Electric Bicycles Surging In Popularity 533
gollum123 writes "An accidental transportation upheaval began in China, where an estimated 120 million electric bicycles now hum along the roads, up from a few thousand in the 1990s. They are replacing traditional bikes and motorcycles at a rapid clip and, in many cases, allowing people to put off the switch to cars. The booming Chinese electric-bike industry is spurring worldwide interest and impressive sales in India, Europe, and the US. China is exporting many bikes, and Western manufacturers are also copying the Chinese trend to produce models of their own. From virtually nothing a decade ago, electric bikes have become an $11 billion global industry. In the Netherlands, a third of the money spent on bicycles last year went to electric-powered models. Industry experts predict similar growth elsewhere in Europe, especially in Germany, France, and Italy, as rising interest in cycling coincides with an aging population. India had virtually no sales until two years ago, but its nascent market is fast expanding and could eclipse Europe's in the next year. In China, electric bicycles have evolved into bigger machines that resemble Vespa scooters. These larger models are causing headaches for global transportation planners. They cannot decide whether to embrace them as a green form of transportation, or ban them as a safety hazard. Some cities are studying the halfway measure of banning them from bicycle lanes while permitting them on streets."
Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... (Score:5, Insightful)
Halfway? (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering them like a motor vehicle is halfway between what and what? It's like people try to copy the the most witless bit of prose from the entire article.
Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I'm sure you are not one of those, but since you are generalizing I thought I'd join in.
Re:Nothing glamorous to see (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen that in other countries. Amsterdam has a lot of bicycles which look like they are about to disintegrate into component atoms due to the rust damage any minute.
The reason for this is that here in the US, bikes are somewhat a style thing. If you are doing road, you have to have the $7000 carbon fiber frame [1] with Dura-Ace or Super Record, or you will be viewed as an amateur. Similar with a mountain biker coming up to a Cat 1 with anything but XTR or X.0 will be viewed as a hack and told to replace their Huffy with something racable. If you are touring, you must have the latest custom made Vanilla bike, or you will be viewed as someone who got a DWI. Even the hipsters "require" a fairly high-zoot frame for their fixies. A lot of Americans view something like the stereotypical Flying Pigeon from China as a joke.
[1]: Of course, we all know how fragile CF is... if you don't have a torque wrench and crank a tad too much adjusting your seatpost, expect the thing to break and have a jagged spear pointed right at your bum. However, since CF is light and cool looking, it is the style now... even though a CF bike frame has to be thrown in the trash if it gets even the slightest gouge or crack.
bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS (Score:5, Insightful)
Some cities are studying the halfway measure of banning them from bicycle lanes while permitting them on streets
It's simple, really. Bicycle lanes exist to protect bicycles which travel slower than the rest of traffic. If you're assisted by an electric motor, there is less of a speed differential with traffic, but now you'll be a hazard to all the bicyclists yourself, since you'll be traveling much faster than them.
I can't wait for the first dooring of a moped rider in a bike lane- maybe drivers will start to take "look in your mirror before you fling open your door" seriously because it'll be in their best interests, both in terms of personal safety and damage to their car; a couple hundred pounds of metal and rider will at the very least bend that door pretty far forward, I'm guessing.
As someone who has been doored, it REALLY sucks getting doored because some stupid asshole can't take 2 seconds to look in their mirror before they open their door. The worst part isn't flying over your handlebars, or getting your hand permanently fucked up from getting pinched between the handlebar and edge of the car door at +10MPH with 150lb of momentum. The worst part is hitting the door and having that throw you right into the traffic lane and get hit/run over by a car, truck, or bus. It's not the door itself that kills bicyclists- it's getting hit/run over by the traffic that was just behind them. Yet another reason why bicycle lanes in the US, which are sandwiched between parked cars and traffic, are almost worse than nothing at all. In Europe and elsewhere, bike lanes are completely separated and often run nowhere near the road- they're a separate network.
Also, there is a special place in hell for all the hipster retards riding their 70's-era mopeds (Puchs seem to be the most popular.) In our part of town, there's at least a couple of them zipping around in their tight black jeans and flannel shirts, leaving a contrail of blue smoke which is so bad to ride behind and breathe, one has to pull over and wait a minute or two for it to dissipate. They're putting out 50 times the pollution of the SUV next to them, just to save money on gas and look cool.
Re:Halfway? (Score:1, Insightful)
halfway between completely allowing them and not at all
Re:Americans Pay More (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Where I live, 95% of all drivers are very good regarding cyclists. There is 4.9% that are idiots. And then there is the 0.1% that are out there to kill/maim/etc. a cyclist for using a road. You know, on purpose. These people should be jailed for a long time.
