6 ms·

> Not everybody has the same usage patterns as you do. Sure, but keep in mind that bikers riding on the rolling hills of the French countryside are a significa

by eecc 3y ago

> Not everybody has the same usage patterns as you do. Sure, but keep in mind that bikers riding on the rolling hills of the French countryside are a significantly smaller demography than the millions driving across the highway infrastructure.

vladvasiliu 3y ago
Absolutely. But that doesn't mean we should push everybody to ride electric bikes just because those riding in remote places are few and far between. The feeling I get whenever these discussions come up is that there's a distinct lack of nuance, and a tendency to shove a one-size-fits-all solution down peoples' throats, even though the solution might only fit-most. I get that it's easier to reason with absolutes, and that sometimes some people may need a nudge to take the jump. But I also understand being pushed like this with no apparent concern for peoples' situations can make them close down to the argument, even if it could actually make sense for them in the end. People complaining about range anxiety are usually told "nah man, it's just FUD!" Maybe it is just FUD even for a sizable portion of those complaining, but just dismissing their concerns out of hand doesn't seem like a good approach. And this isn't just a bunch of people on a random discussion board. It's actual policies being enacted affecting peoples' actual lives. Talking about France, in a few years' time my motorbike won't be allowed inside Paris (where I live). I rarely use it. I'd really love to see the proof that building and buying a new one, to replace the one that is in perfect working condition, is actually better for the environment. Especially given that the newer model which complies with the current pollution standards consumes the same amount of gas as mine (judging by the manufacturer's specs). Of course, this law is stupid because it only considers the year the vehicle was sold, but it's just one example of many why people may have a knee-jerk reaction to being forcibly pushed to adopt new things.
- eecc 3y ago
  Sorry but I’m not that sorry for your bike. https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/2023-shatters-climate-records-major-impacts https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/2023-shatters-climate-reco... This year we visited the Dolomites and the weather was insane. The place was full of old photo's of meters high snowfalls but all they got this year was a couple centimeters in early December. We need to change our habits, this pace is unsustainable https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/2023-shatters-climate-records-major-impacts https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/2023-shatters-climate-reco...
  - vladvasiliu 3y ago
    So you're saying that trashing a perfectly good bike and building another one, only to be ridden what? 10000 km at most a year, is a good deal for the environment? And consume the same amount of gas, so put out the same amount of CO2? My bike was an example where the general one-size-fits-all solution is actually counter-productive. This is exactly the issue I'm talking about. I'm all for preserving the environment, I really am. And I think that moving the immense majority of (sub-)urban commuters from ICE to EV is great and will make a difference. Or, even better: stop commuting if possible! Isn't the mantra "reduce, reuse, recycle", "in that order"? How are we reducing or even reusing here? But this whole "replace all ICE vehicles now" just screams of disguised "won't somebody think of the economy?"
    - natch 3y ago
      Electric is quieter, so many people you probably would never even notice or be aware of, who are out there seeking a peaceful direct experience of the mountains, will appreciate the absence of your motorcycle in that respect. Also you make a common mistake of motorcycle owners in equating the amount of gas consumed with the amount of pollution. Smaller engines are by far vastly more polluting per kilometer than larger ones. Which is saying something even worse than saying their per-litre pollution is bad since motorcycles get more kilometers per litre. In other words even with their better per-kilometer gas usage, they still pollute more per unit of distance travelled. That is truly bad, from a pollution perspective. It’s a mistake to think the small amount of gas used means there is less impact. So your motorcycle should be trashed, yes.
      - vladvasiliu 3y ago
        I would also love being able to ride a quiet motorbike. One of the reasons I have my specific model is that it's very quiet. I'm not against EV bikes, mind. I'm talking about practical issues, here, and saying that as of today, electric bikes' range combined with the existing infrastructure would have a hard time replacing ICE bikes. I'm all for your considering that I shouldn't get to enjoy the mountains, but please, come out and say that, instead of dancing around the subject and saying that a newer ICE bike would be just fine. The argument just loses credibilty. > Smaller engines are by far vastly more polluting per kilometer than larger ones. How small are we talking, here? My motorbike's engine is bigger than many modern ICE cars' (I'm in Europe, so big-ass V8s aren't that common). Be that as it may, you seem to ignore what I'd say is the most important part of my argument: I'm not complaining that I wouldn't be allowed to ride any bike. I'm complaining that the powers that be figured that a newer bike, with the same weight and similar sized engine (smaller, actually! – so more polluting?) and the same gas consumption is somehow better than my older model, and I should be allowed to ride that and not the one I already have.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  > Absolutely. But that doesn't mean we should push everybody to ride electric bikes just because those riding in remote places are few and far between. The situation you described is purely recreative. Others might argue that the climate is much more important than the personal hobby of a few motorcyclists and would warrant banning ICE vehicles altogether. One can change recreational activities easily. > I'd really love to see the proof that building and buying a new one, to replace the one that is in perfect working condition, is actually better for the environment. I am with you on that one and I believe that if all this wasn't an hypocritical way to save the automotive industry, the governments would push and force car brands to develop and sell homologated EV conversion kits for all cars builds in the last 30 years.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    The endless focus on hobbies involving ICE misses the forest for the trees and has pitted tons of large hobby communities against environmentalists for decades because many environmentalists would much rather pick a fight with car guys than with the inter-global corporations and the defense forces that actually make up most of the worldwide emissions pool. International shipping is single-handedly the greatest contributor by a small margin, tons of which just does not need to happen, full stop. We send products around the entire world because it costs pennies less to package pineapple in one country than another, and most of it goes in the fucking garbage anyway. And the products that do require shipping could be done in a much, much more efficient manner to save tons and tons of ship traffic per year. The other major contributor is industry, which could be trimmed significantly if we put serious work into ending the production of stupid, useless, shitty items that no one actually wants (knockoff electronics, basically anything drop-shipped, single use fucking lithium phone chargers). And all that's not even going into shit like the FIELDS of e-bikes and e-scooters being stacked in China because there's just nowhere to go with that. Military dick-wagging especially but not solely by the United States accounts for absolute shit-tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere, too, absolutely none of which needs to happen. Military vehicles, construction vehicles, LTL trucks, service vehicles like garbage trucks: this is where we can make big dents in climate change. Not by taking away Jerry's Corvette that does, at best, 10k miles if he has a good year where he gets in a lot of track time. As far as I'm concerned this is just the "check your carbon footprint" garbage with extra steps: blaming consumers for the state of the environment while completely letting off the dozens of multi-national corporations actually holding the power and making the decisions that are collapsing the biosphere.

