25 ms·

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

• paiute 5y ago
  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.
  • multjoy 5y ago
    If you remove the speed limiter you are riding an electric motorcycle, which needs to be somewhere other than with pedestrians and cyclists.
    • zip1234 5y ago
      Except in many places pedestrians and cyclists have no choice but to share the road with cars and I don't see too many people clamoring for speed limiters on those...
      • multjoy 5y ago
        If you remove the limiter and pedal assist requirement, you have an electric motorcycle. If you want one of those, then you'll need to be licensed to ride one. Do you want an e-bike you can ride like a bicycle, or do you want an e-bike you can ride like a motorcycle?
        • paiute 5y ago
          only because we have brain dead laws on e bikes. why not 24.5 mph? I see actual electric motorcycles on our bike paths all the time, I have never seen them cause a real problem. People on normal bikes cause all the problems because they have so much invested in their current speed.
          • sgarman 5y ago
            I don't think this is a fair take. People on normal bikes do cause problems because of the reason you listed but it's surely not ALL of the problems.
          • Arainach 5y ago
            Because kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity, and 25mph is 56% more energy which is a huge problem in a collision with a pedestrian or a crash. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/05/31/3-graphs-that-explain-why-20-mph-should-be-the-limit-on-city-streets/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/05/31/3-graphs-that-explain... It's also a big issue with response time and with the rate pedestrians expect bicycles to be travelling. You shouldn't bike on the sidewalk because no one is looking for vehicles going more than a few miles per hour (walking). You shouldn't bike more than 15mph on trails/lanes shared with pedestrians for similar reasons. 20mph is a tolerable compromise, 25mph is flat out dangerous.
            • pmontra 5y ago
              This matches my experience on shared pedestrian / bicycles low density roads in countryside. 30 km/h (a little less than 20 mph) is the limit between okish and dangerous. Actually pedestrians start to worry a little before that speed but of course half of them don't see the bicycle approaching. The cyclist see them a long time before overtaking and assesses whether they are safe to pass or require a slow down.
            • paiute 5y ago
              This is a good example of how we get bad laws... Should overweight cyclists be forced to have a lower speed? I can still get my ebike to 25 mph down hill, I would never dream of passing a pedestrian at that speed. I picked 24.5 for a reason and not 25 BTW.
    • jacquesm 5y ago
      That depends on the conditions. If you adapt to the conditions then that would be fine, if you don't then even at normal e-bike speeds you are a danger. I never got why we have 200 Mph cars but a moped that can go 30 over the legal limit gets confiscated.
      • nradov 5y ago
        Only a tiny handful of expensive sports cars can actually reach 200 mph. While there a few limited exceptions, in most jurisdictions anyone caught driving at 200 mph will be arrested and the car impounded.
        • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
          In this context 200 or 150 mph are the same: illegal, and instant death if anything goes wrong.
      • multjoy 5y ago
        Because a moped that can go 30 over the legal limit is no longer a moped, it is a motorcycle and needs to be taxed, insured and tested as such.
        • jacquesm 5y ago
          My e-bike is taxed, insured and tested to the same standards as a light e-moto (in Germany, a Riese & Mueller 'charger'). The only difference with the bicycle version is the speed limiter setting.
          • multjoy 5y ago
            That and it's not a motorcycle so you're not going to get stuck on for riding it on a bike path, surely?
            • jacquesm 5y ago
              No, I'm not allowed to ride it on a bike path. I am allowed to ride it on a combined bike/moped path.
    • rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
      >with pedestrians Do some cities actually let cyclists bike on sidewalks? I bike 24/7 but this seems crazy. Bicycles needs their own, separate, protected paths, at the road level. Period.
      • fknorangesite 5y ago
        > Do some cities actually let cyclists bike on sidewalks? Not sidewalks per se, but combined, mixed-used paths are very common. Whether this is a good idea or not is another issue.
