Slashdot Mirror


The Year of the E-Bicycle

theodp writes "Electric bicycles have been around for more than a century, but they have never quite captured the imagination of auto-obsessed Americans. That may be about to change. At CES this month, Sanyo showed off its sleek, lightweight Eneloop Hybrid Bicycle. Priced at $2,300, the e-bike sports a black lithium-ion battery strapped to the frame beneath the seat. Press a button on the left handlebar, and a 250-watt motor kicks in, providing about twice as much power as your own pedaling. Some basic e-bike models, like the Ezip Trailz can be had for as low as $500. Both Trek and Schwinn began selling e-bikes last year, and Best Buy is offering e-bikes in three test markets: Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Portland, OR."

494 comments

  1. Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Informative

    I love the idea of using one of these bikes for my daily commute to work and back, however they don't come anywhere close to solving the beer bottles from pickups aimed at cyclist problem, or the Houston has no safe way to ride a bike much of anywhere problem.

    I love to ride my bike, but Houston is a city built by politicians with pockets lined from oil companies. The oil companies decided people in Houston should drive individual cars to get around and dammit, the politicians not only saw that it happened, they made sure the public transit system sucked as well. Sure there's a great bus to get downtown and back, but you still have to drive locally to the bus stop, even if it's only a mile or two away unless you want to become road pizza. Then it's only to downtown, not across town. You can go around your area, you can go downtown, but getting from one area of Houston to another isn't easy, and unlike Phoenix and certain other cities putting a bike on a bus is hit and miss. Some drivers forbid it if they don't have a bike rack and bike racks are rare.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually surprising that big oil hasn't managed to ban bicycling yet. I suspect that something similar to the big media vs. file sharing situation will arise. As bicycles increase in popularity, auto and oil companies will begin buying laws that first restrict, then outright ban bicycle use.

    2. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you really have problems with people throwing beer bottles at you?

      --
      Qxe4
    3. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even if you do survive the trip, there's no where safe to lock it up ... I'm waiting for the workable wheeled vehicle that I can fit in a backpack.

    4. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Europe seems to be leading the way in bike paths. There's no less than a dozen cities that have dedicated bike paths going all around them. I don't know any of their names, but Europe keeps coming up in documentaries and articles about green city designs.

      A quick trip to google for some proof... http://www.wired.com/autopia/2007/11/where-are-the-m/

      Documentary example: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/The_Nature_of_Things/ID=1233750794 (may only work in Canada)

    5. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, and people sticking their hands out the window trying to smack you on a high speed drive by, and attempting to side swipe you. This is worse in the FM 1960 area where I used to live as opposed to the Clear Lake area where I now live. The Clear Lake area has a bit higher class of people around.

      Neither is bike friendly as both areas are built by the same Houston. I saw a guy in an electric wheelchair get stranded off of FM 270 about a year and half ago do to lack of good ways to get around, I was in the process of making my way over to help him out when someone beat me to it. There are NO sidewalks in most areas. Bike lanes are a rarity and qualify more as a vehicle sprawl lane for our many commercial vehicles, a good percentage of which are driven by unlicensed illegal immigrants.

      Just try to use one of these to get around random parts of Houston - not isolated to JUST the Montrose, downtown, or historical/old areas. I hear people argue they have no problem getting around a few areas of Houston, especially the older areas, but not everyone lives in these areas nor are they the destinations for everyone.

      Show me someone willing to commit to using one of these to commute Houston without limiting their travel horizons for a year and I'll show you someone who wont be alive in a year to claim their prize.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    6. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      For that Wired Article, I nominate Houston for the counter point of that article. Probably not #1, but it should be on that list.

      Most of the cities I have in mind for being worse than Houston are affected more by bullets that civil design.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    7. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      And even if you do survive the trip, there's no where safe to lock it up ... I'm waiting for the workable wheeled vehicle that I can fit in a backpack.

      Try a razor-style scooter! It's so fast and efficient! Once you start scoo-muting you'll never turn back. I take mine into my office, restaurants, cinemas, on dates... all the while looking resplendent in my bright-green bike gloves. It's the way of the high-density urban future!

      (posted anonymously to preserve the last remaining tatters of my dignity)

    8. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by JanneM · · Score: 1

      "Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem."

      So, you vote in people that will make Houston friendly for bicycles. Or you relocate to somewhere that is friendly for bicycles. Or you stay resigned to using a car for every trip, eating up more and more of your salary as gasoline and other expenses increase over time.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    9. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by JanneM · · Score: 1

      [agh, accidental click on the post button, and no edit]

      BTW, one-two miles to the bus station. About 2 kilometers or so? That you can walk in 20 minutes? No need for a bike, just use your legs. I walk longer than that to the local train stop every morning and night.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    10. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try Houston - a low-density urban sprawl city.

      We have a huge city, with a few acres of land here and there with cattle roaming all over the place. Your Razor scooter wouldn't have enough power to get me past one of these mini-ranches, not to mention the fact there's no safe place to ride it. If I can't ride a bike safely just a couple of miles anywhere I need to go I certainly can't ride one of those.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    11. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Calinous · · Score: 2

      Leiden in Netherlands is a great example - even truck drivers on "right of way" roads will sometime yield to bicycles. As a side note, most of the kids come to school on bycicles (in a neighbouring village, 1 mile away though - I don't know about the city center).

            This is the level of "friendliness to bycicles" that is necessary for everyone to start thinking about using a bike - when you let your kid go to school on a bike.

    12. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by cduffy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Thanks -- you've reminded me of why I don't leave Austin unless the destination is out-of-state.

    13. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Walking does not fix the beer bottles aimed at pedestrians problem, nor the no sidewalks problem with fences that go right up to the curb on incredibly busy streets problem.

      I'm not saying there's no way to walk from point A to point B, but if you're talking in Kilometers you're probably thinking European, which is a lot different than thinking urban sprawl in a city designed by drunk monkeys.

      In the Houston area if your starting point is 1 mile from your ending point by car there's a good chance to get there on foot anywhere near safely you will have to walk 8 miles to get there or more. Often, many destinations are "road locked" meaning there is NO safe way to get there under human power. I've crossed freeways on foot before, I've crossed no-pedestrian areas on foot before, I've trespassed before just so I can get from point A to point B in under an hour. I did all of that in Baton Rouge which is bad, but still not as bad as Houston.

      It's not a matter of lazy, at least not for everyone.

      Your vote reference, ever see the Southpark episode about voting for Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich? That's about it.

      Leaving the Houston area, I wont get into why I'm pretty much stuck here for the time being. I work at the Johnson Space Center for one of the good reasons that isn't to personal, but that's not all of them. If I can move just a little closer to work I can get there safely, there's a pocket area surrounding the space center that is semi pedestrian/bike friendly, that stretches to U of H, but doesn't go much beyond that and only in one direction.

      The U.S. is nothing like Europe. Most of Europe is old construction with old ideas in mind when new construction is built. Too much of the U.S. was built during an era of obstreperousness that saw automobiles as the wave of the future and the old ways as being no longer relevant. Most U.S. cities have pocket areas where old areas are biking/walking friendly and 1960's to modern decade construction that isn't.

      Good news, much, but not all new construction takes into account the whole cars only thing was a bad idea and they are trying to change it back. The bad news is most urban sprawl construction was 60's, 70's, and 80's.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    14. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is almost workable - at, least, the human powered versions (I don't think the electric ones meet the backpack criteria).

      It seems like the those scooters are really good for the niche that the Segway tried to hit.

      Issues: you need really good roads (the wheels are kinda small), they're often banned on both the road and the sidewalk, and then there's that image problem you allude to :-)

    15. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      There have been attempts to move into that direction.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    16. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Animaether · · Score: 4, Informative

      Having been to Houston as a tourist, I find parents' notes to be absolutely true.

      Not only do motorists freak out if there's somebody on a bicycle on their streets (and unless it's a highway/etc., that should be perfectly legal - share the road, dammit) and use any existing bicycle lanes as just more room for them to zigzag all over the place... ...there's almost no sidewalks! Okay, that's not true, there's plenty. But a lot of them just suddenly end with nowhere in particular to go next.
      I couldn't legally walk from my hotel to The Galleria (just 1.6 miles) because the sidewalk just -ends- after the last commercial store (a garden center)'s plot it straddles. The -only- way to walk there via the 1.6 mile route was by crossing freeways, walking through an interstate (I-10) underpass, crossing a road on a bend (speeding car surprise special *every time*) then walking through a bunch of muddy (sprinkler over-use) grass (by a rug store), before finally there were businesses again and - surprise, surprise - sidewalks.
      If I were to maximize actual sidewalk usage instead - ignoring the spots where there's no sidewalk - it's a 4.3 mile route. wtf.
      ( virtual cookies for whoever can identify the spot on google maps )

      People thought I was nuts for even attempting to walk there... suggesting that I should go rent a car. "For 1.7 miles? really? holy crap.", I thought. Then I started looking more closely as I was driven around by friends and it became clear to me as well that Houston was practically built around the idea that everybody and-I-do-mean-EVERYBODY has a car. It's evident from the clear lack of respect for cyclists and pedestrians - both by the majority of the people and by the city itself, courtesy of its lack of proper infrastructure for these groups. I mentioned that there are plenty of sidewalks... well, of sorts anyway; they were all concrete abominations that were crooked, cracked, and grown through by weeds.. so those who do like to walk are probably discouraged from that as well as you're likely to eventually trip and faceplant.

      For me, within a city, it is absolutely insane that it would be an easier and shorter trip for a motorist than for a pedestrian.

      Now, Seattle on the other hand.. completely different story - and with the odd hill here and there, and longer treks to get around the sound/bay, I suspect the e-bike could come in quite handy and not be a death-magnet.

    17. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      wow, I should have double checked my spell checkers suggestion: that was prosperousness not obstreperousness. I had to look up obstreperousness to figure out what that even meant.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    18. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by feepness · · Score: 1

      This is the level of "friendliness to bycicles" that is necessary for everyone to start thinking about using a bike - when you let your kid go to school on a bike.

      Most of us road our bikes to school by 4th grade here in San Diego.

    19. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      even truck drivers on "right of way" roads will sometime yield to bicycles

      I've had the rather intimidating experience of 'dragging' an 13(?)-meter truck behind me for about 4 miles of twisty, windy and rain covered roads in the local area. The road in question has about 30 cm of shoulder before becoming a rather steep hill ending in a lake, and at the time there was very heavy traffic in the oncoming direction.

      I look over my shoulder an notice the truck about three seconds behind me and a driver who was very obvious in looking at me and the road. Not angry or annoyed, just very very attentive. When the traffic finally allowed him to overtake, he seemed to fall back further before pulling completely into the opposite lane in what seemed like an attempt to keep from knocking me over with the turbulence.

    20. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by lanswitch · · Score: 1

      The cyclists in Leidem are maniacs. They don't pay attention to other traffic, violate all traffic rules and sometimes seem suicidal in the way they behave in traffic. That's why truckdrivers sometimes stop for bycicles. They want to keep their truck clean.
      I know this to be true because I'm one of the cyclists there.

    21. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      however they don't come anywhere close to solving the beer bottles from pickups aimed at cyclist problem

      Wear some sort of high visibility industrial work shirt instead of lycra. They will think you are just on the bike because you've been caught drinking and driving and lost your licence. People like to pick on those they see as different.
      I'm not picking on the Texas rednecks here. Where I am the necks are probably redder and the industrial shirt trick works.

    22. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Calinous · · Score: 1

      Assuming we're talking about twisty and windy road, the driver fell back to have some space to accelerate, and went into opposite lane not because its speed was so great, but fearing of your (not specifically yours, but you know what I mean) tendency to not keep a straight line.

    23. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Calinous · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Haven't ridden there in rush hour, so usually there weren't more than a couple other bikes in view. However, I remember ladies riding the bike and protecting themselves from rain with an (opened) umbrella (Netherland is windy, and the wind is not usually steady).
            I shudder thinking about biking with an open umbrella, but that seemed so normal to that lady...

    24. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Quantumstate · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am in Cambridge at the moment and it is great for bikes. I think it may have the largest bike density in Britain. A combination of a University in the town centre and it being pretty flat are probably the main factors. There are lots of good cycle lanes, many one way roads have a cycle lane in the opposite direction so the one way system hardly affects cyclists. Around the town centre bike is the fastest way to get around, you get more possible routes, and at traffic lights you can just cycle straight past the queuing traffic. Plus with so many cyclists cars watch out for bikes and are considerate generally. It can get a bit crazy around lecture switch over times though and parking your bike can be a problem if you are going to a lecture even though they probably have several hundred places where you can lock your bike (at one busy area near several lecture theatres).

    25. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Apparently Bogota, Colombia of all places has something like 170km of bike lanes/paths, even bike-only bridges over highways (particularly the highly visible ones foreigners like me visiting the city see, driving in from the international airport).
       
      The difference between a european (or most south american cities, for that matter) city and an american sprawl city like the houston area (5.7 million people) or Dallas-Fort Worth (6.8 million people) is that american sprawl cities are completely useless for people who want to bike to work, walk to work, or use public transportation. "downtown" simply means "large office buildings and half-million dollar condos"; downtown in sprawl cities is not somewhere you live, it's just a glorified office park. All the amazing green urban inventions in the world aren't going to fix the transit problems created by Houston and DFW areas - they're just too low density.
       
      A car or motorcycle (you're going to die on a motorcycle in Dallas btw) is absolutely required for gainful employment here (it's 80-95 degrees by 9am, 9 months out of the year here). And the population in Texas is booming, so the problem here is only going to get worse. SF, NYC, Chicago are all full, and land (and the cost of living) is cheap in Texas. fortunately Dallas has started to invest in it's infrastructure and you can (sort of) get around the city by bus (until 6:00pm) and the DART rail will take you (like the grandparent post pointed out) to downtown, but if I want to get from my house, to say, walmart, you're either driving, or you're walking 45+ minutes in 90+ degree heat with no shade no breeze and 80% humidity. in most of the suburbs there are only two or three bus lines that cover the main three or four streets, but even here in Plano, a city of 330,000 we have four bus lines, which serve mainly to connect preston road (major road on the far end of town) with the bus terminal and rail station in the "old downtown" part of town. I think one, maybe two buses serve the whole city. i've lived here off and on for almost ten years and I have yet to see a dart bus on the street, but the signs for the bus do exist.
       
      I'm sure this sort of public transit/no-pedestrian city planning nightmare exists in other areas too, I've heard the Phoenix and Las Vegas areas are equally as awful, I'm sure I'm missing plenty of others as well. "Green solutions" just don't work in cities that were "master planned" between 1970 and 2005. These are the same cities that have high SUV and cars per capita rates that cause most of the pollution.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    26. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Funny

      Most of us road our bikes to school by 4th grade here in San Diego.

      And some need to ride right back to school. :)

    27. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Zencyde · · Score: 1

      Haha, yeah. Houston sucks pretty hard. 3 But it's hard not to love. Especially once you have a car.

