TL;DR: Due to being smaller and lighter, electric bikes and mopeds require significantly less energy to move themselves around than an electric car. The article starts with a headline about "oil demand" but then spends much of the rest of its length harping on consumer monetary costs instead. I could have said that in a lot fewer words. Actually, I just did.
Also, in SE Asia and other places where the primary mode of transport is a small motorbike, as it happens these small motorbikes actually pollute a lot for their displacement due to having basic uncomplicated engines, often not running very well, and lousy or absent emissions controls. ICE vehicles are also at their worst fuel consumption/distance traveled ratio when they're idling or crawling around urban areas at low speed. Replacing these with electric versions just makes sense.
Full disclosure: I own a gas guzzling truck, a fuel efficient car, seven motorcycles, and an electric bicycle. I use different tools for different jobs, as appropriate. If you're looking for a magic bullet, you will probably need it in a few different calibers.
I need to kill an elephant. What should I drive?
Your ancestors hunted the mammoth on foot with a rock tied to a stick. Use that.
If you're looking for a magic bullet, you will probably need it in a few different calibers.
That's a clever way to put it and I like it
Out of your seven motorcycles, which one is used for which purpose?
I'll bet you weren't expecting to get an actual answer to this, but I'm going to give you one. (Spoiler: None of them are a Harley.)
First, I do use all of my bikes for commuting (the electric bicycle often, too, when the fancy strikes me) and usually ride a different one each day. They all get better mileage than my car and certainly better than my truck.
KLR650: Long distance touring and adventure rides, motocamping, hauling comically large objects that should not be transported by motorcycle.
Bashan BSR-250/Enforcer: I ostensibly bought this for my nephew to ride on adventure trips with me, but I also use it for tooling around town, light duty shopping, etc.
Honda VT750C/Shadow A.C.E.: Two up riding and touring, also good for making lots of obnoxious noise. My wife likes the passenger seat and sissy bar. Goes faster than the Vanvan, even with two people on it for long trips.
Yamha FZ6R: Dicking around on twisty roads. Irritating Tesla/M3/AMG/Corvette owners.
Orion/Nicot RXB250L: Playing in the dirt, at the motocross track, off road, doing wheelies, and narrow technical trails I probably shouldn't try to manhandle the KLR down.
Honda CH50/Metropolitan: In town errands, shopping trips. It achieves ludicrous fuel economy and you can fit a lot of stuff under the seat. My wife rides this one more than I do.
Suzuki RV200/Vanvan: Bought for my wife to learn how to ride a "real" motorcycle, i.e. with a clutch and gears. She uses it for motocamping trips.
Relevant username, lol.
I used to have a DR650, and used it much like your KLR. It was getting tothe point where I had to fix it all the time, I had another weird little bike that I couldn't get parts for which also needed help... I ended up selling both and buying one bike that I could just ride. I love riding, and love different bikes for different things, but I don't like maintaining a fleet of stuff, keeping tags up to date on a fleet of bikes, so...
I love the little RV! Used to have a GSF 400. Those small suzukis are so fun
TLDR: they're all for driving
As opposed to what, exactly? Eating?
Well you tried to spin it like they're each a unique tool serving a special purpose that you need fulfilled.
But really you're just a guy who likes motorcycles.
Yes? That's how it works.
You can draw a triangle and label the points "highway," "dirt," and "urban" and any bike you pick will describe a dot in one position on that triangle and never ever touch all three points at the same time.
All vehicles are for the purposes of transportation (or recreation), just possibly for moving different types of things across different terrain with different strengths and weaknesses. You're trying to split a hair that doesn't need to be split as if it's some kind of "gotcha" that everyone in the world knows is irrelevant except you.
Driving on dirt isn't exactly a special purpose that you need fulfilled. Most people live their lives just fine with zero motorcycles, and here you are with seven trying to tell us you need them all.
You know, the problem with you types is that rather than propose solutions that fit other people's lifestyles, you just demand that other people conform their lifestyles to whatever your smug, unrealistic whackdoodle expectations are. You're never going to get anywhere doing that; all you're going to do is garner a whole bunch of pushback.
Stay mad. While you're whining about whatever, I'm going to be out living and enjoying my life, building memories, doing stuff like this.
And this.
And this.
Oh, and this.
And sometimes this.
And definitely some of this.
And for the record, if there ever develops a clean and green electric motorbike that meets my needs -- I'm there. Sign me up. Swipe my credit card right now.
You, though. You can stay huddled in your rented apartment that you don't own, no mobility, no freedom, never leave the confines of your city, and just sit there and bitch about how miserable and awful everything is. I don't care. The train and the bus don't go where I go, and I'd doubt they ever will.
Wow that guy just likes to argue.
stay mad
How much time did you spend on this rant just now? Lmao
Over consumption is probably worse for the environment than petrol powered cars
If youβre looking for a magic bullet, you will probably need it in a few different calibers.
This is an excellent phrase and I'm going to have to start using it
What do you think about the impact of owning so many vehicles?
Zlich. Because -- stay with me here -- I can only operate one of them at a time.
"BuT tHe PrOdUcTiOn ImPacT!!!!!"
I bought all but two of them used. That ship sailed before I even swung a leg over.
Buying second hand definitely reduced the impact. But it still creates a demand for second-hand that motivates people/companies to buy more new products because they know they can easily sell it back.
This article is vastly understating the potential benefits of e-bikes. Like-for-like replacements for car trips are only the tip of the iceberg; the real benefit of e-bikes is that the more people that use them, the less car parking we need. That means we can put back all those buildings we destroyed when we razed our cities for the car.
Fuck more buildings....make parking lots into parks and green spaces
Why not both? More housing and more parks. Win win.
We need more lanes. Just one more lane and we'll be done with trafic, I swear!1!!one!1!1!
that's kind of assumed to happen if you packed people into tighter and tighter densities
Don't forget you can ride a mile or two to the train station and get around like that.
Even if you have a bike in town and one at home. Two bikes are cheaper than 1 car and more space efficient.
If everyone had an ebike, getting on and off the train would be a complete pain in the ass. I guess if there were lock boxes it might be OK, but hundreds of people trying to get their bike on a train would be a nightmare
Many urban-suburban trains, and even some regional trains, have entire cars dedicated for bicycles, with no (or only few) seats. This is very scalable on multiple scales, when the demand is growing:
Adding more bike-friendly trains to existing lines ππππππ
Building new well-placed bike-friendly stations on existing lines π’πͺπ΅ββοΈπ΅ββοΈπ
Adding more passenger railway lines to existing rail networks. π€οΈπ€οΈπ€οΈπ€οΈπ€οΈ
There are definitely scaling limits for bike on trains, 1 bike takes up the space and manoeuvre room that could fit 3 or 4 people. Bike to station, leave bike there, use (ad hoc rental) other bike at destination is clearly a lot more scalable than filling trains with bikes.
1 bike takes up the space and manoeuvre room that could fit 3 or 4 people.
I'd say two bikes in a well-designed alternating rack along the wall takes up about the same space as two seats beside each other. Also, some people will stand along the bikes if their train ride is short, taking up less space than a seat. My estimate would be that 1 person + 1 bike β 1,75 seats on average.
Beside that, I think you have a valid point in that a big part of the solution is locally available micromobility options, but I don't think bike-friendly trains wouldn't be a part of the solution too, since people will probably still want to own bikes, scooters etc. in the future. I, at least, like owning things that make my life easier.
I've done the bike-on-train thing many times and in many countries. The issue isn't just the space the bike needs on the train itself, it's the space the person needs to be able to get a bike on board without blocking the path and the infrastructurerequired to get the bike right next to the train. Trains fit for many bikes need wider doors, more doors (that costs seats), alignment between platform and train becomes even more important, that the platforms are very accessible too (there is often, if you're lucky, 1 elevator to the platform that fits 1 or 2 bikes at a time, that elevator gets jammed up and competes with wheelchairs and childstrollers and large suitcases very quickly) et cetera. Many smaller stations still have 0 elevators of ramps, only stairs. The only somewhat convenient bike on a train is the foldable bike, but even that creates the hassle described, tho less. I try to avoid taking my own bike on a train (and I think taking your own is usually too cheap compared to a person-ticket and the hassle taking the bike creates).
Anyhow, I think 1 person + 1 bike = 1,75 seats is underestimating it a lot.
K but... what's up with the emoji?
Dunno, had fun π€ΈββοΈ
I did the math once for my own commute, on my e-bike and with my electric car, and found that while the electric car uses only 20% of the energy that an average gas-powered car would, the bike uses just 1%. My bike, on my route (both directions averaged together) got 2,200 mpge.
Miles per gallon energy? What's that abbreviation?
Just another example of how Americans will use anything but metric (we do use metric sometimes, I know, itβs just a meme). We could easily measure it in Wh/km, but then we would also have to change how we measure gasoline cars if we want people to make direct comparisons. But, since we sell gas by the gallon, we would also have to change how gas is sold. When the EPA first came up with mpge I thought it was stupid (we donβt buy electricity by the gallon!), but Iβve come around to the convenience of being able to easily compare the two types of fuel. The EPA assumes 1 gallon of gas to contain 33.7 kWh of energy.
Maybe we should get everyone to switch to Joules for measuring, buying, and selling gasoline and electricity?
It's a pretty flawed comparison, though. It assumes a certain amount of fossil fuels being burned at the power plant that's feeding your electric car. That's a number that varies a lot between regions, and is bound to change as more and more renewables are spun up. Putting solar panels on your home throws the whole comparison out. It's nearly useless.
