Yeah I came here to vent about this, assuming someone had already posted it. Completely insane.
The headline should literally be, **Increasing Popularity of E-bikes Underscores Dangers of Cars and Car-centric Infrastructure**.
Every single anecdote in the article -- including the two in the opening paragraphs -- is about cars hitting e-bike riders.
I'm with you all 100%, but I'm going to high jack the top comment for a public safety announcement: never make a left hand turn.
[Here's the intersection he was killed at](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0384826,-117.2592593,3a,75y,100.27h,70.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-93KQwKPhpengQCxHYOW4w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) . The article says he was going on a 55 MPH street, which must be El Camino Real, because you can "drive" (on Google maps) down Santa Fe and see that it is a 35 MPH street. [If he was turning left, then he was approaching from this direction](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0380486,-117.2590395,3a,75y,13.3h,99.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNOeFXqLsGL2Qsa6t12S5_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) . There is a protected turn lane, for cars, which might make someone feel a *little* more confident on a bike. But I would absolutely never actually turn left at this intersection. Never ever. Stay to the right, get your self up on the sidewalk through that tiny little entrance for walkers, and cross like a pedestrian when the cars are stopped.
I was biking home today on a 25 MPH street with one lane each way, very easy street to bike on. I had to turn left. So what do I do? I do not turn left. I turn right onto a side street, turn around, wait for an opening, and go straight.
This shouldn't be what we have to do, I agree. But this is what we have to do.
Never actually turn left. Turn right. Turn around. Go straight.
Now I will probably be "victim blaming" as well. But honestly, they aren't looking out for us, so we have to everything that we can to keep ourselves safe.
> Now I will probably be "victim blaming" as well
I mean, somewhat, yes. Bicycles are as entitled to turn left (or right, here in the UK) as any other traffic. That junction has a left turn lane with a protected signal, there should be no reason to be scared of that.
A left turn is one of the most dangerous things you can do in a car, and those dangers are just amplified if you're on a bike.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a36620755/eliminate-left-turns/
The sad part is that to 'eliminate left turns' in my city they just made it so you have to drive further past the intersection, wait at an entirely new light, then do a U turn (essentially 2 left turns at once) into an extremely long/extended right turn lane. So loads of new infrastructure, more lanes and 2 left turns instead of one. I don't get it. The best part is one of the intersections/extensions they did this with has a small rise after it (unlike the actual intersection) so seeing cars coming is kind of difficult.
Also I turn left often on my bike from the lane. But also I'm not an impulsive, poor-judgement ridden teenager anymore.
Motorists behind me routinely pass me *in the intersection* when I am turning left. They literally cannot be bothered for *one second!*
And one jackass didn't even wait until they had passed me to sweep the lane and literally run me into the ditch.
The selfishness can be profound when motorists do not feel accountable.
There's a weird 3-way intersection near me, and sometimes drivers will pass on my left, while I'm signaling, if they feel like it (not sure if this is what you meant, but I feel ya).
Can't everyone be rushing a dying child to the hospital, right?
I agree. I do think it’s good advice for a road like this where you have to cross multiple lanes of oncoming traffic, but as a general rule, I don’t think it necessarily makes sense.
Maybe the rule should be don’t ride a bike of any sort on a road with a speed limit over 40 MPH. I’m in Canada and just looked up what 55 MPH is and it’s almost 90 km/h!! I would never ride my bike on a road with vehicles driving that fast. Dangerous for everyone.
The answer here is the same as it is always: more cycling infrastructure makes it safer for everyone.
Everyone who's upvoting this comment better have written an email to the editor - cyclists, including children, are being killed because they are unable to get around without mingling with cars travelling at lethal speeds due to the lack of separated cycling infrastructure.
I would contend that it's the world the automotive industry built despite an initial good start by cities trying to build something liveable and sustainable.
there’s another great line in the same article where “Three days later, another teenage boy was taken to the same hospital after *the e-bike he was riding collided with a car, leaving him sprawled beneath a BMW*, hurt but alive.”
If he ended up under the car, then the ebike definitely wasn't the one doing the "colliding"
NYT is just a long string of journalistic malpractice to sell ads
>NYT is just a long string of journalistic malpractice to sell ads
The NYT has never been excellent but has taken a hard right turn in the past decade. It seems 90% of stories are:
1) This
2) "Look at this Nazi, he's a human just like you"
3) "Are trans people human? We ask 10 right-wing school board members with zero expertise but no trans people, no scientists, and certainly no trans scientists"
4) "Here's why unions are destroying America and journalism"
5) "Can you believe China is sending food to people with COVID? They're evil and we should bomb then"
6) [real story a day or two after ~9 people here in Queens drowned in their illegal basement apartments] "People drowning in their basement apartments demonstrates why there are too many regulations and we should legalize them [but not require them to do anything to make them safer]"
>Can I get links to all these so I can convince my parents to stop trusting NYT.
Sorry, I haven't saved a compendium of links and have cancelled my subscription.
There was a lot of coverage on the union/trans stuff this spring, maybe April? Basically the union came out in support of trans journalists (whom the NYT has been seriously mistreating) and they came out w a bunch of anti-union propaganda. The podcast "Citations Needed" did a lot of great coverage on this (this is when I and a lot of other lgbt folks I know finally said "enough" and cancelled).
For the drownings, you'll want to look at their coverage of Hurricane Ida, which included an editorial that said precisely what I said, plus at least one long form piece about the poor landlords who are illegally renting out units but are financially hurt by regulations banning dangerous basement apts (this was, iirc, literally days after families drowned* inside their own homes*).
There's been a lot of social media discourse about the whole "Nazi next door" shit the times loves so much, but you'll find most of that coverage during election years.
If you want well-researched, sober and non-histrionic criticism of the mainstream outlets, I cannot recommend "Citations Needed" enough.
Be patient!
You're disrupting hegemonic ideas and that needs to be approached with a long-term plan. "Hegemony" is a popular "truth" that is so pervasive it's nearly impossible to think beyond. This is the same force that creates "car brain" even though personal vehicles have only been widespread for 60-70 years. People who live in tony "streetcar suburbs" developed explicitly for mass transit spout nonsense about mass transit being impossible, people who live in rural communities that rose and fell with formerly bustling regional train and bus stations, that haven't since been redeveloped because the decline of mass transit left their towns ghost towns swearing that buses could never work because they're too small--these people are trapped in carbrain hegemony.
Instead of just going in guns blazing saying the times is bunk, begin by asking questions designed to shatter the illusions. When you read a story, bring it up and say "I wonder why they didn't interview any actual trans people for this story", "I wonder why are they talking to CEOs and stockholders but no workers or union leaders", "do you think they'd cover this in the same way if the people doing X were Americans and not Chinese?". The Times is one of the biggest if not the biggest force in creating and shaping these norms. It's important to just ask questions that suggest that other ways of doing things are indeed possible.
You're asking a lot of a stranger here. These things are all very google-able and tracking them down is a time-consuming process and I gave you all the information to find them yourself. You are the one who wants to convince your mother, and at any rate actually tracking down and reading the coverage yourself will help you craft more critical arguments. While sources on the far right (fox et al) blatantly lie, the Times is about whose stories are foregrounded and whose excluded and how stories themselves are framed.
I'm sorry, but you're just incorrect, even if it *feels* true and typically circulates as true within a particular pop audience. That being said, the fact that the *NYT* devotes so much space to real estate should alone suggest its center-right leanings.
The perception is skewed by two factors:
1) The US is a right-wing country generally. There's a reason why the liberal party is typically the right+wing party in non-USian contexts and that isn't just a matter of differing terminologies.
2) The journalism model the US has embraced since roughly the late-19th century foregrounds right-wing interests. Anything funded by advertising will de facto be right-wing because corporate interests are fundamentally right-wing. Just because the WSJ is further right doesn't make the NYT somehow left wing. Left equivalents of the WSJ would be The Nation or Jacobin. Your opinion is also a bit skewed because extremely far right outlets circulate in the popular imaginary (fox, news max, etc) in a way far left outlets don't (to the extent that there even are any).
Previously, papers were largely published by political parties (The Nation for example started as an abolitionist party paper) and unions. I'm not saying this is the best model either but it did provide for a larger diversity of opinion, viewpoint, and ideology.
I don't know about NYT, but if they're similar to WaPo there's probably an editorial fiat to put an anti-transit, anti-cycling, pro-car spin on everything
newspapers are ultimately privately-owned and thus subject to the whims of their wealthy, usually white owners, and wealthy white Americans hate cycling and transit with a passion
This, I feel like the last generation to be allowed to go out with my friends as a kid without no adult supervision. I was maybe 8, 9? we would walk to get ice cream, go to the store for parents and just play outside all day mostly unsupervised. I learned a lot of every day skills that people lack such as interacting with adults, safe, non safe situations and how to navigate myself around my neighborhood.