      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    28. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Merc248 · · Score: 0, Troll

      I don't really know if it'd be a great idea to ride an e-bike in Seattle: you'd likely get side swiped by all of those hipster douchebags riding fixed gear bikes.

      --
      "Hegelians, who love a synthesis, will probably conclude that he wears a wig." - Bertrand Russell
    29. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Calinous · · Score: 1

      People like to pick on easy targets - and you on a bike are an easy target to anyone in a car (he can drive away)

    30. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Animaether · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's perfectly normal - albeit dangerous (one gust of wind and wheeeeee off-course smack-dab into a car).

      Then again.. it's NL (and BE).. where we like to take little babies onto the front/rear of our bikes.. without helmets :D
      http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm173/nannet1973/?action=view&current=Zeelandjuni200876.jpg

      http://www.gerloeffen.nl/data/1788/70286-x.jpg
      Note narrow road.. without any bicycle lane... o0o0o danger! Not really.. it's so common in NL that motorists do tend to actually look out for cyclists and drive responsibly around them.

      Indeed, as GP notes.. it's often the cyclists in cities that tend to be more dangerous for cars, than the cars are for the cyclists.
      Running red lights is pretty much the norm, one-way roads tend to be one-way for motorists only as well so don't be surprised if a cyclist comes head-on at you, signaling (by extending your arm) is something that went out of fashion in the late 80's - so be prepared to be cut off by a cyclist, etc.

      The only people worse are the pedestrians.. who will cross wherever and whenever they damn well please.. even if there's a pedestrian crossing, with or without traffic lights, only 10 yards over :)
      ( Pedestrians are almost 'untouchable' by law in NL.. if a motorist hits a pedestrian, the motorist is gonna have to have some damn good evidence that there's nothing (s)he could've done to avoid the accident not to be the one 'in the wrong'. )

    31. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pkphilip · · Score: 1

      The Tata Nano is coming to the US. At around USD 5000/-, it is far better value than the e-bike. Tata is also planning a hybrid and an all electric, if I am not mistaken.

      If you are ok with the dangers of driving a bike around town, you may be fine with driving a Nano which has passed European crash tests.

    32. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      drunk monkeys

      I LOVE this company !

      --
      Squirrel!
    33. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by initialE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's a suggestion - be a redneck. Carry a gun and use it often. If people are trying to get you killed, you can do the same to them.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    34. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      What's the average daytime temperature in your city? In Houston/Dallas/Fort Worth (about 25 million combined people in Texas), it's easily 80 degrees by 9am from March through October here, and June-September it's well on it's way to 90 degrees (32.2c for you metrics). You'd be drenched in sweat by the time you arrived at work. The "sidewalks" you're walking on line 3-lane in each direction "roads" that cars travel between 45 and 55mph (72-90 kph). In most cases the sidewalk is 1 meter wide and butts right up against the roadway, with a brick wall on the other side. It is less than pleasant to travel anywhere by foot in Houston. Google some videos of the suburban sprawl in Texas. It's not like walking along a 35mph urban road with small blocks and comfortable sidewalks. I have no problem walking everywhere when traveling in well planned cities, but between the weather here and the hostile conditions it's no wonder cars are absolutely required for transportation here. I'd be happy to document this with photos and video if you don't believe me. Miles and miles and miles (hundreds, if not thousands of square miles) of this sort of thing exist in Texas.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    35. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by petaflop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      York is good too. York actually has a higher proportion of resident cycle commuters than Cambridge, but Cambridge wins out during term time due to the student population. The fact that both are old citied and the narrow streets would gridlock immediately if everyone tried to drive, is also a factor. Once when cycling across York I beat an ambulance with it's sirens going (and I obey traffic lights, unlike some).

    36. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by petaflop · · Score: 1

      NFN (Normal for Netherlands). I've seen people riding with ladders, and lawn furniture. Carrying a passenger on the rear carrier is normal too (illegal in the UK). It's a great place to cycle though. You can go anywhere by bike, often avoiding roads completely.

    37. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by cduffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People like to pick on easy targets - and you on a bike are an easy target to anyone in a car (he can drive away)

      An increasingly risky sport, as helmet-mounted cameras become more popular.

    38. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes, and people sticking their hands out the window trying to smack you on a high speed drive by, and attempting to side swipe you.

      This is the real reason the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in. Insightful, really.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    39. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Calinous · · Score: 1

      "Then again.. it's NL (and BE).. where we like to take little babies onto the front/rear of our bikes.. without helmets :D"

      Guilty of this too, by baby loves riding on its special seat on the bycicle (just behind handle bar). He even steers sometime (which scares the hell out of me)

    40. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by hitmark · · Score: 2, Funny

      given that its texas we are talking about, that actually makes a scary bit of sense...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    41. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by spagetti_code · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I worked in Houston for a few years - over off Nasa Road One.
      I used to walk to work - wasn't that far. A mile or so...

      Two things stand out:
      a) every few days, someone would stop and ask if I was ok and whether I needed a lift.
      On one hand, it was great to see so many caring people. But it just shows that they never
      saw people walk before.

      b) the path actually went up to people's front doors, so I had to either walk on the road, or follow the path into people's
      property. Weird. Again - not built for pedestrians.

    42. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Houston problem" isn't the oil companies, it's heat. Come summertime the temperatures soar to 100F, humidity is near 100% and there is no wind to speak of. It's a fucking rice cooker of a city most of the year.

    43. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Lycra? I'm not one of those.

      I'm a BMXer. I'm a bit too old and big for my old 20" BMXing ways, so I now have a 24" BMX. When I'm biking it's jeans and a T-Shirt, or shorts and a T-Shirt, maybe an over shirt of some type and a Ramones cap.

      I can actually get around Houston on a bike better than most. When I lived on Bammel North Houston (off of FM 1960, bad area) I used to get up and down Bammel N. Houston by riding down the grass part of the boulevard hopping up and down the curbs when I came to the U-Turn/Left turn breaks. I was harder to hit with beer bottles in the boulevard because the best bottle throwers are right handed people riding shotgun and the boulevard put me on the drivers side.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    44. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      I've put many miles on a bike in the Mojave in Phoenix, and in the Chihuahua in West Texas (why are those separate? They're connected). Granted, the desert isn't as bad as the rice cooker, but I've put in my fair share around Houston. I'll admit, the sweat and stink factor in Houston is worse than most places, but that's not the factor that stops me.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    45. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Malc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Woe betide a pedestrian who gets in the way of a cyclist though! For some reason respect stops at two wheels.

    46. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

      I got news for you, except for the test cities noted, practically every big US city is NOT bike friendly in the same ways as Houston. If harassing bike commuters was a felony, maybe some of this would change.

      --
      stuff |
    47. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Phoenix was a dream to me, I lived there for a year and half and it was growing, so it might suck now. Back in 96 and 97 I rode all over the place on my bike, I took off from my apartment at 27th ave and Camelback, rode around American West Arena, the big downtown library, went to 27th street and Camelback to hang out at my favorite coffee shop, then rode home all the way down Camelback, I estimated that trip to be over 30 miles by looking at a map site years ago, I'm sure I could a more accurate guess by using Google maps now, but it was a dream. I rode on sidewalks I could drive a car down nearly the whole way.

      I don't want to hear that lycra shirt wearing cyclist douche talk about sidewalks being a dangerous place for bikes. I was a BMXer, completely different from your useless breaks Trek bike. In Arizona it's perfectly legal to ride on the sidewalk and they went over this with me when I was in defensive driving (yes, speeding in my truck). If you're on the sidewalk you follow pedestrian laws, if you're on the street you follow motor vehicle laws. I did a lot of curb hopping to hit the greens. :-)

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    48. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by xaxa · · Score: 1

      London is better than most people imagine. There are plenty of bike racks, cut-throughs etc, and TFL produce excellent, free cycle maps showing them. For many journeys, you can plan a route without going on any big roads if you desire. There's also lots of bus lanes, which are the best kind of cycle lane (sort-of).

      Boris's schemes seem like they'll be a big disappointment though (he's talking a lot, but has reduced the money being spent on cycling facilities).

      I've beaten an ambulance walking through the West End at night before, but there are paramedics (and police) on bicycles. I think they can probably go faster than me ;-). (Especially up steps!).

    49. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As an avid cycle commuter I spent 3 years in the 90's in Houston: after experiencing that cycling was impractcal, inconvenient and not entirely safe in the 290/1960 area and then around the Galleria, I did commute to downtown from the Montrose area; and, as posted above, if one stay inside the loop, biking is not so bad, but outside is totally a nightmare.

      Note: After Houston I lived in Portland Oregon and now Munich Germany, both of which are a totally different world where cycling is a normal, expected, desirable, supported and respected form of transportation.

      As noted by others, the problems in Houston are multifold: designed only for cars, citizens do not expect to see bicycles (= lack of safety), cycling is not respected or desired, etc.) --- the most difficult aspect to comprehend is how socially undesireable it is to be a cyclist in Houston (or most of Texas for that matter): everyone assumes that anyone on a bicycle is either too poor to own a car or pay for gas or has had his driver's license revoked for DWI. When I used to commute the 4 miles to downtown my colleagues would continuously offer me a ride home, ask compassionately what finincial problems i had and if they could help (i couldn't possibly be choosing to cycle so it must be because i had no money!), offer to loan me money, etc. Even after I explained that my car was all good and well but sitting at home in the garage, they simply didn't believe me! THAT is an anti-cycling environment!

      P.S. although I love the percetant of bicycle usage in the Netherlands, I do not believe its bike system should be taken as the model, as its system is based on "separate but equal" facilities for bikes, autos and pedestrians (i.e. lots of bike lanes but bikes are generally forbidden to ride on the roads if bike paths are available). Germany follows a similar system in theory where cyclists are often grouped with pedestrians (leads to higher rate of minor accidents), but in practice is somewhat less restrictive as fewer bike paths are available. (It has been shown numerous times in studies that the safest system in urban areas involes biking not on completely separate facilities (i.e. bike paths) nor along with pedestrians (i.e. sidewalks), but along side cars on the roads (either with or without bike lanes), with large numbers of cyclists on the road such that car drivers both expect and respect cyclists on the road).

    50. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      Europe keeps coming up in documentaries and articles about green city designs.

      I suspect that is because the core of the cities were designed before the car was invented and the idea of walking from A to B was how the cities organically grew. Even if the Upper Classes were using Horse/Horse and Carriage the speed of travel wasn't that different from walking and so the distances had to be kept small

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    51. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cyclists in Leidem are maniacs. They don't pay attention to other traffic, violate all traffic rules and sometimes seem suicidal in the way they behave in traffic. That's why truckdrivers sometimes stop for bycicles. They want to keep their truck clean.
      I know this to be true because I'm one of the cyclists there.

      So you can replace the vehicle, but not the drivers? ;)

    52. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      everyone assumes that anyone on a bicycle is either too poor to own a car or pay for gas or has had his driver's license revoked for DWI.

      Or is some kind of tree-hugging hippy communist.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    53. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Cycling in the heat isn't as bad as you might imagine. You make your own breeze as you move (which you don't when walking), so wear very light clothing and you may well be OK.

      (Having said that, it gets hotter in Texas than it does here, so I've probably only cycled in Texas-heat a few times. But I still think it's not as bad as you imagine.)

      Dallas has a way to go with that bus service. If it finishes at 6pm no one will use it unless they have no choice, as they then have no flexibility.

      (I get annoyed that the last train from the city centre to my local station is at 00:28, after that I have to get a bus, which takes twice as long. But I can still get home, and either method costs between a twentieth and a fortieth of what a taxi would cost.)

    54. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carry a handgun and shoot at the loser pickup truck people that try and assault you. It's texas, you should be packing heat, I though it was the law there.

      Yee Haw! Git er Done!

    55. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by nietsch · · Score: 1

      With the population density my country has, and the big number of cyclists, there is a big chance that as a truck driver you will kill a cyclist in an accident. People tend not to like that. Besides, him driving a 10ton truck does not mean he has more right of way and overtaking has to be done with sufficient margin, usually in the next traffic lane.

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    56. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by icebrain · · Score: 1

      I grew up in a town (in the southeast US, no less!) that had dedicated bike and golf cart paths functioning as a virtual second road network. There were hills, too, and in high school I'd ride 20 miles/day as an afternoon workout. I loved it. Don't really miss the stuck-up newly-rich attitude of many of the yankee transplants, drug-dealing rich kids with BMWs, or the petty local politics, but the paths were awesome.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    57. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      Those pesky Fixster gangs. If you ride a road bike you can just outrun them. At some point all the alcohol and tobacco they ingest will catch up to them. Oh, and you have gears.

      --
      Balderdash!
    58. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, i cycle from Voorhout to Leiden every day, and i even have the right of way on 2 round abouts. I tend to bike wherever i can go. Which is to more places then i can get to with a car.

      I once saw a bus driver staying next to a group of bikers to shield them from the winds(this was on a 60KM/H road, the bikers couldnt have gone faster then 20) Nobody minded him doing so.

    59. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I used to ride a lot in Houston (Clear Lake area). Although people sounding their horns occasionally was a problem, I never had anything thrown at me or any deliberate attempt at an assault. We used to do three 30 mile rides during week days, and a longer ride on Saturdays.

      However, I left Houston in 2002. Perhaps it got worse. (At the best of times, Houston resembles a fire ants nest that has been kicked over, with angry fire ants running around all over the place).

    60. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Like I said, FM 1960 area was the worst area I rode in regularly, even worse than Pasadena. I was in the Corner Stone sections where Spring, Klein, Champions Forest and the Gunspoint office park area more or less meet. Falling Creek and FM 1960 is where I used to live. There was especially a lot of targeting, taunting and insults along Bammel North Houston where the out of the way grass was easy to ride, the traffic lanes were wide, and it was easy to get away post targeting.

      Clearlake it's not so much people trying to target as it is traffic density and lack of a place to ride. I've yet to figure out a reasonable safe route from where I live in Webster to the Johnson Space Center even though it's only a few miles. Highway 3, El Dorado, El Camino, and Bay Area Blvd are all suicidal to cyclist, and pedestrians for that matter. Most the cyclist I see in this area cruise down Space Center Blvd and maybe Saturn, but I could only get to those safely if I drove my bike to work in the back of my vehicle (which I am known to do) and take off from there.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    61. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Tacticus.v1 · · Score: 1

      I've done the heat and then some (40s at 0600 suck on training days) but not the humidity (only usually got to 60%)

      on an upright bike (dutch style (would be more comfortable to ride plus more breeze as you go)) at 20km/h you could cover that 45 min walk (guestimating 4.5kms) in 15 min and be quite cool for the entire trip

    62. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by AlecC · · Score: 1

      I commute in Cambridge, across the city centre. By bike, it is 1.5 miles and takes about 15 minutes including bike locking an unlocking times. By car, it is about 2.5 miles, and because of the congestion and the large number of lights and intersections, it takes exactly the same time. I now no longer keep my car in Cambridge to remove the temptation to be lazy. And the increase in my fitness is significant, and has improved my health - asthma in remission, for example.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    63. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Katatsumuri · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do you really have problems with people throwing beer bottles at you?