Isn't the point for the consumer to measure their cost? Not the overall efficiency of the production and distribution for each source of fuel?
Like I buy X gallons per month of gas because my car gets 20 mpg and I dive Y miles. If this electric car uses Z amount of electricity and I still drive Y miles, I'll save Γ dollars.
It is not really possible for the consumer to calculate their respective mpge, since your specific utlities power mix will differ region by region.
That's the idea, but it doesn't actually do that. Even if it did, the cost would be variable by region, so it's still imperfect.
To be fair, even in metric countries in Europe, they use imperial occasionally. This is the case for wheel sizes and display sizes, both usually measured in inches.
Don't tell them. Once you start looking for exceptions to "use metric for everything", you'll find one in every country, and people get really angry when you point this out. As if not being 100% metric is some kind of moral failing.
Car tire sizing is a bizarre, design-by-committee thing, though. Diameter is in inches, width is in mm, and sidewall width is a percentage of the width. Why?
You're using kWh instead of Joules in your comment. :P
Joules represent a very small amount of energy. We probably want kWh or kJ. Although, I think just places in the US already use kWh for electricity?
It's not complicated. Mpge allows you to compare energy efficiency vs internal combustion cars. They also provide kWh/100 mi, which allows you to calculate actual cost of operation, depending on how much you pay for a kWh.
The E is for Equivalent. It's how "fuel" efficiency is discussed when referring to non liquid fuel vehicles.
Gotcha, thanks.
Yup. Thereβs a Wikipedia page listing all the modes of transportation and their efficiency. Electric bikes are just about the most energy efficient way to transport humans.
This is a weird definition they're using, and it doesn't encompass the whole box. An electric vehicle might be more efficient on a distance per unit energy basis, but it's less efficient on a total energy basis because we lose some of the energy in the electrification.
My only problem with ebikes is there's no chance in hell I'm consistently driving on the road with cars.
With how convenient these are, I hope there's more push to add protected bike lanes in road heavy places to increase adoption.
Get an electric scooter, Vespa size. It's super convenient.
To clarify - I'm not going on the road in anything but a car
Protected lanes or paths only for me on any form of bike/scooter
So you are afraid of cars so you take your own car... I fully understand that but it is all the problem.
We have to constantly remind drivers that road are for everyone, and not only to go full speed.
Here they painted bikes on roads and put speed limit at 30kmh so it is better, drivers seems more conscious, but we still see too much distracted people that don't realize they can easily kill someone just by not looking constantly at the road.
I'm a bit in the same situation. I can a lot with my bike but it's dangerous at times, especially with my kids in the back.
People need to go to places and unfortunately, everything we built for the last 70years were almost just for cars.
Even with more bike lanes, we need better visibility at points where bike lanes intersect with the roadway to better alert both the car and biker to the danger. They've been working on painting those areas all green on the road here, but there's a lot of spots to do.
E.g bike lane intersecting an entrance to a parking lot
There are way too many cyclist accidents here, it's not worth it. Some of the accidents even happen at the special bike crossings because of bad drivers.
And scooters just like motorcycles are death traps.
Edit: nearly everyone I know who's commuted to work on a bike has been hit by a car at some point. Not all city speed hits, some just taps. And the stories of how shitty the drivers are to them on the road is astounding.
I work remote now, but my last job was only 20mins away, but I pretty much had to use the highway. Other routes just made the trip too long, so I canβt even imagine commuting in a bike to that job.
Chicken :-)
Looks like your problem is not with ebikes, but your city's infrastructure.
It is, and we have some of the best in the country at that. It's just takes a long time to make a place meant for cars into meant for bikes
We aren't no Netherlands.
Whaaaaat? You mean electric last-mile micromobility cuts down on emissions in a significant way, just like people had been saying for years? Who would have thought?
Car-brain finds small electric vehicles are more efficient, in shocking study.
... but will instantly fabricate reasons why the car will be needed at least 5 times a day anyway.
But what if it ... gasp ... RAINS?
When I was younger and more invincible around 2005, I bought one of these crappy Ebay engine kits for a bicycle. One thing I noticed is that it wasn't really any slower from home to work than a car, because I could go around traffic. An E-bike would have been great. A lot of them get around on 500 watt or 750 watt motors, which is considerably smaller than an electric car's motor.
I'd have one now, but it's hard to ride one when I have to carry a kid with me most places.
Iβd have one now, but itβs hard to ride one when I have to carry a kid with me most places.
I got an e-bike because I needed to carry a kid (actually, two) around with me. FYI, cargo bikes are a thing:
There is no way the kids sitting on the back of the bike in that picture are safe....
No less safe than wheeling a kid around in a little red wagon or letting them ride their own bicycle.
Little Red wagons generally don't travel at 20mph in the street with cars going even faster. That kid in the photo can barely hold herself upright. One little wiggle or unexpected turn and she'll slip right through those bars and under an SUV.
Seriously, you might as well just put your kid in to one of these.
Oh no, look at all the super dangerous people biking with kids on them.
People really don't fall off of bike seats easily. Maybe you should try biking.
Literally millions of people have bought e-bikes specifically to carry kids. I own one, and my kid loves riding on the back. I have never heard of a kid falling off of one either.
Radbikes even makes a bicycle specifically designed to carry children on the back (the radwagon) - and so does Extracycle, Trek, Lectric, Yuba and half a dozen or so other long tail e-bike brands.
My issue isn't with carrying kids on the back of bikes. It can and is done safely. My issue is with what is happening in this specific picture, and even more specifically with the smallest child.
Shame on you for not being willing to sacrifice your children for the cause! Go back to truth social where you belong!
/s of course
If you want a pissing competition, I've spent the last 25 years biking about 10 miles each way for work. Plus a couple of trips to the coast every year, so that's about a hundred miles each way.
Yeah, but the picture above has them sat in a luggage rack.
it's only unsafe because of all the cars. aside from that, whats' the danger, they might fall out?
it's only unsafe because of all the cars. aside from that, whats' the danger...
Swimming in a pool of razor blades is only unsafe because of all the razor blades. Aside from that, what's the danger?
...they might fall out?
Yes
car dominance is literally a conspiracy by big oil to make us dependent, it is in no way natural.
Cars exist, you can't just ignore them. They'll run you over whether you believe in them or not
Then we should burn them
Uhhh huh.... Meanwhile, back in reality...
you say that like cars aren't flammable
No, I say that like you want to commit criminal acts against innocent people and you somehow think will solve the problem. I say that like I think you need mental help if you are serious. I say that like I no longer feel like wasting my time talking to someone who isn't interested in having a coherent conversation.
Nah this is completely right though. Soon as she stops those two kids are gonna bonk heads together, the smaller one needs a bike seat at the very least, and the toddler probably needs one as well. You could still do that with a bike like this, so it doesn't discount the point entirely, but the image itself is a pretty stupidly conceived piece of work.
It will never not be funny to me how scared some people are of any transportation that's not a car.
there are so many people who have both no cognitive ability to imagine something they haven't personally experienced or is the norm and have never gotten anywhere any other way but a car.
it's funny to because compared to literally anything but a motorcycle cars are hella dangerous, and the deaths from all the other modes except airplanes are from getting hit by a car
Itβs fun how the preview image for the article has two kids being carried around. But I can understand if you donβt see that as safe in your area, etc.
My daughter would absolutely not ride in that.
Have you ever put your kid on a bike? How would you know?
Yes. For context, she's 4 and very skittish. I have a burley trailer for my bike I got in the hopes that we could ride together. I only successfully got her in it once for a gentle ride around the park. She screamed in terror the entire time. She does, however, love taking public trans.
I have both am ev and an ebike, and a 7 mile commute.
Driving takes between 20 minutes and an hour and a half. Biking takes 45 minutes no matter what.
Car uses about 25x more energy though and parking is around $20/day.
I should add my son much prefers the bike.
I love my Bafang too but be careful of regulation depending on your country, an e-bike is 250W so of you put a more powerful motor you get in the moped category with different rules (helmet, back mirror, insurance...)
Goddamn I love my ebike. Itβs still very much a bike, but it changes the equation. I can ride a nice big heavy comfortable cruising frame, pull my kid in a trailer bike, get up steep hills that would otherwise stop me, and go 4x as far before Iβm tired. It is just a total game changer. Iβve rediscovered the joy of riding my bike like I havenβt known it since college. Iβm older and creakier than ever but my bike enjoyment hasnβt diminished - it has increased.
Same! I live on the top of a big hill, so leaving my house on a bike was never the issue, but I always dreaded the ride home. Now I own an ebike and I regularly use it to go into town for groceries. In fact, I just added a second basket so I can buy three full bags of groceries in one trip. I find myself actually looking forward to errands now.
Also, it keeps you in shape!
Yes! And Iβm pretty lazy about exercise so having the βhelp meβ button there keeps me from avoiding the bike.
First and foremost, people can afford them.
Second, they are more fun and you get to avoid all the traffic.
Third, cheap to run, no need to pay insurance, taxes, parking.
Fourth, anyone can ride it even children, no drivers license needed.
And so on...
In Norway, insurance is mandatory. And you have to be over 13 (or something like this). But in general, I agree with you.
I have heard this for years now. This all fine. I also have an E-Bike. I really love using it. But I live in central Europe. Weather is really shitty here from October-March. I use my car then. And no, clothing for biking in bad weather is not an option for me. I really can't be bothered to change clothes on my job. I just won't do that.