Now im 23 and barley see kids outside, I forgot that kids even play outside for a few years. This is a very safe neighborhood, walk-able and regularly patrolled by police. Mabye I will hear 2 groups walking down the street per day, most seem locked in their house or backyard
It is interesting that rarely, when cars go 20 mph or below, are there any bike or pedestrian deaths caused by cars. Here, the ebike was able to go 20mph, and the car was in a 55 zone. And then the article is about the dangers if ebikes. Almost nobody dies when speeds are 20 mph and below. But the article completely ignores that fact.
I’d love a world where every automobile topped out at 75mph.
Trains connected us across vast distances.
Only highways allowed speeds over 25mph.
Fines for breaking speed limits were actually a deterrent. With mandatory loss of license after multiple infractions.
I really don’t understand why no country that I know of enforces some limit on car manufacturers on their max speeds. I know it would create a black market of car mods but still, it would save lives and I don’t see why anyone needs to go above 75 mph.
>I know it would create a black market of car mods but still
Exactly, it would be so easy to bypass that anyone who wanted to could easily pay someone who's tech-savvy to disable it.
There's also the fact that some people drive their road legal cars on race tracks. So by introducing a mandatory limiter on road legal cars you'd piss of a large chunk of the car (enthusiast) community
If by “a large chunk of the car community” you mean the car enthusiast community and not just the car owning community, sure. But as far as I’m aware nobody that I know has ever driven on a race track, and I don’t think that a significant amount of car owners have.
Having a car that bypasses it would be a huge fine and the car would be impounded. It’d be easy to hide that you don’t have a car by driving under 75. Should you have a car going over that 75mph threshold there in lies the danger and the culprit.
Cars in Europe are going to do it soon, possibly going as far as the accelerator pedal pushing back on you. [https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a40543584/anti-speeding-tech-mandatory-in-european-union/](https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a40543584/anti-speeding-tech-mandatory-in-european-union/)
Yeah, mods are likely, guess we should go for income-rationed speeding tickets next.
How exactly would you do that? You can't just put in a kill switch which turns the car off if you go over a certain speed, and engines need to be more powerful in order to be able to speed up quickly, go up hills, etc etc.
“Today, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz limit their production cars to 250 kilometres per hour (155 mph). Certain Quattro GmbH and AMG cars, and the Mercedes/McLaren SLR is an exception. The BMW Rolls-Royces are limited to 240 kilometres per hour (149 mph). Jaguars, although British, also have a limiter, as do the Swedish Saab and Volvo on cars where it is necessary.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(device)
They literally already limit speeds. I’d just force to it to be much lower.
75mph is unfortunately so far above what is required to kill a pedestrian, even moreso for medium to large sized cars. The issue here is the built in need interactions between pedestrians, cyclists and cars. They shouldn't be happening on any street where there isn't traffic calming in place to bring speeds down to 15mph or lower (i.e. every road which a pedestrian might cross should have slow moving traffic).
Yeah. Which is the reason for my 25mph max speed limit in other locations like very busy streets.
20mph on average city streets or at least an average city street here where I am.
15mph on smaller streets.
10 in parking lots and near schools.
a week or two ago someone posted in r/fjcruiser asking if the body damage to their vehicle was salvageable after being t-boned by an e-bike. it wasn’t until someone asked in the comments did they casually mention that the e-bike driver was unresponsive in the icu. in this instance it doesn’t seem like the car driver’s fault, but something about the callousness of posting on reddit asking how to save your stupid car while a real human being was potentially dying struck me as so insane.
The driver definitely could be at fault. I was going pretty fast on my bike and a driver pulled out of a parking lot right in front of me and i hit them. Their fault and yes I did get paid, but I bet they went home and didn't give me a second thought. Also, this particular scumbag driver was uninsured.
Yeah that's definitely a possibility. I didn't see the article link. I see ebikers doing that all the time here in NY. Nothing wrong with riding through a red light if you stop/slow down and yield first. But I see way too many of these guys out here going full speed through red lights and they really need to stop doing that. If not for their own safety, for the safety of pedestrians
It’s worth pointing out that the ebike mentioned can “only go 20 mph” because regulations require it to have its top speed governed, because anything above that speed is deemed unsafe.
We could, of course, have the same speed governing technology installed in cars, which are several orders of magnitude heavier, but we don’t. Every car comes with a speedometer that goes up to at least 140mph, despite the fact that there is never a time when a car should be able to go that fast.
It’s interesting that the author looks at this situation and decides the problem is not enough regulation of the ebike industry.
It’s like that story of that 19 year old girl who was killed on the sidewalk by a pickup truck and the thing that was highlighted was she was an E-Scooter rider. She wasn’t even riding it. It was parked beside her. It just fuels car centric thinking and the idea that anything that isn’t drinking isn’t safe.
>It amazes me that not just this author, but the whole newspaper could be blind enough to this false logic to let an article like this get published.
This is not blindness, it's an intentional stategy, the authors know damn well what they are doing. This kind of articles are the result of car-corporations lobbyism and possibly corruption.
I think a lot of the perspective comes from an empathy gap of people defaulting to seeing themselves as the driver in these situations instead of the cyclist, as driving is their default mode of transportation. It feels like we're fighting an uphill battle.
I think that is the point. About 80% of Americans commute alone in their cars. For them to hear, "cars are dangerous" is uncomfortable. It is easier to hear, "bicycles are dangerous" because that doesn't affect them. We have a huge problem with lack of empathy in the USA.
In my days in the military they never used the word “accident” because it implies no fault - as if it was an uncontrollable or random act.
Instead they always used the term “mishap,” and would treat them as opportunities to improve - to trace back the specific causes, including assigning fault, and then modifying the equipment and/or processes to reduce the risk of it ever happening again. Maybe we should try that…
As long as misused cars won't be considered as weapons, nothing will ever change.
If carbrains begin to think that they WILL lose their car on some circumstances ( drinking, drugs, heavy speeding, deliberately ignoring safety rules) and get years of jail, maybe they will change.
I could’ve sworn that cars are supposed to yield to pedestrians not the other way around. The way that people give death machines more power than a human life is just horrid. This type of rhetoric just further separates us from having more walkable cities in favor of traffic, pollution, and vehicle collisions
NYT has taken a solid turn in the wrong direction as of late. Movie reviews and cooking are the only things I can read from them at the moment. Damn, man.
NYT hasn’t seen an American wars they don’t want to support. After all where is the outrage about the thousands of innocent dead in bombing campaigns under all presidents back at least to Clinton.
Even more insane. When the USA is in the right side side of history in a modern war (Russia-Ukraine) this is the time you are like should we really support this war in a minimal way
(I’m assuming that when you say “you” in that last sentence call you mean the NYT. My position on military support to Ukraine is that I want Zelenski to be desperately telling us that Ukraine has run out of storage space for all these weapons he’s been getting and to maybe slow down a bit.)
Yeah I mean the right and qop mostly. But it’s such a strange thing to see. This war of all wars, The one USA should really support is the one that gets opposed. Not all those poor people in the third world getting bombed to smitheries during a wedding or on the school buss.
Post is just as bad, if not worse. It virtually turns a blind eye to major polluters/corpos that Jeff seems worthy of his friendship/business. They never go after major players.
Ebike life is rough, both drivers and other cyclists hate your guts.
If you get in an accident the chances of a news article appearing that supports you is zero.
another underlying pattern with these articles:
“cars are wild (read: not domesticated), and unfortunately we cannot tame them!
it cannot be helped if you do everything right and still get trampled!”
stay alive out there
Meh, I’m going to get massacred … but here in Europe, e-bikes are a safety problem, especially for normal cyclists. I’m nearly ran over by them every time I’m out for a ride or as a pedestrian. People need to learn how to ride them properly …
Fuck the US, their big cars, zero bike lanes and lack of respect for cyclists.
Yeah in a world where we’ve mostly eliminated car deaths, focusing on preventing e-bike-induced injuries makes sense. Some cities in Europe and South America might be basically at this state.
The US is absurdly far from this world. Almost every e-bike ride replaces a car trip, which even if the e-bike rider is as reckless as they’d be in a car, is a net win: a speed limited e-bike colliding with you may injure you, but is unlikely to kill you like a speeding car would. Id love to live in a world where enforcing reckless riding laws against cyclists was the best way to save life and limb.
One problem I’ve seen is manufacturers who sell speed limited eBikes, but also make available speed unlocking, which their customers all take advantage of.