      Yeah, why would anyone have problems with that?

    64. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Besides, him driving a 10ton truck does not mean he has more right of way and overtaking has to be done with sufficient margin, usually in the next traffic lane.

      Very true. My point wasn't that I was pissing him off or in his way. My point was that not only was he exceedingly safety concious, he did nothing to show if he was annoyed - including flashing me a smile and a small friendly wave when I looked back at him.

      There are of course drivers who will speed up to get past me on my bike and then make the turn in front of me, forcing me to more or less jump on my brake to avoid smashing into them. And all they get out of it is getting to their destination maybe 10 seconds faster than slowing down.

      Or the idiots who thinks it's necessary to switch from short to long beams in the middle of the night, just because there's a bike going the other way. I've lost count of the number of times fuckers like that have completely blinded me. And unfortunately only once did I get back at them, as I had a 1,000,000 candela portable flood light on me *evil grin*. Just a shame the fucker didn't crash his car, but at least he managed to switch to the short beams instead.

    65. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      My favorite alternative is a handlebar mounted slingshot and a sack full of ball bearings!

    66. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Informative

      For those of you that wonder what 'FM 1960' means, Texas has the concept of Farm to Market roads, not strange radio station names.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    67. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you don't have to cross two freeways on foot to get to your train stop...

    68. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      When I was growing up, lots of kids road bikes to school. My understanding is that that stopped because of fear of perverts, not because of problems with traffic. Of course, I could be mistaken and it may not have stopped, but I seem to recall a story about a kid who got into trouble for riding to school even though one of his parents rode along (on a second bike).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    69. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by stokessd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you really have problems with people throwing beer bottles at you?

      I have in upstate NY.

      Frankly, most serious bicyclists have a bunch of stories like that. I've put many miles in the north-east, the mid-atlantic states, the west coast, the southwest, and now the midwest. I now ride in the country in Indiana (boring corn viewing experience), and it's a lot better from a politeness of drivers standpoint.

      But in the USA, the car vs. driver issues are way worse than the UK and Ireland in my experience. Just another issue where we think we are #1 and really we suck.

      Sheldon

    70. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by deroby · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not sure about The Netherlands, but here in Belgium you're quite welcome to use your bicycle on the main road when there is no separate bike path available.
      When there is one, yes you HAVE to use it, but when there isn't you shouldn't be using the pedestrians' side-walks but simply drive on the right side of the road.
      I'm pretty sure it's like that in the Netherlands too...

      Everyone here is used to it, that much that I'm having a hard time to imagine roads without cyclists. In fact the law even grants quite a bit of "super-rights" to bicyclists :
      * within built-up area cyclists are allowed to drive next to each other and don't have to go one-in-front-of-the-other whenever a car comes by (outside of built-up areas you actually have to ride 'sequentially')
      * if there is a car-bike accident, the driver of the car by default is the one at fault. Hence he has to prove that the cyclist made some error causing the accident, not the other way around... (this is true in car-pedestrian accidents too btw)

      Reading the stuff above makes me wonder what kind of cavemen-mentality they have in Houston =(

      ps: in Belgium we do have this 'exception' that when you're "very young" (I THINK it's up to the age of 6 ?) you can (and should) actually drive on the side-walk rather than on the street. Frankly I'm not that much a fan of such system, but I guess it's safer for the young (learning) cyclists to get some road-sense/awareness before putting them on the actual road... I'm not so sure it such a good idea from the point of view of (elder) pedestrians, but well, it makes everyone more 'attentive' =)

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    71. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I was 10-12 I liked riding my bike to and from two local towns. (No clue how I talked my parents into it.) One was 5 miles away and the other was 8. I went to a day camp in one and 4th grade in the other. Now I didn't ride every day, but maybe once a week and only when it was warm.

      Riding home from day camp one day I passed a pickup full of redneck jackasses. 2 up front and 2 in the back. I caught an apple square across the thy, left a bruise that took a few weeks to go away.

      Never told my parents, but that was the last time I rode.

    72. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      So a city that is built around the way most people want to travel is somehow made that way by big oil??

      Nah .. no bias in that post.

      Travel by bike in any major city .. sucks for the reasons noted above. Travel by bike and bus in cities with bike racks on buses .. sucks because buses are slower than hell and once people start using the bike racks, there is no guarantee the next bus won't have a full bike rack. The only city I found where I liked taking public transportation was Boston, because the subway got you where you wanted to go faster than a car, and cost less than parking. Toronto was pretty good too as long as you didn't have to go anywhere off the subway lines, because their bus lines .. sucked.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    73. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      and at traffic lights you can just cycle straight past the queuing traffic.

      Ah, so you're one of the Cambridge cyclists who goes through red lights and tries to run me down as I'm crossing the road ;)

      Admittedly I'm not sure what the rule is regarding cyclists and traffic lights, but I presumed that they should still give way to pedestrians?

    74. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      When these asshats throw bottles at you or try to smack you, can't you get their license plate number and have them arrested for battery? Doesn't Houston have a police force?

      If they sideswipe you you may not be able to get their plat number, but a hit-and-run with injuries is a felony most other places, and they'll be liable for three times the medical bills for pain and suffering (again, in most places in the US, maybe not in Texas).

      I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to live in Texas. There must be SOME good to that state.

    75. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

      I love to ride my bike, but Houston is a city built by politicians with pockets lined from oil companies.

      Not exactly.

      Houston looks the way it does and sprawls the way it does because it's traditionally been run by real estate developers. There have actually been a couple of points in Houston's history when every single city council seat was simultaneously filled by someone who made their money in real estate.

      Thus, we have no zoning. Yes, that's right; except for a few minor ordinances about heavy industry and "adult" businesses, we have essentially no zoning. While we do have private agreements between land owners called "deed restrictions" that, in newer neighborhoods, prevent you from knocking down your house and putting in a used car lot, for the most part you're free to find a sizable plot of land, carve it up, and build what you want. There's almost no central planning and certainly no sense of "development projects should work together" to achieve diverse mobility solutions or any other lofty goal. The point to the development is to build it, sell it, and move on. Thus, we annex more land (the city is theoretically, legally capable of annexing everything all the way up to Dallas) so that more developers can buy out more plots and throw up more cookie-cutter subdivisions. We build gigantic roads to nowhere because someone with money owns some rural land and as soon as a freeway gets out there, they can bulldoze it and build some more cookie-cutter subdivisions. To the developer, the notion of responsibility to a public good is served by putting up another cookie-cutter subdivision, setting aside a bunch of land in the front for strip malls, and then calling it a "planned community." The notion that the sidewalks should actually meet up with each other from block to block, project to project is simply insane to them.

      After all, everybody has a car. Right?

      I'm about to retire in Houston. For all its warts, I love it. I'm considering doing it without a car and documenting my travails online. Should be an interesting project.

      Hint - If you want to live in or successfully visit Houston without a car, your domicile must be within two blocks of a light rail station. We have just one light rail line. Luckily, it passes close to about half of all the things in Houston worth seeing or doing. You can live on that rail line without a car.

      If you try to live somewhere else and make do with a bicycle, then you just have a death wish.

    76. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      IINM, Houston is an oil town. It's in the rich, powerful, and sociopathic oil industry's interests to make sure nobody walks or cycles.

    77. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by johnlcallaway · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So when someone makes logical arguments, they are being bought and paid for by big oil??? When bikers pay into the highway system, then they can have bike lanes. It costs money to build and maintain bike lanes .. how can anyone disagree with bike riders paying their fair share to use them???

      This is just like the people around Phoenix who want to fence off mountain areas for the 'enjoyment of the people'. Instead of allow wealthy people to build, and charging them up the wazoo for property tax .. they would rather fence it off and have my tax dollars pay to maintain it, so a few people can wander around the desert aimlessly for free, get lost in the heat because they didn't bring enough water, and have to be rescued. (Happens every year when it gets hot around here.)

      Heaven forbid they get on their bikes and ride an hour outside the city where there is MORE than enough room to wander around aimlessly and get lost and no one wants to build there.

      We have similar problems with bike riders in Phoenix, which actually HAS bike lanes. I guess bikers are too insecure to ride in single file, I see packs of them on the weekends riding 4 and 5 deep, taking up half the right lane in their funny outfits, even with a clearly marked bike lane. They run stop lights, and dart out across traffic without hand signals.

      No wonder people don't want to spend their tax money and throw things at them .. maybe if they learned to follow rules people wouldn't get so pissed at them.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    78. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by squish · · Score: 1

      Aw. I though that obstreperous kind of fitted in context that you had used it. I think it's a bit of a shame that you didn't mean it!

    79. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      An increasingly risky sport, as helmet-mounted cameras become more popular.

      Use a cheap disposable camera and get the license plate.

      --

      People in _____ don't like being called assholes. "You would think they would be used to it by now."

    80. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      The extra problematic part of the system in the Netherlands is that motorized bikes (like these E-Bikes, moped like scooters, or even small dirt bikes) use the bike lanes, which are very frequently the pedestrian walkways as well. I don't like bicycles zipping past me at full speed, but I really don't appreciate mopeds whipping around at 30km/h because they don't feel like ridding in traffic. I don't know for a fact that this is what they're supposed to do, but from all accounts it's the accepted way of doing things.

    81. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by number17 · · Score: 1

      Obviously you've never owned a motorcycle umbrella.
      http://www.sz-wholesale.com/uploadFiles/upimg1%5CMotorcycle-Umbrella-_120131.jpg

    82. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Belgium frequently has the same problem that kills me with the Netherlands: a moderate speed road lined with a path on each side that has to accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, as well small motorized vehicles like scooters. The first two don't seem to have any trouble living in harmony in most places, the last should be on the roads where it belongs. As I said in another post I don't know the exact legal situation of this, but from what the locals tell me that's how it's supposed to be done.

    83. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Quantumstate · · Score: 1

      No I don't cycle through red lights. I just cycle past the queuing traffic to reach the red light. Cyclists should follow pretty much the same rules as cars with regard to traffic lights and pedestrians.

    84. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      This mirrors my experience as a motorcyclist. Most professional drivers (excepting most delivery vans) are very good at watching the road and trying to anticipate the behaviour of other traffic participants. I've gotten nothing but polite behaviour from trucks, for example.

      OTOH, in the Netherlands a primary cause of fatal accidents with bicycles is trucks hitting them while the cyclist is in their blind spot. There is pressure to come up with all sorts of technological measures to decrease trucks' blind spots, but IMO it is primarily the cyclists' fault; they should just learn to stay out of blind spots.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    85. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by daedae · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So when someone makes logical arguments, they are being bought and paid for by big oil??? When bikers pay into the highway system, then they can have bike lanes. It costs money to build and maintain bike lanes .. how can anyone disagree with bike riders paying their fair share to use them???

      Assuming that a large portion of your bikers are people biking to work, I'd guess they're taxpayers and thus are paying into the highway system.

    86. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by DamonHD · · Score: 4, Informative

      "When bikers pay into the highway system, then they can have bike lanes."

      Motorists in the UK try to use this argument too, but motoring-related taxes (in the UK) do not cover the direct costs of providing the road network IIRC. So the cyclists paying their general taxes are *already* paying, and given that wear that drives road-maintenance costs is something like the fourth power of the axle weight, the cyclists' contribution need only be tiny to be proportionate. Cyclists may already be *overpaying*...

      I believe that in the UK almost the only transport form that fully recovers costs year-on-year is the train system, which people then whinge about the expense of.

      Many motorists continue to behave as if the full cost of a journey is the marginal pump cost of the fuel, ignoring externalities from pollution to tarmac to road-deaths.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    87. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Tyr_7BE · · Score: 1

      What different worlds we live in. When weather permits, I ride my bike in daily. There are a bunch of routes I can take - almost all of them have bike lanes, some of them have trails through various parks and green space, and for the one route that doesn't have bike lanes, I've never had much of an issue with vehicles trying to run me off the road. I stick to the right, they get around me, and when the road gets tight most people understand that I'm going as fast as I can, and wait for the road to widen again before passing. If I ride my bike to the city center, I often have trouble finding a place to lock it up due to all the other bikes on the street.

      This is in a relatively major urban center (700k+ people in the region). Interesting to see what a difference city policies and local culture can make.

    88. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by vonux · · Score: 1

      If a pedestrian gets in the way of a cyclist it's because they're in the cycle lane, likely a tourist and need to be taught a lesson ;)

    89. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by philpalm · · Score: 1

      Yes I use a razor like scooter to make the distance between bus stops shorter. And a scooter makes a great defense against dogs too.,,, I love the ones with mini shocks in the front. However if the roads and sidewalks are not smooth you need a kick scooter with air filled tires.

    90. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Move to Madison, WI. The city has a bike lane on just about every major road, plus several bike paths that cut through the city. It's 10 degrees out, and there are still a fair number of bikes on the road. The people here are HARDCORE about biking...

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    91. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by berzerke · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I live in Houston, I do like to cycle, but I'm limited to trails because of the issues the parents mention (i.e. I'm not suicidal).

      ...can't you get their license plate number and have them arrested for battery? Doesn't Houston have a police force?

      Good luck with that. It's your word against theirs. And as for the police force, they're only really interested in three things: bodies, donuts, and traffic tickets. And the body interest isn't that strong.

      ...they'll be liable for three times the medical bills for pain and suffering

      This assumes two very iffy things:

      • You'll be able to get their license plate number. Kid of hard to do as your being launched in the air. Cyclists being the victims of hit and run is common in Houston.
      • They have insurance. As a parent mentioned, we have a lot of illegals driving illegally down here without a license or insurance. Drunks are another major problem here too. When I have to go out late at night (driving), I fear drunks more than some junkie with a weapon.

      ...There must be SOME good to that state.

      Not all parts of the state are anti-biking. When I lived in Bryan/College Station, I found it to be a rather bike friendly town. And lots of us rode bikes. I had a car, and I would use it maybe a few times a month, at most.

      The Woodlands has miles and miles of bike trails/sidewalks. Not quite as bike friendly as Bryan/College Station, but still relatively safe, except near the one Catholic church. (I swear the Catholics do NOT look before turning.)

    92. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by e-scetic · · Score: 1

      As a bicyclist myself, who prefers to ride than drive even though I can afford some decent wheels, Houston is totally out. If I were ever offered a job there, regardless how much I was offered the answer would be "Houston?! Fuck no."

      As an environmentalist, you'd get the same answer...

      As someone who tries to be ethically, socially or politically responsible, ditto...

      As a vegetarian, likewise...

      Isn't it interesting how car culture automatically precludes certain types or groups of people? It's not just Houston I would say no to, there are cities around my area that I don't even consider when I make any kind of important decision about buying a house, work, going to school, etc., simply because it doesn't support my way of life.

    93. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

      Here I was about to look the word up and then figure out how to put it in my next report.

      obstreperous
      1. Noisily and stubbornly defiant.
      2. Aggressively boisterous.

      I think the word works where you used it.

