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

The popularity of e-bikes isn’t slowing down

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 599 posts

Re: The popularity of e-bikes isn’t slowing down

#281

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

sokoloff wrote: post #218
ashtonkem wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s only true if you presume that demand for roads remain constant. Ideally you’d hope that cycle infrastructure would offset some road use, which would allow the state to reclaim some lanes for cyclists. Given how space inefficient cars are, it wouldn’t require a significant drop in road usage for cyclists to be given all the space they need independent from pedestrians.

Most roads around here that are not controlled access are one lane in each direction. Those that aren’t have often had a lane dedicated to buses (and emergency vehicles). There are rarely lanes free to be taken unless cycling becomes so prevalent to displace cars to zero on some routes.

And that's a really good idea

Re: The popularity of e-bikes isn’t slowing down

#283

Post by slt2021 »

jmcphers wrote: post #208
kevincrane wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fo…

> 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 pro…

i heard that in US living in downtown is for poor people, and rich people prefer slrawling suburbs

Re: The popularity of e-bikes isn’t slowing down

#284

Post by jyounker »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #123
bink wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I fear the push-back when someone inevitably gets hurt. Which is fascinating and really tells you something about ingroups and outgroups because cyclists are hurt and killed every day by drivers and strangely nobody seems to be that fussed about it.

The only time I ever biked to Cleveland, Texas (about 60 miles North of Houston) I spent much of the trip dodging drivers who thought it was entertaining to throw things at me. Thinks like bricks.

The hatred heaped on cyclists escalates towards violence, and next to nobody on the escalating side (motorists) really acknowledges that it happens.

Re: The popularity of e-bikes isn’t slowing down

#285

Post by rp1 »

notatoad wrote: post #87
notacoward wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the short-term hell is simply more people experiencing what most cyclists are already used to. Did you miss the part where the cyclists are the ones inflicting that hell on others sometimes? Cyclists haven't been the only ones demanding better non-automotive infrastructure. I've supported the local path with both my dollars and the sweat of my brow, only to have freeloading cyclists tell me that they have priority…

again, this is exactly the sort of politics that hopefully will change as more people ride bikes. yes, there's some bad cyclists. but because there's few enough cyclists, people who aren't cyclists like to group us all together. when a driver or pedestrian is an asshole, you say the person was an asshole, because you understand that they don't represent all drivers or all pedestrians any more than you do. but when a…

I think the difference is that people dislike cyclists because they like the drive, and cyclists make driving extremely dangerous. I can basically autopilot down any road with exclusive auto and pedestrian traffic, but introduce a cyclist and I have to pay extreme attention to avoid causing a tragedy. I totally support cyclists right to cycle, but I’m just providing some commentary on why cyclists as a whole are painted in a bad light. It’s not really about the behavior of cyclists.

Re: The popularity of e-bikes isn’t slowing down

#286

Post by jyounker »

parineum wrote: post #65
kevincrane wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most bikers only use the sidewalk when the road infrastructure as-is isn’t safe enough for bikers. 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.

> Most bikers only use the sidewalk when the road infrastructure as-is isn’t safe enough for bikers. You have to see how this is a completely selfish position right? The road is dangerous for cyclists so cyclists make the sidewalk dangerous for pedestrians. Sure there's a difference in degree but that's not a justification. > And I fully agree that there are a lot of bad bikers, but a bad biker is a nuisance to a dri…

You are assuming that people using the sidewalk are doing so in a reckless manner.

Re: The popularity of e-bikes isn’t slowing down

#287

Post by ClumsyPilot »

nradov wrote: post #107
enriquto wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

That's a nice ideal but it's just not realistic in most existing built up areas. There's literally not enough space for three separate networks without knocking down existing buildings and buying a lot of land through eminent domain. Let's focus on what can actually be achieved with realistic levels of funding.

"That's a nice ideal but it's just not realistic in most existing built up areas. There's literally not enough space"

There was not enough space for cars, we tore down entire neighbourhoods and blasted through bedrock to create highways.

There is not enough money to fund a moon program or fix climate change, but when time came to bail out the banks, if you stacked that money as 1-dollar bills it would reach the moon.

There is not enough money to Fusion research, but our fossil fuel and airline subsidies in one year are greater that all-time fusion research budget.

Priorities.

Re: The popularity of e-bikes isn’t slowing down

#288

Post by rectang »

jkdufair wrote: post #269
fnord77 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 miles is quite a distance for a bike commute. I've done about this distance for a while and I won't go back to doing it. Interestingly, the average distance the Dutch ride is about 1.2 miles per day: https://www.peopleforbikes.org/news/best-kept-secret-dutch-b...

A 5 mile commute on an eBike is trivial.

That depends on road conditions and layout, typical traffic, weather, general health (need decent balance, eyesight, hearing, ability to ride over potholes, enough toughness that a spill isn't life-threatening)...

I could go for "often doable".

Re: The popularity of e-bikes isn’t slowing down

#289

Post by fennecfoxen »

Johnny555 wrote: post #155
Spooky23 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. It’s like dealing with serious lap swimmers.

If you think fast cycling "Lance Armstrong wannabes" are bad, wait until the trail is taken over by 30mph eBike riders that not only aren't experienced enough to ride safely at that speed, but they bolted on the eBike drive to a bike that was not intended for that speed.

Wait until you live in NYC and they go this speed in the wrong direction on a one way street and want you to brave the traffic so as to let them by.

Re: The popularity of e-bikes isn’t slowing down

#290

Post by nradov »

jmcphers wrote: post #208
kevincrane wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fo…

> 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 pro…

In urban areas I see a lot of the lowest income restaurant workers commuting by bike. Those people often live fairly close to work, but are in some kind of precarious semi-legal housing situation or actually homeless. Most aren't citizens and are basically invisible to politicians and urban planners.

For example check out the restaurants in Mountain View, CA patronized by affluent employees of Google and LinkedIn. Walk around back and you'll see a bunch of cheap bikes.

Post reply on HN