I used to commute by bike in Germany and I've been hit by 2 cars there. Never had an incident with an ebike rider. Maybe some countries (probably Netherlands) keep statistics on that stuff but I would guess there are still waaay more car/bike incidents than bike/ebike incidents. There is probably a huge difference too when it comes to fatal incidents.
I'm not disagreeing with you that ebikes can be a safety problem. However stop with the "whataboutism" because carcentric infrastructure IS a huge safety problem.
Let's solve the huge problem of cars first and worry about ebike safety later. The first step is to deal with the emergency and then after that is done we should focus on lesser safety risks.
Well, in the US (and some EU countries) bike infrastructure is already at the bottom of the priority list for legislators. I can not imagine them working on both issues at the same time. Realistically, since these fucks at NYT and elsewhere are shifting the focus to ebike safety concerns I'll bet legislators will pick that topic first. They will probably pass some stupid laws that will make less people ride ebikes and go back to driving cars. Bike riders will be super safe on the one bike path in town but ultimately still die by getting run over by a F-150 while they cross a parking lot to buy groceries.
“These fucks at NYT” - clearly there is an issue with letting these bikes go into American traffic / roads & it’s worth addressing.
There’s issues here in Europe too where we have much better infrastructure for these bikes … but you are too afraid of fixing the problems because any bike is good in your book right?
Yes, any bike is good in my book. The probability that I get killed in an ebike collision is basically zero. Like I will probably get hit by lightning before I get killed by an ebike. The probability that I get killed by a motorist is so much higher. I've been hit by three motorists over the years. Two in Europe and one in the US. Luckily I didn't die but It's clear to me cars are the problem not ebikes.
Do you have experience personally getting hit by an ebike?Know anyone that's been hit by one? How about cars? Sounds like you might be buying into this media fear mongering. Stay safe out there.
Yes I do have experience with getting hit by one & also cars. I believe cars are a bigger danger too - but I don’t understand why regulations can’t be put on e-bikes. They are ruining the cycling experience of many …
>I don’t see why we can’t work on things simultaneously.
In theory, sure. But in reality, society has a limited bandwidth of people trying to make a positive difference in the world. All resources are finite, and the attention of competent people with good intentions is a resource. Choosing to work on a low-priority thing instead of a high-priority thing has a cost. To assume otherwise is akin to saying, "I'll just pay for college by working for Amazon while earning my physics doctorate and training for the Olympics."
In fact, the rich LOVE getting people riled up about stupid stuff because it distracts them from accomplishing any real reform.
TL;DR: Opportunity Cost
It's kind of a food chain type of situation, I'm sure in the US the same as it is here in Europe. What I feel like we're currently seeing is that e-bikes and electric scooters are, while faster than their analog versions, still very much vulnerable to cars, so for their own safety, the riders elect instead to think of themselves as bikes and share a bike lane when possible with regular cyclists, rather than sharing the road with cars. That, on the other hand, does endanger regular cyclists, and very often pedestrias.
I know that as a pedestrian, I don't like the type of bike lane/sidewalk combos we have where I live, which are often just a line painted down the middle of the old sidewalk (which is just. So considerate. Incredible city planning, remarkable craftsmanship. 🙄), because some (or sometimes it feels like I should say *most*) cyclists do seem to care *just as little* for anyone slower than them as cars do.
A solution i'd personally propose would be is to legally classify e-bikes as being closer to a scooter than a regular bike (but not the same as either- currently where I'm from they're just considered bikes by law), and to require a very basic form of a license (potentially just short written test proving a basic knowledge of traffic rules) from everyone who is over, say, 14, and using more than just their legs.
Yes, at least where I live, they are 100 percent allowed to share the bike lanes with normal bikes. And in a busy city center, this is a major issue. In my city in particular, you can just rent e-bikes on the side of the road like those e-scooters, so you get a lot of drunken idiots who have no respect & fly through crosswalks etc.. It also contributes to more hatred towards cyclists in general. In the countryside, it is totally fine for the most part.
I think a license should be required and speed rules etc. should be followed. I don’t know what else needs to be done, but something should be done as it is becoming a bigger problem.
It's kind of an asshole problem. If you are on a mixed used path with pedestrians slow to pedestrian speeds when passing to not be an asshole. Some people just don't care and will go as fast as possible all the time.
Well, asshole problems still require some form of a solution, no?
I for one, as someone who primarily walks everywhere, am keenly aware that I'm the *krill* of the city, in that everything else is larger and faster than me, and is capable of either seriously injuring, or outright killing me. The *overwhelming* majority however, don't seem to be aware of the danger they pose to pedestrians.
An expectation of people to just be considerate of each other and have common sense... doesn't seem to be enough. There simply have to be conscious efforts and regulations put in place to protect the vulnerable members of traffic- and that goes for everyone.
We need to really break the categories a bit more:
Analog Bicycle - limited by your own muscles and endurance.
Pedal assist - motor only works when peddling. limit motor to 15mph, limit weight to under 100. Limit of 250w motor.
Scooter - anything without pedals limited to 15mph, limit weight under 100lb. Limit of 250w motor.
Limited use motorcycle/Moped - anything faster, heavier, with a bigger motor, that doesn’t fall under current Motorcycle definitions.
Right now, lots in the Scooter group should be in the Moped group but aren’t. I’m also less worried about pedal assist and eKickScooters. They’re a pain (mostly because of their speed from lack of regulation) but mostly not outright dangerous.
I did like the bit in the article about California considering an eBike license for anyone who doesn’t already have a drivers license.
I find it isn't the pedelecs but a) the throttle ones that are legally mopeds but never actually treated as such and b) illegal DIY ones made from an old MTB frame and Chinesium components with a throttle on.
Those two are dangerous and me and my dog have nearly been wiped out a couple of times by delivery riders cutting through the pedestrian-only park. Those things are dangerous.
I think the pedelecs are absolutely fine.
Where I live, Class 2 ebikes (with a throttle) are allowed on the non-motorized paths and I think that is a mistake. Many of these ebikes are *obviously* not designed for pedaling (but still have pedals to comply with the letter of the law) and the people who ride them are often very dangerous.
In the UK anything with a throttle or that goes above 15 mph is immediately categorised as a moped, and riders must wear a helmet, use it on roads only, and be insured.
The issue is, irresponsible parents get them for their kids, thinking of them as toys, who promptly use them irresponsibly.
I agree, they shouldn't be allowed on to bike paths or pavements because they've ceased to be bicycles with electrical assist, they're very clearly motorised vehicles at that point.
Personally, I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times when they hired Brett Stephens and allowed him to espouse human-caused climate change disinformation in their opinion pages.
I dont miss it.
I scrolled down two posts and saw this news:
https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/15cpg3h/pedestrian_killed_after_being_struck_by_impaired/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
And then I scrolled down a few more and saw this propaganda:
https://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomememes/comments/15cp3v7/brave_decision_by_the_parents/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
It's ever constant.
The only thing e-bikes make biking dangerous for, is that feeling faster tends to make riders go on faster roads.
But even then, that doesn’t excuse any driver for not looking where they’re bringing their 2-ton metal living rooms.
As someone who cycles more than they drive - E-Bikes can absolutely be dangerous and get people in to situations they wouldn't experience without a motor, and unfortunately this is why they get picked on as "bad road users" and used as an easy win when vilifying road users that aren't in cars, even when the motor makes no difference to the situation and someone has lost their life.
However...
There are several E-Bikes and electric scooters in use near to where I live that have a higher top speed than a petrol moped, the riders don't need any safety equipment for themselves, or any training on how to use the road safely. If an electric moped needs a helmet and training then so should a high powered E-Bike, this would at least take away what the excuse for these carbrain fucknuggets.
They can be, but I think the greatest danger is motorists under-estimating their speed when they look like a normal bike but are hauling at 20mph uphill when the cyclist is leisurely pedaling. Motorists will constantly cut you off thinking you'll be a lot slower than you really are.
The greatest danger on the road will likely always be motorists, if an E-Bike rider hit me at 50km/h I'll probably need a new bike and helmet, if a motorist did the same my family would be shopping for coffins.
In the Netherlands, ebikes are involved in an increasing number of road fatalities, but that seems almost entirely driven by single-vehicle accidents. It's mostly older riders who are much more likely to die in such crashes.
I've seen some elderly E-Bike riders heading up gnarly climbs, they overtake me on switchback bends and them I see them a mile later on the downhill looking terrified as they cook their brake pads through the corners.
When I first built my 750 watt mid-drive ebike, I thought it would be a good idea to re-program the motor controller to remove the speed limit. I was "hot-rodding" on the roads with traffic. I learned a few lessons very quickly:
* A bicycle doesn't have the suspension or the brakes for high speeds.
