14 ms·

WA state recently passed a law about e-bikes/e-motorcycles to deal with the issue of younger teens on these kinda moped-style e-bikes going very fast around tow

WA state recently passed a law about e-bikes/e-motorcycles to deal with the issue of younger teens on these kinda moped-style e-bikes going very fast around town (and often riding quite recklessly). The law is reasonable, but it strikes me what a double standard there is for biking vs driving. For biking, there's a danger that's noticed, and we quickly pass a law that straight up bans that type of bike for those riders. Meanwhile, everyone knows that these giant trucks and SUVs are killing people, but we do basically nothing. Even on the off chance that we passed a law about them, existing vehicles would certainly be grandfathered in, we would never outright ban current vehicles/motorists. If we banned existing SUVs and trucks, millions of people would be screaming bloody murder about their right to drive pedestrian-killing cars.

bluedino 4mo ago
The e-bikes aren't that annoying, it's the kids (and adults) riding all over the city on 4 wheelers and UTVs. The cops chase them around but it doesn't do much good.
functionmouse 4mo ago
that's because lobbyists own our souls :)
unixuser7104 4mo ago
How would you react if told you could no longer drive your primary mode of transportation?
- nimih 4mo ago
  I agree. We should legalize drunk driving so that no one can be denied their god-given right to drive a car.
  - mothballed 4mo ago
    ~No one in the US is letting their "god given right" be denied. They are driving their car anyway even when the government says they can't. So to answer the question, they would act in insubordination, and anything harsh enough to stop the insubordination won't be practically implemented.
- epistasis 4mo ago
  How would you react if told that your primary mode of transportation is causing a big increase in deaths? Isn't that a more relevant question?
  - giantg2 4mo ago
    "How would you react if told that your primary mode of transportation is causing a big increase in deaths?" I'd ask to see the data since TFA shows only a 7.5% increase due to size. The rest of the 75% increase is due to other factors. Edit: why disagee, is my data wrong?
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - gf000 4mo ago
      Is that not a significant enough number in and of itself?! Like it even begs the question, how were they allowed to go onto the roads in the first place, when it's not even a hard to reach consequence.
      - giantg2 4mo ago
        200 out of 350M is a small number. There are plenty other things we could address that makes a bigger impact. The bigger factor is pedestrian alcohol consumption, but nobody wants to address that.
    - postflopclarity 4mo ago
      "only" a 7% increase in deaths
      - giantg2 4mo ago
        200 out of 350M is a small number. There are plenty other things we could address that makes a bigger impact. The bigger factor is pedestrian alcohol consumption, but nobody wants to address that.
- Zigurd 4mo ago
  I suppose you'd have to sell it, possibly at a loss, just like you'd have to sell a restaurant that failed a food safety inspection.
  - TylerE 4mo ago
    > just like you'd have to sell a restaurant that failed a food safety inspection. reply Oh my sweet summer child... At the absolute most they might get shut down for a shift or two.
- hashmap 4mo ago
  i would be upset that i had bought a murdertruck
- gonzalohm 4mo ago
  Are you talking about the bike or the SUV?
- slaughtr 4mo ago
  This question is the exact point they’re making about the biased response to/willingness to create bike vs car laws.
- Ylpertnodi 4mo ago
  Utter disbelief. (will that do?)
- mitthrowaway2 4mo ago
  My primary mode of transportation is an e-bike; how should I react?
- ErroneousBosh 4mo ago
  Why would that be happening? No-one is preventing people from driving.
epistasis 4mo ago
I don't know the particulars, but if what's going on in WA is like what's going on in my California town, I don't think it's reasonable. I see teens going around on ebikes, and people freak out over them in ways that seem completely inappropriate to the kids scooting around. I think it's mostly a reaction to seeing young people being young people, as far as I can tell. Same thing happens on NextDoor, a few kids hanging out and joking around makes people think there's a gang problem, I've seen it happen in my own neighborhood and it's ridiculous. It is true that violent death and maiming from SUVs and large trucks is a crisis, that society generally ignores. When I once called these hoods "gender affirming" a reply chastised me for being inflammatory and claiming that stating the plain obvious would get in the way of convincing others, but I think it's exactly the opposite: unless we start talking about the truth of these things nothing will happen.
- seanmcdirmid 4mo ago
  When the kids decide to take their E-bikes on I-5, you know something is wrong with their decision making skills: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1sjv7ua/teens_on_ebikes_on_i5_uw_to_international_district/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1sjv7ua/teens_on_e... Yes, people freak out when they see a kid on an e-bike on a crowded freeway.
  - estearum 4mo ago
    Reasonable people freak out when they see that on a freeway There are also plenty of unreasonable people who freak out when they see that on a not-freeway
  - epistasis 4mo ago
    Do they really need a new law to prevent bikes on freeways? I think that's already highly illegal.
    - mothballed 4mo ago
      It's legal in Oregon and Montana as long as you stay in the shoulder. You can walk there too. I can't remember the law in Washington. In western states with a lot of rural places only serviced by interstate they sometimes never passed blanket prohibition against non-motorized traffic on the interstate property.
kingkawn 4mo ago
Cars are a major domestic industry for production, sales, and service. E-mopeds aren’t. That’s all.
seanmcdirmid 4mo ago
People under 16 probably shouldn't be driving vehicles very fast period. That doesn't feel like a double standard since we've already banned them from driving cars. It seems orthogonal to SUVs.
- dylan604 4mo ago
  A 15 year old on a bicycle can easily do 15mph, and even 20mph is easy enough if they are willing to pedal for it. The real problem is that something capable of doing 15mph+ shouldn't be on the sidewalk in the first place. There are multiple things going on in these situations, and rarely is it just one thing a quick simple ban on ___ will actually fix
  - saltcured 4mo ago
    Not sure if this is regional or another sign that I'm old. When I was in elementary school, we were already taught that we ride a bicycle in the street and follow traffic rules. That included things like traveling in the correct lane for the direction we are going and observing stop signs and traffic lights. Also, as we got older, using things like turn lanes just like a motorcycle should do. We were also taught tp walk it on the sidewalk/crosswalks as a pedestrian when the conditions were too complex for us to safely ride with traffic. Even ignoring the peril to actual pedestrians, I have seen so many near-accidents in more recent decades from people violating these rules. Riding on sidewalks and/or against traffic flow (wrong side of the road) so that they "come out of nowhere" into traffic, ignoring traffic control lights, etc. Adding the electric speed boosts has just made these reckless things wildly more dangerous.