And the issue is where? You can just fuel up your car with co2 neutral fuel (like many Europeans already do with HVO100 Diesel in Sweden, the Netherlands and many other countries) and do the rest with your ebike. You probably dropped your co2 footprint to less than 5 tonns.
The fact that HVO100 Diesel right now is ~30 cents more expensive doesn't matter anymore.
B33 gasoline is coming and 2025 it's expected to be ramped up to 100% sustainable.
And compared to a BEV that needs more than 10-15 tonns to be even produced, just driving an older or cheaper car longer still makes it less co2 overall.
I really can't be bothered to change clothes on my job. I just won't do that
I mean... you do you, but that gear generally amounts to a jacket, pants that go OVER your pants and different shoes. You're just fucking lazy. Own it
Yup. I invested in rain pants and a jacket, all I need now are shoe coverings. Get to work, strip it all off in 30 secs and put it in a waterproof bag. It's just a matter of adjusting expectations and habits.
To me it's way less complicated than driving. I don't have to worry about gas, traffic, parking, maintenance, break downs, and the stress of driving in the rain trying not to kill anyone. I understand why people are hesitant, but I think a lot of people just need to suck it up and give it a shot.
Also, public transportation is just straight up better than both driving/cycling when done right.
I went to dedicated rain/winter shoes and it was much better than overshoe booties.
Youβre just fucking lazy.
Absolutely. Is there any context in which you can "I can't be bothered with..." interpret as anything else as lazy? But so what? I will not ride my bike in shitty weather. And most people will do the same thing.
You can also do you, but you kind of lose any sort of moral high ground in this argument by insisting that others solve the problem for you when you can't even do the bare fucking minimum
So... I go to work by e-bike 8 out of 12 months. Whenever I take my car, I take my BEV (MG4) that I charge with electricity from renewable sources.
And you? What do you actually do for the environment?
If you want to play the upstreaming game, where did the rare earth metals in your electric car come from?
Electric cars are here to save the car industry, not the environment.
Let's stay on topic: Environment. Human rights is a whole nother can of worms. What do you think the supply chain of whatever device you are using for lemmee right now looks like?
Back to environment: What are you doing for the environment except for judging others: I drive a car that has a very low carbon footprint regarding its whole lifespan. Also I ride to work on an E-Bike 8 out of 12 months. What are you doing?
Oh really? Maybe not moving 2,5 tons of metal and battery isnt a good idea? Maybe bikes were always a better mode of transport? I have a feeling that this was pretty obvious.
The article talks about electric bikes, not normal ones. That's e-bikes, or rather what I suspect that they are peddling as a newsertainment article: e-scooters.
until it is raining and winter
A fully enclosed velomobile would probably do the job, but I don't think it's legal anywhere in Europe :(
Great. All technologies that bring down CO2 emissions are needed.
As long as people get rid of their dino juice cars, who cares.
Yeah, right. And make 15 tonns of co2 extra, that would not have been needed when filling up the "Dino juice" car with "techno juice" that has 0% CO2.
But, we've lost the battle anyway already, so who cares.
Oh I see, you thinking alterative fuels to keep legacy car going. Problem is, those are biofuels and use a lot of land to grow and end up even more expensive than dino juice.
EV running costs is way cheaper and their up front costs is coming down fast. They use slightly more CO2e to make, but way way less to run. Plus those of us lucky enough to have drives can just charge at home, which is great. There does need to better infrastructure for those without drives.
Bingo bongo. There are also tons of greenhouse gases + other pollution associated with cars that are not the gas they burn to drive. Road infrastructure is a big one.
Ties are a problem that we are just beginning to understand. But we can replace and keep the car.
I mean don't get me wrong, I'd love good public transport instead. When it's good, people use it instead. When I go to a decent (European) city I want to ditch the car a.s.a.p as it's just a hamper.
I also think one aspect that keeps getting omitted from the conversation are exhaust fumes.
We know that they are toxic and a common cause of any number of cardio-vascular and other diseases, including straight up turning you into a god damned moron. Yet it's perfectly accepted that we fill every cubic centimeter of our cities with them, and expect everyone to breathe in the noxious gasses every day of our lives.
I don't want to inhale your exhaust fumes, I don't want to die faster and under greater pain just because you can't be arsed to bike instead of driving a car.
I don't think the toxic fumes are left out of the conversation. It's horrifying round schools at drop off or pick up. In decades to come we'll look back in amazement what was acceptable.
I think big cars and SUV should be banned.everyone should use a moped or a bike but 9-5s pretending to be rich will hate it.
This reads like an advertisement. Not saying it is. But it does.
Edit: Oh, AAP (Australian Associated Press)! Then it's definitely an advertisement.
Ebikes need secure destination parking or they lose usefulness
Also safety. In my area the bike lanes are just paint and some streets don't have sidewalks.
I know drivers are idiots but in my area bikes are supposed to ride on the streets. Could get a ticket for being in the sidewalk.
Same where I live, too. But I ride on the sidewalk anyway. No one has ever said anything about it in decades and I'd rather not get killed.
i just dont understand how usa and europe still has this super high bike thievery
Great income disparity, and the bikes are worth thousands, so valuable targets.
these are feasible in cities that you wouldn't want to drive a car in anyways. probably not so good for commuting around Boise Idaho
Boise is a college down that is VERY bike friendly. Nearly 200miles of bike lanes and trails.
I've never actually been there I don't know anything about it
We sold our car and committed around Tacoma for about 6 months before we moved to the Netherlands. It was awful in a ton of ways, but for a lot of trips it was way better. The majority of trips are under a mile, so dropping the kids off at preschool and stuff was way better on a bike. It's actually quite a bit faster since kids love to get on the bike instead of the long fight against the car seat.
We also did a few shopping trips. You can't really do much more than 3 bags on a long tail bike with two kids in the back, but it worked well enough for shopping trips. People look at you like you're crazy in the US when you've got things strapped all over your bike, but here it's just completely normal. We probably would ride year round there if it wasn't for how dangerous cars are when it rains. I have no problem biking in the wind and the rain here because I know I'm not going to be randomly murdered by some idiot in a multiton metal box.
I'm not familiar with Boise, but I'd bet that an eBike would still be better for a lot of trips.
He he, yeah, riding strapped into the little kid's seat behind mom on a bike was exciting as hell when you were little...
Wichita, KS
I'd drive one to work.
wouldn't you get wacked by savages
Not on the way to work. It'd be after I showed up.
Because Boise, ID is not interested in building the necessary infrastructure for ideological reasons.
Iβm going to wager this comment was posted and upvoted by people who have never been to Boise. Because that place has a good amount of people biking around. Especially around Boise state and for recreation.
Been to Boise many time. Take a trip to Europe and then come back and tell me what you think of Boise's bike infrastructure.
Any American city is going to look like shit compared to Europes biking capitals.
Compare a super blue βbike friendlyβ city like San Francisco to Amsterdam. Itβs not even a fair contest. SF is a fucking cycling death trap in comparison to Amsterdam.
Sure. I'm just saying that there are a lot of opposition in many US cities to building green and more progressive infrastructure that doesn't specifically benefit cars. Especially in red states.
True, but often times stuff like this boils down to the city planning and city budget, not the state. And a lot of major metro areas are pretty blue, even in red states.
Oftentimes the biggest barrier is that the bones of US city planning was done with cars in mind, and trying to accommodate bikes afterwards is difficult. Which is why US cities that want bikes struggle with supporting them.
Many old European city layouts were baked before cars were a thing.
Is this some universe where people forgot bikes exist? How are electric vehicles better than riding a bike?
They are much better for the shareholders.
For people with disabilities and chronic injuries, yes they are better and provides accessibility. Donβt forget that people with disabilities exist in this universe too.
Less effort? I don't know where environmentalists got the idea that the average guy is a cross fit three time gold medalist, most people want effortless traversal
You'd be surprised how easy biking is. Plus the more you do it the easier it gets.
easier to steal too, which why prefer folded bike so I can take it to my office instead of parking it outside for easy theft
I would love to have a Brompton or something like that for the same reason. Or easier to take it to other cities to ride.
It also makes you less fat, and smarter. Yes, exercise actually makes you smarter. Maybe we should push people towards exercising, and let them discover bikes by themselves?
I'm a cyclist myself and a few members of my family went out and bought ebikes before they would even go on casual kid friendly rides with me on their traditional bikes. While I appreciate the ebike making people more confident biking I feel like the people I know with ebikes could have literally just used a traditional bike and in a month they wouldn't find it hard.
People with disabilities would benefit. We get it. You donβt approve of them having something that could possibly benefit them.
I didn't mention people with disabilities. I'm very pro people with disabilities buying and using ebikes. What I am attempting to get across is that a lot of people would do great with trying to cycle before dropping big money on an ebike.
Right so everyone with chronic injuries are just too stupid to work it out! Of course. So simple! /s
Ebikes and eScooters exist though
It's funny people are forgetting that when they're the main topic of the article
Or that people with disabilities exist and probably benefit from e-bikes too.
Seems like a no brainer! And especially useful in dense cities where you don't want to be stuck idling in a car.
Is this because of China? Big middle class all wanting cars but the cities were designed pre-car, so bikes make more sense and cost less?
Outside of the US, almost everywhere in the developed world, there is a big bike revolution happening. Paris, London, Montreal, etc. have massively expanded their bike networks.
China has surging electric car sales. Almost every city will have wide 4 lane thoroughfares. At least they do have separate bike lanes, but then have pedal and ebikes mixed, with pedestrians for fun!