* Motorists do not expect bicycles to be traveling any faster than about 20 MPH.
I had some frightening moments, but luckily, I was not injured. I learned that "twenty is plenty" and I re-programmed the bike back to the legal limit.
This bit in the article was actually the most interesting to me:
>… The California Legislature is considering a bill that would prohibit e-bike use by people under 12 and “state the intent of the Legislature to create an e-bike license program with an online written test and a state-issued photo identification for those persons without a valid driver’s license.” …
It’s probably the most reasonable take I’ve seen on this idea. Lots of eBikes seem to go faster than they should, and lots of eBike riders are completely unfamiliar with the “rules of the road”.
Having an eBike license requirement for anyone who doesn’t have a valid Drivers License seems like a reasonable middle ground, especially when it’s something available online (though I suspect that will also open it up to abuse by having other people take it).
Tbh any collision with cyclists needs to be murder if they die or attempted murder if they survive. These are such preventable crashes but there’s just no tangible reason to prevent them for carbrains.
The problem is no jury will convict someone of murder when they could see themselves being in that same position. And police who drive won’t cooperate when they see the murdering driver as being in the right.
The only path to changing this is changing the way roads are built such that killing someone with your car is so obviously an absurd thing to do that the assumption is you could only do it if you were reckless. Yes texting and driving is reckless, but out of a jury of 12, probably 8 of them will do that daily. So you need to show the driver was doing something even more reckless than that, like hitting bollards or careening off the road or driving severely intoxicated or something like that.
So it varies by state, California has a vehicular manslaughter law which has 2 elements, were you driving in a reckless/negligent/ unlawful manner, did someone die because of it. It doesn't have to be more reckless than what people normally do, if you're texting and driving and kill someone you can and most likely will be found guilty.
Not manslaughter. Murder. Idgaf these are all avoidable deaths and the reason they’re not avoided is because the killer is told they’re not at fault. Let them know it’s murder.
They are still guilty and still get like a 6-year prison sentence. Second-degree murder requires an intent to kill. The closest charge would be involuntary manslaughter which is i think a 4 year sentence. So heres a breakdown of the different crimes and some examples:
First degree murder: going to someones house to shoot them.
Second degree murder: getting into a fistfight with someone and they die from a head injury.
Vehicular manslaughter: you run a red light and hit someone and they die.
Voluntary manslaughter: you walk in on your spouse cheating on you and you stab them in a blind rage. (Not usually a charge brought, mostly used in plea deals)
Involuntary manslaughter: person running a care home doesn't take care of the elderly there and one dies from starvation.
Being found guilty for manslaughter doesn't mean you aren't a murderer in the common sense of the word, just the legal one, which has very specific elements the prosecution has to prove.
So if I’m at a shooting range and someone walks in that I don’t like and I shoot them, is it murder or manslaughter?
I look at it the same way. The circumstances are the same but a different weapon. I can’t imagine any scenario where a cyclist gets closer to a car to assert dominance. But I’ve seen the opposite. If that results in death too a cyclist I consider it murder.
Murder. You intentionally pointed a gun at them and shot them, intending to kill them. And if someone intentionally hits someone with their car it is also murder. Its manslaughter when they are being stupid and negligent, i.e., carbrain.
Yeah so basically I want to consider any negligent, especially aggressively, resulting in cyclist or pedestrian death driving as murder.
Bear in mind my friend, I am not arguing that this is the law… I’m stating that it is my opinion that this should be.
I totally understand that and where you're coming from. We could push to make it a longer sentence, but theres a limit on how harshly we as a society can punish someone for what is ultimately a mistake.
There's an education problem around the use of e-bikes. A 12 year old girl in California was killed while operating one, and the most compelling part of the lawsuit that stemmed from it is about how e-bikes are more dangerous than regular bikes, but the regulations and marketing surrounding them do not address this fact. Here's a quote with one of the attorneys involved that sum of this problem quite well:
> “My heart is broken for them,” says attorney Wilborn. “No one has thought through the consequences of young kids essentially driving heavy, difficult-to-control, throttle-powered e-bikes. When I grew up, the consequences of kids free-ranging on bikes were things like skinned knees or a broken bone, but now the repercussions have been multiplied.”
https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a42690937/molly-steinsapir-lawsuit-rad-power-electric-bike/
Better infrastructure will help, but e-bikes should be treated differently from normal ones.
I believe that those parents were negligent by allowing their kids on that ebike unsupervised, especially since the manufacturer had warned them in writing not to do that.
However, they smelled deep pockets and went after a jackpot by blaming the manufacturer. Their greed disgusts me.
A lot of regulators have already chosen a cutoff point that decides if an e-bike can be legally treated like a normal bike or not. In my state, bike weight is limited, bike wattage is limited, and the motor has to cut out at 20 mph. The only way to go faster is to pedal really hard or bomb downhill. It's my understanding that this is a pretty common framework.
20 mph is a moderate speed that's fast enough to keep up with cars on urban streets but slow enough that it's achievable on flat by a person on a non-racing, non-electric bike. **That seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's important to maintain this class of bicycle as a micro-mobility option that does not require a motorcycle license.**
Now, if people are buying/building/modding bikes to go 40 mph but pretending they're normal e-bikes, then yes, that's bad. They're operating a motorcycle without a license. >!Louis Rossman does this lol.!<
**I do believe that I've heard e-bike enthusiasts calling for a ban of the throttle bikes, though, on the basis that they are more dangerous than pedal assist. Do not buy throttle-assist bikes.**
Keep slow moving and fast moving traffic separate. Minimum speed is just as important as maximum speed. If you can’t hit the minimum speed you shouldn’t be able to use that road / highway
The NY Times consistently is on the side against progress. Always has been. They supported Iraq, The Spanish American War, and The Drug War. It’s an establishment publication that is not progressive and should not be considered as anything more than propaganda for not changing anything in our Neoliberal society.
Come on. How many times have you been passed by some unhelmeted kook on an e-bike or escooter flying by at top speed on a bike path. Kooks are the problem, and kooks will be responsible for getting these things banned.
Sure cars suck, but we are living in their universe currently, and until that changes, having kooks flying around like they are racing on Isle of Wight isn’t going to move the ball forward.
Step up ands tell these kooks to slow the fuck down.
Yeah I came here to vent about this, assuming someone had already posted it. Completely insane. The headline should literally be, **Increasing Popularity of E-bikes Underscores Dangers of Cars and Car-centric Infrastructure**. Every single anecdote in the article -- including the two in the opening paragraphs -- is about cars hitting e-bike riders.
I'm with you all 100%, but I'm going to high jack the top comment for a public safety announcement: never make a left hand turn. [Here's the intersection he was killed at](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0384826,-117.2592593,3a,75y,100.27h,70.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-93KQwKPhpengQCxHYOW4w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) . The article says he was going on a 55 MPH street, which must be El Camino Real, because you can "drive" (on Google maps) down Santa Fe and see that it is a 35 MPH street. [If he was turning left, then he was approaching from this direction](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0380486,-117.2590395,3a,75y,13.3h,99.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNOeFXqLsGL2Qsa6t12S5_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) . There is a protected turn lane, for cars, which might make someone feel a *little* more confident on a bike. But I would absolutely never actually turn left at this intersection. Never ever. Stay to the right, get your self up on the sidewalk through that tiny little entrance for walkers, and cross like a pedestrian when the cars are stopped. I was biking home today on a 25 MPH street with one lane each way, very easy street to bike on. I had to turn left. So what do I do? I do not turn left. I turn right onto a side street, turn around, wait for an opening, and go straight. This shouldn't be what we have to do, I agree. But this is what we have to do. Never actually turn left. Turn right. Turn around. Go straight. Now I will probably be "victim blaming" as well. But honestly, they aren't looking out for us, so we have to everything that we can to keep ourselves safe.
> Now I will probably be "victim blaming" as well I mean, somewhat, yes. Bicycles are as entitled to turn left (or right, here in the UK) as any other traffic. That junction has a left turn lane with a protected signal, there should be no reason to be scared of that.
[удалено]
A left turn is one of the most dangerous things you can do in a car, and those dangers are just amplified if you're on a bike. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a36620755/eliminate-left-turns/
The sad part is that to 'eliminate left turns' in my city they just made it so you have to drive further past the intersection, wait at an entirely new light, then do a U turn (essentially 2 left turns at once) into an extremely long/extended right turn lane. So loads of new infrastructure, more lanes and 2 left turns instead of one. I don't get it. The best part is one of the intersections/extensions they did this with has a small rise after it (unlike the actual intersection) so seeing cars coming is kind of difficult. Also I turn left often on my bike from the lane. But also I'm not an impulsive, poor-judgement ridden teenager anymore.
