3 ms·

I find it hard to take the debate seriously because the default stance of everyone against electric 2-wheelers is not manual bikes, its cars. And, cars are mul

by dijit 2y ago

I find it hard to take the debate seriously because the default stance of everyone against electric 2-wheelers is not manual bikes, its cars. And, cars are multiple orders of magnitude more dangerous than anything on 2-wheels. I’m sure you’re right that theres room for improvement, but instead of building infrastructure (we literally shaped cities for cars after all)- we would rather ensure that cars are incumbent forever despite the harm we see them causing.

lazide 2y ago
Cars are far less dangerous for occupants than 2 wheeled vehicles.
- dijit 2y ago
  Perhaps there is less incentive then to drive dangerously.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    That hasn't shown up in the fatality statistics for motorcycles. Sometimes more dangerous is just more dangerous.
    - dijit 2y ago
      I’d appreciate it if there was an attempt to actually engage here, this is hardly the gotcha you might think. Most fatalities of motorcycles are due to collisions with cars, not other bikes nor pedestrians. Diligence won’t save you if a driver unexpectedly swerves into you. Undoubtedly there are stupid people and people who are more likely to take more risks will be more likely to engage in motorcycle riding; creating an additional selection bias. But, we’re talking about electric scooters, e-bikes and so on, the core issue remains to be that mixed use-infrastructure will have a loser. Letting cars drive on pavements isn’t permitted for the same reason e-bikes shouldn’t be in traffic (or on the pavement).
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > Diligence won’t save you if a driver unexpectedly swerves into you. That's the point. Diligence won't save you but crumple zones might have. It's also not obvious that most collisions being with cars isn't just because most other vehicles are cars. If two motorcycles collide with each other at high speed, the damage they do to each other isn't your problem, it's the resulting loss of control and the damage to your body when you impact the pavement. > Letting cars drive on pavements isn’t permitted for the same reason e-bikes shouldn’t be in traffic (or on the pavement). But then you're stuck between three bad options: You have separate roads specifically for e-bikes (implausible), you put high speed e-bikes in pedestrian zones, or you limit the top speed of e-bikes to something safe for pedestrians and then people go back to buying cars because e-bikes are too slow.
        dijit 2y ago
        My point is cars don’t necessarily deserve the deference society affords them, they’re utility vehicles, needed by fewer people than we think (but still needed). The paths we reserve for car use should be diminished. If every person was driving an articulated truck then there would be more deaths, caused not just by collisions and poor driving but by emissions too. We’d need bigger roads too- its unnecessary for everyone to do this.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        The general problem is that it's not that fewer people need them, it's that most people need them on fewer occasions, but they're not going to buy, register and insure separate vehicles for different uses. So they get one that does everything and use it for everything, and then they're driving an SUV even when they're traveling alone with no cargo. To get away from this you'd have to completely redesign US cities to have people living in them instead of significant numbers commuting in from the suburbs. To begin with you'd need a massive amount of new higher density housing, the construction of which is currently inhibited by building codes where not outright prohibited by zoning. Trying to solve the rest of it before you do that is going to face massive opposition, because you'll be trying to make it harder to have a car to people who still can't realistically avoid having a car.
- tim333 2y ago
  There's some data that for middle aged blokes bicycles are safter if you take obesity and heart attacks into the equation.
light_hue_1 2y ago
Are you replying to the right post? My default is my manual bike. No amount of infrastructure will make these electric motorcycles safe in bike lanes or pedestrian paths. They should be banned.
- bluescrn 2y ago
  We don't ban cars or motorbikes because they're unsafe. We require a license and insurance then ban those who repeatedly break the rules of the road. We need to find a sensible way to regulate these bikes, which may involve some sort of license, insurance, and mandatory helmets. But it needs to be less costly/more convenient than getting a petrol motorbike (or car) if we want people choosing the more eco-friendly option. Cycling enthusiasts don't tend to consider those who are far less fit/healthy/young when they push the pure-human-powered option.
  - thaw13579 2y ago
    I think the parent is talking about banning them specifically in pedestrians and cycling lanes. We currently ban motorcycles and cars from using them, presumably because it’s dangerous to pedestrians.