      --
      I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
    94. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Aceticon · · Score: 1

      When I lived in Holland I was told that the basic rule of the road with regards to bicycles is that they always have priority.

      Having regularly used my bycicles (yes, plural) for pretty much any kind of inner-city travel and car for any kind of inter-city travel (such as long commutes) in Holland, my experience is that people do behave as if this is the rule.

      That said, Dutch society does put a large emphasis on behaving in a social way (as opposed to individual selfishness), so people do not tend to "abuse the system".

      Another thing with Holland is that the country is pretty much flat and thus ideal for bycicle travel.

    95. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by mea37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because you've seen some people on bikes violating traffic rules, it's ok to attempt to murder any cyclist you see? Because that's what you're doing when you throw something at an unprotected cyclist in traffic, in case you're unaware.

      Two arguments were raised:

      That cyclists should pay to accont for increased road maintenance is an interesting argument. Let's see some hard numbers. What is the marginal increase in road maintenance costs due to cyclists. What are the budget allocations that pay for that maintenance, and how do they align with various taxes - many of which cyclists do in fact pay. Show me the numbers, and if they show that cyclists are underpaying I'll buy that something needs to be done to tax cyclists. Oh, but if they show that cyclists are overpaying (which I bet they will), I don't suppose you'll support giving them a credit, will you?

      The second argument had to do with some recent state law that protects pedestrians, cyclists, etc. His argument is that this unbalances the risks and burdens and cycilsts should pay more for the greater protection. First of all, this clearly comes from someone who has never been vulnerable on the road. A car that decides to ram a bicycle stands to lose nothing unless caught by law enforcement; the cyclist stands to lose his life. The law works toward establishing balance; it is not something from which balance needs to be restored. Second: why single out cyclists? Register every pair of walking shoes.

      Make all the excuses you want; laws like this are aimed at nothing other than trying to keep people from exercising rights you find inconvenient.

    96. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by xaxa · · Score: 1

      You need to come down hard on those without insurance. (I assume it's a legal requirement?)

      In the UK, if the police stop you and you don't have insurance your car is seized immediately. Since uninsured drivers often have poorly maintained cars, and are much less likely to stop after a collision (even if someone is hurt), this benefits everyone else.

    97. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      I live in a small town in east Texas, and the pin-heads throw bottles at me when I mow my lawn. I am sure they see a cyclist as just a more challenging target. So far, I have not been hit, and they are throwing emptys. I don't think they are dumb enough to throw away a full beer, but I worry about a bottle full of piss.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    98. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      We have similar problems with bike riders in Phoenix, which actually HAS bike lanes. I guess bikers are too insecure to ride in single file, I see packs of them on the weekends riding 4 and 5 deep, taking up half the right lane in their funny outfits, even with a clearly marked bike lane. They run stop lights, and dart out across traffic without hand signals.

      Similar thing happened to me the other day... I was riding my bike in the right lane and a bunch of cars had the audacity to take up like the other 2/3 of the road! You do realize that bicycles are vehicles too and entitled to use most roads that cars are allowed to use. I bike and drive my commmute but by the numbers probably drive 50x more in milage each year than I bike. So my tax dollars should only go to fixing the roads for cars? You're right that the cyclists need to follow the laws with regard to stops and hand signals... did you know that if you run a stop sign on a bike you get the same ticket as if you were in a car and you get points against your DRIVERS license? In fact, you can LOOSE your drivers license for infractions on a bike. If you commit driving violations do they take away your bike?

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    99. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When there is one, yes you HAVE to use it, but when there isn't you shouldn't be using the pedestrians' side-walks but simply drive on the right side of the road

      It's attitudes like that that prevent people from commuting via bicycle. Let me translate that for you into what people who live in an auto-dominant urban area hear:

      When there is one, yes you HAVE to use it, but when there isn't you should trade a small chance of not-likely-to-be fatal physical harm to yourself and other pedestrians to a much, much greater chance of quite-likely-to-be-fatal harm to yourself only.

      Or to sum up: biking is a recreational activity, not a transportation option, and it will continue to be for as long as people half-ass the bike lanes and think that the roads are a good fall-back option.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    100. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by knarf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've seen people riding with ladders, and lawn furniture.

      You forgot washing machines, 2.10x1.20 slabs of 18mm multiplex (wood) and 2x4's. I transported all on a trailer behind my bike, the latter in sufficient quantity to build all my furniture.

      Now I live in Sweden where cycling is no nearly as popular as in the Netherlands. Some people look at me like I just climbed out of a flying saucer. They do sell studded tires for bikes here so I can not be the only one cycling in winter...

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    101. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lived in Alief and commuted to Memorial (two Houston suburbs) on my bike 6 days a week from '86 through '91. In that time, I was cut off, sideswiped or clipped 11 times. Only once was I actually hit (at the intersection of Westheimer and the beltway) and had to be dragged from the intersection by the guy selling papers. My two most memorable events involved the Houston police.

      First time, I was cycling down Westheimer when an HPD patrol car pulled me over to give me a ticket. For speeding. The officer claimed I was doing 45 in a 35 (on my mountain bike). I fought the ticket and was fortunate enough to end up with a triathlete for a judge. He laughed the officer and my ticket out of court.

      Second time, I was pulling up to an intersection where a car was waiting at the red light. I was about 50 feet behind the car when another car pulled into my lane and clipped me, knocking me over. The lady who hit me got out of her car and started berating me for being in the road. Then the lady in the car in front got out as well and shouted that she had seen the whole thing and she was calling the police... and I had better not try to get away!

      When the constable arrived minutes later (this was in the high-dollar Memorial area), the two irate women glared at me and moved in to tell him the whole story. I was relaxing on the grass alongside the road when the officer came over to me. He asked, "Is that how it happened?" and I said "Yep, pretty much." It made my day when he just shook his head and said "You would think they'd at least lie about it. Were you hurt at all? Would you like to press charges?"

      I must have been in a good mood, because I said no, to my everlasting regret. But he still gave them both an earful. Threatened the lady who hit me with jail time for vehicular assault and made it clear that the other busybody was lucky he didn't decide to ticket her. I don't think they quite believed him when he told them the only reason one of them wasn't going to jail was because I was a nice guy.

      Now I live in Austin and I actually miss riding in Houston.

      In Houston, the roads were wide, flat and straight - no hills or curves (no, overpasses don't count as hills). Whether they're aiming for you or trying to avoid you, drivers can see you from a half mile away. In Austin, on the other hand, we have bike lanes that exist for as long as the road is straight, then they disappear around corners. We also have hills and valleys galore, and many narrow streets where annoyed drivers will vent their frustrations by tailgating or honking - even in residential neighborhoods.

    102. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by FesterDaFelcher · · Score: 1

      Geez, what a miserable existence you must lead. Everyone is out to get you.

      I've lived in Houston as well and many other cities, and yes, Houston is a very different type of city. But to claim that politicians purposely want to keep you from traveling around town? Come on. Metro has done a lot to try to get people to get out of their cars, and people around here just don't want to. They like their cars. So no, there is not going to be a direct bus from Greenspoint to Baytown, because there is not enough demand for it.

      Houston is a HUGE metro area (600 sq miles compared to New York city at 305, Chicago 225, LA 460, Dallas 180), and you can find a bus from anywhere in the city to the Galleria, Medical Center, and Downtown. If you need to go from one city suburb to the next, then use one of those hubs, or drive. There's even a trip planner on the website, that will tell you when to arrive and when you will get there.

      It's not rocket science, and nobody is out to get you. I've been successfully using the bus system for 4 years now. Yes, it takes about 50-100% longer to take the bus than to drive, I just make sure to leave early.

      --
      My user number is prime. Is yours?
    103. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Locklin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, but roads are not paid for by motorists, they are paid for by citizens (gas tax is insufficient, roads are heavily paid for by other taxes). Cyclists, and any citizen has the same right to the roads you do. Operating large equipment doesn't give you more rights.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    104. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      Conversely, Austin, TX seems to be a great bike city. I spent a week there a couple years ago and loved the miles of mountain bike trails. It seemed like you could get anywhere on an off road trail. Our B&B even had a fleet of fat tire cruisers you could take out.

      Austin is really a strange oasis in the land of Texas.

    105. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Castle doctrine only applies inside your home and vehicle. Unless your bicycle is enclosed, it may be illegal to carry/wield a gun in your defense.

      I lived in mississippi, and it is pretty much the same way. Fortunately drunk rednecks throwing bottles don't realize a bike can do nearly 50mph if you get pissed off enough. I managed to catch up with one of them and punch him in the face.

    106. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by lastchance_000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because the bottles aren't full. (And just hand it to me - too easy to spill it otherwise.)

    107. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Why do I suddenly picture some guy biking through zombieland or whatever with a shotgun and a semi-automatic slung across his back?

    108. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      >So when someone makes logical arguments, they are being bought and paid for by big oil??? When bikers pay into the highway system, then they can have bike lanes. It costs money to build and maintain bike lanes .. how can anyone disagree with bike riders paying their fair share to use them???

      Who says bikers do not pay their "fair share"? We're all citizens, and paying our share of federal and state taxes.

      Oh.. you don't mean to suggest that you BELIEVE the Federal Gas tax actually pays for a majority (or even substantial) portion of the US roadway system, do you? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

      The US gas tax exists as misdirection - most of the federal government's sourcing of highway funds have come from income taxes, or loans from Saudi Arabia (with their interest in maintaining the US's addiction) , and more recently, China.

    109. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Locklin · · Score: 1

      Note narrow road.. without any bicycle lane... o0o0o danger! Not really.. it's so common in NL that motorists do tend to actually look out for cyclists and drive responsibly around them.

      Even in North America, cars hitting cyclists from behind is *very* rare, so bike lanes don't really increase safety (they may help with traffic flow). The vast majority of accidents happen in front of cyclists, at intersections (like cars pulling out in-front or turning right into cyclist.)

      People have been riding bikes safely for a century in cities around the world. Helmets may provide a small margin of safety, but regardless, cycling is still a relatively safe form of recreation for a family. You are likely making the common, but incorrect assumption, that cycling is dangerous and driving isn't.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    110. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      The last time I was nearly run off the road by a driver who didn't give me the state-required 3 ft of clearance I looked up to see that it was a county sheriff's vehicle. *sigh*

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    111. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      I live somewhere where biking is normal and, for things like a trip to the grocery store, often faster than driving and finding parking (and many don't own cars...instead using public transit and zipcars/igocars). As such, I don't get funny looks from people for running errands on a bike although some people are quite surprised by a desire to ride a few miles to work (what do they think all of those FULL downtown bike racks that empty at 5:00 are used for?).

      I do hear about this behavior from people who live in smaller towns or suburbs though. It seems like the only ways to avoid being thought of as a DUI rider or a Hobo when you ride to the store is to either suit up in full lycra or cover your bike/cargo rack with over the top environmentalist stickers.

      --
      Bottles.
    112. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 4, Informative

      I guess bikers are too insecure to ride in single file, I see packs of them on the weekends riding 4 and 5 deep, taking up half the right lane in their funny outfits, even with a clearly marked bike lane. They run stop lights, and dart out across traffic without hand signals.

      What you're describing is very common. However, what irritates me is the undeserved sense of entitlement evidenced by such bechavior, more so than the actual breaking of the law.

      Some years ago, a nurse who was tending to my mother in the hospital was making conversation during some lengthy time he was forced to spend in her room due to her condition. The conversation ranged broadly and it eventually came out that he was a weekend cyclist (one of those funny-tight-pants guys) and he regaled us with his account of a recent run-in with the law. It seems that the rural folks where his (apparently rather large) group rides had complained to local law enforcement about the bikers who were running lights, failing to yield, taking up too much road space by riding abreast, etc. The local lawdogs set at a stop sign on their customary route. As was their habit, the entire group simply blew through the sign without stopping. The cops pulled over about 30 of them and wrote tickets.

      Come court day, the entire group showed up to fight the tickets. There were a couple of lawyers amongst them. They simply stood up in court and started talking about how they'd fight using some sort of (spurious, it seemed to me) argument that if each rider stopped at the sign, the group would get so strung out that various hazards would be created for both the group and other traffic. In a bit of a mob scene in the tiny traffic court of this tiny, rural courthouse, they vowed to gum up the works with enough paperwork and motions so as to keep the entire city legal staff occupied doing nothing else for as long as possible.

      It was a sort of "We're a big enough mob that we can get away with breaking the law" confrontation. The judge grabbed onto a technicality in the first case and simply dismissed them all.

      I said all that to say this - If I were part of a mob that managed to break the law and get away with it simply because the mob was big enough to overwhelm the resources of a small town, I'd be pretty embarrassed at getting away with such a thing. This guy wasn't. He was actually *proud* that he was able to get away with breaking the law. He felt that he was such a righteous person for riding a bike that he deserved to be allowed to run stop signs. Now, why on earth does riding a bike make someone a better person? Where do bicyclists get this attitude? I don't get it. I just don't get it. But I do know that I have a very low opinion of bicyclists because of this incident and so many others I've experienced on the road where cyclists seem to have an attitude of "The rules don't apply to us."

    113. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gun mounts on bicycles aren't unheard of. It gets around a loop hole in the "no hunting from a vehicle" regulation.

    114. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50? Maybe downhill, otherwise you won't do much better than 30 or 35.

    115. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with Nasa 1 or Medical Center / Hercules?

    116. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Nadaka · · Score: 0

      You must have a crappy bike, or poor health. On a good bike, with a lot of practice you can average 30 or 35 mph over a long distance. For short bursts you can get in the 40s, sometimes even the high 40s.

    117. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's as much of an oil company lobbying for cars and against bikes as it is the humidity from May thru September. I live in Bay Colony just south of Clear Lake and my commute is 10 miles south. I would LOVE to bike it every day, but I'd be a sweaty mess.

      That said, we ride from 646 toward Santa Fe and can get into rural areas fairly quickly. Makes for a nice, peaceful ride.

    118. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Locklin · · Score: 1

      Copenhagen is the typical example. Google Copenhagenize or "Copenhagen Cycle Chic" for some pretty pictures. Bike lanes don't actually increase cyclist safety though, they simply take cyclists off the road. They make cycling more pleasant for some, but often come with more accidents.

      Cycling culture, on the other hand, makes the biggest difference. When drivers accept cyclists as legitimate road users *AND* frequently see them, cycling goes from reasonably safe, to very safe. That's why its safer on a bike than in a shower in the Netherlands.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    119. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      At work, someone saw me arrive on my bike and asked, "Oh, have you gone green?" (I hate that phrase, BTW.) I looked at her and said, "If you told me someone discovered a way to make fifty-cent a gallon gas out of baby seals, I'd say, 'Pass me a club.'"

      I live and work in a small town, (about 3500 people,) and I bike to work most of the year. Even making two round trips so I can go home for lunch, it's less than 3 miles a day. Unless it's raining, snowy, or icy, I just feel stupid starting up my car so I can drive 6 blocks.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    120. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Use a cheap disposable camera and get the license plate.