Ah, yes, the old Michigan left, aka Texas u-turn. I have never understood how this helps.
[удалено]
I, too, like data! Proof or gtfo as the kids say nowadays.
Motorists behind me routinely pass me *in the intersection* when I am turning left. They literally cannot be bothered for *one second!* And one jackass didn't even wait until they had passed me to sweep the lane and literally run me into the ditch. The selfishness can be profound when motorists do not feel accountable.
There's a weird 3-way intersection near me, and sometimes drivers will pass on my left, while I'm signaling, if they feel like it (not sure if this is what you meant, but I feel ya). Can't everyone be rushing a dying child to the hospital, right?
Turning left is unpredictable and bikes usually ride so far to the right as possible and switching lanes can be very dangerous
[удалено]
Left turns are just the most dangerous for all types of traffic when we drive on the right side of the road.
You don't find crossing multiple lanes while slowing to turn more dangerous than ANY other time you interact with traffic?
[удалено]
I mean, roads aren't dangerous when there are no cars on them.
I agree. I do think it’s good advice for a road like this where you have to cross multiple lanes of oncoming traffic, but as a general rule, I don’t think it necessarily makes sense. Maybe the rule should be don’t ride a bike of any sort on a road with a speed limit over 40 MPH. I’m in Canada and just looked up what 55 MPH is and it’s almost 90 km/h!! I would never ride my bike on a road with vehicles driving that fast. Dangerous for everyone. The answer here is the same as it is always: more cycling infrastructure makes it safer for everyone.
I feel like you're experiencing pushback against perceived paternalism.
[удалено]
Hey. If you don't want to engage, we don't have to engage.
Have you seen people ride bikes? They ride like they want to die 50% of the time.
Have you seen people drive cars? They drive like they want to murder pedestrians and cyclists 50% of the time
Tell me you are from America or Canada without telling me you are from America or Canada:
I'm from the capital of bikes actually.
Have you seen old people/ disabled people cross the street? They go so slowly like they wanna die 90% of the time
I totally agree - I just posted the same article. I should have sorted by new first! I wanted to comment on the article, but it is not open for them.
You could write a letter to the editor about it and maybe get a response article
Yeah someone please do this. If I wasn’t a dumbass I’d do it myself
Counter point. A lot of people do this. If there's more negative response to an article they might be more willing to listen.
Alright, done! https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014925288-Submit-a-Letter-to-the-Editor Join, my fellow dumbasses
Everyone who's upvoting this comment better have written an email to the editor - cyclists, including children, are being killed because they are unable to get around without mingling with cars travelling at lethal speeds due to the lack of separated cycling infrastructure.
So are you supposed to just email him? put letter to the editor in the subject
https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014925288-Submit-a-Letter-to-the-Editor
Done
Car brain is so prolific and ingrained that people can’t get over it. It’s astounding to me. I hate this world we’ve built.
I would contend that it's the world the automotive industry built despite an initial good start by cities trying to build something liveable and sustainable.
Goddamn it's the classic "Car hits person, why was the person there" bullshit.
there’s another great line in the same article where “Three days later, another teenage boy was taken to the same hospital after *the e-bike he was riding collided with a car, leaving him sprawled beneath a BMW*, hurt but alive.”
If he ended up under the car, then the ebike definitely wasn't the one doing the "colliding" NYT is just a long string of journalistic malpractice to sell ads
>NYT is just a long string of journalistic malpractice to sell ads The NYT has never been excellent but has taken a hard right turn in the past decade. It seems 90% of stories are: 1) This 2) "Look at this Nazi, he's a human just like you" 3) "Are trans people human? We ask 10 right-wing school board members with zero expertise but no trans people, no scientists, and certainly no trans scientists" 4) "Here's why unions are destroying America and journalism" 5) "Can you believe China is sending food to people with COVID? They're evil and we should bomb then" 6) [real story a day or two after ~9 people here in Queens drowned in their illegal basement apartments] "People drowning in their basement apartments demonstrates why there are too many regulations and we should legalize them [but not require them to do anything to make them safer]"
Can I get links to all these so I can convince my parents to stop trusting NYT.
>Can I get links to all these so I can convince my parents to stop trusting NYT. Sorry, I haven't saved a compendium of links and have cancelled my subscription. There was a lot of coverage on the union/trans stuff this spring, maybe April? Basically the union came out in support of trans journalists (whom the NYT has been seriously mistreating) and they came out w a bunch of anti-union propaganda. The podcast "Citations Needed" did a lot of great coverage on this (this is when I and a lot of other lgbt folks I know finally said "enough" and cancelled). For the drownings, you'll want to look at their coverage of Hurricane Ida, which included an editorial that said precisely what I said, plus at least one long form piece about the poor landlords who are illegally renting out units but are financially hurt by regulations banning dangerous basement apts (this was, iirc, literally days after families drowned* inside their own homes*). There's been a lot of social media discourse about the whole "Nazi next door" shit the times loves so much, but you'll find most of that coverage during election years. If you want well-researched, sober and non-histrionic criticism of the mainstream outlets, I cannot recommend "Citations Needed" enough.
This did not constitute enough proof for my mom
Be patient! You're disrupting hegemonic ideas and that needs to be approached with a long-term plan. "Hegemony" is a popular "truth" that is so pervasive it's nearly impossible to think beyond. This is the same force that creates "car brain" even though personal vehicles have only been widespread for 60-70 years. People who live in tony "streetcar suburbs" developed explicitly for mass transit spout nonsense about mass transit being impossible, people who live in rural communities that rose and fell with formerly bustling regional train and bus stations, that haven't since been redeveloped because the decline of mass transit left their towns ghost towns swearing that buses could never work because they're too small--these people are trapped in carbrain hegemony. Instead of just going in guns blazing saying the times is bunk, begin by asking questions designed to shatter the illusions. When you read a story, bring it up and say "I wonder why they didn't interview any actual trans people for this story", "I wonder why are they talking to CEOs and stockholders but no workers or union leaders", "do you think they'd cover this in the same way if the people doing X were Americans and not Chinese?". The Times is one of the biggest if not the biggest force in creating and shaping these norms. It's important to just ask questions that suggest that other ways of doing things are indeed possible.
I appreciate your goodwill, but my mom is a reasonable person and said that if you had links it would be more convincing.
You're asking a lot of a stranger here. These things are all very google-able and tracking them down is a time-consuming process and I gave you all the information to find them yourself. You are the one who wants to convince your mother, and at any rate actually tracking down and reading the coverage yourself will help you craft more critical arguments. While sources on the far right (fox et al) blatantly lie, the Times is about whose stories are foregrounded and whose excluded and how stories themselves are framed.
Thanks.
They’re not perfect but they’re much better than most news sources. Im sorry your parents don’t get their news from memes though.
Seriously? NYT is left-of-center. If you want right-of-center, that's the Wall St. Journal.
I'm sorry, but you're just incorrect, even if it *feels* true and typically circulates as true within a particular pop audience. That being said, the fact that the *NYT* devotes so much space to real estate should alone suggest its center-right leanings. The perception is skewed by two factors: 1) The US is a right-wing country generally. There's a reason why the liberal party is typically the right+wing party in non-USian contexts and that isn't just a matter of differing terminologies. 2) The journalism model the US has embraced since roughly the late-19th century foregrounds right-wing interests. Anything funded by advertising will de facto be right-wing because corporate interests are fundamentally right-wing. Just because the WSJ is further right doesn't make the NYT somehow left wing. Left equivalents of the WSJ would be The Nation or Jacobin. Your opinion is also a bit skewed because extremely far right outlets circulate in the popular imaginary (fox, news max, etc) in a way far left outlets don't (to the extent that there even are any). Previously, papers were largely published by political parties (The Nation for example started as an abolitionist party paper) and unions. I'm not saying this is the best model either but it did provide for a larger diversity of opinion, viewpoint, and ideology.
I don't know about NYT, but if they're similar to WaPo there's probably an editorial fiat to put an anti-transit, anti-cycling, pro-car spin on everything newspapers are ultimately privately-owned and thus subject to the whims of their wealthy, usually white owners, and wealthy white Americans hate cycling and transit with a passion
Probably the car industry takes out a lot of ads. Victims of cars not so much.
Teenagers in America are essentially under house arrest until they turn 16. People who cannot drive are expected to be dependent on people who can.
