the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
That's not really an argument against e-bikes though, it's an argument for lowering the maximum speed they're allowed to reach using assistance from the motor.
The problem here is if you live in a place with hills and want bike paths to be major transportation pathways that serve double-digit percentages of the population, you need to.
Grandma is not cycling unpowered for 10 min up a 10 degree incline to get to the shops, even if she can in principle do that. As long as speed limits are enforced, it's fine to have a motor.
You know who is, though? Joe Biden.
You know who else is?
What difference does it make if e-bikes are restricted to a speed that the average "analog" bike can easily do though?
This is almost exactly what is done in the country I live in and it seems to work, the only difference being that it's capped at 250w rather than 300w
So that's what I was trying to say, but I should have been clearer lol
Reasons why E bikes are actually better than presented here
My knees like the support of E-bikes, after having argued against them for more than a decade for similar reasons to yours.
I also take them when I am exhausted, since I can tune in some support if I need it.
My friend with MS does use her E-bike and when that isn't possible her electrical wheelchair.
I use the bike even for hilly and steep routes since then I can add a bit power
I have more control over when I get to some points, meaning that I ride the bike more (since I can add/reduce the power that is supplied by the motor)
long trecks and tours are much easier with a group of five when everyone got E-bikes (as long as no wheel gets hurt). In our case that involved kids who we normally had to curate routes for very well. Now we have an ease of use that wasn't there before.
the overall product quality of the E-bike is higher and that means it is much easier to ride and the components do last longer than what I would've bought instead. The maintenance though is slightly more expensive.
driving in cities is much less a problem since I am not angry having to stop in front of signals and also getting speed is much faster, meaning I can cut a few minutes from most distances
transporting heavy things is actually much easier (this includes material from shops, food, but also bike trailers for kids
I feel much more save with E-bikes next to cars. For various reasons, one is that the base speed I got is good and when I use a short muscle power burst I can get the 28-33km/h that are at tempo 30 zones usual. Couldn't ride that speed the whole distance though.
I just use the bike much more than my non E-bike during similar times and get more distance covered with it.
Yeah, even on an E-bike...going over 35km with motor is getting dicey. Luckily where we are they are already illegal (though the government is looking at moving to slightly more permissive NZ standards that allow 300w motors up to 30kph.