      If I'm trying to recover from a near-collision or other unexpected event, I don't trust that I have time and composure to stop, get my hands free, and pull out a camera (disposable, cell phone, whatever) in the few available seconds to get a clear shot of the plate.

      I imagine anyone intent on harassment is counting on that.

    121. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Cyclists pay taxes. I assume that a good portion of my income tax goes towards the local Department of Transportation. Not to mention the fact that many people who own a bike also own a car and pay all of the taxes associated with that.

      Congestion has a cost as well (in terms of wasted time and pollution). So by your logic, if non-motorised transportation saved money, you would be ok with taxing motor vehicles more (a congestion/pollution charge perhaps?).

    122. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by mdalal97 · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

    123. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      In Illinois they won't impound your car, but the fine for driving without insurance is a very steep one.

    124. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I think that's the same everywhere; at least everywhere in the US. Cops here constantly break traffic laws, making me wonder what other laws they're breaking.

      The city lost an expensive lawsuit here a couple of years ago when a police car hit (and killed the driver of) a car pulling out on 11th street; a 35 mph speed limit, the cop was doing close to 100 without lights or sirens.

    125. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by hondo77 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're in a paceline.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    126. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      I just got out of the shower after biking to work, so I'm getting a kick out of this reply. Oh, wait. Wrong website.

      Anyway, back to your points:
      1. Road maintenance and cycling.

      Yes, it is expensive to maintain the roads. Notwithstanding that bikes wear out the roads slower, I own a house and pay property taxes. That's what pays for the roads here. I don't bike on the highway (illegal (you have to maintain 60km/h) and stupid). A dedicated cycling path put in 10+ years ago has yet to be repaved.

      2. Bikes being dicks.

      You don't think *I* want to punch Douchebag McSpandex in the mouth? Come on, he could be the next Lance Armstrong and you should be honoured to ride on the same roads as He. The rules are pretty clear -- bikes are to ride as close to the right as practical. That doesn't mean I should be wearing out the right side of my tire on the curb. It means that you should, whenever possible, let cars pass without letting them know that you're letting them pass. (i.e. get out of the way!) Bikes are 1% of traffic and 2% of fatalities. In a contest between skintanium and steel, steel has yet to lose.

      If you're breaking the rules of the road, yes, you should get a ticket. I think bicycles should require a licence and insurance, same as a car. I have seen a cop pull over a bike once. "What part of a red light do you not understand?" came over the bullhorn. It was nice to see.

      The reason these guys are biking in a pack is twofold:

      1. Increased visibility. Every time a car hits a bike, the first words are, "I didn't see him!" I have more lights than a police cruiser carrying a christmas tree in a parade*, but I've still had people say that after cutting me off. (I have close to $500 worth of lights on my bike.)

      2. Socializing. Apparently when you're working out and puffing, you can hold a conversation. I have trouble talking to people while diving, but hey, everyone has to have a hobby and hang out with friends.

      So while it is still illegal, it's a minor infraction and the police here turn a blind eye. On the flip side, if there's an accident they continue to turn a blind eye. A group got hit due to a car passing on the left, which was hit by a car turning right, which pinpalled the passing car into the pack. No serious injuries; property damage aplenty. No charges were laid.

      There's no shortage of stupid people, and some of those people are on bikes. Some of us are fairly intelligent, have jobs and houses, and contribute quite a bit to the local economies.

      *I ride with:
      1. 150 lumen front light (13W equivalent, max street legal)
      2. 1W helmet-mounted flasher
      3. front white cluster flasher
      4. BLT light vest with turn signals (front and back lighting)
      5. red flashing wristbands
      6. three spoke-lit side lights (two green, one red)
      7. blue rim light
      8. two 1/2W rear flashing lights

      This doesn't include all my refelctive striping.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    127. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When bikers pay into the highway system, then they can have bike lanes. It costs money to build and maintain bike lanes .. how can anyone disagree with bike riders paying their fair share to use them???

      Moving bicycle riders off the road into dedicated bike lanes doesn't just help the bikers, it helps vehicular traffic (i.e. you) by relieving congestion. As a car-only commuter, I WANT bike lanes so I don't have to deal with them on the road.

    128. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, you CAN do the same, but there's a reason they are rednecks that affects their desire TO do the same.

    129. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by mdalal97 · · Score: 1

      Don't generalize about all cyclists. I agree there is a problem, but I just want to ride with my group (or solo) and _not_ get killed. None of us think we own the road, but we do believe we have a right to ride on roads. On shoulders we'll ride side by side. On roads with no shoulders, most of us are smart enough to ride single file. Generally, we'll yell out "Car back" to let anyone who isn't riding single file know that they need to move over.

      I follow the rules of the road and yell at cyclists who don't. Of course, I used to also yell at drivers who would risk my life, but now I just try to calmly explain what they did to risk my life -- if I can catch up with them. After all, it is only my life they are risking.

      The anecdote above really bothers me as well. They should have paid their tickets, since they violated the law.

    130. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      I can vouch for this. I've been angry enough to get 65km/h on a mountain bike on a level stretch.

      Once the adrenaline wore off I had to throw up, but the timing was, shall we say, excellent.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    131. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Locklin · · Score: 1

      Most of the mandatory bikeway laws in the U.S. have been repealed, and fortunately were not created here in Canada. Bike lanes are empirically more dangerous than road cycling, necessitating very slow riding. Creating bike paths for cyclists who want them is one thing, forcing people off the road and onto bikeways is another. It amounts to forcing people to enter a slower, more dangerous environment strictly for the benefit of drivers convenience. The laws were repealed because people injured while using a mandatory bike path would be justified in a lawsuit against the enforcing government.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    132. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      People thought I was nuts for even attempting to walk there... suggesting that I should go rent a car.

      This is an interesting story that I might use in my personal cause celebre. I believe that in the United States we have a right to travel. The Government suggests that by driving, you implicitly agree to waive certain rights. Due to the nature of 'travel' in the US, since it is effectively impossible to not travel by a method which limits your rights, then the governments claim that you do not have a right to travel by car or air (or train, or bike as I have also heard claim) to be invalid.

      Exercising your Rights should not force you to surrender others.

      That you are legally unable to walk, and thus travel without waiving your rights, it provides some backup for my claim.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    133. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Locklin · · Score: 1

      biking is a recreational activity, not a transportation option, and it will continue to be for as long as people half-ass the bike lanes and think that the roads are a good fall-back option.

      Biking will continue to regarded as a recreation-only activity so long as people continue erroneously believing it is a dangerous activity. The bull in the societies china shop (cars) are plenty dangerous and people take non-essential trips regularly. Bicycles carry comparable risk of injury or death as cars, but protect against much larger threats to life and limb (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc...). Irrational fear drives illogical behaviour, that doesn't mean the illogical behaviour needs to be supported, but that the fear should be confronted.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    134. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      i.e. lots of bike lanes but bikes are generally forbidden to ride on the roads if bike paths are available

      What's wrong with that? Bikes and cars don't mix well; if there are bike lanes to avoid that, then by all means let's use them and make everyone safer.

    135. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Locklin · · Score: 1

      Which makes a lot of sense considering the number of people who die from perverts, and the number who die from a sedentary lifestyle...

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    136. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like that part that bothered you the most was seeing a group that usually has no political power actually having some. I bet you weren't nearly as upset when the local real estate developers got their way.

      And in this particular case, isn't it the law that's out of whack? Most stop signs need to be yield signs anyway, and a large group of bicycles is more like a single vehicle than a bunch of independent drivers.

    137. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Locklin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your second hand story about proud, self-important cyclists flouting the law and believing they "own the road" is the same experience cyclists, including myself, see regularly from motorists! Perhaps there are just idiots out there, some ride bikes some drive cars. The ones who drive cars, however, kill people (including other motorists).

      If you want to talk about misapplied justice, there are countless cases of motorists killing cyclists, pedestrians, and other motorists by gross negligence and careless driving. Many of these people never see the inside of a jail cell and most will drive again.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    138. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Consider open carry of a pistol. Might reduce the number of bottle throwing incidents!

    139. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      they don't come anywhere close to solving the beer bottles from pickups aimed at cyclist problem

      Sounds like a good place to put a plainclothes police officer on a bike! As long as the locals don't complain of "entrapment," that is.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    140. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

      My ex girlfriend had all manner of things thrown at her while cycling while living in Pittsburgh, PA. Fast food sodas were the weapon of choice. People threw them while traveling at 20-30 mph. 20+ ounces of liquid hurts at that speed.

      Once, her brother had someone pull up next to him and aim a rifle at him through the passenger window. This was a pickup of course.

      That's not to mention the times when people would pace along side and hurl the worst insults imaginable.

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    141. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      When bikers pay into the highway system, then they can have bike lanes.

      1. I'm a biker. I'm also a motorist, so I pay into the highway system.
      2. Even bikers pay into the roads through Arizona's Prop 400 half cent sales tax.
      3. Bicyclists don't need bike lanes to be on the road. A lone bicyclist can ride in the middle of a regular traffic lane whenever necessary, such as when the road is too narrow for a bicycle and a car to fit side by side. Do you really want roads like that?
      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    142. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by zcubed · · Score: 1

      So you as the driver of a motor vehicle ALWAYS follow EVERY law? I highly doubt it.

      The stop lights that you state are being run by cyclists are also being run by cars. I will bet if you sit at any traffic light you will see far more cars running the light than cyclists. Both drivers and cyclists are breaking the law, but you seem to only take exception with the cyclists.
      So you are saying that a cyclist should have to pay the same amount as a large SUV to use the same road? How much wear and tear does a bicycle and rider put on the road? Most cyclists own cars, so they are paying for their share of the road since their vehicle is sitting at home. I think you need to re-evaluate your hatred of cycles. The guys in the funny outfits are getting into shape and helping to decrease the cost of health insurance, but you seem to be too narrow minded to think how someone taking care of themselves might benefit you in other ways so you can keep your almighty dollar in your pocket.

      Have I ever ran a red light on a bicycle? Yes, when there are no cars around early in the morning since it was that or wait for a car to come to trigger the light. I commuted downtown for years and there were 4 lights on my route that never changed even when the pedestrian walk button was pushed.
      Have I ever ran a red light in a car? Yes many times, sometimes I was a distracted idiot and didn't notice the light or pushed the yellow a little too much, late at night in certain parts of the city I have done many rolling stops to get the hell out of there, and while driving an emergency vehicle to an emergency.

      You, of course, follow ALL the rules. Completely stopping at EVERY stop sign. NEVER pushing the yellow or running through red lights. Not going over the posted speed limit EVER. NEVER getting angry at other vehicles on the road. Model driver you are, I'll bet.

    143. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

      I bet you weren't nearly as upset when the local real estate developers got their way.

      I see you've read a couple of my posts today.

      And made a very wrong assumption. If you're in Houston, you know what the 4th Ward redevelopment was all about. I sat in my office, high up in a building on the southwest corner of downtown, and watched it happen. Every Monday, I'd come in and scan out the window to see how many old folks had gotten burned out over the weekend. When the church burned, I knew that ward was done for.

      In fact, I do get a bit upset when I see developers running roughshod over history. But this is Houston. That's the way things are done here. If it's over 50 years old, knock it down and re-develop it. I find that attitude sad, maddening, and shortsighted but it's part of the mindset around here.

      (And if your comment about developers wasn't related to my other post in this thread...then...never mind.)

    144. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      Here's another suggestion: A helmet-mounted camera-transmitter setup, sending to your computer at home, and biking with friends. Digital evidence of harassment, complete with license plates. ... assuming you aren't road-pizza yourself.

    145. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by bluie- · · Score: 1

      If you're on the sidewalk you follow pedestrian laws, if you're on the street you follow motor vehicle laws

      I've thought of something similar to this for years. I live in southern NH, where generally there's at least a decent shoulder on the side of the road to give you some room to ride, but sometimes there's not and a side walk really is the safest option. I've always thought that as long as you keep your speeds REALLY low on a sidewalk, you won't have any problems.

      --
      life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
    146. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      If I were part of a mob that managed to break the law and get away with it simply because the mob was big enough to overwhelm the resources of a small town, I'd be pretty embarrassed at getting away with such a thing.

      So all the motorists driving in your area stay at or below the speed limit because if they exceed it they know they'll be pulled over right away? Golly gee, Mister, that sounds swell!

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    147. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of "unjustified sense of entitlement" to go around. It all irritates me.

      There's a large group of motorcyclists who meet up near my home to start their Sunday rides. When they're all assembled, they pull out and block intersections (one uncontrolled, 4 with traffic lights) so that they can get out of town without being split up. If you're anywhere in the neighborhood, you're likely to find yourself sitting at a green light, unable to move unless you want to run over the leather-suited boy-racer sitting in front of you with his hand up.

      There's a huge cemetery near my home, just off a freeway. When a funeral procession moves from the freeway to that cemetery, there's always a delay, but you can bypass the whole mess by just staying to the far left and passing the funeral procession (which will be in the right lane approaching the exit.) EXCEPT, of course, when the person being buried is a cop. Then, for some reason that's never in play when a civilian is being buried, the procession escort feels the need to completely shut down the freeway. I've seen it closed for the better part of an hour for NO good reason other than the fact that they want everybody to stop and pay homage to one of their own.

      You want to talk about gross negligence? Twice in the last 5 years I've been sitting at a red light, it turns green, I take off, and *then* some idiot on the cross-street comes flying through the red light *behind* me. Twice! (Both times were on New Year's Eve when it gets drunk out early.)

      Believe me, I hold no special ill will toward bicyclists. I've seen jerks on the roads in all sorts of situations, operating all sorts of vehicles. I hold them all in equal contempt. That's why I'm seriously considering doing without a car when I retire fairly soon.

    148. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

      Big difference.

      Speed violations are a matter of degree when punishment is decided. Ignoring a traffic control device isn't.

      Or, to take a different tack, I'd be just as aghast if a car club caught drag racing decided to put special effort into fighting their tickets with a goal of simply overwhelming the system and getting off instead of seeing that justice is done.

      Remember, the discussion was about attitudes. I don't hold it against anyone if they fight a ticket because they think they shouldn't have gotten it. I do think there's something very wrong with a mob that shows up in court when they absolutely know they've broken the law and uses their sheer numbers to intimidate a legal infrastructure incapable of simultaneously handling this many people who jump into the fray motivated not by justice but merely by a need to be bullies. I have a huge problem when individual members of that mob then proceed to brag to strangers about how they were able to hammer a judge and get away with a crime.

      Most un-pukka, to my mind.

    149. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by midtoad · · Score: 1

      "When bikers pay into the highway system, then they can have bike lanes". You sir, are a moron. Just because you see me occasionally riding a bike doesn't mean that I do not also own a car and pay taxes. But even if I did not own a car, your argument is specious, since most roads are constructed with general taxation revenue, not gasoline taxes or licence-plate fees. In short, the general population is subsidizing the use of single-occupant motor vehicles. Motorists should in fact be promoting the construction of bicycle infrastructure. A car takes up 10 times the room of a bike, so construction of a route to transport, say, 1000 bicycles a day, should cost only a small fraction of what it costs to transport 1000 cars a day. And further, every time you turn a motorist into a cyclist, you are freeing up space on the road for yourself and your unsustainable car.