      • pcwalton 5y ago
        Yes. Several cities in the Bay Area have shared sidewalks; e.g. Embarcadero in San Francisco, and Foster City has a ton of them. I don't know of any cities that allow all sidewalks to be used by bikes, but I'm sure some exist.
        • fragmede 5y ago
          Embarcadero's a special case since it's so wide, and barely has car traffic crossing it. (It borders the ocean on one side.) San Francisco has many protected bike lanes and if your route is on those exclusively, it's very nice.
      • silicon2401 5y ago
        I live in a city that explicitly allows cyclists to bike on sidewalks, and I'd never bike otherwise. One time I tried road-riding the mere 15m home from the gym and had 3 close calls from drivers. We also have separate, protected paths at the road level. Anybody who wants me to ride on the road can send me a blank check to cover medical expenses in the case of an accident if they are so invested in my riding according to their preferences.
        • pmontra 5y ago
          Luckily it's illegal to ride a bicycle on sidewalks in my country and yet many people do it at half the speed and half the comfort of what they would have on the road (sidewalks are not maintained to be smooth and are cluttered by all sort of things and people.) I'm a cyclist and I really hate them. If they are afraid to ride on the road, it sucks for them but it's only one of the things people would like to do and cannot do. Walk, catch a bus, drive a car.
    • TrevorJ 5y ago
      More specifically, you have and electric motorcycle with no traction, no safety features and an untrained rider.
      • jdavis703 5y ago
        Riding a motorcycle is easier than a bike. In a motorcycle there’s three evasive actions: brake, accelerate or swerve. On a bicycle there’s only two, and that lack of speed is exactly what causes some of the riskiest behaviors from motorists (e.g. close passing.)
        • TrevorJ 5y ago
          I think it's charitable to say there are even two fully useful evasive actions on a bike. An absolutely tiny contact patch and low weight mean that there's simply not enough traction for any sort of aggressive change in direction or speed without ending up off the bike. What's pernicious about this is, that under normal circumstances most people won't have ridden a bike past these limits, maybe ever, so the first time you realize your bike can go from well behaved to on the pavement instantly is the worst time for it to happen.
          • speedgoose 5y ago
            It depends on the bike though. I mountain bike with large soft tires, good suspensions, and low air pressure have quite a lot of grip compared to a road bike with tiny super hard tires. You can do a lot of crazy things. But I agree that the average commuter bike has low limits.
          • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
            "the first time you realize your bike can go from well behaved to on the pavement instantly is the worst time for it to happen." I am always afraid of falling of the bike while there is a bus driving behind me. Could happed with a pothole, random garbage/bottle of the road, etv
            • 5y ago
  • jacquesm 5y ago
    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.
    • namdnay 5y ago
      What are the rules where you live? In France it's either a bike if the assist is limited to 25kmh (you could go above that on a nice flat road, but the gearing usually isn't designed for it) , or a "<50cc motorcycle" in which case it can go up to 50kmh (like all other <50cc vehicles). In the latter case, no bike lanes, you need a rear-view mirror and helmet, and for some bureaucratic reason the brakes have to be inversed
      • pmontra 5y ago
        Same in Italy. It means that a ciclyst on an ebike can outperform a group of friends with normal bikes on an slope but can't stay with them on the way back home and they'll have to wait. I experienced that and it's not nice. The two types of bikes mix well only in low intensity sightseeing rides.
        • namdnay 5y ago
          well, only if the friends are keen cyclists with road bikes. no commuter in shirt and trousers with saddlebags for the laptop etc is going to be running at more than 25kmh
          • pmontra 5y ago
            Of course. We were slowly pedaling uphill with road bikes and our friend was speeding in front of us. But we had to wait on the way back home because we could do easily 30 km/h on the last 20 km (completely flat) and his engine cut off at 25.
• kevincrane 5y ago
  > 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.
  • ryukafalz 5y ago
    > 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.