echelon 4mo ago
Cars >>> Bikes + Rail + Pedestrian infrastructure More money flows atop highway and road infrastructure than on biking, rail, and scooter infrastructure. By orders of magnitude. Commuter rail has 1/200th the economic impact of interstate highways. Biking infrastructure is actually deleterious as it doesn't serve the pregnant, elderly, sick, frail, doesn't work well for rain/snow/high heat/weather, doesn't transport high volumes of goods, etc. etc. Lots of cities are tearing up road infra to cater to this, and in doing so, they're reducing the economic corridor capacity and throughput of roads. Roads are simply much more valuable and flexible for logistics, people, and business. The value of roads is going to become even more apparent when we have widespread autonomous vehicles. Bikes are popular for 20-40-something men, mostly yuppie, mostly upper middle class. But they're not doing the economic heavy lifting.
- __float 4mo ago
  > Commuter rail has 1/200th the economic impact of interstate highways. Ok, and what fraction of investment has it gotten? We've underfunded rail/bike infrastructure for decades, of course money is going to flow on the cheapest route. Roads are cheap because we've subsidized the shit out of them.
  - echelon 4mo ago
    Bikes are not going to deliver your packages and food and medical services. They're not going to take you on vacation, haul your gear, or provide shelter. There's a meme that bikes will solve everything and that cars suck, but it's dismissive of the orders of magnitude more value that road infra can and will always provide.
    - mitthrowaway2 4mo ago
      Yes, they are, and they do.
      - echelon 4mo ago
        The bike meme is unrealistic, and you're dismissing all of my arguments. You're ripping up infrastructure for yuppie pickleball. How do you transmit tons of material on bikes? How do people move in the rain or when they're on their period? How do they move multiple small children or being home furniture? What do old and sick people do? Every lane taken away is centuries of economic activity destroyed.
alexose 4mo ago
I suspect the loudest voices would be from the automakers and dealerships, who make their biggest margin from SUVs and oversized trucks. They have powerful lobbyists and spend a lot on PR, so it often seems like their anti-transit, anti-pedestrian positions are more popular than they are. I'd love to see a real grassroots effort to tax (toll?) based on GVWR or vehicle length. It would be met with tremendous opposition by special interests, but I could see it succeeding in the right environment. Maybe it could be framed as a rebate for small vehicles, rather than a tax on large ones.
anecd4t4 4mo ago
[flagged]
dylan604 4mo ago
SUVs have the power of bigAuto behind them to ensure no "undue" legislation is made against them. There is no bigEbike, so legislation is free to be made so that those legislators can then pat themselves on their back and have action they can point to being pro-safety.
caconym_ 4mo ago
Trucks and guns have a free pass to cause thousands of deaths yearly. It's that simple. Anybody else doing anything that might be viewed by certain hand wringing hysterical persons as dangerous will be smothered in onerous regulation, despite statistics showing relative (or absolute) harmlessness, but trucks and guns will keep on killing.
- Recurecur 4mo ago
  Neither trucks nor guns cause a single death. The people using them may cause deaths. It also should be pointed out that in many cases, both large vehicles and guns save lives. There is absolutely no denying that larger vehicles are safer in an accident. Anything to the contrary that you have read is propaganda. In the case of guns, defensive gun uses have actually stopped a tremendous number of crimes. Those statistics were altered by the FBI to make gun ownership less appealing. Note that many of those uses did not involve firing the firearm. Please educate yourself before you spread more propaganda. This has been a public service announcement.
  - caconym_ 4mo ago
    Trucks and guns pose outsized risks to bystanders, and if you don't agree with that, you are either being grossly disingenuous or you're just extremely stupid. In the case of trucks, you can literally just go read OP's article if you want to learn more about the risks they pose, but I suspect you have no interest in doing so. However, to help you understand this complex issue more broadly (since you're already here), let me present an analogy. A framing saw is a dangerous tool. It has legitimate uses (e.g. cutting lumber) that may outweigh the risks of having it in your garage, but, critically, that ceases to be true if you don't make an effort to mitigate the risks. If your 5 year old kid gets into the garage and manages to cut his foot off with your framing saw because you left the door unlocked with the saw plugged in, you have fucked up bigtime. That's a risk you could have mitigated, and would have mitigated if you weren't a negligent fuckup, but you are, now your kid has a lifelong disability. And in this situation, maybe you would say nuh uh, the saw didn't cause the injury, and I'd reply that if you want to frame it that way then no, the saw didn't cause the injury. You caused the injury by failing to recognize and effectively respond to the risk the saw presented. Similarly, trucks and guns are tools. They obviously have certain legitimate applications whose utility outweighs the risks they pose to bystanders with appropriate mitigations in place. But if society makes no effort to mitigate even the basic obvious risks, innocent bystanders end up being needlessly harmed as a result, via the frivolity, negligence, and sometimes downright malice of others. This is the situation with trucks and guns in America. We demonstrate no will or capacity to place reasonable restrictions on their availability to and usage by people who really have no legitimate need for them, nor the skill and temperament to use them safely, and as a result people are needlessly hurt and killed by them every day. Some people think this is fine, I guess, but I don't.
ggreer 4mo ago
The law doesn't ban them. It classifies fast e-bikes as motorcycles (which require registration, insurance, and a motorcycle endorsement).[1] This seems reasonable to me. The previous laws for e-bikes were based on outdated assumptions about battery & motor technology. I do think it would make more sense to simplify (and future-proof) the law to just say, "If it can go >30mph on level ground and has a motor, it's a motorcycle." But similar to code, it's easier to add legislation than it is to modify existing rules. 1. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6110&Year=2025 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6110&Year=202... text: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6110-S.SL.pdf https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Se...