by dijit 2y ago

lazide 2y ago

Cars are far less dangerous for occupants than 2 wheeled vehicles.

dijit 2y ago
Perhaps there is less incentive then to drive dangerously.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  That hasn't shown up in the fatality statistics for motorcycles. Sometimes more dangerous is just more dangerous.
  - dijit 2y ago
    I’d appreciate it if there was an attempt to actually engage here, this is hardly the gotcha you might think. Most fatalities of motorcycles are due to collisions with cars, not other bikes nor pedestrians. Diligence won’t save you if a driver unexpectedly swerves into you. Undoubtedly there are stupid people and people who are more likely to take more risks will be more likely to engage in motorcycle riding; creating an additional selection bias. But, we’re talking about electric scooters, e-bikes and so on, the core issue remains to be that mixed use-infrastructure will have a loser. Letting cars drive on pavements isn’t permitted for the same reason e-bikes shouldn’t be in traffic (or on the pavement).
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > Diligence won’t save you if a driver unexpectedly swerves into you. That's the point. Diligence won't save you but crumple zones might have. It's also not obvious that most collisions being with cars isn't just because most other vehicles are cars. If two motorcycles collide with each other at high speed, the damage they do to each other isn't your problem, it's the resulting loss of control and the damage to your body when you impact the pavement. > Letting cars drive on pavements isn’t permitted for the same reason e-bikes shouldn’t be in traffic (or on the pavement). But then you're stuck between three bad options: You have separate roads specifically for e-bikes (implausible), you put high speed e-bikes in pedestrian zones, or you limit the top speed of e-bikes to something safe for pedestrians and then people go back to buying cars because e-bikes are too slow.
      - dijit 2y ago
        My point is cars don’t necessarily deserve the deference society affords them, they’re utility vehicles, needed by fewer people than we think (but still needed). The paths we reserve for car use should be diminished. If every person was driving an articulated truck then there would be more deaths, caused not just by collisions and poor driving but by emissions too. We’d need bigger roads too- its unnecessary for everyone to do this.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        The general problem is that it's not that fewer people need them, it's that most people need them on fewer occasions, but they're not going to buy, register and insure separate vehicles for different uses. So they get one that does everything and use it for everything, and then they're driving an SUV even when they're traveling alone with no cargo. To get away from this you'd have to completely redesign US cities to have people living in them instead of significant numbers commuting in from the suburbs. To begin with you'd need a massive amount of new higher density housing, the construction of which is currently inhibited by building codes where not outright prohibited by zoning. Trying to solve the rest of it before you do that is going to face massive opposition, because you'll be trying to make it harder to have a car to people who still can't realistically avoid having a car.
tim333 2y ago
There's some data that for middle aged blokes bicycles are safter if you take obesity and heart attacks into the equation.

light_hue_1 2y ago

Are you replying to the right post? My default is my manual bike. No amount of infrastructure will make these electric motorcycles safe in bike lanes or pedestrian paths. They should be banned.

bluescrn 2y ago
We don't ban cars or motorbikes because they're unsafe. We require a license and insurance then ban those who repeatedly break the rules of the road. We need to find a sensible way to regulate these bikes, which may involve some sort of license, insurance, and mandatory helmets. But it needs to be less costly/more convenient than getting a petrol motorbike (or car) if we want people choosing the more eco-friendly option. Cycling enthusiasts don't tend to consider those who are far less fit/healthy/young when they push the pure-human-powered option.
- thaw13579 2y ago
  I think the parent is talking about banning them specifically in pedestrians and cycling lanes. We currently ban motorcycles and cars from using them, presumably because it’s dangerous to pedestrians.