      --
      - midtoad
      Umwelt schützen, Fahrrad benützen
    150. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by tknd · · Score: 1

      When bikers pay into the highway system, then they can have bike lanes. It costs money to build and maintain bike lanes

      Gas taxes and user taxes aren't fully subsidizing the roads: "About 70% of the construction and maintenance costs of highways in the U.S. are covered through user fees (net of collection costs), primarily gasoline taxes collected by the federal government and state and local governments, and to a much lesser extent tolls collected on toll roads and bridges. The rest of the costs are borne by general fund receipts, bond issues, and designated property and other taxes." (emphasis mine) Source.

      Let's also not bring up the argument that your 3000+ pound vehicle does a whole lot more damage to a road than a 180 pound man and his 30 pound bicycle.

      We have similar problems with bike riders in Phoenix, which actually HAS bike lanes. I guess bikers are too insecure to ride in single file, I see packs of them on the weekends riding 4 and 5 deep, taking up half the right lane in their funny outfits, even with a clearly marked bike lane.

      When it was possible for me to commute on my bicycle in California, I generally rode alone. I do see packs of cyclists (bikers generally refers to motorcyclists) in what you call "funny outfits" but by California driving rules, each one of them is supposed to be treated as a vehicle and likewise each one of them must abide by rules on the road. I'm not sure how it works in Arizona, but it is true in California that a cyclists can take up a lane and other drivers have to respect that cyclist. I also think the "funny outfits" are useful for two purposes: bright colors help people see you, and the tight spandex actually helps a lot for efficiency.

      The problem is when you're on a bicycle, people in autos don't think of you as a "vehicle" and appropriately neglect your safety. They will purposely drive close to you, zoom by at ridiculously fast speeds, and cut you off to beat you on right turns. For those reasons, many cyclists ride in groups in order to increase their safety and force others to treat them more like vehicles.

      They run stop lights, and dart out across traffic without hand signals.

      I generally don't do the former because I know that I'm not going to win any collision with an auto that has a 15x mass advantage. The latter is harder to do than it sounds but I try to give hand signals whenever possible. There was a section of road I used to travel where the bike lane ended and turned into a two lane right turn for autos getting onto the freeway. The bike lane continued on the left of these two lanes but for a short distance, I had to jump across normal lanes where the speed limit was 50MPH. In California, that translates to cars normally going 60MPH so I was competing at a 35-40MPH difference. When you're on a bicycle peddling at full speed it is much harder to give a hand signal and maintain your velocity and direction while looking back. In fact when I give hand signals most people just ignore me or take it as a cue to accelerate past me because they don't want to slow down to let me in. So the reason you see lots of cyclists dart out is the same reason why nobody uses their blinkers to change lanes in traffic in southern California. If they used them they'd either be ignored or get into an even more dangerous situation.

    151. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lawyer was actually right. If every bicyclist came to a full stop at every stop sign it would cause an increased amount of traffic congestion, while not necessarily increasing anyone's safety. This is why some cities have started passing laws that say, in effect, that bicyclists can treat stop signs as yield signs. They must slow down and yield to any other traffic in the intersection, but they do not have to come to a complete stop. The real danger comes usually comes not from bicyclists, but from motorists who run red lights, exceed speed limits, fail to use turn signals, fail to yield to other traffic, and so on. A car is a lethal weapon. A bicycle is not. About 40,000 people die every year on roads in the US. Almost zero of those deaths are caused by bicyclists; about 40,000 are caused by motorists.

    152. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Flying+Scotsman · · Score: 1

      It depends on the bike lanes in question. Often, they're pretty good, and help greatly with traffic. Though in some areas, the "bike lanes" are far more dangerous to ride in than the side of the road, since they're generally retrofitted to roadways and intersections that weren't designed with them in mind. Some cities will construct a system of death-trap "bike lanes" and claim they're now cycle-friendly, even though no sane cyclist would ever try riding in them.

    153. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      I wonder how cocky he will be when one of his riding group ends up being flattened by a motor vehicle while running that stop sign?

    154. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      When these asshats throw bottles at you or try to smack you, can't you get their license plate number and have them arrested for battery?

      I've had this happen to me in a couple of places (Oklahoma and Florida). The thing is, I am going perhaps 10MPH and they are typically going in the neighborhood of 50. By the time I get my wits gathered back and figure out what happened, I'm lucky if I can identify which rapidly receeding vehicle way off in the distance was the offender. Without bionic vision, there is no way to get a plate reading.

      This is why a-holes do this in the first place. They know they are safe from any personal or legal retribution.

    155. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      The fact I would actually have to get to NASA 1 or Medical Center/Hercules.

      I don't recall Hercules being an excellent road for biking, granted it's one I could probably take rather safely in comparison to others in the area, but getting to either of those roads from just a little ways North can't be done safely. I would have to drive half way to work, park, pull my bike out then ride to work. DUH! Not a good thing to do.

      I could hop on my bike right now and get to work. I could do it I don't know how many times, but eventually I would expect not to survive the trip. Not in a "it was just one of those things" manner, but in a "well what did you expect?" manner. How would you bike from El Dorado and I-45, think of starting at Sam's Club, or even better taste, Texas Road House, and bike to the Space Center? It's only a few miles, it's no big deal, I've road much further in a casual trip. All those nice little roads right there you mentioned would be great once I got there, but there's a lot of road pizza chances before that happens.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    156. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      As soon as I looked it up I questioned rather I should correct it or not, it's close, but it doesn't quite work where it's at.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    157. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      I've done 30 on a 20" BMX.

      Granted, I didn't maintain the speed for far, but I was clocked at 32 for just a dozen feet or so. You have no idea how many freewheels I've stressed beyond their tolerance point.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    158. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by dasunt · · Score: 1

      P.S. although I love the percetant of bicycle usage in the Netherlands, I do not believe its bike system should be taken as the model, as its system is based on "separate but equal" facilities for bikes, autos and pedestrians (i.e. lots of bike lanes but bikes are generally forbidden to ride on the roads if bike paths are available).

      Look at Minneapolis for a model. Specifically south and west Minneapolis.

      On road bicycle lanes combined with bike thoroughfares along old rail right-of-ways that have limited at-grade crossings with roadways that act like non-auto superhighways for cyclists.

      It's the best of both worlds. First, because if you are using a bicycle for utility, you want to go almost everywhere, and it is impractical to make a dedicated bicycle trail to every workplace, every grocer, every store, every school. So local roads must be used. Plus, the cycling traffic is low enough not to justify a dedicated path to everywhere. On-road lanes in the right location cover neighborhood routes. Then add bicycle "interstates" that cover long distances with a minimum of cross traffic, so it's possible to go across town safely and quickly, and it also provides a place for recreational riders to ride. IMO, it's an efficient use of resources.

    159. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by dasunt · · Score: 1

      It's attitudes like that that prevent people from commuting via bicycle. Let me translate that for you into what people who live in an auto-dominant urban area hear:

      When there is one, yes you HAVE to use it, but when there isn't you should trade a small chance of not-likely-to-be fatal physical harm to yourself and other pedestrians to a much, much greater chance of quite-likely-to-be-fatal harm to yourself only.

      Actually, sidewalk bicycling is disproportionately risky.

      Most vehicle drivers don't expect an object that easily travels 12-15 mph on the sidewalk.

      Imagine a driver making a right hand turn. They look right, see no pedestrians. They look left, see no cars coming. They start to turn. In those two seconds the driver was looking left, a bicyclist at 15 mph had traveled close to 50 feet.

    160. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      The Government suggests that by driving, you implicitly agree to waive certain rights.

      What rights are you waiving? The police still have to have a valid suspicion to stop you, which is the first one that comes to mind.

    161. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Animaether · · Score: 1

      The police still have to have a valid suspicion to stop you, which is the first one that comes to mind.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=suspicionless+checkpoints
      What valid suspicions?
      granted, they may not be 'the police', quite technically

      What rights are you waiving?

      That one I could try to answer, but as I noted - I was a tourist there, so I wouldn't know the various (federal, state, county, etc.) laws in&out to be able to say which rights would be waived by merely getting into a car :)

    162. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by _merlin · · Score: 1

      In Australia, cyclists aren't supposed to ride on the footpath, so if they hit me while I'm walking, I knock them down and bend their spokes. Serves the mofos right. When I ride my bicycle, I obey the law, and show consideration for other road users. I expect other cyclists to do the same.

    163. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Thanks -- you've reminded me of why I don't leave Austin unless the destination is out-of-state.

      And me why I have no interest in ever visiting Texas.

    164. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That means each "segment" is what, 1000 yards? You should be able to walk that in ten minutes. Hardly worth tucking your trousers in your socks.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    165. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

      This is why some cities have started passing laws that say, in effect, that bicyclists can treat stop signs as yield signs.

      That sounds so completely crazy that I'm going to indulge (believe me, this is a rarity for me) in a rather trollish comeback -

      "Cite, please."

    166. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      I thought razor scooters are powered the old fashioned way - one foot planted on the thing and the other pushing off the ground.

    167. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the mere impression of a shoulder holster would be a deterrent, even on jerseys.

    168. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by YXdr · · Score: 1

      "Cite, please."

      That was easy.

      And no, it's not a crazy idea - the link gives some reasons.

    169. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Post that again when a cyclist kills a car driver in a collision.

    170. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Here in China everybody is riding ebikes with lead acid batteries that can go @50 kph with a full charge and cover @70km on a charge. The form factors are highly varied with some having pedals and looking like an industrial exercise bike and others (like mine) looking like a Honda 110cc motorbike. They are unsafe at almost any speed with dodgy brakes and wobbly steering, and often loaded with insane amounts of people, goods or both. Ahhh I love the Asian approach to safety. Anyway, the cost for my bike (which is in the top 25% in quality and power) was about $400 US dollars but closer to $300 after bargaining. My wife and 7 year old son ride it to and from school almost every day, but then This Is China!

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    171. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by feepness · · Score: 1

      Of course we road on the rode! What, did you think we rowed?

    172. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Of course we road on the rode! What, did you think we rowed?

      Based on the smell, I was thinking you whoa'd your horse and painted yourself with woad.

      Pilgrim.

    173. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Yes, and people sticking their hands out the window trying to smack you on a high speed drive by, and attempting to side swipe you. This is worse in the FM 1960 area where I used to live as opposed to the Clear Lake area where I now live. The Clear Lake area has a bit higher class of people around.

      Isn't this exactly the sort of problem that the death penalty is retained for in Texas : driver slaps ass of cyclist ; police pull over driver ; roadside shootout ; driver's body suspended from nearby tree with a sign (or a paid-for advert for a bike shop - why not?) around his neck detailing his crime ; driver's family sold into slavery to pay cyclist's hospital fees.

      I thought Amerikka was the land of justice? When are you going to do something useful with your gun culture and your judicial murder?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    174. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      That means each "segment" is what, 1000 yards? You should be able to walk that in ten minutes. Hardly worth tucking your trousers in your socks.

      Six blocks he said -- I'd rather bike six blocks then walk it. Not only is it faster, but it's easier in my opinion then walking.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    175. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      He did, but he also said 3 miles. A mile is a mile (unless it's a nautical mile). Block isn't a standard unit of length in US, Imperial or SI. So whether it's faster or not depends on how big a block is.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    176. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by JimFive · · Score: 1

      When I'm cycling on the streets and come to a stop light or stop sign, I keep my place in line with the cars. It seems rude to ride past up to the intersection just to be passed again when the light changes. Due to the way the roads are on my route from work, I keep to the side for the stop sign and take the middle of the lane for the stop light. I will agree that riding the pedestrian walk (legal and mostly reasonable as no one walks in my town) is less safe as the car drivers don't yield right of way to someone on the sidewalk.
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    177. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Quantumstate · · Score: 1

      I thought similarly at first but I then realised that it is actually better for both of you if you go down the side. As long as you keep left the car can easily move past you when you start off rather than if you wait in line then the car behind you gets stuck. Also you are just wasting your time for no reason.

      The roads here are designed to be used in this way because there is a separate section for cyclists marked onto the road in front of where the cars have to wait at a junction. Also quite a few roads have cycle lanes on the left leading up to a junction so you can cycle along this past the cars.

    178. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      What rights are you waiving? The police still have to have a valid suspicion to stop you, which is the first one that comes to mind.

      In Pennsylvania, they have an 'implied-consent' clause. In that state, if you are driving, it suggests that you have already given consent to things such as drug tests when normally they would require some sort of court action.

      If you refuse a test, you lose your license automatically, even before you are convicted of any crime.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    179. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Bikes and cars can mix well. Vehicular cycling is the school of thought which argues to that effect; here in the US, classes teaching vehicular cycling techniques are available throughout the country (offered by the League of American Bicyclists), covering the techniques necessary to mix with other traffic in a safe, courteous and conscientious manner.

      Moreover, bike lanes are often manifestly unsafe; not only are they often undermaintained, but many of them encourage cyclists to ride in the "door zone" (the area in which an unexpectedly opening door from a parked car poses a threat), a common cause of accidents. In areas where parking is allowed in bike lanes, frequent lane changes in and out of the bike lane to avoid parked vehicles can also generate unnecessary risk.

    180. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There's no way a vehicle that goes 30-40km/h slower than the traffic around it can be safe, sorry. It's not about visibility or predictability.

    181. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Woe betide a pedestrian who gets in the way of a cyclist though! For some reason respect stops at two wheels.

      For the a**holes who got into cycling by way of sport, perhaps. Those of us who ride for transportation tend to follow vehicular cycling rules, and don't appreciate being tarred with the same brush.

    182. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      You can claim that it's impossible -- but the accident rate per million miles does not lie.

      Members of the League -- which teaches vehicular cycling -- are vastly safer than uneducated cyclists (who are more likely to do things like dodge on and off of sidewalks rather than safely using the road).

    183. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Let me add -- if your theory were correct, the most common cause of accidents would tend to involve a car approaching from the rear. In only 3.9% is this the case.

    184. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      (I was a bit careless in this claim -- this 3.9% is after excluding causes relating to visibility and predictability, which you claim to be not at issue).

    185. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Let me add -- if your theory were correct, the most common cause of accidents would tend to involve a car approaching from the rear.

      Not at all. I suspect (didn't look at the website, just at the link you gave) that the most common accident involves car turning right and ramming a cyclist moving forward in the bicycle lane (or on the right side of the road if there isn't one).

      The problem with speed difference is indirect. If cyclists are on the road with other cars, they can't help but slow the traffic down, and get drivers agitated (I've been on both sides of this - as a driver following a cyclist on a one-lane road with double solid line, and as a cyclist in a similar situation when I got lost and didn't know any other route to get out; both times it was extremely frustrating). The drivers will then try to change lanes aggressively, which doesn't exactly help safety.