- TulliusCicero 4mo ago
  True, it's not exactly the same situation, but it does ban them for the riders (the teens) who were previously on them. You could make it more analogous by saying that we could enforce stricter regulations on big SUVs and trucks in terms of, say, driver licensing, and you'd still have a huge outcry if we tried that.
  - mothballed 4mo ago
    It blew my mind the first time I rented a 35' long 26,000 GVWR diesel truck and drove it right onto the interstate. What you can accomplish on a simple US driving license is something special you can't get almost anywhere else in the world unless you count places where bribes work. The EU cuts you off at like 8,000 lbs.
    - KetoManx64 4mo ago
      Gotta love regulation stifling the living daylights our of your society.
      - mschuster91 4mo ago
        Or: Gotta love regulation keeping our societies alive. The US averages 14.9/100k traffic fatalities, Europe 6.7 [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
bs7280 4mo ago
There are already mechanisms in place to hold SUV and Truck drivers accountable and track them down (via their license plate). The problem with ebikes is any unlicensed driver can get one, and go 40mph on a sidewalk without any practical way to hold them accountable. I live near one of the busiest biking + walking trails in the country, and the egregious disrespect and recklessness of ebike's and scooters is insane to me. Even on the parts of the trail that are split into two or three sections (walking, running, and biking sections) I see people going 20-30mph weaving in and out of walkers. What's crazy is it would be safer if they were operating gas motorcycles, because atleast you could hear them coming.
- whatisthiseven 4mo ago
  Those mechanisms don't work. Unless the driver was a hit and run or DUI, even fatal crashes almost never result in any charges if the driver claimed they "never saw them", especially so against pedestrians. Large vehicles are killing people, even with sober drivers and nobody is being held responsible. This is well investigated at this point. Only recently are we finally getting some traction on the awareness front of how bad it is getting.
simplyluke 4mo ago
As people are correctly pointing out, WA is reclassifying certain e-motos as motorcycles, which is to say they'll require a license and insurance to be used on public roads - two things that are already required for all SUVs and trucks on public roads. Being local to WA and spending a lot of time on bikes, the easiest thing we could do to improve the situation would be for law enforcement to aggressively enforce existing distracted driving laws. The number of drivers with their face buried in a phone during any kind of slow traffic is terrifying if one looks around.
imglorp 4mo ago
Maybe not so much "ban" giant vehicles as stop subsidizing, rewarding, and encouraging them. There's safety and emissions loopholes that brought this on: https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wants-to-close-the-suv-loophole-that-supersized-cars/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wants-to-close-the-suv-lo... We also subsidize fossil fuels to some $900B/yr, not counting foreign wars for oil, climate damage, health impacts etc. Fuel should be MUCH more expensive, around $15/gal. If priced right, the market would weed out these giant vehicles for personal/entertainment use. https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/in-gasolinegate-the-true-cost-of-gasoline-far-exceeds-what-we-see-at-the-pump https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/in-gasolinegate-the-true-...
- topgrain2 4mo ago
  [dead]
anecd4t4 4mo ago
[dead]
japhyr 4mo ago
When vehicles were starting to get noticeably bigger about 20 years ago, I asked some family members why they were buying vehicles they had to climb up into. "On the highway, I'd rather kill someone than be killed in a wreck." They would not recognize that while that might work for a while, it wasn't going to lead anywhere good for our society. A generation of people thinking like that has filled our roads with vehicles that protect their occupants while making it more dangerous for everyone else.
- oaweoifjwpo 4mo ago
  I agree, but in order to effect change in an arms race, you need a higher power that deletes the arms. Otherwise you just lose the arms race and die.
mschuster91 4mo ago
> Meanwhile, everyone knows that these giant trucks and SUVs are killing people, but we do basically nothing. Too much money is tied up to giant trucks and SUVs being the norm. These vehicles only came into widespread existence due to the infamous "SUV loophole" [1], accelerated by them being much more profitable for manufacturers as there was (and is) far less competition in the truck/SUV space from non-American manufacturers and, with that, less competitive pressure that tends to eat up margins. [1] https://www.distilled.earth/p/the-loophole-that-made-cars-in-america https://www.distilled.earth/p/the-loophole-that-made-cars-in...
solid_fuel 4mo ago
I agree about large vehicles, but does an individual state even have the authority to ban a given kind of car from their roads? I suspect that is more under a federal authority than state-by-state.
- alamortsubite 4mo ago
  Not ban but states can implement stricter licensing requirements for larger vehicles, and raise registration fees, gasoline taxes, and penalties for their misuse. See how Paris is handling SUV in the city center. It's very effective and other cities are likely to follow.
Aurornis 4mo ago
> For biking, there's a danger that's noticed, and we quickly pass a law that straight up bans that type of bike for those riders. This is not true. The law didn't ban anything. It just clarified what's classified as a bike with requirements like "must have pedals" and "you have to pedal it". There wasn't a ban. Previously there was a gray area where people were taking full on e-motorcycles, which should have been on roads, and trying to ride them in spaces meant for pedal bicycles.
- bryanlarsen 4mo ago
  They weren't full on e-motorcycles, they don't meet the legal requirements for motorcycles. As one example among many, some jurisdictions require a motorcycle have turn signals. So if they can't be operated as an e-bike and they can't be registered as an e-motorcycle, they've been banned.
  - Aurornis 4mo ago
    > they've been banned. No, they're not allowed on public roadways or bike/pedestrian paths. Which I think is fair and good, because they're not designed for either space. There are a lot of different types of vehicles that aren't allowed on the roads of bike paths, but people still use them recreationally on private property. You can find retrofit kits to add the necessary mirrors and turn signals to many dirt bikes if you want to ride on the road. If someone wants to ride on a bike path, they should have something that meets the definition of a bike. We've stretched the definition to include reasonable e-assist bikes, but we're not stretching it further to include everything with 2 wheels and a motor. If someone wants to ride on the roads, they need turn signals and a mirror. We don't have to allow everyone to ride everything on every public shared space.