If you're not that wealthy you might be able to afford a car but not want to buy a car and an expensive e-bike. A car is useful for short distance trips in bad weather, longer trips that might not be the majority of your travelling, and transporting stuff that won't fit on a moped (or an e-bike unless you get a trailer... or bigger stuff than that.) In that case you're going to buy the one tool that covers your needs.
On the other hand, a car has far greater maintenance costs. The car has license, insurance, maintenance, gas, parking, etc., whereas an ebike is basically free in comparison. Electricity to power an ebike is pennies, and maintainance is a few basic tools and a new tire or inner tube on occasion.
With all the money saved, you can just rent a car for the handful of days the ebike genuinely is not sufficient.
Electricity to power an ebike is pennies
This isn't even an exaggeration imo - I loaned an ebike for a month and didn't notice any change in my electric bill at all, despite racking up around 100mi on it
Well, here's some math on that. The battery pack I have in my kit-built electric bicycle has roughly 624 watt-hours in it, and being generous/lazy and not accounting for conversion and charging losses, thus costs about $0.049 to charge from zero to full (which I never do since I don't run it flat) at my current grid rate of $0.0789/kWh. That is, 4.9 cents. Slightly less than a nickel.
It'll propel my ass (along with the rest of me, usually) about 18 miles without pedaling, albeit not any faster than about 25 MPH.
Even owning two electric cars, I've only seen my electric bill increase by about 30%. I live in the United States FYI.
My e-bike battery is about 1-2% of the capacity of my car's battery.
yep my 750w/h battery gives me up to 200km range (real world uses usually about 130km) and costs less than a dollar to charge from empty to full
Yeah, which is why it's the reasonably wealthy people who have cars and not bikes. But that includes almost everyone in developed countries.
E-bikes are kind of a red herring here anyway; there's little practical use-case for them that isn't already covered by unpowered bicycles unless you live somewhere very hilly. (Even in moderately hilly places you get used to hills quite quickly). It's not unreasonable to do a shopping run on a bike as long as the shop isn't far away... But if it is, an e-bike won't help you get there in a reasonable length of time.
E-bikes are kind of a red herring here anyway; thereβs little practical use-case for them that isnβt already covered by unpowered bicycles unless you live somewhere very hilly.
Even in a place that isn't very hilly, an e-bike could make the difference between arriving to work sweaty or not, which can easily mean the difference between biking or not. The extra help also expands the available user base to those who are less fit, and expands the range of what is doable for any given person. And, again, I want to emphasize the sweat difference, which also ties back into range (how far can you bike on a regular bike versus an e-bike without breaking a sweat?)
Exactly. I rode an ebike one summer to commute to an internship. The sweat factor alone meant I never would have done that by regular bike, as I would've arrived at the office sweating like a pig.
The sweat factor alone is what allowed me to use the loaned ebike as part of a journey to a wedding. Had changing facilities en route but not shower facilities...
range extension is huge
When I biked to work I never arrived sweaty. Cycling allows you to travel faster than walking for the same effort, so you have better evaporative cooling (i.e. your sweat works better, before it soaks into your clothes) so this line always seemed weird to me - how far can you walk without breaking a sweat? Indefinitely, most of the year.
Weβre generally assuming that walking is impractically far for the trips in question. Itβs quite obvious that you can bike faster and further on an e-bike without breaking a sweat than you can on a regular bike.
I brought up walking only because I don't get sweaty walking - it doesn't have to be practical to commute that way. If you can go for a 6 hour hike without getting sweaty, you can bike to work for substantially less than 6 hours without getting sweaty, right?
If you can go for a 6 hour hike without getting sweaty
No, I donβt think most people in most climates can, actually.
you can bike to work for substantially less than 6 hours without getting sweaty, right?
Do your sweat glands just not work like most people? You can probably bike very slowly on level ground without breaking a sweat. The faster you go and the warmer or more humid it is, the more likely you are to sweat. E-bikes move that threshold significantly. Every person is a little different, of course, but it moves the sweat threshold for everyone.
I live in a relatively cool climate but it gets to a high relatively humidity. I don't think it has anything to do with my sweat glands - if it were then I would overheat easily because I wouldn't be sweating enough, right?
It's bizarre to me that you think most people in most climates can't walk indefinitely without sweating - walking shouldn't be an exertion unless you're climbing a steep hill or are seriously unfit. Sure, in a hot climate in summer, but there's a lot of the world which is not that.
I do cycle pretty slowly (about 10mph) so if your journey is onerous at that speed but doable at the speed limit of an e-bike than that would make a difference of course. Still, I think people get too fixated on cycling fast in some countries where cycling isn't the norm because cycling is seen more as a sport than as transport.
E-bikes are kind of a red herring here anyway; thereβs little practical use-case for them that isnβt already covered by unpowered bicycles unless you live somewhere very hilly. (Even in moderately hilly places you get used to hills quite quickly).
I got a cargo e-bike specifically because I got tired of hauling two kids up hills in a trailer pulled by my regular bike.
E-bikes make things less daunting for certain people to get on a bike for their commute. Anything that gets us there is a win in my book.
My city has <5% bike usage for commutes. It was dropping from a high of around 8% prior to the pandemic. Post-pandemic, work from home is now at around 25% while bike usage is still low. These numbers are pretty typical of cities in the US. If we could get bike usage to 20% while maintaining work from home numbers, that would be transformative. It's basically what is naively expected to happen when you add a lane of traffic, except without (hopefully) the induced demand problems. Which you can avoid by adding a full sized bike path with physical dividers for all those new bicyclists to use.
Basically, if you can get to 20%, the next 20% becomes much easier, and at that point, combined with work from home, you're down to the cars that actually need to be there for one reason or another (deliveries, disabled people, etc.)
You know, I thought that but now that I've been riding an e-bike for about 3 months I completely disagree.
You can write about three times further on an e-bike than you can on a regular bicycle and still be 100% fine at your destination. It's basically a range extender for a bike.
But it also makes you go faster and makes you less tired, and you can conquer any hill no problem at a pretty good rate of speed. Not to mention that I can carry about 200 lb of cargo on my bike with no issue at all.
There are hills in my city that I cannot bicycle up. I would have to walk my bike. Find my e-bike, I can go uphill with 200 lb of cargo on the back no problem.
commuting without breaking a sweat is a big plus
What if you need to move? You better just buy a whole cargo truck in case you need it.
Unsurprisingly there is a cost-benefit analysis going on. How often do people use their cars to do something that would be difficult by e-bike? For many of them, quite often. How often would people get use out of a cargo truck that they can't use their car for? Almost never.
Sure, some people have cars unnecessarily. Many people could use and afford a bike but don't have/use one. But there's an obvious behaviour going on here which means that electric cars are important.
How often do people use their cars to do something that would be difficult by e-bike?
Almost never.
Really? Average commute distance in the USA and in the UK is 20 miles each way, which is going to be about 1h20 on an e-bike going 15mph. I would imagine that millions of people buy groceries regularly that is too bulky to transport by bike without a trailer, and I think that if you do allow a trailer, millions of people are still transporting bulky items like flat pack furniture, appliances, waste etc several times a year.
All of that amounts to more frequently than "almost never".
E-bikes should be able to hit their top speed of 20 miles per hour fairly easily though. However, I think a 20 mi commute on an e-bike is pretty far, although it is still doable. Even on my 7 mile commute sometimes driving can take over an hour and a half.
That kind of distance, mass transit if available may be a better option.
Why does the bike get the lousy speed limit, a car going 15mph will take just as long.
Because in my country they are limited to 15mph by law. In the USA they are limited to 20mph, which would be 20 minutes faster, and still much longer than the average American's commute, which is 27 minutes. In the context of the original post, there will still be many people whose commutes have stretches with much higher speeds possible, for whom the difference would be even greater, so even there "almost never" is clearly wrong.
Maybe there are people advocating for electric motorbikes, rather than electrically supported push bikes, though I don't see them. But of course the faster you go on any kind of bike the more dangerous it is - riding an ordinary bike is pretty safe, and the exercise benefits mean it's overall good for public health. But encouraging more people onto motorbikes, even zero-emission ones, could easily be a public health disaster due to the inevitable increase in fatal accidents. Cars are much safer per mile travelled, which again goes to the above context.
First of all, "needing" a car to buy groceries is doing it wrong.
Exactly why 'muricans won't get rid of their wankpanzers.
Not sure what electric cars has to do with this topic. But I guess someone wanted to start a fight between car people and non car people going by the extreme cross posting.
Oil, and coal, and steel, and lithium. Etc.
this and how the urbanists fuck up cities, you don't want to drive a car, for sure. be it electric.
two time this week, train were delayed, adding a wopping 1h30 to my commute.
I more than ever for renewal and common transportation but damn, dear these semi-public companies suck!
How are urbanists fucking up cities? By definition they are the ones trying to make them better.
Maybe they meant urban designers
I see more concrete than ever, I see more only-one way than ever which extend your traffic time and if you miss your exit or street, you are screwed and goog to do a full consuming/polluting detour to reach your destination.
I don't mind if commute were performant, not ugly or dystopian.
I don't see much place for grass/trees etc.
Near my house, they destroyed an old fabric to build fucking cheap soul less apartments. They are literally building new "blocks" on landfields while there's plenty of free apartment in the city. fucking real-estate mafia and mayor's corruption.
I am from old Europe and we used to have nice architecture and city organization.