    • Johnny555 5y ago
      Yup. Bit like how it's hard to argue for building a bridge by the number of people swimming across the river. It's even worse since the bridge will be built with connecting roadways on both sides so it will be instantly popular. But often a few bike lanes will be constructed in isolation,t then people will complain "Look, we built these expensive bike lanes to nowhere and no one is even using them!" It takes a rich network of safe bike infrastructure to get average riders to use bikes. At least eBikes make hills less of an impediment.
      • photojosh 5y ago
        What compounds the problem is that the bike lanes are often built where it is easy and non-controversial to do so... and so the actually difficult spots get left until last... which are often the key points that dissuade people. Key example [0], the difference between the north and south entrances to the Sydney Harbour Bridge cycleway, which are under different local governments. The North Sydney council is actively fighting an upgrade [1], whereas on the south side it's smooth access expanding into a network of bike paths. In my city, the major conflict points are all short stretches of busy narrow road, while paths are going in elsewhere. [0] https://bicyclensw.org.au/a-tale-of-two-sydneys/ https://bicyclensw.org.au/a-tale-of-two-sydneys/ [1] https://architectureau.com/articles/sydney-harbour-bridge-cycle-ramp-proposal-falls-flat/ https://architectureau.com/articles/sydney-harbour-bridge-cy...
• parineum 5y ago
  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.
  • joshlemer 5y ago
    I thought this video addressed nicely this criticism of cyclists https://youtu.be/HT_KdFCVEdc https://youtu.be/HT_KdFCVEdc
    • parineum 5y ago
      It doesn't. The law is that they have to stop. Motorists should stop too.
      • joshlemer 5y ago
        If basically 100% of people are breaking a law dozens of times per day, the law is wrong.
      • snovv_crash 5y ago
        The law is that nobody goes above the speed limit as well, I hope you never do that since you seem to be an absolutist on this? Because from what I've seen, 95% of cars break the speed limit. I'd even argue it's a higher percentage than bicycles who blow through stop signs.
  • mountain_peak 5y ago
    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.
• notacoward 5y ago
  > they change the politics around cycling 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.
  • notatoad 5y ago
    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.
    • notacoward 5y ago
      > 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 (exactly opposite to how the laws are written) and I should get out of their way. One political change that needs to happen is that cyclists need to stop looking down their noses at other non-automotive users. When cyclists stop treating pedestrians exactly the same way they complain about being treated by cars, maybe greater cooperation will be possible. Nobody likes the smell of hypocrisy.
• clairity 5y ago
  i'd personally like to see two policy changes (especially in a city like LA that's perfect year-round for biking): 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.
  • dan-robertson 5y ago
    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?
    • jdavis703 5y ago
      LA is surprisingly dense for an American city. I’m too lazy to look up LA numbers, but in the US as whole most car trips are under 5 miles. This is perfect e-bike distances, and after accounting for finding parking, walking across a massive surface lot or riding elevators down a parking deck, the e-bike might be just the same amount of time. Source: https://nhts.ornl.gov/tables09/fatcat/2009/vt_TRPMILES.html https://nhts.ornl.gov/tables09/fatcat/2009/vt_TRPMILES.html
    • clairity 5y ago
      not really, though socal on the whole is a sprawl. greater LA is decentralized into a bunch of blended edge cities[0], but the city itself is basically split into the LA basin and the san fernando valley. within these sub-regions, it's eminently bikable, with the two areas linked by subway and rail for bikers. central LA, encompassing downtown through mid-wilshire and toward santa monica/venice, is relatively dense (20-40k/sq mi), and roughly 15 miles from downtown to the beach (also connected by light rail). if you live in this central LA area (or central san fernando), most places you need to go are less than an hour's e-bike ride away, and most likely less than 1/2 hour away. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_cities
• bch 5y ago
  > 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. (Edit: expand/clarify suggested benefits)
  • pjmlp 5y ago
    And free baths on rainy days.
  • notacoward 5y ago
    > once they’re behind the wheel 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.