    - bryanlarsen 4mo ago
      Sounds like a ban to me. I agree that some of the more egregious big motor e-bikes should be banned, but whenever you shift the requirements like this you're going to be taking away somebody's only means of getting to work. There are people out there driving big motor e-bikes because they can't afford a car. Or because they can't get a license.
smusamashah 4mo ago
I recall that an SUV killed a 7 year old and his parents were charged with manslaughter and jailed, not the driver. https://globalnews.ca/news/11214748/parents-charged-death-son-hit-car-north-carolina/ https://globalnews.ca/news/11214748/parents-charged-death-so... As an outsider (from a fairly corrupt country), this reeks of corruption and that law favours rich.
allthetime 4mo ago
I think at the very least owners of these vehicles should be made to undergo more rigorous licensing education and testing.
simpaticoder 4mo ago
>everyone knows that these giant trucks and SUVs are killing people The number of things I believe "everyone knows" has tended to zero over time.
dzonga 4mo ago
banning big SUVs & Trucks is insurmountable not impossible - since you're trying to have people/organizations act against their own interests. it's one of those cases of stated preference vs observed preference: for individuals big SUVs/Trucks feel good to drive, are fast enough & come with street cred. Notice I put the word "feel". for cities/state governments - big SUVs/Trucks mean increased taxes since they consume more gas - thus increased revenues from gas taxes for the automakers as the article stated - 90% of their profits come from big SUVs/Trucks that American automakers have stopped making sedans. Profits from big co's is a bragging point for the federal government too. Now legislation would've to try for all those people to act against their own interests ? Unless some geopolitical event happens - that's unlikely.
stouset 4mo ago
Yep. And the refrain is always about “dangerous” behavior by cyclists, despite the fact that deaths and injuries to others from those on bikes are essentially a rounding error. The vast majority of what danger there is is borne by the riders themselves and not by bystanders. Meanwhile, nobody bats an eye over the fact that motor vehicles are a leading cause of death in this country and the brunt is often borne by others.
progmetaldev 4mo ago
I'm definitely not arguing that SUVs and trucks are killing people, and as someone that drives a Ford F-150, I wouldn't mind having to be licensed for a commercial drivers license (although would like that to be based on skill, rather than charging more for that license). I am constantly having to dodge these e-bikes in the streets, mostly driven by children/teenagers, who do not follow traffic laws (I'm in upstate NY). They don't even follow standard bicycle traffic laws. Driving in the city, I regularly have e-bikes coming at me against traffic in my lane. I would be absolutely devastated if I hit someone with my truck, and I honestly usually drive lower than the speed limit in these areas. It's even worse in the suburbs, because these people don't have the same survival instincts when riding these e-bikes as those in higher traffic areas. It's constantly on my mind that if I hit one of these children, not only will my conscious be filled with guilt, but I will probably be charged with manslaughter charges. Upstate NY is starting to create laws and restrictions around e-bikes, but that is not stopping parents from being uninvolved. In the cities, there are rentable e-bikes being used everywhere, and it only requires the ability to pay to use it. I'm all for making transportation easier for those of lower income, or that prefer to use something that doesn't spew emissions like a gas-powered vehicle, but beyond being able to pay for the e-bike there is little being done to regulate or enforce how they are used.
matheusmoreira 4mo ago
> For biking, there's a danger that's noticed, and we quickly pass a law that straight up bans that type of bike for those riders. From my perspective it's the other way around. Bikers don't pay taxes, don't follow traffic laws, they generally do whatever they want with total impunity while the law actively protects them. Meanwhile drivers pay taxes, get ticketed for violations and have to bend over backwards in order to avoid killing the bikers.
- platinumrad 4mo ago
  Pretty much none of your entire comment is true.
- mips_avatar 4mo ago
  Everyone I know who bike commutes also owns a car and pays taxes on it.
  - matheusmoreira 4mo ago
    And I know plenty who don't own any actual vehicles, don't pay any taxes and yet they get to be a nuisance on the road with total impunity just because they are "smaller" than cars. Pedestrian enough to use pedestrian crossings without even getting off the bike, weave through people on sidewalks and generally be immune to traffic laws, yet vehicular enough to use the road and slow everybody else down, but not enough to get taxed, require traffic law education, licenses. Everything about bikes is a contradiction.
    - platinumrad 4mo ago
      You seem upset.
    - mips_avatar 4mo ago
      As someone who bike commutes my highest risk of dying this year is from biking. I've been hit twice biking in Seattle.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
flakiness 4mo ago
I hope that law comes to CA soon. The trail walk has become a deadly adventure in the past few years because of these reckless ebikes.
Manuel_D 4mo ago
The new WA basically did nothing except re-state existing laws. Ebikes cannot be more powerful than 1 horsepower (750 watt) and cannot go faster than 20 mph on throttle or 28ph on throttle + pedal assist. "Moped-style ebikes" like Surrons were already illegal on public roads.
iugtmkbdfil834 4mo ago
Meh, standard attempt at mollifying the biggest opponents by offering them exemptions and exceptions does not move me at all. Boring. Lets make it better. After all, after the nanny state representatives succeed with this, they will move onto some other cause to ban another thing they deem unnecessary and an affront to their sensibilities. They will not be content until everyone does exactly as they say ( but not do ). And that is fine for them. Where I stand, I will keep on trucking and my child, god willing, will own a veritable tank that will crush anti truck infidels under its mighty heels. The gods of molten metal have spoken. Your sacrifice is deemed acceptable -- bike enjoyer.
chazzalpha 4mo ago
I would 100% be in favor of banning these oversized vehicles. European countries are doing the same precisely because these trucks and SUVs are ridiculously effective at mowing down pedestrians. They are a public health issue like cigarettes, drunk driving, and guns. And most of these large trucks on the road are driven by insecure suburban men who work office jobs and haul maybe a couch once a year. The US needs to have a reckoning on its deadly addiction to automobiles.