TL;DR: Due to being smaller and lighter, electric bikes and mopeds require significantly less energy to move themselves around than an electric car. The article starts with a headline about "oil demand" but then spends much of the rest of its length harping on consumer monetary costs instead. I could have said that in a lot fewer words. Actually, I just did.
Also, in SE Asia and other places where the primary mode of transport is a small motorbike, as it happens these small motorbikes actually pollute a lot for their displacement due to having basic uncomplicated engines, often not running very well, and lousy or absent emissions controls. ICE vehicles are also at their worst fuel consumption/distance traveled ratio when they're idling or crawling around urban areas at low speed. Replacing these with electric versions just makes sense.
Full disclosure: I own a gas guzzling truck, a fuel efficient car, seven motorcycles, and an electric bicycle. I use different tools for different jobs, as appropriate. If you're looking for a magic bullet, you will probably need it in a few different calibers.
I need to kill an elephant. What should I drive?
Your ancestors hunted the mammoth on foot with a rock tied to a stick. Use that.
A Sherman?
That's a clever way to put it and I like it
Out of your seven motorcycles, which one is used for which purpose?
I'll bet you weren't expecting to get an actual answer to this, but I'm going to give you one. (Spoiler: None of them are a Harley.)
First, I do use all of my bikes for commuting (the electric bicycle often, too, when the fancy strikes me) and usually ride a different one each day. They all get better mileage than my car and certainly better than my truck.
KLR650: Long distance touring and adventure rides, motocamping, hauling comically large objects that should not be transported by motorcycle.
Bashan BSR-250/Enforcer: I ostensibly bought this for my nephew to ride on adventure trips with me, but I also use it for tooling around town, light duty shopping, etc.
Honda VT750C/Shadow A.C.E.: Two up riding and touring, also good for making lots of obnoxious noise. My wife likes the passenger seat and sissy bar. Goes faster than the Vanvan, even with two people on it for long trips.
Yamha FZ6R: Dicking around on twisty roads. Irritating Tesla/M3/AMG/Corvette owners.
Orion/Nicot RXB250L: Playing in the dirt, at the motocross track, off road, doing wheelies, and narrow technical trails I probably shouldn't try to manhandle the KLR down.
Honda CH50/Metropolitan: In town errands, shopping trips. It achieves ludicrous fuel economy and you can fit a lot of stuff under the seat. My wife rides this one more than I do.
Suzuki RV200/Vanvan: Bought for my wife to learn how to ride a "real" motorcycle, i.e. with a clutch and gears. She uses it for motocamping trips.
Relevant username, lol.
I used to have a DR650, and used it much like your KLR. It was getting tothe point where I had to fix it all the time, I had another weird little bike that I couldn't get parts for which also needed help... I ended up selling both and buying one bike that I could just ride. I love riding, and love different bikes for different things, but I don't like maintaining a fleet of stuff, keeping tags up to date on a fleet of bikes, so...
I love the little RV! Used to have a GSF 400. Those small suzukis are so fun
TLDR: they're all for driving
As opposed to what, exactly? Eating?
Well you tried to spin it like they're each a unique tool serving a special purpose that you need fulfilled.
But really you're just a guy who likes motorcycles.
Yes? That's how it works.
You can draw a triangle and label the points "highway," "dirt," and "urban" and any bike you pick will describe a dot in one position on that triangle and never ever touch all three points at the same time.
All vehicles are for the purposes of transportation (or recreation), just possibly for moving different types of things across different terrain with different strengths and weaknesses. You're trying to split a hair that doesn't need to be split as if it's some kind of "gotcha" that everyone in the world knows is irrelevant except you.
Driving on dirt isn't exactly a special purpose that you need fulfilled. Most people live their lives just fine with zero motorcycles, and here you are with seven trying to tell us you need them all.
You know, the problem with you types is that rather than propose solutions that fit other people's lifestyles, you just demand that other people conform their lifestyles to whatever your smug, unrealistic whackdoodle expectations are. You're never going to get anywhere doing that; all you're going to do is garner a whole bunch of pushback.
Stay mad. While you're whining about whatever, I'm going to be out living and enjoying my life, building memories, doing stuff like this.
And this.
And this.
Oh, and this.
And sometimes this.
And definitely some of this.
And for the record, if there ever develops a clean and green electric motorbike that meets my needs -- I'm there. Sign me up. Swipe my credit card right now.
You, though. You can stay huddled in your rented apartment that you don't own, no mobility, no freedom, never leave the confines of your city, and just sit there and bitch about how miserable and awful everything is. I don't care. The train and the bus don't go where I go, and I'd doubt they ever will.
Wow that guy just likes to argue.
How much time did you spend on this rant just now? Lmao
Over consumption is probably worse for the environment than petrol powered cars
This is an excellent phrase and I'm going to have to start using it
What do you think about the impact of owning so many vehicles?
Zlich. Because -- stay with me here -- I can only operate one of them at a time.
"BuT tHe PrOdUcTiOn ImPacT!!!!!"
I bought all but two of them used. That ship sailed before I even swung a leg over.
Buying second hand definitely reduced the impact. But it still creates a demand for second-hand that motivates people/companies to buy more new products because they know they can easily sell it back.
Silver buckshot is how I describe it
This article is vastly understating the potential benefits of e-bikes. Like-for-like replacements for car trips are only the tip of the iceberg; the real benefit of e-bikes is that the more people that use them, the less car parking we need. That means we can put back all those buildings we destroyed when we razed our cities for the car.
Fuck more buildings....make parking lots into parks and green spaces
Why not both? More housing and more parks. Win win.
We need more lanes. Just one more lane and we'll be done with trafic, I swear!1!!one!1!1!
that's kind of assumed to happen if you packed people into tighter and tighter densities
Don't forget you can ride a mile or two to the train station and get around like that.
Even if you have a bike in town and one at home. Two bikes are cheaper than 1 car and more space efficient.
If everyone had an ebike, getting on and off the train would be a complete pain in the ass. I guess if there were lock boxes it might be OK, but hundreds of people trying to get their bike on a train would be a nightmare
Many urban-suburban trains, and even some regional trains, have entire cars dedicated for bicycles, with no (or only few) seats. This is very scalable on multiple scales, when the demand is growing:
There are definitely scaling limits for bike on trains, 1 bike takes up the space and manoeuvre room that could fit 3 or 4 people. Bike to station, leave bike there, use (ad hoc rental) other bike at destination is clearly a lot more scalable than filling trains with bikes.
I'd say two bikes in a well-designed alternating rack along the wall takes up about the same space as two seats beside each other. Also, some people will stand along the bikes if their train ride is short, taking up less space than a seat. My estimate would be that 1 person + 1 bike β 1,75 seats on average.
Beside that, I think you have a valid point in that a big part of the solution is locally available micromobility options, but I don't think bike-friendly trains wouldn't be a part of the solution too, since people will probably still want to own bikes, scooters etc. in the future. I, at least, like owning things that make my life easier.
I've done the bike-on-train thing many times and in many countries. The issue isn't just the space the bike needs on the train itself, it's the space the person needs to be able to get a bike on board without blocking the path and the infrastructurerequired to get the bike right next to the train. Trains fit for many bikes need wider doors, more doors (that costs seats), alignment between platform and train becomes even more important, that the platforms are very accessible too (there is often, if you're lucky, 1 elevator to the platform that fits 1 or 2 bikes at a time, that elevator gets jammed up and competes with wheelchairs and childstrollers and large suitcases very quickly) et cetera. Many smaller stations still have 0 elevators of ramps, only stairs. The only somewhat convenient bike on a train is the foldable bike, but even that creates the hassle described, tho less. I try to avoid taking my own bike on a train (and I think taking your own is usually too cheap compared to a person-ticket and the hassle taking the bike creates).
Anyhow, I think 1 person + 1 bike = 1,75 seats is underestimating it a lot.
K but... what's up with the emoji?
Dunno, had fun π€ΈββοΈ
I did the math once for my own commute, on my e-bike and with my electric car, and found that while the electric car uses only 20% of the energy that an average gas-powered car would, the bike uses just 1%. My bike, on my route (both directions averaged together) got 2,200 mpge.
Miles per gallon energy? What's that abbreviation?
Just another example of how Americans will use anything but metric (we do use metric sometimes, I know, itβs just a meme). We could easily measure it in Wh/km, but then we would also have to change how we measure gasoline cars if we want people to make direct comparisons. But, since we sell gas by the gallon, we would also have to change how gas is sold. When the EPA first came up with mpge I thought it was stupid (we donβt buy electricity by the gallon!), but Iβve come around to the convenience of being able to easily compare the two types of fuel. The EPA assumes 1 gallon of gas to contain 33.7 kWh of energy.
Maybe we should get everyone to switch to Joules for measuring, buying, and selling gasoline and electricity?
It's a pretty flawed comparison, though. It assumes a certain amount of fossil fuels being burned at the power plant that's feeding your electric car. That's a number that varies a lot between regions, and is bound to change as more and more renewables are spun up. Putting solar panels on your home throws the whole comparison out. It's nearly useless.
Isn't the point for the consumer to measure their cost? Not the overall efficiency of the production and distribution for each source of fuel?
Like I buy X gallons per month of gas because my car gets 20 mpg and I dive Y miles. If this electric car uses Z amount of electricity and I still drive Y miles, I'll save Γ dollars.
It is not really possible for the consumer to calculate their respective mpge, since your specific utlities power mix will differ region by region.
That's the idea, but it doesn't actually do that. Even if it did, the cost would be variable by region, so it's still imperfect.