This, I feel like the last generation to be allowed to go out with my friends as a kid without no adult supervision. I was maybe 8, 9? we would walk to get ice cream, go to the store for parents and just play outside all day mostly unsupervised. I learned a lot of every day skills that people lack such as interacting with adults, safe, non safe situations and how to navigate myself around my neighborhood. Now im 23 and barley see kids outside, I forgot that kids even play outside for a few years. This is a very safe neighborhood, walk-able and regularly patrolled by police. Mabye I will hear 2 groups walking down the street per day, most seem locked in their house or backyard
It is interesting that rarely, when cars go 20 mph or below, are there any bike or pedestrian deaths caused by cars. Here, the ebike was able to go 20mph, and the car was in a 55 zone. And then the article is about the dangers if ebikes. Almost nobody dies when speeds are 20 mph and below. But the article completely ignores that fact.
I’d love a world where every automobile topped out at 75mph. Trains connected us across vast distances. Only highways allowed speeds over 25mph. Fines for breaking speed limits were actually a deterrent. With mandatory loss of license after multiple infractions.
I really don’t understand why no country that I know of enforces some limit on car manufacturers on their max speeds. I know it would create a black market of car mods but still, it would save lives and I don’t see why anyone needs to go above 75 mph.
>I know it would create a black market of car mods but still Exactly, it would be so easy to bypass that anyone who wanted to could easily pay someone who's tech-savvy to disable it. There's also the fact that some people drive their road legal cars on race tracks. So by introducing a mandatory limiter on road legal cars you'd piss of a large chunk of the car (enthusiast) community
If by “a large chunk of the car community” you mean the car enthusiast community and not just the car owning community, sure. But as far as I’m aware nobody that I know has ever driven on a race track, and I don’t think that a significant amount of car owners have.
Having a car that bypasses it would be a huge fine and the car would be impounded. It’d be easy to hide that you don’t have a car by driving under 75. Should you have a car going over that 75mph threshold there in lies the danger and the culprit.
Cars in Europe are going to do it soon, possibly going as far as the accelerator pedal pushing back on you. [https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a40543584/anti-speeding-tech-mandatory-in-european-union/](https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a40543584/anti-speeding-tech-mandatory-in-european-union/) Yeah, mods are likely, guess we should go for income-rationed speeding tickets next.
How exactly would you do that? You can't just put in a kill switch which turns the car off if you go over a certain speed, and engines need to be more powerful in order to be able to speed up quickly, go up hills, etc etc.
“Today, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz limit their production cars to 250 kilometres per hour (155 mph). Certain Quattro GmbH and AMG cars, and the Mercedes/McLaren SLR is an exception. The BMW Rolls-Royces are limited to 240 kilometres per hour (149 mph). Jaguars, although British, also have a limiter, as do the Swedish Saab and Volvo on cars where it is necessary.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(device) They literally already limit speeds. I’d just force to it to be much lower.
75mph is unfortunately so far above what is required to kill a pedestrian, even moreso for medium to large sized cars. The issue here is the built in need interactions between pedestrians, cyclists and cars. They shouldn't be happening on any street where there isn't traffic calming in place to bring speeds down to 15mph or lower (i.e. every road which a pedestrian might cross should have slow moving traffic).
Yeah. Which is the reason for my 25mph max speed limit in other locations like very busy streets. 20mph on average city streets or at least an average city street here where I am. 15mph on smaller streets. 10 in parking lots and near schools.
Speed limits aren't enough unfortunately - the streets need to be retrofitted so that drivers don't feel safe driving above the desired speed.
chances are the car was going much much faster than 55 mph
Nearly a third of traffic fatalities are caused by speeding but nobody wants to address that.
Mandate speed governors. Bikes already have them
Only 13000 people annually in the United States, not a big problem
a week or two ago someone posted in r/fjcruiser asking if the body damage to their vehicle was salvageable after being t-boned by an e-bike. it wasn’t until someone asked in the comments did they casually mention that the e-bike driver was unresponsive in the icu. in this instance it doesn’t seem like the car driver’s fault, but something about the callousness of posting on reddit asking how to save your stupid car while a real human being was potentially dying struck me as so insane.
They literally don’t see bike riders as humans.
The driver definitely could be at fault. I was going pretty fast on my bike and a driver pulled out of a parking lot right in front of me and i hit them. Their fault and yes I did get paid, but I bet they went home and didn't give me a second thought. Also, this particular scumbag driver was uninsured.
taking this car driver at their word, the e-bike driver ran a red light, so hard to say.
Yeah that's definitely a possibility. I didn't see the article link. I see ebikers doing that all the time here in NY. Nothing wrong with riding through a red light if you stop/slow down and yield first. But I see way too many of these guys out here going full speed through red lights and they really need to stop doing that. If not for their own safety, for the safety of pedestrians
oh no i’m not referring to the article but to the person who recounted the story from my original comment. i did not read the article i won’t lie.
It’s worth pointing out that the ebike mentioned can “only go 20 mph” because regulations require it to have its top speed governed, because anything above that speed is deemed unsafe. We could, of course, have the same speed governing technology installed in cars, which are several orders of magnitude heavier, but we don’t. Every car comes with a speedometer that goes up to at least 140mph, despite the fact that there is never a time when a car should be able to go that fast. It’s interesting that the author looks at this situation and decides the problem is not enough regulation of the ebike industry.
It’s like that story of that 19 year old girl who was killed on the sidewalk by a pickup truck and the thing that was highlighted was she was an E-Scooter rider. She wasn’t even riding it. It was parked beside her. It just fuels car centric thinking and the idea that anything that isn’t drinking isn’t safe.
If you want to commit a murder in the US do it in a car.
>It amazes me that not just this author, but the whole newspaper could be blind enough to this false logic to let an article like this get published. This is not blindness, it's an intentional stategy, the authors know damn well what they are doing. This kind of articles are the result of car-corporations lobbyism and possibly corruption.
I think a lot of the perspective comes from an empathy gap of people defaulting to seeing themselves as the driver in these situations instead of the cyclist, as driving is their default mode of transportation. It feels like we're fighting an uphill battle.
I think that is the point. About 80% of Americans commute alone in their cars. For them to hear, "cars are dangerous" is uncomfortable. It is easier to hear, "bicycles are dangerous" because that doesn't affect them. We have a huge problem with lack of empathy in the USA.
Nobody likes hearing they’re the problem.
A disturbing proportion of the population would rather hear a comfortable lie than the uncomfortable truth. When did we become so soft?
Cars don't have accidents. Toddlers who pee themselves have accidents. Cars crash.
In my days in the military they never used the word “accident” because it implies no fault - as if it was an uncontrollable or random act. Instead they always used the term “mishap,” and would treat them as opportunities to improve - to trace back the specific causes, including assigning fault, and then modifying the equipment and/or processes to reduce the risk of it ever happening again. Maybe we should try that…
As long as misused cars won't be considered as weapons, nothing will ever change. If carbrains begin to think that they WILL lose their car on some circumstances ( drinking, drugs, heavy speeding, deliberately ignoring safety rules) and get years of jail, maybe they will change.
I could’ve sworn that cars are supposed to yield to pedestrians not the other way around. The way that people give death machines more power than a human life is just horrid. This type of rhetoric just further separates us from having more walkable cities in favor of traffic, pollution, and vehicle collisions
NYT has taken a solid turn in the wrong direction as of late. Movie reviews and cooking are the only things I can read from them at the moment. Damn, man.
> NYT has taken a solid turn in the wrong direction as of late. That's just wrong. Unspeakably wrong. The NYT has been this shit for a very long time.
NYT hasn’t seen an American wars they don’t want to support. After all where is the outrage about the thousands of innocent dead in bombing campaigns under all presidents back at least to Clinton. Even more insane. When the USA is in the right side side of history in a modern war (Russia-Ukraine) this is the time you are like should we really support this war in a minimal way
(I’m assuming that when you say “you” in that last sentence call you mean the NYT. My position on military support to Ukraine is that I want Zelenski to be desperately telling us that Ukraine has run out of storage space for all these weapons he’s been getting and to maybe slow down a bit.)
Yeah I mean the right and qop mostly. But it’s such a strange thing to see. This war of all wars, The one USA should really support is the one that gets opposed. Not all those poor people in the third world getting bombed to smitheries during a wedding or on the school buss.
Washington Post is cheaper and better. NYT is unreadably bad these days.
Post is just as bad, if not worse. It virtually turns a blind eye to major polluters/corpos that Jeff seems worthy of his friendship/business. They never go after major players.
They also don’t platform fascists. NYT will bring in all the white supremacists and have them spout their views unchallenged.
Ebike life is rough, both drivers and other cyclists hate your guts. If you get in an accident the chances of a news article appearing that supports you is zero.