by eecc 3y ago

vladvasiliu 3y ago

Absolutely. But that doesn't mean we should push everybody to ride electric bikes just because those riding in remote places are few and far between. The feeling I get whenever these discussions come up is that there's a distinct lack of nuance, and a tendency to shove a one-size-fits-all solution down peoples' throats, even though the solution might only fit-most. I get that it's easier to reason with absolutes, and that sometimes some people may need a nudge to take the jump. But I also understand being pushed like this with no apparent concern for peoples' situations can make them close down to the argument, even if it could actually make sense for them in the end. People complaining about range anxiety are usually told "nah man, it's just FUD!" Maybe it is just FUD even for a sizable portion of those complaining, but just dismissing their concerns out of hand doesn't seem like a good approach. And this isn't just a bunch of people on a random discussion board. It's actual policies being enacted affecting peoples' actual lives. Talking about France, in a few years' time my motorbike won't be allowed inside Paris (where I live). I rarely use it. I'd really love to see the proof that building and buying a new one, to replace the one that is in perfect working condition, is actually better for the environment. Especially given that the newer model which complies with the current pollution standards consumes the same amount of gas as mine (judging by the manufacturer's specs). Of course, this law is stupid because it only considers the year the vehicle was sold, but it's just one example of many why people may have a knee-jerk reaction to being forcibly pushed to adopt new things.