Traffic laws needs to change in the US and Canada. In more friendly jurisdictions a car/bike collision automatically means that the car driver is at fault unless it can be proven otherwise. And if you think about it, that really makes sense. Anytime a cyclist or a motorcycle rider gets hit by a car, they are the ones that lose. Therefore, it is generally the inattentiveness and downright criminal actions of the driver that results in a crash.
Netherlands has a much larger bicycle population than anywhere in US/Canada, yet per capita collision rates are much lower. The reason is precisely laws that favour cyclists, not cages.
Whatever reduces our oil dependency! (Score:4, Insightful)
I like this news very much.
Although I'm not a huge fan of bicycle riding myself, it's good to see people able to find inexpensive and efficient transportation. It won't work where I live (not urbanized enough), but it's an excellent solution for big cities, which is where most of the fossil fuels get burned anyway.
pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. (Score:2, Insightful)
As a bicyclist (and driver. Remember that- most of us who ride our bikes ALSO DRIVE), I find it very difficult to sympathize with your viewpoint.
When is the last time you read, "motorist killed by bicyclist"? Bicyclists always lose in car-vs-bicyclist.
Now, look at the face of cyclist road deaths: Kylie Bruehler, orphaned when both her parents were struck by a truck [austin360.com]. Go on, LOOK [mysanantonio.com], Mr. Self Righteous. Look at the face of a 7 year old girl as she buries her parents. Look at her grandfather walk down the line of hundreds of cyclists who showed up to honor them.
Do you know what usually happens when a motorist kills a cyclist? Absolutely nothing [bicyclelaw.com]- and this case is not the exception but the rule. Time and time again the cyclist community fumes when another person is struck simply because the driver wasn't paying attention to where they were going, the police call it a "terrible accident", and the driver walks off without so much as a manslaughter charge.
Re:Energy (Score:5, Insightful)
If you had actually read the article, you'll notice that most of the "electric" bikes here in the US are actually pedal/motor hybrids, which turn off and on at will.
For my 5-mile commute into work, I'd love to ride every day, but I can't afford to be arrive sweaty and take a shower there daily (in warmer months I try to go 2-3x a week)... now, if I could use a hybrid and cut down the effort so I only got a light glaze of sweat, I'd try to bike much more often... if I don't bike, I pretty much have to drive as I live in suburbia.
Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
This is perfectly legal, although of course the cyclist may want to make his intentions clear to avoid getting hit.
The problem is that when drivers ignore the traffic laws around cyclists, it's a threat to the cyclist's life. People tend to get testy when other people are acting like they want to kill them.
Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. (Score:5, Insightful)
I ride a motorbike (and at times a pushbike) on the road, and have learned one thing very well.
It is the job of the more at-risk to protect themselves!
Anything else is just a stupid unrealistic dream.
Reality is that I must avoid cars pulling in front of me, cutting me off, and at times trying to drive through me when I am stationary. This is life.
Every day (I commute through an area of main road loved by cyclists) I see them 'downhilling' down a lethal bit of road - not to commut but for fun, and high speed (often above the speed limit), taking wide corners, and without the ability to quickly stop. I have seen several very serious accidents there, however I have never seen a car-on-car accident there as it is a safe bit of road, the usual accident is a bike into the back of a car, or once into the front when taking a corner WAY too wide.
The road is not a playground, it is there for transportation, and it is dangerous. Many drivers are borderline incompetent, so you must weight up the risks, and make some serious decisions.
Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Along those lines, you might find the "vehicular cycling" school of technique worth promoting; it teaches consistency and communication in how one drives one's bicycle (not just through hand signals and the like, but also things like positioning within one's lane to indicate future intent); classes are offered throughout the US by the League of American Bicyclists.
It would also be awesome if people acknowledged that there's more than one subgroup of cyclists, and that some of them treat the roads differently than others.
Re:I did, didn't I? (Score:5, Insightful)
When was the last time you read "Freight train killed my motorist"?
We all know that cars are bigger than bikes, but that doesn't mean that bikers are freed of responsibility in all cases.
The thing is, guilt-tripping people like that doesn't actually work. If it did, PETA would have long since prevaled I wouldn't still be eating 5 pounds of cow every week. All stunts like that do is undermine your credibility by indicating to people that you are not willing to have a rational discussion, but instead need to resort to emotional arguments.
Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not familiar with the sad situation you relate, but I do not believe it has anything to do with the parent comment. Also, I have noticed that at least half of the bicyclists in my area do not obey traffic laws in any form, and the rest obey them sporadically. They don't stay on their side of the road. They don't signal. They don't maintain safe distances. They cut traffic off. The list goes on. Many of the offenders are "professional" riders too. They compete at the local velodrome. They have friken sponsors. Hence, they should know better. When one of these idiots dies, and leaves behind a grieving family and friends, I feel bad for the survivors. However, any anger I have goes right to the idiot who got run over by the 18 wheeler because he did something stupid, not the poor truck driver who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and now has the face of said idiot burned into his mind for the rest of his life. Just because the bicyclist lost the fight with the truck does not mean it's not his fault.