    186. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      I suspect (didn't look at the website, just at the link you gave) that the most common accident involves car turning right and ramming a cyclist moving forward in the bicycle lane (or on the right side of the road if there isn't one).

      This is indeed one of the most common causes (excluding cyclist misbehavior -- riding without lights at night, riding on the wrong side of the street, and dodging on and off sidewalks), and is a problem which can be quite effectively addressed through lane positioning and, in those cases where lane positioning is inadequate, emergency maneuvering (there's a reason the League teaches the quickturn; even when this particular accident isn't avoidable, its severity can be mitigated).

      The problem with speed difference is indirect. If cyclists are on the road with other cars, they can't help but slow the traffic down, and get drivers agitated (I've been on both sides of this - as a driver following a cyclist on a one-lane road with double solid line, and as a cyclist in a similar situation when I got lost and didn't know any other route to get out; both times it was extremely frustrating). The drivers will then try to change lanes aggressively, which doesn't exactly help safety.

      Right again -- but there are solutions here.

      As a cyclist, one can ride in a position which doesn't allow drivers to make risky passing attempts, and then pull over to allow passing when a safe opportunity to do so presents itself, just as a conscientious motorist does when holding up faster traffic on a narrow country road.

      The narrow-one-lane-road scenario is a fairly narrow corner case, and (most often) avoidable regardless; I'd hardly use it to argue about the safety of cycling in general.

    187. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This is indeed one of the most common causes (excluding cyclist misbehavior -- riding without lights at night, riding on the wrong side of the street, and dodging on and off sidewalks), and is a problem which can be quite effectively addressed through lane positioning and, in those cases where lane positioning is inadequate, emergency maneuvering (there's a reason the League teaches the quickturn; even when this particular accident isn't avoidable, its severity can be mitigated).

      Well, yes. As a driver, I'd much prefer if the bike lane was actually separate from the road, or at least physically divided so that one can't drive onto it easily. When bike lanes are not separated, cars tend to cut corners early through them on right turns, treating them much as an extra curb car lane; there's a place like that along the road I drive to work daily, and I see this virtually every time, quite often more than once. So as a cyclist, you don't really know when the guy on your left is going to start turning. If it's separated all the way up to the actual turn, driver is more predictable, and he is also forced to make a sharper turn, meaning he'll slow down more.

      Of course, fully separate lanes are even better, and I'm all for funding those. And they seem to be heading that way here in Vancouver lately.

      The narrow-one-lane-road scenario is a fairly narrow corner case, and (most often) avoidable regardless

      It's not fundamentally different in the case of two (three, ...) lanes with moderately heavy traffic. If one lane in such situation is "blocked off" by a cyclist, it will be treated much the same (with added bonus of cars trying to merge into the other lane hastily, etc).

    188. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move to Austin.

    189. Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      [...] Of course, fully separate lanes are even better, and I'm all for funding those. And they seem to be heading that way here in Vancouver lately.

      Mmmph. I like fully separate lanes. I also like having the ability to negotiate traffic when I need to, and having the drivers of other vehicles aware of (and practiced in) the habits necessary to behave safely around me... and while there might be a (very) few places where separated facilities are available, forcing cyclists onto them (by unjustified fear, or force of law, or social stigma, or any other means) makes unmotorized transport that much less practical, and is thus harmful to society as a whole.

      I live in Austin. We're no Portland or Boulder, but cyclists are expected on the roads and our rights as fellow road users generally respected (even if in some cases that respect is a bit grudging); as a general rule, I wave to motorists when making eye contact, and it feels like at least half of them (when stopped at intersections, or waiting to pull out, or such) wave back. I've had a few near left hooks in cases where my speed was misjudged by the other party, but never has anyone attempted anything so rash as cutting me off to then turn in in front of me as you describe... in part because I keep a close eye on closing traffic (helmet mirror) and, in cases where such an action appears likely, position myself on the left side of my lane to allow the following vehicle to execute its right turn behind me rather than in front of me.

      Excessive reliance on segregated facilities is harmful in that they result in cyclists who have little experience sharing the road (and an expectation that areas they can't reach using such facilities are off-limits to them), drivers who have little experience sharing the road, and both parties involved learning not to expect to interact with the other. This experience is critical; when the number of cyclists in a given population doubles, the accident rate for any individual member goes down by about 30%... but cyclists who don't share the roads presumably don't contribute to this effect.

      It's not fundamentally different in the case of two (three, ...) lanes with moderately heavy traffic. If one lane in such situation is "blocked off" by a cyclist, it will be treated much the same (with added bonus of cars trying to merge into the other lane hastily, etc).

      Let me be clear: I time my commute and select my route to avoid heavy traffic. Being downtown (and thus in the same direction as rush-hour traffic) is a significant strike against a potential employer when I'm looking for work (if that employer expects traditional office hours), and being opposite that direction or being flexible on hours is in my view a substantial benefit. This policy began long before I started commuting by bicycle.

      That said, on the one part of my (longer, more scenic) commute route where I regularly encounter moderate traffic, that traffic is slow enough (by virtue of the same bottlenecks causing it to accumulate) that I'm not impeding it at all. (I don't find myself regularly blocking other traffic from being able to pass cleanly on the shorter route with the faster roads either, on account of the aforementioned planning with respect to timing and direction -- but as starting and ending my day unstressed is one of my goals, I use that route only when on my electric bike [thus reducing the speed delta] and in a hurry).

      Anyhow, getting back to the point of contention here, on whether sharing the road with heavier and faster vehicles is safe -- vehicular cycling is mile-for-mile moderately more dangerous than driving a car (cycling as a whole is considerably more dangerous, but when considering only vehicular cyclists one can factor out accidents caused by running without lights, on the wrong side of the street, etc), but much safer than walking or (if looking at fatality rate as opposed to accident rate as a whole) driving a motorcy

  2. Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Rix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The price point for these seems way off.

    1. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it is a power-assist, not a power-drive system, hence you don't need a license, at least in Japan.

    2. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by benjamindees · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, you can get a Honda Metropolitan for less than $2000. It's less eco-friendly, but also less gay looking, more useful and has a higher resale value. The downside I guess is that you can't really get away with riding a scooter on the sidewalk.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    3. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Or more to the point: why not just get a moped?

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by cduffy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For one thing -- exercise!

      I own a 2009 Optibike 850 -- an expensive toy, sure, but my pride and joy. It gets me to work and back in less time than driving followed by a gym session would require (and much less time than taking an unassisted bike both ways, which I've started doing on occasion as well), while being great exercise -- the way the Opti is geared encourages the rider to pedal along with a cadence in the 85-90 area, and my cholesterol and waistline are both way down since I dropped the car from commute duty.

      I also like being able to take my ride inside the office with me rather than needing to fight for parking. (Motorcycle parking is close to the building too, so not a big deal when I ride my scooter... but getting a chance to work out on my way to and from work makes all the difference in the world in terms of stress, and having the workout be part of my commute means I stay with it).

    5. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      a) They're relatively new and not a mass market product yet. Prices will come down. They're basically normal bicycles with a hub motor and a battery. You can DIY if you want: Kits are available on eBay.
      b) Electric bicycles are almost silent.
      c) No license requirement (don't know if this is the case in the USA, but in Germany they're in the same group as bicycles if they only apply engine power when the cyclist pedals.)
      d) Motorcycles need gas, e-bicycles need electricity. You can make your own electricity, but killing dinosaurs to make gas is bit of a challenge.

    6. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Calinous · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are places where you can drive a low power scooter without a license, but you still have to register it and pay taxes for it.
          However, bikes are not registered nor taxed.

    7. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by DeadRat4life · · Score: 0

      because these are for people that want to look green by riding their bike without actually having to ride it. I prefer getting around on my own power, not a engine, and certainly not a motor attached to a bike with inefficient geometry.

    8. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      A high-end bicycle costs you around E1000,-. This including baggage rack, lighting, locks and in-hub for the gears and dynamo. Adding some batteries to it, it becomes a bit more expensive (E1500,- I think). They've been around for years and replaced the bicycle with combustion engine.

    9. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      The price point for these seems way off.

      The $500 ones seem prices just fine. Even the $2500 ones aren't out of line if you compare them to regular bike prices these days (for nice bikes). Bikes be expensive nowadays. :(

      And if you're complaining about the prices and comparing them to motorcycles, don't forget the insurance, gas and maintenance for that motorcycle. And the parking. And try pricing the motorcycle itself while you're at it.

    10. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Funny

      but also less gay looking

      So using something that will get you into shape is gay. Interesting.

      No wonder my ass is always so sore after my workouts. I thought it was because the seat isn't all that comfortable, but it turns out that apparently I'm actually taking a cock up my ass for hours on end.

    11. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Calinous · · Score: 1

      Also, two-stroke engines on motorcycles need oil-and-gasoline, might need maintenance, you can ride a bike when out of electricity but it's difficult to move a motorcycle with an empty tank, and so on.
            Cheap electric bikes are at the $499 price tag, which is the price for a nice non-electric bike

    12. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by wild_oscar · · Score: 1

      At $2,300, you better offer me something that work without pedaling! Why charging the price of a motorbike for a bicycle?

    13. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Builder · · Score: 1

      Thirteen THOUSAND dollars for a motorized bicycle? My high performance sports bike cost a fraction of that and I still had hard times justifying it as I mostly use it to commute.

    14. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may be a European viewpoint, but imho a regular bike gets you into shape. A bike with an electrical on it doesn't. I can't imagine a young person using such a bike. It's more meant for the elderly, for example if they'd have trouble going uphill...

    15. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This post is getting dangerously close to the actual topic here. Warning: you'd best get back on the "Houston's only safe for SUV's" thread pretty quick, or someone will hit you with a beer bottle.

    16. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Compared to sitting on a scooter/motorcycle, you'll get exercise on an electrical bicycle. Especially as they mostly come with electrical assist and don't just run on their own.

      That was my point. Even if it only means you'll get 25% of the workout you'll get on a regular bike, that's still a lot more calories burned than you'll get by just sitting on the scooter.

      And I don't know it's "meant for the elderly". Would I want the bike from Sanyo? No, I wouldn't - it doesn't fit my needs. Would I like electrical assist on my mountain bike? Yes, I would. Quite a lot of the hills around here are steep enough that I can't climb them on my own. Quite a lot of them are step enough that I can climb them for about ... 200 meters at a time before dying.

      The electrical assist would allow me much greater freedom in my exercise and excursions. Instead of being limited to taking a short 10 km run, I could do 20 or 30 km and get pretty much the same calorie burn.

    17. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      However, bikes are not registered nor taxed.... yet

      Just give them time, they will be.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    18. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      get a 900+ pound motorcycle. you'll get a workout. My upper body hurts for the first month riding starts every year. when you are moving around that beast and at every stoplight you have to steady it you get a workout.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    19. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      the last bike Lance Armstrong used in the Cali tour was only like $11k! Man if I had a bike that light I would have so much fun. Also if you ride all the time you can get pretty fast on a bike and not waste energy on batteries and a motor. I can chill at 20-25mph. If I'm pushing it I can hit 32+ on flat ground. Thats pretty good speed in a city area. Though most people will be rolling at like 12-15mph. Also we don't need to manufacture more batteries if we don't need to! They aren't the cleanest things to make.

      --
      Balderdash!
    20. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      For the same reason a sports car costs several times what a normal car costs.

      A £100 bike has a heavy steel frame, some useless suspension to make it look "cool", heavy steel wheels, clunky gears, cheap brakes etc. It's a toy, or a backup bike, not suitable for daily riding. If you do ride it daily the components won't last very long. (But if it's your child's toy hopefully they'll grow out of it first.)
      A £250 bike has a good quality steel frame, no useless suspension, good wheels, good gears, good brakes etc. It's a useful bike for cycling to work every day.
      A £500 bike has a lightweight aluminium frame, wheels, etc, etc. It's nicer to ride than the £250 bike, and it good if you cycle to work and also cycle for the sake of cycling.
      A £1000 bike has a carbon fibre frame, fancy wheels, etc, etc. It's less practical for cycling to work -- you can't attach a rack for your bag, or mudguards, and you'll have to be careful where you lock it. The wheels are very thin, so you have to look out for bumps in the road.
      (Alternatively, a £1000 bike is built for cycling the length of the country, and is very tough while still being light, specially constructed to balance well even with 80kg of extra stuff loaded on it. Or, it's built to fold up into the space of a wheel in 30 seconds so you can take it with you everywhere. Or, you can ride it down a mountain stream without it breaking. I think the NHS spends about £6000 on their ambulance-bicycles, but they need to be lightweight, carry loads, and withstand cycling down (and up!) flights of steps etc.)

      I have a ~£500 bike. It's strong and lightweight, and has nice components (e.g. disc brakes, which are much better than rim brakes, and still work when its wet), and it makes cycling to work more enjoyable than on a cheap bike. I don't really consider myself a cyclist, it's just how I get around. (Also, a 1-year ticket to use the train to work would have cost £630, so I was quite happy to spend that much.)

    21. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Compare to the price of an unmotorized downhill racing bike using the same class of components (never mind the custom frame), and you'll see that it's not out of line. High-end bicycle parts are built not just for performance (as is your sports bike), but also to minimize weight; the premium that comes with that latter goal is significant. (Also, $13K is a bit more than the 850X ran... I think that's what they're charging for the 850R now? The German-made Speedhub and associated parts run in the area of $2K or so, so there's a substantial difference in component costs between the models; that Speedhub, however, has a design lifetime of 100km with little maintenance beyond oil changes, and they tend to last well beyond that lifetime; 10 years into production, not a single unit had failed yet.

      There's value for that money -- the focus on high-end parts buys robustness -- including suitability for offroad use, which most ebikes lack -- amazing handling, longer range (over 100 miles between both internal and external batteries, with an energy cost for that 100 miles of less than $.30) and a 20lb weight advantage on most other fully suspended ebikes. Really worth it? The money would be doing me a lot of good had I put it to principal on my mortgage, sure, but I'm healthier, happier... and as I said, it's a shiny toy. I could have bought plenty of vehicles (including many cheaper electric bikes) if I just wanted to get from point A to point B, but I had a tax return and a performance bonus, and I put them to use supporting an American business making a top-grade product with first-world parts, and in hindsight have no complaints.

    22. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      For lead-acid batteries, you're right -- China is having big problems disposing of all the cheap batteries from their electric bikes and scooters -- but for more modern chemistries, the environmental impact is lower and the useful lifetime longer.

      You might find the analysis here (comparing environmental impact of e-biking to other modes of transport, including human-power-only cycling, accounting for caloric intake and the environmental costs of the average first-world diet) interesting; likewise the one here.

    23. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure the 900 pound motorcycle will be great fun in the middle of the forest on muddy and sometimes swampy surface, not to mention how much people will love it when I am going along a trail that passes about 15 feet from their bedroom. Did I mention that I quite enjoy riding in the middle of the night?