eecc 3y ago
Sorry but I’m not that sorry for your bike. https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/2023-shatters-climate-records-major-impacts https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/2023-shatters-climate-reco... This year we visited the Dolomites and the weather was insane. The place was full of old photo's of meters high snowfalls but all they got this year was a couple centimeters in early December. We need to change our habits, this pace is unsustainable https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/2023-shatters-climate-records-major-impacts https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/2023-shatters-climate-reco...
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  So you're saying that trashing a perfectly good bike and building another one, only to be ridden what? 10000 km at most a year, is a good deal for the environment? And consume the same amount of gas, so put out the same amount of CO2? My bike was an example where the general one-size-fits-all solution is actually counter-productive. This is exactly the issue I'm talking about. I'm all for preserving the environment, I really am. And I think that moving the immense majority of (sub-)urban commuters from ICE to EV is great and will make a difference. Or, even better: stop commuting if possible! Isn't the mantra "reduce, reuse, recycle", "in that order"? How are we reducing or even reusing here? But this whole "replace all ICE vehicles now" just screams of disguised "won't somebody think of the economy?"
  - natch 3y ago
    Electric is quieter, so many people you probably would never even notice or be aware of, who are out there seeking a peaceful direct experience of the mountains, will appreciate the absence of your motorcycle in that respect. Also you make a common mistake of motorcycle owners in equating the amount of gas consumed with the amount of pollution. Smaller engines are by far vastly more polluting per kilometer than larger ones. Which is saying something even worse than saying their per-litre pollution is bad since motorcycles get more kilometers per litre. In other words even with their better per-kilometer gas usage, they still pollute more per unit of distance travelled. That is truly bad, from a pollution perspective. It’s a mistake to think the small amount of gas used means there is less impact. So your motorcycle should be trashed, yes.
    - vladvasiliu 3y ago
      I would also love being able to ride a quiet motorbike. One of the reasons I have my specific model is that it's very quiet. I'm not against EV bikes, mind. I'm talking about practical issues, here, and saying that as of today, electric bikes' range combined with the existing infrastructure would have a hard time replacing ICE bikes. I'm all for your considering that I shouldn't get to enjoy the mountains, but please, come out and say that, instead of dancing around the subject and saying that a newer ICE bike would be just fine. The argument just loses credibilty. > Smaller engines are by far vastly more polluting per kilometer than larger ones. How small are we talking, here? My motorbike's engine is bigger than many modern ICE cars' (I'm in Europe, so big-ass V8s aren't that common). Be that as it may, you seem to ignore what I'd say is the most important part of my argument: I'm not complaining that I wouldn't be allowed to ride any bike. I'm complaining that the powers that be figured that a newer bike, with the same weight and similar sized engine (smaller, actually! – so more polluting?) and the same gas consumption is somehow better than my older model, and I should be allowed to ride that and not the one I already have.
prmoustache 3y ago
> Absolutely. But that doesn't mean we should push everybody to ride electric bikes just because those riding in remote places are few and far between. The situation you described is purely recreative. Others might argue that the climate is much more important than the personal hobby of a few motorcyclists and would warrant banning ICE vehicles altogether. One can change recreational activities easily. > I'd really love to see the proof that building and buying a new one, to replace the one that is in perfect working condition, is actually better for the environment. I am with you on that one and I believe that if all this wasn't an hypocritical way to save the automotive industry, the governments would push and force car brands to develop and sell homologated EV conversion kits for all cars builds in the last 30 years.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  The endless focus on hobbies involving ICE misses the forest for the trees and has pitted tons of large hobby communities against environmentalists for decades because many environmentalists would much rather pick a fight with car guys than with the inter-global corporations and the defense forces that actually make up most of the worldwide emissions pool. International shipping is single-handedly the greatest contributor by a small margin, tons of which just does not need to happen, full stop. We send products around the entire world because it costs pennies less to package pineapple in one country than another, and most of it goes in the fucking garbage anyway. And the products that do require shipping could be done in a much, much more efficient manner to save tons and tons of ship traffic per year. The other major contributor is industry, which could be trimmed significantly if we put serious work into ending the production of stupid, useless, shitty items that no one actually wants (knockoff electronics, basically anything drop-shipped, single use fucking lithium phone chargers). And all that's not even going into shit like the FIELDS of e-bikes and e-scooters being stacked in China because there's just nowhere to go with that. Military dick-wagging especially but not solely by the United States accounts for absolute shit-tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere, too, absolutely none of which needs to happen. Military vehicles, construction vehicles, LTL trucks, service vehicles like garbage trucks: this is where we can make big dents in climate change. Not by taking away Jerry's Corvette that does, at best, 10k miles if he has a good year where he gets in a lot of track time. As far as I'm concerned this is just the "check your carbon footprint" garbage with extra steps: blaming consumers for the state of the environment while completely letting off the dozens of multi-national corporations actually holding the power and making the decisions that are collapsing the biosphere.