bluedino 4mo ago

The e-bikes aren't that annoying, it's the kids (and adults) riding all over the city on 4 wheelers and UTVs. The cops chase them around but it doesn't do much good.

functionmouse 4mo ago

that's because lobbyists own our souls :)

unixuser7104 4mo ago

How would you react if told you could no longer drive your primary mode of transportation?

nimih 4mo ago
I agree. We should legalize drunk driving so that no one can be denied their god-given right to drive a car.
- mothballed 4mo ago
  ~No one in the US is letting their "god given right" be denied. They are driving their car anyway even when the government says they can't. So to answer the question, they would act in insubordination, and anything harsh enough to stop the insubordination won't be practically implemented.
epistasis 4mo ago
How would you react if told that your primary mode of transportation is causing a big increase in deaths? Isn't that a more relevant question?
- giantg2 4mo ago
  "How would you react if told that your primary mode of transportation is causing a big increase in deaths?" I'd ask to see the data since TFA shows only a 7.5% increase due to size. The rest of the 75% increase is due to other factors. Edit: why disagee, is my data wrong?
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - gf000 4mo ago
    Is that not a significant enough number in and of itself?! Like it even begs the question, how were they allowed to go onto the roads in the first place, when it's not even a hard to reach consequence.
    - giantg2 4mo ago
      200 out of 350M is a small number. There are plenty other things we could address that makes a bigger impact. The bigger factor is pedestrian alcohol consumption, but nobody wants to address that.
  - postflopclarity 4mo ago
    "only" a 7% increase in deaths
    - giantg2 4mo ago
      200 out of 350M is a small number. There are plenty other things we could address that makes a bigger impact. The bigger factor is pedestrian alcohol consumption, but nobody wants to address that.
Zigurd 4mo ago
I suppose you'd have to sell it, possibly at a loss, just like you'd have to sell a restaurant that failed a food safety inspection.
- TylerE 4mo ago
  > just like you'd have to sell a restaurant that failed a food safety inspection. reply Oh my sweet summer child... At the absolute most they might get shut down for a shift or two.
hashmap 4mo ago
i would be upset that i had bought a murdertruck
gonzalohm 4mo ago
Are you talking about the bike or the SUV?
slaughtr 4mo ago
This question is the exact point they’re making about the biased response to/willingness to create bike vs car laws.
Ylpertnodi 4mo ago
Utter disbelief. (will that do?)
mitthrowaway2 4mo ago
My primary mode of transportation is an e-bike; how should I react?
ErroneousBosh 4mo ago
Why would that be happening? No-one is preventing people from driving.

epistasis 4mo ago

I don't know the particulars, but if what's going on in WA is like what's going on in my California town, I don't think it's reasonable. I see teens going around on ebikes, and people freak out over them in ways that seem completely inappropriate to the kids scooting around. I think it's mostly a reaction to seeing young people being young people, as far as I can tell. Same thing happens on NextDoor, a few kids hanging out and joking around makes people think there's a gang problem, I've seen it happen in my own neighborhood and it's ridiculous. It is true that violent death and maiming from SUVs and large trucks is a crisis, that society generally ignores. When I once called these hoods "gender affirming" a reply chastised me for being inflammatory and claiming that stating the plain obvious would get in the way of convincing others, but I think it's exactly the opposite: unless we start talking about the truth of these things nothing will happen.

seanmcdirmid 4mo ago
When the kids decide to take their E-bikes on I-5, you know something is wrong with their decision making skills: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1sjv7ua/teens_on_ebikes_on_i5_uw_to_international_district/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1sjv7ua/teens_on_e... Yes, people freak out when they see a kid on an e-bike on a crowded freeway.
- estearum 4mo ago
  Reasonable people freak out when they see that on a freeway There are also plenty of unreasonable people who freak out when they see that on a not-freeway
- epistasis 4mo ago
  Do they really need a new law to prevent bikes on freeways? I think that's already highly illegal.
  - mothballed 4mo ago
    It's legal in Oregon and Montana as long as you stay in the shoulder. You can walk there too. I can't remember the law in Washington. In western states with a lot of rural places only serviced by interstate they sometimes never passed blanket prohibition against non-motorized traffic on the interstate property.

kingkawn 4mo ago

Cars are a major domestic industry for production, sales, and service. E-mopeds aren’t. That’s all.

seanmcdirmid 4mo ago

People under 16 probably shouldn't be driving vehicles very fast period. That doesn't feel like a double standard since we've already banned them from driving cars. It seems orthogonal to SUVs.

dylan604 4mo ago
A 15 year old on a bicycle can easily do 15mph, and even 20mph is easy enough if they are willing to pedal for it. The real problem is that something capable of doing 15mph+ shouldn't be on the sidewalk in the first place. There are multiple things going on in these situations, and rarely is it just one thing a quick simple ban on ___ will actually fix
- saltcured 4mo ago
  Not sure if this is regional or another sign that I'm old. When I was in elementary school, we were already taught that we ride a bicycle in the street and follow traffic rules. That included things like traveling in the correct lane for the direction we are going and observing stop signs and traffic lights. Also, as we got older, using things like turn lanes just like a motorcycle should do. We were also taught tp walk it on the sidewalk/crosswalks as a pedestrian when the conditions were too complex for us to safely ride with traffic. Even ignoring the peril to actual pedestrians, I have seen so many near-accidents in more recent decades from people violating these rules. Riding on sidewalks and/or against traffic flow (wrong side of the road) so that they "come out of nowhere" into traffic, ignoring traffic control lights, etc. Adding the electric speed boosts has just made these reckless things wildly more dangerous.

