I love the idea of e-bikes, but I think people are acting dangerously on them. I think a modest amount of training and licensure -- at least to tell people to obey traffic laws, wear helmets, and not go 30 miles per hour on sidewalks or pedestrian zones -- would respect freedom while removing a lot of danger.
We are at a point in time in which we can't afford to wait any longer to switch away from fossil fuels, and e-bikes are one of the ways to do so. The barriers to entry should be minimal.
The majority of e-bike injuries are to the rider themselves, and due to inattention/falling off. That's not something that training or a license will really help with. Speeding and not wearing a helmet on the other hand, those are things easier to catch/deal with.
I don't think safety courses and licensing are a huge barrier to entry though, unless we let them be. And on the other hand the safety benefits seem to be enormous.
And yes, training and a license would indeed make a difference with how riders conduct themselves. Including wearing a helmet or paying attention.
I don’t think safety courses and licensing are a huge barrier to entry though, unless we let them be.
Training and licenses generally aren't free, and e-bikes are already pretty expensive. It would add quite enough of a barrier to entry to dissuade more people from switching to them, which is something the environment cannot afford. We honestly need to be doing everything in our power as quickly as possible.
And yes, training and a license would indeed make a difference with how riders conduct themselves. Including wearing a helmet or paying attention.
I've seen plenty of car drivers on the road who presumably have a license, yet they don't wear seat-belts, don't pay attention, turn in places they shouldn't, speed, etc. The first step should be infrastructure changes to increase the number of protected/dedicated bike trails (which in turn allow accidents to happen safely), built in speed limiters, rules on helmets and speed, mixed use zoning to reduce trip count/speed/cars, etc. Such changes don't have an impact on barrier to entry or and only a negligible effect on our freedom.
Traveling by bike is one of the few ways you can travel without having the government involved in some way, or at least minimally involved. I'd like it to stay that way.
And like I said earlier, most of these injuries are to the rider themselves, which means they were probably doing something stupid in the first place. People are going to be stupid even with a license and training, so we may as well design around it as a first step.
I have a cat. It likes to get into things I don't want it to. I could theoretically teach it not to do so, but the far simpler option is to keep the layout of my house and my things such that it can't get into things in the first place. If I keep the closet doors shut, it isn't getting in. People are stupid, and similarly, we should design our infrastructure to account for that. It's why speed bumps exist after all.
We need more infrastructure dedicated to micro-mobility options like ebikes and escooters so that they don't have to mix with pedestrian traffic as often. We need to allow more mixed zoning so that we don't have to travel 20 minutes by bike to get to the store, alleviating the drive to ride as fast as possible.
We need to allow more mixed zoning so that we don’t have to travel 20 minutes by bike to get to the store, alleviating the drive to ride as fast as possible.
Not only would that eliminate the need for speed, but it would also reduce the overall number of trips taken by bike. Less trips means less crashes. Same goes for cars.
Add it to the never ending list of benefits to mixed use zoning.
It's a culture issue, too.
Cyclist etiquette is not a problem whatsoever in cities built for them.
But when they are introduced into a city without cycling infrastructure, or existing riders setting an example, there will be idiots testing the limits.
I think they would be a lot less issue if people wore gear more like motorcyclists, the only wearing a half helmet approach that most bicyclists go with only makes sense because pedaling a bike in full motorcycle gear is hell. People should be encouraged to wear much more extensive gear on an ebike.
100%. For reference, Virginia Tech rigorously tests bicycle helmets and rates them...based on 16mph impacts, and the recent NTA 8776 certification for ebike helmets has safety ratings based on 28mph impacts.
When I built a class 4 ebike years ago to replace the need for a car in an area with no bike infrastructure, limited public transit, and extremely limited pedestrian infrastructure, I used a full-face motorcycle helmet rated to ECE R22.05 spec. It saved me when a car cut me off and sent me flying. Proper safety gear is very important.
I love the idea of e-bikes, but I think people are acting dangerously on them. I think a modest amount of training and licensure -- at least to tell people to obey traffic laws, wear helmets, and not go 30 miles per hour on sidewalks or pedestrian zones -- would respect freedom while removing a lot of danger.
We are at a point in time in which we can't afford to wait any longer to switch away from fossil fuels, and e-bikes are one of the ways to do so. The barriers to entry should be minimal.
The majority of e-bike injuries are to the rider themselves, and due to inattention/falling off. That's not something that training or a license will really help with. Speeding and not wearing a helmet on the other hand, those are things easier to catch/deal with.
I don't think safety courses and licensing are a huge barrier to entry though, unless we let them be. And on the other hand the safety benefits seem to be enormous.
And yes, training and a license would indeed make a difference with how riders conduct themselves. Including wearing a helmet or paying attention.
Training and licenses generally aren't free, and e-bikes are already pretty expensive. It would add quite enough of a barrier to entry to dissuade more people from switching to them, which is something the environment cannot afford. We honestly need to be doing everything in our power as quickly as possible.
I've seen plenty of car drivers on the road who presumably have a license, yet they don't wear seat-belts, don't pay attention, turn in places they shouldn't, speed, etc. The first step should be infrastructure changes to increase the number of protected/dedicated bike trails (which in turn allow accidents to happen safely), built in speed limiters, rules on helmets and speed, mixed use zoning to reduce trip count/speed/cars, etc. Such changes don't have an impact on barrier to entry or and only a negligible effect on our freedom.
Traveling by bike is one of the few ways you can travel without having the government involved in some way, or at least minimally involved. I'd like it to stay that way.
And like I said earlier, most of these injuries are to the rider themselves, which means they were probably doing something stupid in the first place. People are going to be stupid even with a license and training, so we may as well design around it as a first step.
I have a cat. It likes to get into things I don't want it to. I could theoretically teach it not to do so, but the far simpler option is to keep the layout of my house and my things such that it can't get into things in the first place. If I keep the closet doors shut, it isn't getting in. People are stupid, and similarly, we should design our infrastructure to account for that. It's why speed bumps exist after all.
We need more infrastructure dedicated to micro-mobility options like ebikes and escooters so that they don't have to mix with pedestrian traffic as often. We need to allow more mixed zoning so that we don't have to travel 20 minutes by bike to get to the store, alleviating the drive to ride as fast as possible.
Not only would that eliminate the need for speed, but it would also reduce the overall number of trips taken by bike. Less trips means less crashes. Same goes for cars.
Add it to the never ending list of benefits to mixed use zoning.
It's a culture issue, too.
Cyclist etiquette is not a problem whatsoever in cities built for them.
But when they are introduced into a city without cycling infrastructure, or existing riders setting an example, there will be idiots testing the limits.
I think they would be a lot less issue if people wore gear more like motorcyclists, the only wearing a half helmet approach that most bicyclists go with only makes sense because pedaling a bike in full motorcycle gear is hell. People should be encouraged to wear much more extensive gear on an ebike.
100%. For reference, Virginia Tech rigorously tests bicycle helmets and rates them...based on 16mph impacts, and the recent NTA 8776 certification for ebike helmets has safety ratings based on 28mph impacts.
When I built a class 4 ebike years ago to replace the need for a car in an area with no bike infrastructure, limited public transit, and extremely limited pedestrian infrastructure, I used a full-face motorcycle helmet rated to ECE R22.05 spec. It saved me when a car cut me off and sent me flying. Proper safety gear is very important.