4 ms·

There was absolutely a design flaw in bikes where the design of the front wheel quick release in combination with disc brakes in some cases could cause the quic

There was absolutely a design flaw in bikes where the design of the front wheel quick release in combination with disc brakes in some cases could cause the quick release lever to go into the disc brakes causing sudden stoppage. This was addressed through an enormous recall from top end manufacturers. I don’t know if this bike also had the design flaw which made the wheel come loose. Having said that, the argument that without the motor the girls wouldn’t have been able to climb the hill and therefore the bike is bad is a terrible argument. After all, that’s why you buy e-bikes to take you where you normally can’t go. Don’t we buy a normal bikes to be able to travel at speeds you normally couldn’t on foot? The kids were under the recommended minimum age for the bike set by the manufacturer.

throwaway290 4y ago
> the argument that without the motor the girls wouldn’t have been able to climb the hill and therefore the bike is bad is a terrible argument I think it is a good argument. There is a difference between powered and unpowered vehicles. Unpowered vehicles are safer for you and for others since you are limited by your own body and it serves as a natural barrier. As soon as you add an engine into the mix to remove that limit, vehicle and the rider should be subject to very different rules and regulations out of concern for public safety. This is not happening because they are electric bikes, which is good for someone's OKRs. Use of electricity prompts many municipalities turn the blind eye to the fact that it has a motor, like a motorcycle, with corresponding problems.
- NoPicklez 4y ago
  But hang on… why did the parents buy them an e-bike if they didn’t want them to go where an e-bike could take them? Parents buy their kids dirt bikes to do jumps they couldn’t normally do, but they don’t sue Kawasaki because they broke their arm. I understand there are nuances to this, but there has to be some form of responsibility on the parents for buying their kids and knowingly letting them ride a bike that they knew had an engine in it. Disclaimer, I’m only addressing the part about the bike having an engine and that supposedly being a problem. Not any of their other arguments.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    > why did the parents buy them an e-bike I don't know, imagining myself in their place I probably wouldn't. Part of the responsibility may be with parents but still, an electric bicycle shouldn't get a free pass just because it's electric and it allows some official to brag about being "green". It's dangerous to pedestrians and riders, annoying and reduces city walkability. It's a motorcycle--a bike with a motor--and like any other motorcycle it should be regulated and if roads cannot accommodate them they shouldn't be allowed to roam the sidewalks. > Parents buy their kids dirt bikes to do jumps they couldn’t normally do, but they don’t sue Kawasaki because they broke their arm. I believe if you are a child riding a dirt bike without a license plate and without a driver's license somewhere off public streets you are probably doing it under supervision. In this case, however, it was apparently marketed for normal commute not extreme sports.
    - gregors 4y ago
      That's part of the problem. People need to stop thinking of these devices as bicycles and much closer to motorcycles.
- rascul 4y ago
  > > the argument that without the motor the girls wouldn’t have been able to climb the hill and therefore the bike is bad is a terrible argument > I think it is a good argument. There is a difference between powered and unpowered vehicles. I don't know about the hill in question, but when I was young (possibly 12), the neighborhood kids and I would climb hills on bicycles to ride down fast. If we couldn't make it then we would push the bicycles up the rest of the hill, after seeing who could make it the farthest. Electric bicycles would have helped us up the hills but the lack of them certainly didn't stop us even on the biggest hills, whether they be on road or off. So I don't think it's a great argument either, because I see no reason why the girls wouldn't have done the same thing if it were a regular bicycle.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    > I see no reason why the girls wouldn't have done the same thing if it were a regular bicycle. It takes effort to lug your own mass and a bicycle up a hill. If you manage it, you are likely in okay shape, alert and sharp--since you wouldn't be capable or motivated to do it otherwise. All of these conditions reduce chances of an accident. Powered transport removes this barrier. Sometimes lowered approachability is a feature.
    - rascul 4y ago
      I don't see how any of that is going to stop kids from taking their bikes up hills to ride down.
      - throwaway290 4y ago
        You haven't met a single physically weak or tired (with resulting attention lapses) kid? They are much less likely to want to lug the weight of an unpowered bicycle plus their own weight uphill, no matter how hard you pretend to ignore this issue. With a motorbike they don't need to do it
        rascul 4y ago

throwaway290 4y ago

> the argument that without the motor the girls wouldn’t have been able to climb the hill and therefore the bike is bad is a terrible argument I think it is a good argument. There is a difference between powered and unpowered vehicles. Unpowered vehicles are safer for you and for others since you are limited by your own body and it serves as a natural barrier. As soon as you add an engine into the mix to remove that limit, vehicle and the rider should be subject to very different rules and regulations out of concern for public safety. This is not happening because they are electric bikes, which is good for someone's OKRs. Use of electricity prompts many municipalities turn the blind eye to the fact that it has a motor, like a motorcycle, with corresponding problems.

NoPicklez 4y ago
But hang on… why did the parents buy them an e-bike if they didn’t want them to go where an e-bike could take them? Parents buy their kids dirt bikes to do jumps they couldn’t normally do, but they don’t sue Kawasaki because they broke their arm. I understand there are nuances to this, but there has to be some form of responsibility on the parents for buying their kids and knowingly letting them ride a bike that they knew had an engine in it. Disclaimer, I’m only addressing the part about the bike having an engine and that supposedly being a problem. Not any of their other arguments.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  > why did the parents buy them an e-bike I don't know, imagining myself in their place I probably wouldn't. Part of the responsibility may be with parents but still, an electric bicycle shouldn't get a free pass just because it's electric and it allows some official to brag about being "green". It's dangerous to pedestrians and riders, annoying and reduces city walkability. It's a motorcycle--a bike with a motor--and like any other motorcycle it should be regulated and if roads cannot accommodate them they shouldn't be allowed to roam the sidewalks. > Parents buy their kids dirt bikes to do jumps they couldn’t normally do, but they don’t sue Kawasaki because they broke their arm. I believe if you are a child riding a dirt bike without a license plate and without a driver's license somewhere off public streets you are probably doing it under supervision. In this case, however, it was apparently marketed for normal commute not extreme sports.
  - gregors 4y ago
    That's part of the problem. People need to stop thinking of these devices as bicycles and much closer to motorcycles.
rascul 4y ago
> > the argument that without the motor the girls wouldn’t have been able to climb the hill and therefore the bike is bad is a terrible argument > I think it is a good argument. There is a difference between powered and unpowered vehicles. I don't know about the hill in question, but when I was young (possibly 12), the neighborhood kids and I would climb hills on bicycles to ride down fast. If we couldn't make it then we would push the bicycles up the rest of the hill, after seeing who could make it the farthest. Electric bicycles would have helped us up the hills but the lack of them certainly didn't stop us even on the biggest hills, whether they be on road or off. So I don't think it's a great argument either, because I see no reason why the girls wouldn't have done the same thing if it were a regular bicycle.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  > I see no reason why the girls wouldn't have done the same thing if it were a regular bicycle. It takes effort to lug your own mass and a bicycle up a hill. If you manage it, you are likely in okay shape, alert and sharp--since you wouldn't be capable or motivated to do it otherwise. All of these conditions reduce chances of an accident. Powered transport removes this barrier. Sometimes lowered approachability is a feature.
  - rascul 4y ago
    I don't see how any of that is going to stop kids from taking their bikes up hills to ride down.
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      You haven't met a single physically weak or tired (with resulting attention lapses) kid? They are much less likely to want to lug the weight of an unpowered bicycle plus their own weight uphill, no matter how hard you pretend to ignore this issue. With a motorbike they don't need to do it
      - rascul 4y ago