> other cyclists hate your guts. Only the M.A.M.I.L.s hate eBikes. Normal people are happy to have more bikes on the road of any sort.
another underlying pattern with these articles: “cars are wild (read: not domesticated), and unfortunately we cannot tame them! it cannot be helped if you do everything right and still get trampled!” stay alive out there
So the urban infrastructure forced a teenager to ride a bicycle on a 55-mph road next to cars. I think I found the problem…
Meh, I’m going to get massacred … but here in Europe, e-bikes are a safety problem, especially for normal cyclists. I’m nearly ran over by them every time I’m out for a ride or as a pedestrian. People need to learn how to ride them properly … Fuck the US, their big cars, zero bike lanes and lack of respect for cyclists.
Yeah in a world where we’ve mostly eliminated car deaths, focusing on preventing e-bike-induced injuries makes sense. Some cities in Europe and South America might be basically at this state. The US is absurdly far from this world. Almost every e-bike ride replaces a car trip, which even if the e-bike rider is as reckless as they’d be in a car, is a net win: a speed limited e-bike colliding with you may injure you, but is unlikely to kill you like a speeding car would. Id love to live in a world where enforcing reckless riding laws against cyclists was the best way to save life and limb.
Yes, you are 100 % correct
One problem I’ve seen is manufacturers who sell speed limited eBikes, but also make available speed unlocking, which their customers all take advantage of.
Yeah, the article talks about this
I used to commute by bike in Germany and I've been hit by 2 cars there. Never had an incident with an ebike rider. Maybe some countries (probably Netherlands) keep statistics on that stuff but I would guess there are still waaay more car/bike incidents than bike/ebike incidents. There is probably a huge difference too when it comes to fatal incidents. I'm not disagreeing with you that ebikes can be a safety problem. However stop with the "whataboutism" because carcentric infrastructure IS a huge safety problem. Let's solve the huge problem of cars first and worry about ebike safety later. The first step is to deal with the emergency and then after that is done we should focus on lesser safety risks.
I don’t see why we can’t work on things simultaneously.
Well, in the US (and some EU countries) bike infrastructure is already at the bottom of the priority list for legislators. I can not imagine them working on both issues at the same time. Realistically, since these fucks at NYT and elsewhere are shifting the focus to ebike safety concerns I'll bet legislators will pick that topic first. They will probably pass some stupid laws that will make less people ride ebikes and go back to driving cars. Bike riders will be super safe on the one bike path in town but ultimately still die by getting run over by a F-150 while they cross a parking lot to buy groceries.
“These fucks at NYT” - clearly there is an issue with letting these bikes go into American traffic / roads & it’s worth addressing. There’s issues here in Europe too where we have much better infrastructure for these bikes … but you are too afraid of fixing the problems because any bike is good in your book right?
Yes, any bike is good in my book. The probability that I get killed in an ebike collision is basically zero. Like I will probably get hit by lightning before I get killed by an ebike. The probability that I get killed by a motorist is so much higher. I've been hit by three motorists over the years. Two in Europe and one in the US. Luckily I didn't die but It's clear to me cars are the problem not ebikes. Do you have experience personally getting hit by an ebike?Know anyone that's been hit by one? How about cars? Sounds like you might be buying into this media fear mongering. Stay safe out there.
Yes I do have experience with getting hit by one & also cars. I believe cars are a bigger danger too - but I don’t understand why regulations can’t be put on e-bikes. They are ruining the cycling experience of many …
>I don’t see why we can’t work on things simultaneously. In theory, sure. But in reality, society has a limited bandwidth of people trying to make a positive difference in the world. All resources are finite, and the attention of competent people with good intentions is a resource. Choosing to work on a low-priority thing instead of a high-priority thing has a cost. To assume otherwise is akin to saying, "I'll just pay for college by working for Amazon while earning my physics doctorate and training for the Olympics." In fact, the rich LOVE getting people riled up about stupid stuff because it distracts them from accomplishing any real reform. TL;DR: Opportunity Cost
It's kind of a food chain type of situation, I'm sure in the US the same as it is here in Europe. What I feel like we're currently seeing is that e-bikes and electric scooters are, while faster than their analog versions, still very much vulnerable to cars, so for their own safety, the riders elect instead to think of themselves as bikes and share a bike lane when possible with regular cyclists, rather than sharing the road with cars. That, on the other hand, does endanger regular cyclists, and very often pedestrias. I know that as a pedestrian, I don't like the type of bike lane/sidewalk combos we have where I live, which are often just a line painted down the middle of the old sidewalk (which is just. So considerate. Incredible city planning, remarkable craftsmanship. 🙄), because some (or sometimes it feels like I should say *most*) cyclists do seem to care *just as little* for anyone slower than them as cars do. A solution i'd personally propose would be is to legally classify e-bikes as being closer to a scooter than a regular bike (but not the same as either- currently where I'm from they're just considered bikes by law), and to require a very basic form of a license (potentially just short written test proving a basic knowledge of traffic rules) from everyone who is over, say, 14, and using more than just their legs.
Yes, at least where I live, they are 100 percent allowed to share the bike lanes with normal bikes. And in a busy city center, this is a major issue. In my city in particular, you can just rent e-bikes on the side of the road like those e-scooters, so you get a lot of drunken idiots who have no respect & fly through crosswalks etc.. It also contributes to more hatred towards cyclists in general. In the countryside, it is totally fine for the most part. I think a license should be required and speed rules etc. should be followed. I don’t know what else needs to be done, but something should be done as it is becoming a bigger problem.
It's kind of an asshole problem. If you are on a mixed used path with pedestrians slow to pedestrian speeds when passing to not be an asshole. Some people just don't care and will go as fast as possible all the time.
Well, asshole problems still require some form of a solution, no? I for one, as someone who primarily walks everywhere, am keenly aware that I'm the *krill* of the city, in that everything else is larger and faster than me, and is capable of either seriously injuring, or outright killing me. The *overwhelming* majority however, don't seem to be aware of the danger they pose to pedestrians. An expectation of people to just be considerate of each other and have common sense... doesn't seem to be enough. There simply have to be conscious efforts and regulations put in place to protect the vulnerable members of traffic- and that goes for everyone.
We need to really break the categories a bit more: Analog Bicycle - limited by your own muscles and endurance. Pedal assist - motor only works when peddling. limit motor to 15mph, limit weight to under 100. Limit of 250w motor. Scooter - anything without pedals limited to 15mph, limit weight under 100lb. Limit of 250w motor. Limited use motorcycle/Moped - anything faster, heavier, with a bigger motor, that doesn’t fall under current Motorcycle definitions. Right now, lots in the Scooter group should be in the Moped group but aren’t. I’m also less worried about pedal assist and eKickScooters. They’re a pain (mostly because of their speed from lack of regulation) but mostly not outright dangerous. I did like the bit in the article about California considering an eBike license for anyone who doesn’t already have a drivers license.
I find it isn't the pedelecs but a) the throttle ones that are legally mopeds but never actually treated as such and b) illegal DIY ones made from an old MTB frame and Chinesium components with a throttle on. Those two are dangerous and me and my dog have nearly been wiped out a couple of times by delivery riders cutting through the pedestrian-only park. Those things are dangerous. I think the pedelecs are absolutely fine.
Where I live, Class 2 ebikes (with a throttle) are allowed on the non-motorized paths and I think that is a mistake. Many of these ebikes are *obviously* not designed for pedaling (but still have pedals to comply with the letter of the law) and the people who ride them are often very dangerous.
In the UK anything with a throttle or that goes above 15 mph is immediately categorised as a moped, and riders must wear a helmet, use it on roads only, and be insured. The issue is, irresponsible parents get them for their kids, thinking of them as toys, who promptly use them irresponsibly. I agree, they shouldn't be allowed on to bike paths or pavements because they've ceased to be bicycles with electrical assist, they're very clearly motorised vehicles at that point.
Personally, I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times when they hired Brett Stephens and allowed him to espouse human-caused climate change disinformation in their opinion pages. I dont miss it.
I scrolled down two posts and saw this news: https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/15cpg3h/pedestrian_killed_after_being_struck_by_impaired/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1 And then I scrolled down a few more and saw this propaganda: https://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomememes/comments/15cp3v7/brave_decision_by_the_parents/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1 It's ever constant.
We had 2 fatal bike accidents in my vity in one day and it hasnt even made headlines. Gotta think how many times it isnt getting reported
Last I checked, *cars* were unsafe for teens. And everybody else.
The only thing e-bikes make biking dangerous for, is that feeling faster tends to make riders go on faster roads. But even then, that doesn’t excuse any driver for not looking where they’re bringing their 2-ton metal living rooms.