To be fair, even in metric countries in Europe, they use imperial occasionally. This is the case for wheel sizes and display sizes, both usually measured in inches.
Don't tell them. Once you start looking for exceptions to "use metric for everything", you'll find one in every country, and people get really angry when you point this out. As if not being 100% metric is some kind of moral failing.
Car tire sizing is a bizarre, design-by-committee thing, though. Diameter is in inches, width is in mm, and sidewall width is a percentage of the width. Why?
You're using kWh instead of Joules in your comment. :P
Joules represent a very small amount of energy. We probably want kWh or kJ. Although, I think just places in the US already use kWh for electricity?
It's not complicated. Mpge allows you to compare energy efficiency vs internal combustion cars. They also provide kWh/100 mi, which allows you to calculate actual cost of operation, depending on how much you pay for a kWh.
The E is for Equivalent. It's how "fuel" efficiency is discussed when referring to non liquid fuel vehicles.
Gotcha, thanks.
Yup. Thereβs a Wikipedia page listing all the modes of transportation and their efficiency. Electric bikes are just about the most energy efficient way to transport humans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport
This is a weird definition they're using, and it doesn't encompass the whole box. An electric vehicle might be more efficient on a distance per unit energy basis, but it's less efficient on a total energy basis because we lose some of the energy in the electrification.
My only problem with ebikes is there's no chance in hell I'm consistently driving on the road with cars.
With how convenient these are, I hope there's more push to add protected bike lanes in road heavy places to increase adoption.
Get an electric scooter, Vespa size. It's super convenient.
To clarify - I'm not going on the road in anything but a car
Protected lanes or paths only for me on any form of bike/scooter
So you are afraid of cars so you take your own car... I fully understand that but it is all the problem.
We have to constantly remind drivers that road are for everyone, and not only to go full speed.
Here they painted bikes on roads and put speed limit at 30kmh so it is better, drivers seems more conscious, but we still see too much distracted people that don't realize they can easily kill someone just by not looking constantly at the road.
I'm a bit in the same situation. I can a lot with my bike but it's dangerous at times, especially with my kids in the back. People need to go to places and unfortunately, everything we built for the last 70years were almost just for cars.
There's a need for more bike lanes and bus/tramways/mΓ©tro.
Even with more bike lanes, we need better visibility at points where bike lanes intersect with the roadway to better alert both the car and biker to the danger. They've been working on painting those areas all green on the road here, but there's a lot of spots to do.
E.g bike lane intersecting an entrance to a parking lot
There are way too many cyclist accidents here, it's not worth it. Some of the accidents even happen at the special bike crossings because of bad drivers.
And scooters just like motorcycles are death traps.
Edit: nearly everyone I know who's commuted to work on a bike has been hit by a car at some point. Not all city speed hits, some just taps. And the stories of how shitty the drivers are to them on the road is astounding.
I work remote now, but my last job was only 20mins away, but I pretty much had to use the highway. Other routes just made the trip too long, so I canβt even imagine commuting in a bike to that job.
Chicken :-)
Looks like your problem is not with ebikes, but your city's infrastructure.
It is, and we have some of the best in the country at that. It's just takes a long time to make a place meant for cars into meant for bikes
We aren't no Netherlands.
Whaaaaat? You mean electric last-mile micromobility cuts down on emissions in a significant way, just like people had been saying for years? Who would have thought?
Car-brain finds small electric vehicles are more efficient, in shocking study.
... but will instantly fabricate reasons why the car will be needed at least 5 times a day anyway.
But what if it ... gasp ... RAINS?
When I was younger and more invincible around 2005, I bought one of these crappy Ebay engine kits for a bicycle. One thing I noticed is that it wasn't really any slower from home to work than a car, because I could go around traffic. An E-bike would have been great. A lot of them get around on 500 watt or 750 watt motors, which is considerably smaller than an electric car's motor.
I'd have one now, but it's hard to ride one when I have to carry a kid with me most places.
I got an e-bike because I needed to carry a kid (actually, two) around with me. FYI, cargo bikes are a thing:
There is no way the kids sitting on the back of the bike in that picture are safe....
No less safe than wheeling a kid around in a little red wagon or letting them ride their own bicycle.
Little Red wagons generally don't travel at 20mph in the street with cars going even faster. That kid in the photo can barely hold herself upright. One little wiggle or unexpected turn and she'll slip right through those bars and under an SUV.
Seriously, you might as well just put your kid in to one of these.
Oh no, look at all the super dangerous people biking with kids on them.
https://youtu.be/rQhzEnWCgHA?si=qlcN0Y9YrykPIlPe
People really don't fall off of bike seats easily. Maybe you should try biking.
Literally millions of people have bought e-bikes specifically to carry kids. I own one, and my kid loves riding on the back. I have never heard of a kid falling off of one either.
Radbikes even makes a bicycle specifically designed to carry children on the back (the radwagon) - and so does Extracycle, Trek, Lectric, Yuba and half a dozen or so other long tail e-bike brands.
https://youtu.be/-ypwGlE-f88?si=l0RGbouB6efBHAZs
You wanna compare Strava profiles Big Boy?
My issue isn't with carrying kids on the back of bikes. It can and is done safely. My issue is with what is happening in this specific picture, and even more specifically with the smallest child.
Shame on you for not being willing to sacrifice your children for the cause! Go back to truth social where you belong!
/s of course
If you want a pissing competition, I've spent the last 25 years biking about 10 miles each way for work. Plus a couple of trips to the coast every year, so that's about a hundred miles each way.
I don't even own a road bike.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/rQhzEnWCgHA?si=qlcN0Y9YrykPIlPe
https://piped.video/-ypwGlE-f88?si=l0RGbouB6efBHAZs
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Yeah, but the picture above has them sat in a luggage rack.
it's only unsafe because of all the cars. aside from that, whats' the danger, they might fall out?
Swimming in a pool of razor blades is only unsafe because of all the razor blades. Aside from that, what's the danger?
Yes
car dominance is literally a conspiracy by big oil to make us dependent, it is in no way natural.
Cars exist, you can't just ignore them. They'll run you over whether you believe in them or not
Then we should burn them
Uhhh huh.... Meanwhile, back in reality...
you say that like cars aren't flammable
No, I say that like you want to commit criminal acts against innocent people and you somehow think will solve the problem. I say that like I think you need mental help if you are serious. I say that like I no longer feel like wasting my time talking to someone who isn't interested in having a coherent conversation.
Nah this is completely right though. Soon as she stops those two kids are gonna bonk heads together, the smaller one needs a bike seat at the very least, and the toddler probably needs one as well. You could still do that with a bike like this, so it doesn't discount the point entirely, but the image itself is a pretty stupidly conceived piece of work.
It will never not be funny to me how scared some people are of any transportation that's not a car.
there are so many people who have both no cognitive ability to imagine something they haven't personally experienced or is the norm and have never gotten anywhere any other way but a car.
it's funny to because compared to literally anything but a motorcycle cars are hella dangerous, and the deaths from all the other modes except airplanes are from getting hit by a car
Itβs fun how the preview image for the article has two kids being carried around. But I can understand if you donβt see that as safe in your area, etc.
My daughter would absolutely not ride in that.
Have you ever put your kid on a bike? How would you know?
Yes. For context, she's 4 and very skittish. I have a burley trailer for my bike I got in the hopes that we could ride together. I only successfully got her in it once for a gentle ride around the park. She screamed in terror the entire time. She does, however, love taking public trans.
I have both am ev and an ebike, and a 7 mile commute.
Driving takes between 20 minutes and an hour and a half. Biking takes 45 minutes no matter what.
Car uses about 25x more energy though and parking is around $20/day.
I should add my son much prefers the bike.
I love my Bafang too but be careful of regulation depending on your country, an e-bike is 250W so of you put a more powerful motor you get in the moped category with different rules (helmet, back mirror, insurance...)
Goddamn I love my ebike. Itβs still very much a bike, but it changes the equation. I can ride a nice big heavy comfortable cruising frame, pull my kid in a trailer bike, get up steep hills that would otherwise stop me, and go 4x as far before Iβm tired. It is just a total game changer. Iβve rediscovered the joy of riding my bike like I havenβt known it since college. Iβm older and creakier than ever but my bike enjoyment hasnβt diminished - it has increased.
Same! I live on the top of a big hill, so leaving my house on a bike was never the issue, but I always dreaded the ride home. Now I own an ebike and I regularly use it to go into town for groceries. In fact, I just added a second basket so I can buy three full bags of groceries in one trip. I find myself actually looking forward to errands now.
Also, it keeps you in shape!
Yes! And Iβm pretty lazy about exercise so having the βhelp meβ button there keeps me from avoiding the bike.
First and foremost, people can afford them.
Second, they are more fun and you get to avoid all the traffic.
Third, cheap to run, no need to pay insurance, taxes, parking.
Fourth, anyone can ride it even children, no drivers license needed.
And so on...
In Norway, insurance is mandatory. And you have to be over 13 (or something like this). But in general, I agree with you.
I have heard this for years now. This all fine. I also have an E-Bike. I really love using it. But I live in central Europe. Weather is really shitty here from October-March. I use my car then. And no, clothing for biking in bad weather is not an option for me. I really can't be bothered to change clothes on my job. I just won't do that.