Really, that's what makes people feel anger toward bicyclists. We all know how we would feel if we were that truck driver. The deceased problems are over. The survivors, including the driver, have to live with it. There is a lot more to weigh down on you then traffic tickets in that situation. I know that if some stupid bicyclist would run a stop sign around a blind corner and I hit and killed him, I would feel absolutely horrible for a long, long time. It doesn't matter who's fault it is. You feel horrible unless you're dead.
The article you mentioned seems to indicate the parents of that 7 year old were not at fault for the accident, but rather the driver was. That's a sad situation, and I would have fully expected the driver to face charges. Definitely a break down of justice in that case.
Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, I bike everyday, in Canada. Whether snow, ice, or -40 Celsius. I hate this just as much as you. Because I stop, and I follow all the laws to the best of my ability -- little useless bell (voice is much louder) on my handlebars and all. Here's one I also follow: the speed-limit. However, pretty much every automobile driver I meet does not follow the speed limit. So, it's not like motorists are somehow more law-abiding than cyclists -- because almost 100% of motorists break the speed limit. There's this one road I go down -- 30kph speed limit, and yet every car behind me always seems to catch up and pass me rather quickly when I'm going along at 30kph. In fact, I would say that most are going 50kph. That's more than 66% over the speed limit. Is every motorist continuously late for work or something? And in 50kph zones, it seems that 70kph or greater is the norm amongst motorists. On the highway you would be as lucky as a lottery-winner to see someone cruising not more than 90kph, the speed limit.
And cars seem to have trouble with stop-signs as well. They slow-down for them, but as for a complete stop -- that's a rarity. They seem to like to just crawl through them at 1 to upward of 5 kph.
Really the only group of motorists with which I'm continually impressed are the school-bus drivers.
But I've been semi-facetious so far. This is how it actually is: The motorist thinks on the highway: "Well, this highway is still safe at 100kph. It's only 10kph over the speed limit and visibility and conditions are fine. So even though it is breaking law, I'll do it." If he actually thought that he would get into an accident, he wouldn't do it. This is what the cyclist is thinking at the stop-sign: "No one else is coming, so, if I just go through, it will be fine. So even though it is breaking the law, I'll do it." If he actually thought that he would get into an accident, he wouldn't do it.
Re:Energy (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no showers at the office so I just take it easy on the way to work to avoid getting sweaty.
And there, in a nutshell, is why many commuters like the idea of an electric assisted bike.
Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US (Score:3, Insightful)
As another poster mentioned, Helsinki isn't that great...
But most importantly, you are misguided in proposing that the space for bicycles should be taken out of space for pedestrians. Bicycle in a city can have comparable speed to a car, if not forced into pedestrian sidewalk, so it has no place there.
The solution is much simpler - don't let cars eat your cities, dividing them into inaccessible islands on the premise that cars should be priviledged when it comes to trying, and failing most out of all alternatives (when given the chance), to provide safe and fast mass transportation for people living in said city.
Re:I did, didn't I? (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that he never said that bikers should be freed of responsibility in all cases. Nobody has. The closest anybody has come to that is to say that the default should be that the driver should be seen as at-fault unless there is evidence that the biker was as a way of correcting for the disproportionality of risk to the biker v the driver. It's an arguable point, but you're not arguing with it when you misrepresent what was claimed.
Similarly, providing people with information about the realities of car v bike collisions can help them change how they look at the question, which can lead to changes in behavior. Nothing is going to change everybody's behavior, but that doesn't make it a waste of time or wrong to give people something to think about. There's certainly nothing wrong with bringing a little evidence to a mostly abstract discussion of ideas, and the appeal to emotion here isn't trying to get people to do something unreasonable or evil, so I think you've extended your point a little too far.
Especially talking about people having credibility on /. Surely you jest. I'm unlikely to ever remember talking to you here to have any idea how credible you are or aren't.
Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US (Score:3, Insightful)
A much better approach, I think, is to have active enforcement of traffic laws for cyclists and to allow the League's traffic safety classes to be taken in lieu of a ticket for minor violations (just as we allow motorists to take a driver's ed class to get out of one minor violation per year). That way scofflaws eventually get funneled into the safety education system, but without the big up-front hit on adoption rate.