  • Rapzid 5y ago
    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.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
• 2-718-281-828 5y ago
  you can also look at it from another angle - those e bikers are now a threat to regular bikers as they are driving much faster.
  • jimmaswell 5y ago
    Street legal ebikes don't let you go any faster than a fit cyclist. They just make hills, taking off, and long rides easier.
    • 2-718-281-828 5y ago
      a 60 y/o hearing impaired unexperienced cyclist riding as fast as a fit experienced cyclist - good look with that. maybe you want to overthink your argument.
      • radu_floricica 5y ago
        The same 60 yo might use a car instead, and drive multiples of 25kph. And energy is proportional to the square of the speed, so typical ebike will have about an order of magnitude less energy than the typical car, with also an order of magnitude less mass. Nassim Taleb made some pretty interesting points on the magnitude of a risk vs its probability. If you get a shower of pebbles thrown on your head, you'll be sore at worst. If you get the same mass thrown as one big rock... you're dead. Same with bikes. You're much more likely to fall (you really are). But chances are, you'll not even ruin your clothes when you do, and the risk of serious injury, while of course present, is much much smaller.
        • 2-718-281-828 5y ago
          or even fly a plane? or operate a nuclear plant? we're talking here about cycling on bicycle lanes.
          • radu_floricica 5y ago
            Most people don't fly planes to go buy cigarettes. Are you sure you're ok? I'd suggest a snickers :)
• TrevorJ 5y ago
  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.
  • enriquto 5y ago
    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.
    • jnwatson 5y ago
      We’re starting to separate popular mixed-use paths in Northern VA: https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/w-od-trail-effort-ushers-in-a-new-era/article_19e2e7a0-2b80-11ec-a818-17f83b30ee45.html https://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/w-od-trail-effort-...
    • stevejb 5y ago
      Not sure why you're downvoted on this. I used to live near a very popular mixed-use bike trail, and walking with my kids there was really unpleasant. There were some cyclists who would go really fast and not slow down at all, and I had little kids who might see a butterfly and move unpredictably. It was bad for everyone.
      • TrevorJ 5y ago
        I agree with this. I definitely think there are some kinds of pedestrian traffic that probably shouldn't use a high traffic mixed trail. Situational awareness and understanding how to stay on your 'side' of the trial is pretty important.
    • 5y ago
• woodruffw 5y ago
  > 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 :-) [1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/05/15/312455673/dont-salmon-dont-shoal-learning-the-lingo-of-safe-cycling https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/05/15/3124556...
• ashtonkem 5y ago
  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.
  • Steltek 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure most of the maintenance costs for a bike lane are for repainting it because cars drive over it and wear away the paint.
    • ashtonkem 5y ago
      Weather tends to be a factor in some areas too. But generally the damage that a vehicle does to the road is proportional to the per axle weight raised to the fourth power; bikes don’t even register in terms of road wear.
• sbierwagen 5y ago
  >from people who think that cycling is a niche hobby of rich lycra-clad yuppies 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-walk-and-bike-to-work-the-most/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/05/08/low-income-americans-...
  • tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    It was interesting to see some cycling groups in the UK lobbying against the introduction of e-bikes when the EU was legislating for them.
  • Maarten88 5y ago
    That just adds another argument against safe bike infrastructure in US politics. Poor people are even more undeserving than lycra-clad yuppies ;-\
  • wolverine876 5y ago
    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.
    • aqme28 5y ago
      It's not helpful to respond to data with an anecdote. Here's another study showing the same https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Relationship-between-income-and-commuting-mode-N-578_fig1_310666028 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Relationship-between-inc...
  • watwut 5y ago
    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.
• spodek 5y ago
  > 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.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  > legislation aimed at reducing emissions subtly encourages the use of cars I'm curious about this - do you have specific examples? HOV/EV lanes?
• ajuc 5y ago
  > 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.
• a-dub 5y ago
  > 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."
• carlmr 5y ago
  >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.
• Gareth321 5y ago
  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.