echelon 4mo ago

Cars >>> Bikes + Rail + Pedestrian infrastructure More money flows atop highway and road infrastructure than on biking, rail, and scooter infrastructure. By orders of magnitude. Commuter rail has 1/200th the economic impact of interstate highways. Biking infrastructure is actually deleterious as it doesn't serve the pregnant, elderly, sick, frail, doesn't work well for rain/snow/high heat/weather, doesn't transport high volumes of goods, etc. etc. Lots of cities are tearing up road infra to cater to this, and in doing so, they're reducing the economic corridor capacity and throughput of roads. Roads are simply much more valuable and flexible for logistics, people, and business. The value of roads is going to become even more apparent when we have widespread autonomous vehicles. Bikes are popular for 20-40-something men, mostly yuppie, mostly upper middle class. But they're not doing the economic heavy lifting.

__float 4mo ago
> Commuter rail has 1/200th the economic impact of interstate highways. Ok, and what fraction of investment has it gotten? We've underfunded rail/bike infrastructure for decades, of course money is going to flow on the cheapest route. Roads are cheap because we've subsidized the shit out of them.
- echelon 4mo ago
  Bikes are not going to deliver your packages and food and medical services. They're not going to take you on vacation, haul your gear, or provide shelter. There's a meme that bikes will solve everything and that cars suck, but it's dismissive of the orders of magnitude more value that road infra can and will always provide.
  - mitthrowaway2 4mo ago
    Yes, they are, and they do.
    - echelon 4mo ago
      The bike meme is unrealistic, and you're dismissing all of my arguments. You're ripping up infrastructure for yuppie pickleball. How do you transmit tons of material on bikes? How do people move in the rain or when they're on their period? How do they move multiple small children or being home furniture? What do old and sick people do? Every lane taken away is centuries of economic activity destroyed.

alexose 4mo ago

I suspect the loudest voices would be from the automakers and dealerships, who make their biggest margin from SUVs and oversized trucks. They have powerful lobbyists and spend a lot on PR, so it often seems like their anti-transit, anti-pedestrian positions are more popular than they are. I'd love to see a real grassroots effort to tax (toll?) based on GVWR or vehicle length. It would be met with tremendous opposition by special interests, but I could see it succeeding in the right environment. Maybe it could be framed as a rebate for small vehicles, rather than a tax on large ones.

anecd4t4 4mo ago

[flagged]

dylan604 4mo ago

SUVs have the power of bigAuto behind them to ensure no "undue" legislation is made against them. There is no bigEbike, so legislation is free to be made so that those legislators can then pat themselves on their back and have action they can point to being pro-safety.

caconym_ 4mo ago

Trucks and guns have a free pass to cause thousands of deaths yearly. It's that simple. Anybody else doing anything that might be viewed by certain hand wringing hysterical persons as dangerous will be smothered in onerous regulation, despite statistics showing relative (or absolute) harmlessness, but trucks and guns will keep on killing.

Recurecur 4mo ago
Neither trucks nor guns cause a single death. The people using them may cause deaths. It also should be pointed out that in many cases, both large vehicles and guns save lives. There is absolutely no denying that larger vehicles are safer in an accident. Anything to the contrary that you have read is propaganda. In the case of guns, defensive gun uses have actually stopped a tremendous number of crimes. Those statistics were altered by the FBI to make gun ownership less appealing. Note that many of those uses did not involve firing the firearm. Please educate yourself before you spread more propaganda. This has been a public service announcement.
- caconym_ 4mo ago
  Trucks and guns pose outsized risks to bystanders, and if you don't agree with that, you are either being grossly disingenuous or you're just extremely stupid. In the case of trucks, you can literally just go read OP's article if you want to learn more about the risks they pose, but I suspect you have no interest in doing so. However, to help you understand this complex issue more broadly (since you're already here), let me present an analogy. A framing saw is a dangerous tool. It has legitimate uses (e.g. cutting lumber) that may outweigh the risks of having it in your garage, but, critically, that ceases to be true if you don't make an effort to mitigate the risks. If your 5 year old kid gets into the garage and manages to cut his foot off with your framing saw because you left the door unlocked with the saw plugged in, you have fucked up bigtime. That's a risk you could have mitigated, and would have mitigated if you weren't a negligent fuckup, but you are, now your kid has a lifelong disability. And in this situation, maybe you would say nuh uh, the saw didn't cause the injury, and I'd reply that if you want to frame it that way then no, the saw didn't cause the injury. You caused the injury by failing to recognize and effectively respond to the risk the saw presented. Similarly, trucks and guns are tools. They obviously have certain legitimate applications whose utility outweighs the risks they pose to bystanders with appropriate mitigations in place. But if society makes no effort to mitigate even the basic obvious risks, innocent bystanders end up being needlessly harmed as a result, via the frivolity, negligence, and sometimes downright malice of others. This is the situation with trucks and guns in America. We demonstrate no will or capacity to place reasonable restrictions on their availability to and usage by people who really have no legitimate need for them, nor the skill and temperament to use them safely, and as a result people are needlessly hurt and killed by them every day. Some people think this is fine, I guess, but I don't.

ggreer 4mo ago

The law doesn't ban them. It classifies fast e-bikes as motorcycles (which require registration, insurance, and a motorcycle endorsement).[1] This seems reasonable to me. The previous laws for e-bikes were based on outdated assumptions about battery & motor technology. I do think it would make more sense to simplify (and future-proof) the law to just say, "If it can go >30mph on level ground and has a motor, it's a motorcycle." But similar to code, it's easier to add legislation than it is to modify existing rules. 1. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6110&Year=2025 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6110&Year=202... text: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6110-S.SL.pdf https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Se...