THIS
I think a licensing requirement would be a little over the top, but the problem is that you can't really maintain a "biking" record without some sort of identification, but having a requirement that you get a state ID in order to ride a bike on public wouldn't be THAT difficult to handle. I am in full support of police officers perhaps better enforcing street laws with bicyclists. There are just too many bicyclists out there that don't follow laws. There have been plenty of times where I'm driving sanely, down the middle of my lane, and a cyclist cuts me off. Oh and I just love it when I stop at a stop sign and then start crossing, then a biker just blows through the intersection and I almost hit him... and suddenly I'm the jackass.
I don't have anything against cyclists... just the ones who think they're better than people driving cars and therefore they deserve special treatment (which, to be honest, is most bikers in the bay area... and even bikers I know are willing to admit that).
Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly, assume everyone is trying to kill you. you maybe in the right but you may also in the hospital if you dont. just reading these posts is a good demonstration of other trying to blame any /every one else for something that you have a fair amount of control over. it is after all your life and NOBODY really cares about it even 1/2 as much as you , please look after yourself
Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... (Score:3, Insightful)
I cannot see it working for the family shopping trip, but going to work in good weather should be a breeze.
That depends how you do the family shopping trip. With my large panniers (and normal, non-electric bicycle) I could carry enough food for two people shopping once a week. By adding a rucksack I could carry enough for three with the small inconvenience (my back would get sweaty). A family of five might buy a cycle trailer, or get things that keep delivered, or use a taxi once a week (cheaper than owning a car?), or join a car-club.
If I'm cycling right past the supermarket on my way home I sometimes stop and buy 8 1L cartons of juice and some tins, just to save carrying them some other time. This only takes 5 minutes.
Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, we have a better invention, the human-adapted city. In cities that were build for people and not for cars, the grocery store is no more than two blocks away.
No need to be lugging your food around, the miracle of logistics takes care of that.
And you can drive a car or ride for work, but there are lots of cities that have a good, fast, working public transportation system that doesn't smell funny, even in third world countries, like mine.
The crazy thing is trying to replace the car in cities built around cars. Those cities don't work for people, you have to change cities, change the city, or just keep your damn car with all its disadvantages.
Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US (Score:1, Insightful)
I guess all the slashdotters who modded this one up failed at basic statistics. Parent claims that riding bike in traffic is more dangerous than riding bike on sidewalk. Your rebuttal is that the life expectancy of bikers far exceeds those who live sedentary lifestyles. How does that disprove the parent's statement?
Bad analogy time, that would be like me claiming that eating genetically modified vegetables may be unhealthy and you replying with a study that shows that those with diets high in vegetables are far healthier than those consuming a diet rich in fatty foods. Completely misses the point.
Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are other problems. Pedaling 20 miles to work = working with really stinky people. Most offices and even shops do not have showers. Also changing from a motorcycle or car to a bike typically triples the commute time (except for places like new york where you sit in your car for 6 hours to go 1 block) as you cant maintain an average speed of 35 miles per hour on a bike unless you are an athlete. So instead of leaving for work 20 minutes before I need to be there, I need to leave 1.5 hours early so I can bike there for 1 hour and spend 1/2 hour showering and dressing for work.
THAT is the problem that biking to work faces. and looking at ALL my coworkers, maybe 3 of them can survive a 10 mile bike ride. the rest would be dead on the side of the road barely able to breathe after 3 miles. Silly part is, the 3 that can survive all are 40 somethings the 20 somethings are all horribly out of shape drinking their latte' with extra whipped cream.
Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, this is illegal in any number of states. In Austin, TX, you will be given a ticket for riding your bike through a crosswalk. If you want to use the pedestrian signals and lanes, you have to be walking your bike, not riding it. If you want to ride your bike on the road with cars, trucks, buses, and motorcycles, you have to follow the same general rules. If cyclists are allowed to pick and choose which motorist/pedestrian laws they want to obey on the fly, the inconsistent application of safety laws will only put them in more danger.
Also, cyclists who do not ride single file in bike lanes and on bike paths are assholes. Just had to get that off my chest.
Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, since houses in good communities are free and good paying jobs easy to come by, it's really a wonder that everyone doesn't just live 1 minute away from their job. Each time you a change job, all you have to do is simply find a new house you like, kill the person who lives there and steal his deed. Then find a moving company, kidnap their children until they move your stuff there. Unlike the house owner, you have to kidnap the kids instead of just killing them, because if they're dead they obviously can't move your stuff for you.
Or maybe, just maybe, the economics are different for other people in different places.
Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US (Score:2, Insightful)
Grandparent was claiming that riding a bike in traffic was unsafe (as an absolute). It was this claim, not that it was more unsafe than riding on the sidewalk, that the parent was intended to address. If you'd care for a study addressing the other claim [bicyclinglife.com], they're available [bicyclinglife.com].
Getting back to the appropriateness of the parent's argument -- claiming that an action is unsafe where that action increases rather than decreases one's life expectancy is... more than a little disingenuous.