And the issue is where? You can just fuel up your car with co2 neutral fuel (like many Europeans already do with HVO100 Diesel in Sweden, the Netherlands and many other countries) and do the rest with your ebike. You probably dropped your co2 footprint to less than 5 tonns. The fact that HVO100 Diesel right now is ~30 cents more expensive doesn't matter anymore. B33 gasoline is coming and 2025 it's expected to be ramped up to 100% sustainable.
And compared to a BEV that needs more than 10-15 tonns to be even produced, just driving an older or cheaper car longer still makes it less co2 overall.
shameless plug !wintercycling@lemmy.world
I mean... you do you, but that gear generally amounts to a jacket, pants that go OVER your pants and different shoes. You're just fucking lazy. Own it
Yup. I invested in rain pants and a jacket, all I need now are shoe coverings. Get to work, strip it all off in 30 secs and put it in a waterproof bag. It's just a matter of adjusting expectations and habits.
To me it's way less complicated than driving. I don't have to worry about gas, traffic, parking, maintenance, break downs, and the stress of driving in the rain trying not to kill anyone. I understand why people are hesitant, but I think a lot of people just need to suck it up and give it a shot.
Also, public transportation is just straight up better than both driving/cycling when done right.
I went to dedicated rain/winter shoes and it was much better than overshoe booties.
Absolutely. Is there any context in which you can "I can't be bothered with..." interpret as anything else as lazy? But so what? I will not ride my bike in shitty weather. And most people will do the same thing.
You can also do you, but you kind of lose any sort of moral high ground in this argument by insisting that others solve the problem for you when you can't even do the bare fucking minimum
So... I go to work by e-bike 8 out of 12 months. Whenever I take my car, I take my BEV (MG4) that I charge with electricity from renewable sources.
And you? What do you actually do for the environment?
If you want to play the upstreaming game, where did the rare earth metals in your electric car come from?
Electric cars are here to save the car industry, not the environment.
Let's stay on topic: Environment. Human rights is a whole nother can of worms. What do you think the supply chain of whatever device you are using for lemmee right now looks like?
Back to environment: What are you doing for the environment except for judging others: I drive a car that has a very low carbon footprint regarding its whole lifespan. Also I ride to work on an E-Bike 8 out of 12 months. What are you doing?
Oh really? Maybe not moving 2,5 tons of metal and battery isnt a good idea? Maybe bikes were always a better mode of transport? I have a feeling that this was pretty obvious.
The article talks about electric bikes, not normal ones. That's e-bikes, or rather what I suspect that they are peddling as a newsertainment article: e-scooters.
until it is raining and winter
A fully enclosed velomobile would probably do the job, but I don't think it's legal anywhere in Europe :(
Great. All technologies that bring down CO2 emissions are needed.
As long as people get rid of their dino juice cars, who cares.
Yeah, right. And make 15 tonns of co2 extra, that would not have been needed when filling up the "Dino juice" car with "techno juice" that has 0% CO2.
But, we've lost the battle anyway already, so who cares.
Oh I see, you thinking alterative fuels to keep legacy car going. Problem is, those are biofuels and use a lot of land to grow and end up even more expensive than dino juice.
EV running costs is way cheaper and their up front costs is coming down fast. They use slightly more CO2e to make, but way way less to run. Plus those of us lucky enough to have drives can just charge at home, which is great. There does need to better infrastructure for those without drives.
Bingo bongo. There are also tons of greenhouse gases + other pollution associated with cars that are not the gas they burn to drive. Road infrastructure is a big one.
Ties are a problem that we are just beginning to understand. But we can replace and keep the car.
I mean don't get me wrong, I'd love good public transport instead. When it's good, people use it instead. When I go to a decent (European) city I want to ditch the car a.s.a.p as it's just a hamper.
I also think one aspect that keeps getting omitted from the conversation are exhaust fumes.
We know that they are toxic and a common cause of any number of cardio-vascular and other diseases, including straight up turning you into a god damned moron. Yet it's perfectly accepted that we fill every cubic centimeter of our cities with them, and expect everyone to breathe in the noxious gasses every day of our lives.
I don't want to inhale your exhaust fumes, I don't want to die faster and under greater pain just because you can't be arsed to bike instead of driving a car.
I don't think the toxic fumes are left out of the conversation. It's horrifying round schools at drop off or pick up. In decades to come we'll look back in amazement what was acceptable.
I think big cars and SUV should be banned.everyone should use a moped or a bike but 9-5s pretending to be rich will hate it.
How about just banning fossile fuels...?
Doesn't solve Stupid Ugly Vehicle problem
That's true.
Watched a YouTube about electric vs gas scooters in Taiwan πΉπΌ. Apparently it's like 6 scooters for every 10 people, crazy!
But the uptake of electric scooters wasn't as much as they thought, but a lot of complaints were around "cost", "parking" and "weight"
Sounds like an electric bicycle would solve all those issues over an electric scooter π΅
Especially for the poorer, high 2 wheel usage nations, like Vietnam or India.
Just have to pedal a bit! π
Love to see this!
On a related note: Feel free to stop by !micromobility@lemmy.world
This reads like an advertisement. Not saying it is. But it does.
Edit: Oh, AAP (Australian Associated Press)! Then it's definitely an advertisement.
Ebikes need secure destination parking or they lose usefulness
Also safety. In my area the bike lanes are just paint and some streets don't have sidewalks.
I know drivers are idiots but in my area bikes are supposed to ride on the streets. Could get a ticket for being in the sidewalk.
Same where I live, too. But I ride on the sidewalk anyway. No one has ever said anything about it in decades and I'd rather not get killed.
i just dont understand how usa and europe still has this super high bike thievery
Great income disparity, and the bikes are worth thousands, so valuable targets.
these are feasible in cities that you wouldn't want to drive a car in anyways. probably not so good for commuting around Boise Idaho
Boise is a college down that is VERY bike friendly. Nearly 200miles of bike lanes and trails.
I've never actually been there I don't know anything about it
We sold our car and committed around Tacoma for about 6 months before we moved to the Netherlands. It was awful in a ton of ways, but for a lot of trips it was way better. The majority of trips are under a mile, so dropping the kids off at preschool and stuff was way better on a bike. It's actually quite a bit faster since kids love to get on the bike instead of the long fight against the car seat.
We also did a few shopping trips. You can't really do much more than 3 bags on a long tail bike with two kids in the back, but it worked well enough for shopping trips. People look at you like you're crazy in the US when you've got things strapped all over your bike, but here it's just completely normal. We probably would ride year round there if it wasn't for how dangerous cars are when it rains. I have no problem biking in the wind and the rain here because I know I'm not going to be randomly murdered by some idiot in a multiton metal box.
I'm not familiar with Boise, but I'd bet that an eBike would still be better for a lot of trips.
He he, yeah, riding strapped into the little kid's seat behind mom on a bike was exciting as hell when you were little...
Wichita, KS
I'd drive one to work.
wouldn't you get wacked by savages
Not on the way to work. It'd be after I showed up.
Because Boise, ID is not interested in building the necessary infrastructure for ideological reasons.
Iβm going to wager this comment was posted and upvoted by people who have never been to Boise. Because that place has a good amount of people biking around. Especially around Boise state and for recreation.
Been to Boise many time. Take a trip to Europe and then come back and tell me what you think of Boise's bike infrastructure.
Any American city is going to look like shit compared to Europes biking capitals.
Compare a super blue βbike friendlyβ city like San Francisco to Amsterdam. Itβs not even a fair contest. SF is a fucking cycling death trap in comparison to Amsterdam.
Sure. I'm just saying that there are a lot of opposition in many US cities to building green and more progressive infrastructure that doesn't specifically benefit cars. Especially in red states.
True, but often times stuff like this boils down to the city planning and city budget, not the state. And a lot of major metro areas are pretty blue, even in red states.
Oftentimes the biggest barrier is that the bones of US city planning was done with cars in mind, and trying to accommodate bikes afterwards is difficult. Which is why US cities that want bikes struggle with supporting them.
Many old European city layouts were baked before cars were a thing.
Is this some universe where people forgot bikes exist? How are electric vehicles better than riding a bike?
They are much better for the shareholders.
For people with disabilities and chronic injuries, yes they are better and provides accessibility. Donβt forget that people with disabilities exist in this universe too.
Less effort? I don't know where environmentalists got the idea that the average guy is a cross fit three time gold medalist, most people want effortless traversal
You'd be surprised how easy biking is. Plus the more you do it the easier it gets.
easier to steal too, which why prefer folded bike so I can take it to my office instead of parking it outside for easy theft
I would love to have a Brompton or something like that for the same reason. Or easier to take it to other cities to ride.
It also makes you less fat, and smarter. Yes, exercise actually makes you smarter. Maybe we should push people towards exercising, and let them discover bikes by themselves?
I'm a cyclist myself and a few members of my family went out and bought ebikes before they would even go on casual kid friendly rides with me on their traditional bikes. While I appreciate the ebike making people more confident biking I feel like the people I know with ebikes could have literally just used a traditional bike and in a month they wouldn't find it hard.
People with disabilities would benefit. We get it. You donβt approve of them having something that could possibly benefit them.
I didn't mention people with disabilities. I'm very pro people with disabilities buying and using ebikes. What I am attempting to get across is that a lot of people would do great with trying to cycle before dropping big money on an ebike.
Right so everyone with chronic injuries are just too stupid to work it out! Of course. So simple! /s
Ebikes and eScooters exist though
It's funny people are forgetting that when they're the main topic of the article
Or that people with disabilities exist and probably benefit from e-bikes too.
Seems like a no brainer! And especially useful in dense cities where you don't want to be stuck idling in a car.