TulliusCicero 4mo ago
True, it's not exactly the same situation, but it does ban them for the riders (the teens) who were previously on them. You could make it more analogous by saying that we could enforce stricter regulations on big SUVs and trucks in terms of, say, driver licensing, and you'd still have a huge outcry if we tried that.
- mothballed 4mo ago
  It blew my mind the first time I rented a 35' long 26,000 GVWR diesel truck and drove it right onto the interstate. What you can accomplish on a simple US driving license is something special you can't get almost anywhere else in the world unless you count places where bribes work. The EU cuts you off at like 8,000 lbs.
  - KetoManx64 4mo ago
    Gotta love regulation stifling the living daylights our of your society.
    - mschuster91 4mo ago
      Or: Gotta love regulation keeping our societies alive. The US averages 14.9/100k traffic fatalities, Europe 6.7 [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

bs7280 4mo ago

There are already mechanisms in place to hold SUV and Truck drivers accountable and track them down (via their license plate). The problem with ebikes is any unlicensed driver can get one, and go 40mph on a sidewalk without any practical way to hold them accountable. I live near one of the busiest biking + walking trails in the country, and the egregious disrespect and recklessness of ebike's and scooters is insane to me. Even on the parts of the trail that are split into two or three sections (walking, running, and biking sections) I see people going 20-30mph weaving in and out of walkers. What's crazy is it would be safer if they were operating gas motorcycles, because atleast you could hear them coming.

whatisthiseven 4mo ago
Those mechanisms don't work. Unless the driver was a hit and run or DUI, even fatal crashes almost never result in any charges if the driver claimed they "never saw them", especially so against pedestrians. Large vehicles are killing people, even with sober drivers and nobody is being held responsible. This is well investigated at this point. Only recently are we finally getting some traction on the awareness front of how bad it is getting.

simplyluke 4mo ago

As people are correctly pointing out, WA is reclassifying certain e-motos as motorcycles, which is to say they'll require a license and insurance to be used on public roads - two things that are already required for all SUVs and trucks on public roads. Being local to WA and spending a lot of time on bikes, the easiest thing we could do to improve the situation would be for law enforcement to aggressively enforce existing distracted driving laws. The number of drivers with their face buried in a phone during any kind of slow traffic is terrifying if one looks around.

imglorp 4mo ago

Maybe not so much "ban" giant vehicles as stop subsidizing, rewarding, and encouraging them. There's safety and emissions loopholes that brought this on: https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wants-to-close-the-suv-loophole-that-supersized-cars/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wants-to-close-the-suv-lo... We also subsidize fossil fuels to some $900B/yr, not counting foreign wars for oil, climate damage, health impacts etc. Fuel should be MUCH more expensive, around $15/gal. If priced right, the market would weed out these giant vehicles for personal/entertainment use. https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/in-gasolinegate-the-true-cost-of-gasoline-far-exceeds-what-we-see-at-the-pump https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/in-gasolinegate-the-true-...

topgrain2 4mo ago
[dead]

anecd4t4 4mo ago

[dead]

japhyr 4mo ago

When vehicles were starting to get noticeably bigger about 20 years ago, I asked some family members why they were buying vehicles they had to climb up into. "On the highway, I'd rather kill someone than be killed in a wreck." They would not recognize that while that might work for a while, it wasn't going to lead anywhere good for our society. A generation of people thinking like that has filled our roads with vehicles that protect their occupants while making it more dangerous for everyone else.

oaweoifjwpo 4mo ago
I agree, but in order to effect change in an arms race, you need a higher power that deletes the arms. Otherwise you just lose the arms race and die.

mschuster91 4mo ago

> Meanwhile, everyone knows that these giant trucks and SUVs are killing people, but we do basically nothing. Too much money is tied up to giant trucks and SUVs being the norm. These vehicles only came into widespread existence due to the infamous "SUV loophole" [1], accelerated by them being much more profitable for manufacturers as there was (and is) far less competition in the truck/SUV space from non-American manufacturers and, with that, less competitive pressure that tends to eat up margins. [1] https://www.distilled.earth/p/the-loophole-that-made-cars-in-america https://www.distilled.earth/p/the-loophole-that-made-cars-in...

solid_fuel 4mo ago

I agree about large vehicles, but does an individual state even have the authority to ban a given kind of car from their roads? I suspect that is more under a federal authority than state-by-state.

alamortsubite 4mo ago
Not ban but states can implement stricter licensing requirements for larger vehicles, and raise registration fees, gasoline taxes, and penalties for their misuse. See how Paris is handling SUV in the city center. It's very effective and other cities are likely to follow.

Aurornis 4mo ago

> For biking, there's a danger that's noticed, and we quickly pass a law that straight up bans that type of bike for those riders. This is not true. The law didn't ban anything. It just clarified what's classified as a bike with requirements like "must have pedals" and "you have to pedal it". There wasn't a ban. Previously there was a gray area where people were taking full on e-motorcycles, which should have been on roads, and trying to ride them in spaces meant for pedal bicycles.

bryanlarsen 4mo ago
They weren't full on e-motorcycles, they don't meet the legal requirements for motorcycles. As one example among many, some jurisdictions require a motorcycle have turn signals. So if they can't be operated as an e-bike and they can't be registered as an e-motorcycle, they've been banned.
- Aurornis 4mo ago
  > they've been banned. No, they're not allowed on public roadways or bike/pedestrian paths. Which I think is fair and good, because they're not designed for either space. There are a lot of different types of vehicles that aren't allowed on the roads of bike paths, but people still use them recreationally on private property. You can find retrofit kits to add the necessary mirrors and turn signals to many dirt bikes if you want to ride on the road. If someone wants to ride on a bike path, they should have something that meets the definition of a bike. We've stretched the definition to include reasonable e-assist bikes, but we're not stretching it further to include everything with 2 wheels and a motor. If someone wants to ride on the roads, they need turn signals and a mirror. We don't have to allow everyone to ride everything on every public shared space.
  - bryanlarsen 4mo ago
    Sounds like a ban to me. I agree that some of the more egregious big motor e-bikes should be banned, but whenever you shift the requirements like this you're going to be taking away somebody's only means of getting to work. There are people out there driving big motor e-bikes because they can't afford a car. Or because they can't get a license.

