We don't live for mere subsistence.

People can decide for themselves what they want to give up to reduce their carbon footprint, and that doesn't necessarily have to be their vehicle.

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#364

Post by abdullahkhalids »

cornholio wrote: post #185
camgunz wrote: post #83

I've said it before and I'll say it again: building the future around cars of any kind is completely unsustainable. We cannot reproduce the rates of rich world car ownership in the developing world without mass catastrophe (raw materials/labor needed for construction and maintenance, raw materials/labor/space needed for roads and parking lots, literal tons of waste--batteries, tires, steel, plastic, foam--, energy ne…

There is a little something that's missing from the analysis above: what people actually want. And what many people want, across many cultures once they reach a certain level of wealth, is the suburban home: low density living in isolated housing units set in a park like environment with ample greenery. Just look at almost any billionaire's mansion and you will see this pattern which becomes an aspiration for the mid…

I agree with you that people should be allowed to live in the time of communities they prefer, and if hose are suburban mansions so be it. If they also want cars, so be it.

Where, perhaps, you and I disagree is that I think that people who buy these houses and cars should pay for the full cost, including all negative externalities, of their choices. Taxes should be imposed that should then try to reverse those negative externalities where possible. And I assure you, those taxes will easily double or triple the price of gasoline and those houses. Getting CO2 out of the atmosphere is really really difficult, and infrastructure costs of cities vs suburbia obey power laws.

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#365

Post by Tade0 »

proee wrote: post #353

Is there a market for something in between bike and car, like a micro-electric car that holds 2 people max. I know these exist, but I don't think they've caught on for whatever reason. I would be cool to see some kind of federal incentive to buy a super small electric car instead of a full-size EV.

What you need is the final stage of vehicular evolution - a golf cart.

We'll not there yet as a civilisation, but I hope it happens during my lifetime.

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#366

Post by zzzeek »

JAlexoid wrote: post #314
zzzeek wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

throwing money at urban problems does not necessarily have a great track record, and NYCTA has had lots of issues with corruption when they do have money to spend. Id be pretty skeptical that giving them a lot of money would mean you can hop on a train in 5 minutes at 2 am, it wouldnt even be cost effective to run that many trains at odd hours. Cars are terrific for this use case, however. NYC cops have like a billio…

NYC is one of the safest places in the US... and even with fairly poor mass transit system - it's still is incredibly good by American standards. I moved from NYC an hour north, to be more isolated than the "impersonal big cities". I barely know any of my neighbors - because there are no sidewalks and everyone is forced to drive for anything. Car dependence kills people, kills communities and reduces your QoL.

You should move back to the city, then. I moved out because I had enough of the crowds and awful mass transit and I'm good with it. The NYC cops were absolutely awful for us as well.

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#367

Post by JAlexoid »

cbozeman wrote: post #336
stouset wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's very elitist. No, it is a fact. That it doesn’t align with the choices you’ve made in your life doesn’t change that. > Not everyone lives in large cities with whole mass transit systems or works the usual 9-5. Tell me you’ve never been outside the US before without telling me you’ve never been outside the US before. Joking aside (there are plenty of other countries with transit as bad as the US), plenty of o…

> A car-centric lifestyle is incompatible with a livable planet. No it isn't. We just haven't figured it out yet. Those aren't the same thing.

They take up a lot of space and require a lot more energy to move around. Even if we get 100% electric vehicles with all clean power generation - it's still a massive toll on the environment.

A car isn't a helicopter, they require reasonably good roads with high costs of maintenance(and a lot of other infrastructure to support roads).

Also car dependent lifestyle means that population density drops, with less walkable places than ever.

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#368

Post by slothtrop »

JAlexoid wrote: post #350
slothtrop wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think it's really about taking away peoples choices OP of this comment tree is explicit that it is about taking away choice. But I think it should suffice to make the alternatives more attractive. People are open to renewables, but not a drastic reduction in their quality of life. We should not demand a reduction or stagnation in quality-of-life for developing countries either as it's inhumane. Ostensibly t…

Suburban sprawl is both ecologically and financially unsustainable, with city dwellers subsidizing suburban living.

Trivially resolved through zoning reform. Rhetoric surrounding "banning cars" will not deter sprawl or achieve anything of note, it will just be considered fringe fanaticism.

> unsustainable

The global population growth rate is going to stall, and by extension, cities will cease to grow. Sustainability is a moot point.

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#369

Post by ska »

slothtrop wrote: post #341
ska wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No thanks. Also, some people like cars. Deal with it, i'm not ditching for an e-bike or whatever. I don't think it's really about taking away peoples choices, just mostly about policy impacts. Currently car ownership and sub/exurban housing are subsidized in various direct and indirect ways. If policies changed and other things were emphasized instead, you could still choose to live in the same way, it would just b…

> I don't think it's really about taking away peoples choices OP of this comment tree is explicit that it is about taking away choice. But I think it should suffice to make the alternatives more attractive. People are open to renewables, but not a drastic reduction in their quality of life. We should not demand a reduction or stagnation in quality-of-life for developing countries either as it's inhumane. Ostensibly t…

> is explicit that it is about taking away choice.

But it's a conversation and I am rejecting that framing. Suburbs/Exurbs as practiced in US today aren't some kind of quality of life maximizing end game. They are a natural result of a ton of policy interactions and subsidies, and the focus on it clearly has +ves and -ves. And of course it's always nice if you can get someone else to partially pay for your lifestyle, but that's inherently got downsides.

I think that it lacks imagination to think that we can't structure things differently and have equivalent or better quality of life overall. Will fewer people choose to live in suburbs? Sure - that's how incentives work.

I don't think "banning cars" makes any sense. But if we stop basing policy at multiple levels centered around them, and stop subsidizing car-centered living, I suspect we'll collectively do a lot less driving, which doesn't seem like a bad outcome, and more likely to have +ve impact than the fantasy that EVs are a drop in replacement for ICEs, no other changes needed.

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#370

Post by taylodl »

r00fus wrote: post #126
davidw wrote: post #21

I do almost all the grocery shopping for our family of 4 with a Rad Runner Plus with a large basket and bag. I love that bike. Even as someone pretty comfortable getting around on a 'regular' bike, having that extra power just makes it a really easy choice for more trips compared to the car. If it's hot out, it is so much nicer to hop on the bike and get an instant breeze compared to a hot stuffy car. If it's cold ou…

My biggest frustration with bikes here in the US is the lack of security in high traffic areas. The fact that law enforcement doesn't seem to care about stolen bikes is a huge hurdle in my desire to bike to the store, leave alone paying thousands for a decent e-bike that I'd be even more worried about. I say this as an avid cyclist.

Also the complete lack of infrastructure to park and lock your bike. Sounds great - take your bike to the grocery store. Wonderful! Where are you going to park it? Where are you going to lock it? The problem is even worse with e-bikes since they're so much more valuable. A regular, recreational bicycle is less likely to be stolen but an e-bike? It's going to be gone!
Post reply on HN