this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
322 points (96.8% liked)

Fuck Cars

9653 readers
507 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The New York Times published a pair of articles this weekend highlighting the rising number of deaths of cyclists riding electric bikes. However, in one of the most impressive feats of victim-blaming I’ve seen from the publication in some time, the NYT lays the onus on e-bikes instead of on the things killing their law abiding riders: cars.

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

When I’m driving, and a cyclist is “in my way”, I don’t blame the cyclist. I blame the shitty infrastructure. I’d love to ride a bike more often, but the roads and laws are just too hostile.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just another perspective here.

Yes, it's cars, and yes, it's infrastructure. However.....

E-bikes have been causing a spike in cyclist crashes, even in places that is considered the safest place to cycle: The Netherlands.

The problem with e-bikes is that they are more like motorcycles and less like bikes, so you get a huge number of people under 25 and people over 55 crashing these things left and right.

This article from The Verge is worth the read to get a better idea of what's going on.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

I'd say two bikes crashing would be a hell of a lot better than a car crashing with a bike. No need to demonize the better option.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

80 yo or 14 yo on ebikes are menaces. One because they don't have the reaction time and coordination to handle the speed. One because they don't have a shred of situational awareness or respect for the rules of the road.

It's honestly scary to share a bike path with both.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem isn't 14 or 80 year olds. The problem is pretending motorbikes are bicycles because they have accessory pedals.

A bicycle as a class of vehicle moves at about 25km/h on average, doesn't accelerate very fast and is a bit slower after hills or corners. An ebike is a bicycle that you pedal a bit less, not a vehicle that moves at at least 32km/h any time it is moving.

250W 25km/h limits are about the highest you want for the default vehicle type. And a real 250W max, not the corrupted testing process currently used for euro standards designed to test a lower bound.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not a vehicle that moves at at least 32km/h any time it is moving.

Why 32km/h at least? E-Bikes are limited to 25km/h in europe. E-Bikes above 25km/h are only allowed on the streets and not on bike-paths, in villages and cities. In the netherlands, they are allowed on bike-paths outside of villages and cities, but those bike-paths are wide and allow those faster e-bikes.

Additionally, the aforementioned 14 and 80 year olds are usually not on those e-bikes faster than 25km/h. You need a registration and a drivers license which you only get at the minimum age of 16 for S-Pedelecs (E-Bikes faster than 25km/h are called S-Pedelecs here), 80 y/os dont buy S-Pedelecs but buy normal e-bikes which are limited to 25km/h.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

E-bikes in the US (the subject) do 32 (or more on downhill stretches where the motor finally tops out and the rider is fresh). S-pedelecs are the ones with much higher fatalities for the elderly in the metherlands and do 45. Nornal pedelecs in europe also produce much more than 250W

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

(or more on downhill stretches where the motor finally tops out and the rider is fresh)

Downhill is the situation in which ebikes are least likely to exceed the speed of regular bikes. Since the motor is designed to cut out at 20 mph anyway then it won't help you go faster downhill, but it will continue to have increased rolling resistance. And if it's no worse than a regular bike, it isn't a problem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I see you've never encountered an ebike on a hill.

Acoustic bike riders rest on the downhill.

Ebike riders who have motors that exceed their power output by a factor of 3 rest on the uphill.

The rolling resistance difference is single digit watts. Any influence from extra weight will increase coasting speed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually, I was thinking of personal experience riding with my wife, with me on an ebike and her on an acoustic bike. I was surprised at how I actually needed to put in a little effort to keep up with her downhill.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I was surprised at how I actually needed to put in a little effort to keep up with her downhill.

^ precisely my point though. A little effort exceeds the motor speed limiter. Effort that is much more readily available because you didn't spend it going up the hill.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I dont get what you want to achieve with a general 250W limit. There are 3 different motors which provide a completely different amount of power with 250W. You would need different limits per kind of motor

Edit: also the root-comment is about the netherlands, so thats why I assumed this discussion is about the netherlands. My bad

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

250W is an output limit not an input. And power is power.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like the NYTimes is everyone's well meaning out-of-touch neoliberal poly sci professor dad.

Like... they usually get to the right answer, but they're always 3 - 10 years behind.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

Well, they come to the neoliberal answer at any rate. NYT still asserts that privacy and encryption should be sacrificed so the nice law enforcement can take care of us.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Not going to read the article so in response to the comment, electric bicycles put people in a strange place in terms of safety. You've got the speeds of a motorcycle without the ability to flow with traffic. In the presence of high density traffic I'd say an e-bike is more dangerous than a motorcycle.

I've been a motorcyclist most of my life and I can say you have to be super vigilant about situational awareness and ready to evade at all times. People driving in cars are not programmed to notice motorcycles. They're always looking for cars and sometimes don't register other hazards. It shouldn't be that way, but nothing is going to change that as long as human beings are driving.

My recommendation to anyone who wants to use an e-bike for regular transportation is just go to a motorcycle, it's going to be much safer in traffic. There's some really nice electric motorcycles now. For e-bike users you have to be extra careful. Drivers don't see bicyclists anyway and you're going a lot faster most of the time. A head injury at 10 mph can be fatal.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

Speeds of a motorcycle?? Most ebikes top out at 28mph. You can go that fast on a normal road bike if you're in shape too.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

@rm_dash_r_star @bumble you're so close to getting the point, it's a bit painful.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Just getting a motorcycle doesn’t work in NYC. There’s no place to keep that many motorcycles.

Getting a motorcycle license, or taking a rider safety course might help, but changing the e-bike and traffic laws to make room for them (and reduce room for cars) is what’s going to save most lives.

For context I bicycle commuted in Boston for 18 years, motorcycled in the country for a bit, and restore classic cars for a semi-living now. I watched smartphones make it riskier and riskier to ride in traffic, then saw the pandemic magnify the issue, and largely avoid doing it at this point.

[–] cantstopthesignal -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm not going to go all in and blame cars either. The problem is infrastructure. Change will come when enough people riding bikes vote. It's like how smoking bans were a referendum on whether you smoke. Bike infrastructure is a referendum on whether you ride a bike.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

so basically America is never getting bike infrastructure

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

maybe when they stop electing retirement age people

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

So like he said - never.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Sad, but possibly accurate. Here's hoping some cities can do enough to get a critical mass of folks making a change.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@cantstopthesignal @bumble does that work for people walking? If enough people walk in New York then they'll get walking infrastructure? Or does it only work for car drivers?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

A city is considered to have banned cars if there are any areas anywhere that pedestrians can walk without having to be hyper-vigilant against them, or if cars have less than 90% of public space dedicated to them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The headline is a bit sensational but the main point of the article is it's absurd to blame the bike/biker and that the main issue is the infrastructure. The last section is all about how safe infrastructure is better for everyone, drivers included.

I'd say it's not just bikers who need to vote. We should all want better infrastructure that saves lives.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you lived in NYC you’d understand the danger these things present. They’re silent, they zip left and right around traffic, go the wrong way down one way streets and run red lights. They need to ban the fuck outta them if they can’t reel them in, in terms of safety enforcement

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

@ME5SENGER_24 @bumble these behaviours in themselves don't cause injuries...are you sure you're not thinking about some other thing that is dangerous? Perhaps something that causes so much carnage that one way streets and red lights had to be invented?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

You just described bicycles. Bicycles do those things.

load more comments
view more: next ›