smusamashah 4mo ago

I recall that an SUV killed a 7 year old and his parents were charged with manslaughter and jailed, not the driver. https://globalnews.ca/news/11214748/parents-charged-death-son-hit-car-north-carolina/ https://globalnews.ca/news/11214748/parents-charged-death-so... As an outsider (from a fairly corrupt country), this reeks of corruption and that law favours rich.

allthetime 4mo ago

I think at the very least owners of these vehicles should be made to undergo more rigorous licensing education and testing.

simpaticoder 4mo ago

>everyone knows that these giant trucks and SUVs are killing people The number of things I believe "everyone knows" has tended to zero over time.

dzonga 4mo ago

banning big SUVs & Trucks is insurmountable not impossible - since you're trying to have people/organizations act against their own interests. it's one of those cases of stated preference vs observed preference: for individuals big SUVs/Trucks feel good to drive, are fast enough & come with street cred. Notice I put the word "feel". for cities/state governments - big SUVs/Trucks mean increased taxes since they consume more gas - thus increased revenues from gas taxes for the automakers as the article stated - 90% of their profits come from big SUVs/Trucks that American automakers have stopped making sedans. Profits from big co's is a bragging point for the federal government too. Now legislation would've to try for all those people to act against their own interests ? Unless some geopolitical event happens - that's unlikely.

stouset 4mo ago

Yep. And the refrain is always about “dangerous” behavior by cyclists, despite the fact that deaths and injuries to others from those on bikes are essentially a rounding error. The vast majority of what danger there is is borne by the riders themselves and not by bystanders. Meanwhile, nobody bats an eye over the fact that motor vehicles are a leading cause of death in this country and the brunt is often borne by others.

progmetaldev 4mo ago

I'm definitely not arguing that SUVs and trucks are killing people, and as someone that drives a Ford F-150, I wouldn't mind having to be licensed for a commercial drivers license (although would like that to be based on skill, rather than charging more for that license). I am constantly having to dodge these e-bikes in the streets, mostly driven by children/teenagers, who do not follow traffic laws (I'm in upstate NY). They don't even follow standard bicycle traffic laws. Driving in the city, I regularly have e-bikes coming at me against traffic in my lane. I would be absolutely devastated if I hit someone with my truck, and I honestly usually drive lower than the speed limit in these areas. It's even worse in the suburbs, because these people don't have the same survival instincts when riding these e-bikes as those in higher traffic areas. It's constantly on my mind that if I hit one of these children, not only will my conscious be filled with guilt, but I will probably be charged with manslaughter charges. Upstate NY is starting to create laws and restrictions around e-bikes, but that is not stopping parents from being uninvolved. In the cities, there are rentable e-bikes being used everywhere, and it only requires the ability to pay to use it. I'm all for making transportation easier for those of lower income, or that prefer to use something that doesn't spew emissions like a gas-powered vehicle, but beyond being able to pay for the e-bike there is little being done to regulate or enforce how they are used.

matheusmoreira 4mo ago

> For biking, there's a danger that's noticed, and we quickly pass a law that straight up bans that type of bike for those riders. From my perspective it's the other way around. Bikers don't pay taxes, don't follow traffic laws, they generally do whatever they want with total impunity while the law actively protects them. Meanwhile drivers pay taxes, get ticketed for violations and have to bend over backwards in order to avoid killing the bikers.

platinumrad 4mo ago
Pretty much none of your entire comment is true.
mips_avatar 4mo ago
Everyone I know who bike commutes also owns a car and pays taxes on it.
- matheusmoreira 4mo ago
  And I know plenty who don't own any actual vehicles, don't pay any taxes and yet they get to be a nuisance on the road with total impunity just because they are "smaller" than cars. Pedestrian enough to use pedestrian crossings without even getting off the bike, weave through people on sidewalks and generally be immune to traffic laws, yet vehicular enough to use the road and slow everybody else down, but not enough to get taxed, require traffic law education, licenses. Everything about bikes is a contradiction.
  - platinumrad 4mo ago
    You seem upset.
  - mips_avatar 4mo ago
    As someone who bike commutes my highest risk of dying this year is from biking. I've been hit twice biking in Seattle.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

flakiness 4mo ago

I hope that law comes to CA soon. The trail walk has become a deadly adventure in the past few years because of these reckless ebikes.

Manuel_D 4mo ago

The new WA basically did nothing except re-state existing laws. Ebikes cannot be more powerful than 1 horsepower (750 watt) and cannot go faster than 20 mph on throttle or 28ph on throttle + pedal assist. "Moped-style ebikes" like Surrons were already illegal on public roads.

iugtmkbdfil834 4mo ago

Meh, standard attempt at mollifying the biggest opponents by offering them exemptions and exceptions does not move me at all. Boring. Lets make it better. After all, after the nanny state representatives succeed with this, they will move onto some other cause to ban another thing they deem unnecessary and an affront to their sensibilities. They will not be content until everyone does exactly as they say ( but not do ). And that is fine for them. Where I stand, I will keep on trucking and my child, god willing, will own a veritable tank that will crush anti truck infidels under its mighty heels. The gods of molten metal have spoken. Your sacrifice is deemed acceptable -- bike enjoyer.

chazzalpha 4mo ago

I would 100% be in favor of banning these oversized vehicles. European countries are doing the same precisely because these trucks and SUVs are ridiculously effective at mowing down pedestrians. They are a public health issue like cigarettes, drunk driving, and guns. And most of these large trucks on the road are driven by insecure suburban men who work office jobs and haul maybe a couch once a year. The US needs to have a reckoning on its deadly addiction to automobiles.