Is this because of China? Big middle class all wanting cars but the cities were designed pre-car, so bikes make more sense and cost less?
Outside of the US, almost everywhere in the developed world, there is a big bike revolution happening. Paris, London, Montreal, etc. have massively expanded their bike networks.
China has surging electric car sales. Almost every city will have wide 4 lane thoroughfares. At least they do have separate bike lanes, but then have pedal and ebikes mixed, with pedestrians for fun!
If you're not that wealthy you might be able to afford a car but not want to buy a car and an expensive e-bike. A car is useful for short distance trips in bad weather, longer trips that might not be the majority of your travelling, and transporting stuff that won't fit on a moped (or an e-bike unless you get a trailer... or bigger stuff than that.) In that case you're going to buy the one tool that covers your needs.
On the other hand, a car has far greater maintenance costs. The car has license, insurance, maintenance, gas, parking, etc., whereas an ebike is basically free in comparison. Electricity to power an ebike is pennies, and maintainance is a few basic tools and a new tire or inner tube on occasion.
With all the money saved, you can just rent a car for the handful of days the ebike genuinely is not sufficient.
This isn't even an exaggeration imo - I loaned an ebike for a month and didn't notice any change in my electric bill at all, despite racking up around 100mi on it
Well, here's some math on that. The battery pack I have in my kit-built electric bicycle has roughly 624 watt-hours in it, and being generous/lazy and not accounting for conversion and charging losses, thus costs about $0.049 to charge from zero to full (which I never do since I don't run it flat) at my current grid rate of $0.0789/kWh. That is, 4.9 cents. Slightly less than a nickel.
It'll propel my ass (along with the rest of me, usually) about 18 miles without pedaling, albeit not any faster than about 25 MPH.
Even owning two electric cars, I've only seen my electric bill increase by about 30%. I live in the United States FYI.
My e-bike battery is about 1-2% of the capacity of my car's battery.
yep my 750w/h battery gives me up to 200km range (real world uses usually about 130km) and costs less than a dollar to charge from empty to full
Yeah, which is why it's the reasonably wealthy people who have cars and not bikes. But that includes almost everyone in developed countries.
E-bikes are kind of a red herring here anyway; there's little practical use-case for them that isn't already covered by unpowered bicycles unless you live somewhere very hilly. (Even in moderately hilly places you get used to hills quite quickly). It's not unreasonable to do a shopping run on a bike as long as the shop isn't far away... But if it is, an e-bike won't help you get there in a reasonable length of time.
Even in a place that isn't very hilly, an e-bike could make the difference between arriving to work sweaty or not, which can easily mean the difference between biking or not. The extra help also expands the available user base to those who are less fit, and expands the range of what is doable for any given person. And, again, I want to emphasize the sweat difference, which also ties back into range (how far can you bike on a regular bike versus an e-bike without breaking a sweat?)
Exactly. I rode an ebike one summer to commute to an internship. The sweat factor alone meant I never would have done that by regular bike, as I would've arrived at the office sweating like a pig.
The sweat factor alone is what allowed me to use the loaned ebike as part of a journey to a wedding. Had changing facilities en route but not shower facilities...
range extension is huge
When I biked to work I never arrived sweaty. Cycling allows you to travel faster than walking for the same effort, so you have better evaporative cooling (i.e. your sweat works better, before it soaks into your clothes) so this line always seemed weird to me - how far can you walk without breaking a sweat? Indefinitely, most of the year.
Weβre generally assuming that walking is impractically far for the trips in question. Itβs quite obvious that you can bike faster and further on an e-bike without breaking a sweat than you can on a regular bike.
I brought up walking only because I don't get sweaty walking - it doesn't have to be practical to commute that way. If you can go for a 6 hour hike without getting sweaty, you can bike to work for substantially less than 6 hours without getting sweaty, right?
No, I donβt think most people in most climates can, actually.
Do your sweat glands just not work like most people? You can probably bike very slowly on level ground without breaking a sweat. The faster you go and the warmer or more humid it is, the more likely you are to sweat. E-bikes move that threshold significantly. Every person is a little different, of course, but it moves the sweat threshold for everyone.
I live in a relatively cool climate but it gets to a high relatively humidity. I don't think it has anything to do with my sweat glands - if it were then I would overheat easily because I wouldn't be sweating enough, right? It's bizarre to me that you think most people in most climates can't walk indefinitely without sweating - walking shouldn't be an exertion unless you're climbing a steep hill or are seriously unfit. Sure, in a hot climate in summer, but there's a lot of the world which is not that.
I do cycle pretty slowly (about 10mph) so if your journey is onerous at that speed but doable at the speed limit of an e-bike than that would make a difference of course. Still, I think people get too fixated on cycling fast in some countries where cycling isn't the norm because cycling is seen more as a sport than as transport.
I got a cargo e-bike specifically because I got tired of hauling two kids up hills in a trailer pulled by my regular bike.
E-bikes make things less daunting for certain people to get on a bike for their commute. Anything that gets us there is a win in my book.
My city has <5% bike usage for commutes. It was dropping from a high of around 8% prior to the pandemic. Post-pandemic, work from home is now at around 25% while bike usage is still low. These numbers are pretty typical of cities in the US. If we could get bike usage to 20% while maintaining work from home numbers, that would be transformative. It's basically what is naively expected to happen when you add a lane of traffic, except without (hopefully) the induced demand problems. Which you can avoid by adding a full sized bike path with physical dividers for all those new bicyclists to use.
Basically, if you can get to 20%, the next 20% becomes much easier, and at that point, combined with work from home, you're down to the cars that actually need to be there for one reason or another (deliveries, disabled people, etc.)
You know, I thought that but now that I've been riding an e-bike for about 3 months I completely disagree.
You can write about three times further on an e-bike than you can on a regular bicycle and still be 100% fine at your destination. It's basically a range extender for a bike.
But it also makes you go faster and makes you less tired, and you can conquer any hill no problem at a pretty good rate of speed. Not to mention that I can carry about 200 lb of cargo on my bike with no issue at all.
There are hills in my city that I cannot bicycle up. I would have to walk my bike. Find my e-bike, I can go uphill with 200 lb of cargo on the back no problem.
commuting without breaking a sweat is a big plus
What if you need to move? You better just buy a whole cargo truck in case you need it.
Unsurprisingly there is a cost-benefit analysis going on. How often do people use their cars to do something that would be difficult by e-bike? For many of them, quite often. How often would people get use out of a cargo truck that they can't use their car for? Almost never.
Sure, some people have cars unnecessarily. Many people could use and afford a bike but don't have/use one. But there's an obvious behaviour going on here which means that electric cars are important.
Almost never.
Really? Average commute distance in the USA and in the UK is 20 miles each way, which is going to be about 1h20 on an e-bike going 15mph. I would imagine that millions of people buy groceries regularly that is too bulky to transport by bike without a trailer, and I think that if you do allow a trailer, millions of people are still transporting bulky items like flat pack furniture, appliances, waste etc several times a year.
All of that amounts to more frequently than "almost never".
E-bikes should be able to hit their top speed of 20 miles per hour fairly easily though. However, I think a 20 mi commute on an e-bike is pretty far, although it is still doable. Even on my 7 mile commute sometimes driving can take over an hour and a half.
That kind of distance, mass transit if available may be a better option.
Why does the bike get the lousy speed limit, a car going 15mph will take just as long.
Because in my country they are limited to 15mph by law. In the USA they are limited to 20mph, which would be 20 minutes faster, and still much longer than the average American's commute, which is 27 minutes. In the context of the original post, there will still be many people whose commutes have stretches with much higher speeds possible, for whom the difference would be even greater, so even there "almost never" is clearly wrong.
Maybe there are people advocating for electric motorbikes, rather than electrically supported push bikes, though I don't see them. But of course the faster you go on any kind of bike the more dangerous it is - riding an ordinary bike is pretty safe, and the exercise benefits mean it's overall good for public health. But encouraging more people onto motorbikes, even zero-emission ones, could easily be a public health disaster due to the inevitable increase in fatal accidents. Cars are much safer per mile travelled, which again goes to the above context.
First of all, "needing" a car to buy groceries is doing it wrong.
Second, bulky items aren't an excuse either.
Given that many people don't live in the Netherlands I think we can ignore that in this context.
The trailer the post mentions (you realise I mentioned trailers, right?) is neat and all but I don't think it really changes the overall point
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
doing it wrong
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Exactly why 'muricans won't get rid of their wankpanzers.
Not sure what electric cars has to do with this topic. But I guess someone wanted to start a fight between car people and non car people going by the extreme cross posting.
Oil, and coal, and steel, and lithium. Etc.
this and how the urbanists fuck up cities, you don't want to drive a car, for sure. be it electric. two time this week, train were delayed, adding a wopping 1h30 to my commute.
I more than ever for renewal and common transportation but damn, dear these semi-public companies suck!
How are urbanists fucking up cities? By definition they are the ones trying to make them better.
Maybe they meant urban designers
I see more concrete than ever, I see more only-one way than ever which extend your traffic time and if you miss your exit or street, you are screwed and goog to do a full consuming/polluting detour to reach your destination. I don't mind if commute were performant, not ugly or dystopian.
I don't see much place for grass/trees etc.
Near my house, they destroyed an old fabric to build fucking cheap soul less apartments. They are literally building new "blocks" on landfields while there's plenty of free apartment in the city. fucking real-estate mafia and mayor's corruption.
I am from old Europe and we used to have nice architecture and city organization.