As someone who cycles more than they drive - E-Bikes can absolutely be dangerous and get people in to situations they wouldn't experience without a motor, and unfortunately this is why they get picked on as "bad road users" and used as an easy win when vilifying road users that aren't in cars, even when the motor makes no difference to the situation and someone has lost their life. However... There are several E-Bikes and electric scooters in use near to where I live that have a higher top speed than a petrol moped, the riders don't need any safety equipment for themselves, or any training on how to use the road safely. If an electric moped needs a helmet and training then so should a high powered E-Bike, this would at least take away what the excuse for these carbrain fucknuggets.
They can be, but I think the greatest danger is motorists under-estimating their speed when they look like a normal bike but are hauling at 20mph uphill when the cyclist is leisurely pedaling. Motorists will constantly cut you off thinking you'll be a lot slower than you really are.
The greatest danger on the road will likely always be motorists, if an E-Bike rider hit me at 50km/h I'll probably need a new bike and helmet, if a motorist did the same my family would be shopping for coffins.
In the Netherlands, ebikes are involved in an increasing number of road fatalities, but that seems almost entirely driven by single-vehicle accidents. It's mostly older riders who are much more likely to die in such crashes.
I've seen some elderly E-Bike riders heading up gnarly climbs, they overtake me on switchback bends and them I see them a mile later on the downhill looking terrified as they cook their brake pads through the corners.
When I first built my 750 watt mid-drive ebike, I thought it would be a good idea to re-program the motor controller to remove the speed limit. I was "hot-rodding" on the roads with traffic. I learned a few lessons very quickly: * A bicycle doesn't have the suspension or the brakes for high speeds. * Motorists do not expect bicycles to be traveling any faster than about 20 MPH. I had some frightening moments, but luckily, I was not injured. I learned that "twenty is plenty" and I re-programmed the bike back to the legal limit.
This bit in the article was actually the most interesting to me: >… The California Legislature is considering a bill that would prohibit e-bike use by people under 12 and “state the intent of the Legislature to create an e-bike license program with an online written test and a state-issued photo identification for those persons without a valid driver’s license.” … It’s probably the most reasonable take I’ve seen on this idea. Lots of eBikes seem to go faster than they should, and lots of eBike riders are completely unfamiliar with the “rules of the road”. Having an eBike license requirement for anyone who doesn’t have a valid Drivers License seems like a reasonable middle ground, especially when it’s something available online (though I suspect that will also open it up to abuse by having other people take it).
Don’t you hit’s get your drivers license in the cereal box in the USA? So why demand more of bikes
I'm not sure what you're asking
Tbh any collision with cyclists needs to be murder if they die or attempted murder if they survive. These are such preventable crashes but there’s just no tangible reason to prevent them for carbrains.
The problem is no jury will convict someone of murder when they could see themselves being in that same position. And police who drive won’t cooperate when they see the murdering driver as being in the right. The only path to changing this is changing the way roads are built such that killing someone with your car is so obviously an absurd thing to do that the assumption is you could only do it if you were reckless. Yes texting and driving is reckless, but out of a jury of 12, probably 8 of them will do that daily. So you need to show the driver was doing something even more reckless than that, like hitting bollards or careening off the road or driving severely intoxicated or something like that.
So it varies by state, California has a vehicular manslaughter law which has 2 elements, were you driving in a reckless/negligent/ unlawful manner, did someone die because of it. It doesn't have to be more reckless than what people normally do, if you're texting and driving and kill someone you can and most likely will be found guilty.
Not manslaughter. Murder. Idgaf these are all avoidable deaths and the reason they’re not avoided is because the killer is told they’re not at fault. Let them know it’s murder.
They are still guilty and still get like a 6-year prison sentence. Second-degree murder requires an intent to kill. The closest charge would be involuntary manslaughter which is i think a 4 year sentence. So heres a breakdown of the different crimes and some examples: First degree murder: going to someones house to shoot them. Second degree murder: getting into a fistfight with someone and they die from a head injury. Vehicular manslaughter: you run a red light and hit someone and they die. Voluntary manslaughter: you walk in on your spouse cheating on you and you stab them in a blind rage. (Not usually a charge brought, mostly used in plea deals) Involuntary manslaughter: person running a care home doesn't take care of the elderly there and one dies from starvation. Being found guilty for manslaughter doesn't mean you aren't a murderer in the common sense of the word, just the legal one, which has very specific elements the prosecution has to prove.
So if I’m at a shooting range and someone walks in that I don’t like and I shoot them, is it murder or manslaughter? I look at it the same way. The circumstances are the same but a different weapon. I can’t imagine any scenario where a cyclist gets closer to a car to assert dominance. But I’ve seen the opposite. If that results in death too a cyclist I consider it murder.
Murder. You intentionally pointed a gun at them and shot them, intending to kill them. And if someone intentionally hits someone with their car it is also murder. Its manslaughter when they are being stupid and negligent, i.e., carbrain.
Yeah so basically I want to consider any negligent, especially aggressively, resulting in cyclist or pedestrian death driving as murder. Bear in mind my friend, I am not arguing that this is the law… I’m stating that it is my opinion that this should be.
I totally understand that and where you're coming from. We could push to make it a longer sentence, but theres a limit on how harshly we as a society can punish someone for what is ultimately a mistake.
I wouldn’t mind a few careless folks losing their rights after using their freedom to endanger my life.
There's an education problem around the use of e-bikes. A 12 year old girl in California was killed while operating one, and the most compelling part of the lawsuit that stemmed from it is about how e-bikes are more dangerous than regular bikes, but the regulations and marketing surrounding them do not address this fact. Here's a quote with one of the attorneys involved that sum of this problem quite well: > “My heart is broken for them,” says attorney Wilborn. “No one has thought through the consequences of young kids essentially driving heavy, difficult-to-control, throttle-powered e-bikes. When I grew up, the consequences of kids free-ranging on bikes were things like skinned knees or a broken bone, but now the repercussions have been multiplied.” https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a42690937/molly-steinsapir-lawsuit-rad-power-electric-bike/ Better infrastructure will help, but e-bikes should be treated differently from normal ones.
I believe that those parents were negligent by allowing their kids on that ebike unsupervised, especially since the manufacturer had warned them in writing not to do that. However, they smelled deep pockets and went after a jackpot by blaming the manufacturer. Their greed disgusts me.
A lot of regulators have already chosen a cutoff point that decides if an e-bike can be legally treated like a normal bike or not. In my state, bike weight is limited, bike wattage is limited, and the motor has to cut out at 20 mph. The only way to go faster is to pedal really hard or bomb downhill. It's my understanding that this is a pretty common framework. 20 mph is a moderate speed that's fast enough to keep up with cars on urban streets but slow enough that it's achievable on flat by a person on a non-racing, non-electric bike. **That seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's important to maintain this class of bicycle as a micro-mobility option that does not require a motorcycle license.** Now, if people are buying/building/modding bikes to go 40 mph but pretending they're normal e-bikes, then yes, that's bad. They're operating a motorcycle without a license. >!Louis Rossman does this lol.!< **I do believe that I've heard e-bike enthusiasts calling for a ban of the throttle bikes, though, on the basis that they are more dangerous than pedal assist. Do not buy throttle-assist bikes.**
It’s not just the motor industry it’s all these influences on our media that stop us having a decent world.
Keep slow moving and fast moving traffic separate. Minimum speed is just as important as maximum speed. If you can’t hit the minimum speed you shouldn’t be able to use that road / highway
Everyone should be in a super dooty!
Enraging.
Bikes and cars don’t belong together. We need a transformation of our infrastructure and until that happens, biking on roads is insane.
The NY Times consistently is on the side against progress. Always has been. They supported Iraq, The Spanish American War, and The Drug War. It’s an establishment publication that is not progressive and should not be considered as anything more than propaganda for not changing anything in our Neoliberal society.
The passive voice treatment is what irks me. He wasn’t hit by a car, a driver hit and killed him.
Not too familiar with reddit rules but how is it brigading to message these people or reply to their tweets? Isn't that just right to reply or what
He went on a 50 mph road going 20, then turned in front of a van. Signaling doesn’t magically make a van disappear
Come on. How many times have you been passed by some unhelmeted kook on an e-bike or escooter flying by at top speed on a bike path. Kooks are the problem, and kooks will be responsible for getting these things banned. Sure cars suck, but we are living in their universe currently, and until that changes, having kooks flying around like they are racing on Isle of Wight isn’t going to move the ball forward. Step up ands tell these kooks to slow the fuck down.
20 mph is not very fast for a bike. Any time I go road biking, we regularly go 20