2 ms·
Ahh I think we might be arguing past each other. I was arguing against the the argument that the kids wouldn't have gotten up the hill without an electric bicyc
by rascul 4y ago
Ahh I think we might be arguing past each other. I was arguing against the the argument that the kids wouldn't have gotten up the hill without an electric bicycle, as that's something that kids do often. I believe you're arguing that it's more difficult without the electric motor, and possibly less likely that they would have gone up the hill, and I agree with that.
- throwaway290 4y agoYeah, reduced likelihood is my primary point. Not a certainty of course, and this probably cannot be argued in court in this particular case, but in general I don't think it's obvious that cities should lower the bar so much for using powered transport on public streets just because it's electric...