      And I'm sure I won't be scaring off animals either. And it's not like bird song or the wind in the trees is anywhere near as calming as the constant roar of an engine pumping out 100 dB of noise. Nor does it smell anywhere near as nice as when you've stopped in the middle of nowhere to enjoy the view - I mean, what is the point of smelling wild flowers and raw nature when you could be smelling burned oil, gasoline and hot rubber

      What next - will people recommend that I buy a nice off road car instead of running shoes? What is the obsession with having everything engine powered? If I am completely broke, I can still take my bike out for a ride - even if it has electrical assist. I can only do that with a motorcycle or car until it runs out.

    24. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      How do you deal with the fact that you have to work a full day after swating in the morning?

      Do you take a bath at work, or is it not that bad?

      I'm seriously curious, because I'm considering taking the bike regularly (though not every day), but the logistics of having to bathe at work discourage me. For one, I'd always have to have a change of clothes at work.

    25. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by dargaud · · Score: 1
      Interesting thread. I've been biking to school/work regularly ever since I was a kid, but I just moved 25km away from work, but there's also 800m of altitude gain, so that's a bit much for a daily commute. I've been pondering the electric bike option, but until I looked at your model, the only ones I could find were city bikes, where I'd like to come down the mountain trails in the morning and electric ride on the road on way back. One problem is of course the price of your toy. But also the fact that in my country electric bikes have a hardware speed limit of 25km/h, which is not enough IMO to ride back. Yours is the first one I see with a claimed speed limit higher than that.

      So my question is: can it go 25km uphill (+800m) at speeds above 25km/h on a single charge ? And can it ride down any mountain trail without breaking ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    26. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      This is the major factor that impedes me too. I could ride a bike to work, and would enjoy it. However, I do not want to build a sweat and than have to work for 8 hours.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    27. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I solved that two ways:

      1. I have a set of waterproof pannier bags that fit on a rack over my rear wheel. The whole rig cost about $100 or maybe a little less. Both pannier bags are actually heavy drybags like I use when kayaking, so they're waterproof and very rugged. There's enough room for a change of clothes and a few other sundries on one side, and my laptop and a few other things on the other. The weight certainly slows me down, and it makes a big difference on my 15-mile one way commute, but I can easily carry whatever I need to, even in the rain, without worrying about it. Another bonus - the bags are bright orange with white reflectors on them, so they've extremely visible.

      When I get to work, the bags just clip off the bike rack in a couple of seconds and I carry them in.

      I also have a little underseat "trunk" that has my repair gear and my rear light is affixed to that, so I can remove my headlamp, cyclocomputer, and "trunk" and throw all three in one of the panniers. That way, nothing of value is left on the bicycle itself, and the bike is a $300 Specialized el cheapo courier bike, so I'm not much of a target for theft.

      2. Last summer, I drove my car to work on Monday with the bike on the back and all the gear I needed for a week in the trunk. Then I rode my bike back and forth and left the car at work, and drove the car home Friday. I only had to carry in my meals for each day. The advantage is that I can use my car to get to meetings across town, etc. This is not a good idea in some areas, and not all employers are happy with it, but it works out well for me. It also allowed me to have a serious repair kit on both sides of my commute. Plus, if the weather turns REALLY bad, I can drive the car home.

      My workplace has decent shower facilities. We don't have lockers here at work, but I found that a couple of pins will hang my towel in my cubicle and it dries pretty well, and a plastic bag keeps my dirty clothes from getting too smelly at work.

      I also bought a towel that is about the same color as the cube walls so it doesn't really get noticed by the Cubicle Gestapo. So at least I don't need to haul a towel back and forth. :)

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    28. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been interested in doing this off and on but my biggest problem (no pun intended) is finding a bike that can handle my size and could possibly be outfitted with power assist. I am 400lbs and 6'6". This represents a rather difficult problem when trying to find a bike that is structurally tough enough. All this and I would prefer to spend less than a decent used car.

    29. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      or just get a $2300 bicycle. You'd be surprised how much farther and faster you can go on a carbon fiber frame with good componetry and high end ceramic bearings. Yeah yeah, it's the rider, not the bike. Lance Armstrong might be able to smoke me on any old beach cruiser, but i know it's a hell of a lot easier for normal people to ride on a really nice bike.

    30. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by maxume · · Score: 1

      A small emergency tank with a pint of gasoline in it will get you an awful long ways on most motorcycles.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    31. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      How do you deal with the fact that you have to work a full day after sweating in the morning?

      It might not be that bad -- except that I live in Texas, so it pretty much always is. :)

      The showers in my employer's facilities are free for folks who cycle to work (otherwise they require a gym membership, which is something like $30/month), and include dispensers for soap, conditioner and shampoo. As a result, I shower at the office rather than at home.

    32. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      get a 900+ pound motorcycle. you'll get a workout. My upper body hurts for the first month riding starts every year. when you are moving around that beast and at every stoplight you have to steady it you get a workout.

      Out of curiosity, what the hell are you doing to get such an upper body workout on your bike? When you move the bike you move it exactly like a bicycle, hold the handlebars and keep it straight. My wife can move a bike like that. When you're at a stoplight keep it steady with your legs by keeping your ass on the seat and your feet on the ground. As long as the bike isn't more than about five degrees off upright it doesn't require that much force to keep it upright.

      Disclosure: 15 years riding experience on 100cc to 1500cc bikes.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    33. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      So my question is: can it go 25km uphill (+800m) at speeds above 25km/h on a single charge? And can it ride down any mountain trail without breaking?

      Hmm. I typically go around 45kph on flat ground, but haven't paid much attention to measuring my speed on an incline. It's a shame Garmin Training Center lacks a histogram function -- it would make it easier to give you a hard-and-fast answer on average speed for a given grade.

      Graphing speed and grade for my historical commutes over time, however -- my impression is that the speed you're looking for shouldn't be a problem if you keep the bike in fast mode and pedal along with it. With respect to range, the company prefers to quote it in time rather than distance -- the official number is 50 minutes at full throttle in fast mode or two and a half hours in economy mode, but I find the official fast-mode numbers to be very conservative (perhaps they were measured with no pedaling at all) and the actual range much longer.

      We have several folks on the Optibike Owners Group who ride offroad, some under demanding circumstances, and the Opti handles it well -- one of the advantages of using higher-end shocks. We've had only one frame get warrantied that I'm aware of from reports on the list, and that was a manufacturing fault with aesthetic impact rather than a full failure. The group is open to the public; feel free to ask questions there (in particular, it wouldn't hurt to see if other folks can provide more data on average speed going uphill).

      The other off-road electric bikes you might look at are the Australian-made Stealth Fighter and Stealth Bomber; I don't know their range (which will be shorter than the Opti, as they require more power and are considerably heavier), but they're very fast (faster than the Opti and less street-legal, being built specifically for offroading) and very robust.

      I've had some mechanical problems, but those surrounded the Crank Brothers Iodine wheels which Opti offered as part of the heavy duty package when I purchased my bike; I understand that my experience was unique among Opti's customers, and that troublesome wheelset has been taken off the table following my experience (my existing set was replaced with a different one under warranty).

      Best of luck!

    34. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by dasunt · · Score: 1

      However, bikes are not registered nor taxed.

      Cool! I'm off to tell my local bicycle shop that they don't have to charge sales tax.

      Hmmm, that brings up an interesting question -- a bicycle requires a routine amount of maintenance. A bicycle also has a very minimal amount of wear on the road. I wonder if the sales tax charged on such essentials as new chains, cassettes, chain oil, tires, brakes, etc are enough to offset any wear on the roads.

      I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.

    35. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Doing a bit more research -- if you want to ride on any mountain trail, and have more than enough range to do your commute even without pedaling, the Stealth Bomber may be the bike for you. The Fighter doesn't have the range you're looking for. The Bomber is way heavier than the Opti or the Fighter, but it meets your range requirement, your speed requirement, and while an Opti is suitable for off-road single track, the Fighter and Bomber are built for heavier jumping and (while they're not as energy-efficient and have a much higher center of gravity) don't have the Opti's "but-I-might-scratch-the-paint!" factor going on.

      They're all fun rides, and each have their strengths -- one of the folks quoted under the testimonials group on Stealth's page is an Optibike owner, and his full writeup elsewhere makes it clear he finds all three to have their own distinct niche.

    36. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Calinous · · Score: 1

      The sales tax you're talking about is applied equally to truck tires and ice cream, and this sale tax doesn't go directly to road maintenance. A part of all your taxes go (depending on the current budget) to road maintenance (but the sales tax is not specifically directed to road maintenance, as it would be a - let's say - fuel tax).
            However, with a a car you have to pay a yearly "property tax" to your local authorities (well, maybe in the USA it's different), no matter that your car is legally allowed to drive or not. You don't have to pay this "property tax" for a bicycle, even though the value of some bicycles is higher than the value of some cars.

    37. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the comments and suggestions, I'll look it up to try to do an informed purchase...

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    38. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      A custom framebuilder can generally help -- the guy here in town we talked with about a bike for my wife warranties his frames for the rider's weight at the time the frame was ordered and designed plus whatever the cargo capacity is for that bike (which I believe for the non-Xtracycle models is about 130 pounds or so). He uses high-grade steel, which is a bit out of favor these days (a lot of bikes tend to use aluminum)... but steel gets flexy long before it breaks, a much better failure mode than many of the lighter/stiffer materials.

      Incidentally, one of Opti's marquee customers is DeMarcus Ware of the Dallas Cowboys. He's a big guy, and makes his bike look tiny -- but it still looks like he got a pretty decent fit. (That said -- he got a limited-edition bike with a custom paint job that at full price would have been well out of the "less than a decent used car" range).

      Best of luck!

    39. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only losers ride a road bike that pumps out 100+DB of noise.

      Now if I'm going offroad, I'm taking my dirtbike, and that is fun as all get out, tearing up the trails jumping the hills... It rocks to be on a nice dirtbike. But mine weighs only 220 pounds and is easily thrown about, yet it has enough HP to wheel stand on command.

      As for smelling of leather, sweat and exhaust fumes... Yeah that does rock. Tasting the dirt and dust, prying the squished chipmunks out of the wheel spokes... YEAH!!!

      P.S. try riding your bike 300 miles. and If I'm completely broke, I can siphon gas out of cars.

    40. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Try that with a 15-30mph constant crosswind plus lots of sloped sideways streets. I have that here daily during riding months.

      Just my 35 years experience riding 50cc to 5700cc (Started on a Honda 50 at 5 years old, currently on a V8 Boss Hoss, soon to be adding a Yamaha FJR1300)

      Try some of the top heavy bikes, more than 1 deg off and you need strength to keep it up at a stop.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    41. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      At least here in .tx.us, while gas tax and vehicle registrations pay for highways, city streets are paid for by everyone -- cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike -- from the city's general revenue fund.

    42. Re:Why not just buy a motorcycle? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      because these are for people that want to look green by riding their bike without actually having to ride it. I prefer getting around on my own power, not a engine, and certainly not a motor attached to a bike with inefficient geometry.

      1. Please see my first post in the thread. There's plenty of exercise involved -- my heart rate is typically around 170ish during my commute regardless of which bike I'm on, but the e-bike is fast enough to make it practical to commute with daily.
      2. "Inefficient geometry" is a matter of which bike you're on. Mine puts the motor in the bottom bracket, and the battery low in the frame just above it; it's beautifully balanced.
      3. The e-bike is plenty green. Going 100 miles on $.13 of electricity (and that's after taking into account charging losses) is massively greener than doing that distance on $10.00 of gasoline, or even moving a 2000lb electric car.
  3. 2300? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I paid less than that for a used motorcycle *shrug*
    No thanks.

  4. best quote by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm pretty skeptical about the ebike thing, I'm sure some people will find a use for it, but this quote from the article was eye-opening about cultural differences:

    In China, riding an electric bike conveys professional achievement, even a certain degree of wealth. People in the United States, said Ed Benjamin, an independent consultant in the bike business, don't quite know whether these bikes are fashionable. The e-bike is "an ambiguous statement," Mr. Benjamin said.

    I'm not entirely sure what the cultural significance of that is, but it must mean something.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:best quote by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, but the only bikes I could see on that site all appeared to be "Girl/Female" bikes with a step through design.

      Personally the whole concept of the "Male" and "Female" designs boggle my mind, why is it that one with the balls gets the one with the bar? (I understand the whole dress thing on the female bike design, which is where I'm lead to believe it came from..)

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    2. Re:best quote by JanneM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Personally the whole concept of the "Male" and "Female" designs boggle my mind, why is it that one with the balls gets the one with the bar?

      It's a local cultural thing. We had that distinction in Sweden too, while here in Japan everyone uses step-through or halfway-bar type bikes (like mountain bikes) for normal everyday use. High-bar bicycles are only for racing bikes used by people dressed in bright nylon tights and oddly-colored sunglasses.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:best quote by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is a direct correlation between the number of bicycle injuries and whether the bicycle is a "male" bike (with a top bar) or "female" (step-through). Of course the relationship is not perfectly linear, because there are other kinds of injuries too, such as head injuries from falling off. But the fact is that the "ladies" design, while not structurally as stiff, is safer all around.

    4. Re:best quote by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      people dressed in bright nylon tights and oddly-colored sunglasses.

      *shudder*, that should be banned!

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    5. Re:best quote by Calinous · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The ebike thing is perfect when you have some steep hills on the way - instead of chugging along at a walking pace and getting to the top all sweaty, you let the electric motor work, go faster and aren't tired and sweaty at the end.
            Also, the assist from the electric motor allows you to go faster and farther, so you're able to use it in more cases than usual. You can also carry more weight (shopping trip) without effort.

    6. Re:best quote by Calinous · · Score: 1

      The "male" models (the diamond frame) is stronger and more rigid for the same mass. On the other side, many MTB frames (even dedicated "male" frames) have a lower horizontal bar (or an oblique top bar)

    7. Re:best quote by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      I can attest to that, Racing Bike + Too Short for it + Bad Shoes + Pot Hole = crying 12 year old!

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    8. Re:best quote by Animaether · · Score: 1

      I ride a 'female' design bike - it's much easier to get up on / off of, which is rather useful when you're doing any off-roading and need a speedy dismount (I prefer my bike crashing without me on it). Just watch some off-road biking accidents footage.. guys trying to jump off their bikes only to have their foot get caught behind that crossbeam. funny stuff.

      The only -practical- downside I've found is that you can't rest it against lightposts/thin trees - it'll just fall over :)

      Overall, though, the 'male' model is pretty much going extinct outside of sports bikes (be that the aforementioned off-road or tour-de-france style skinnies)

      That said - there's certainly male models of e-bikes;
      http://www.ezeebike.com/Forte_product.htm (seriously slow website)
      http://www.sparta.nl/NL/Fiets.aspx?Id=4414442 (change the 'Dames' dropdown to 'Heren')

    9. Re:best quote by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      You can carry a girl on the horizontal bar. (and on the bagage rack and if you're really skillful you can add one on the steer)

    10. Re:best quote by plasticsquirrel · · Score: 1

      In most places those bikes are cheap even for the average person. Only the truly poor people would have any problems getting one, as they are only $200. It's cars that are the real status symbol, and people are so proud that they won't even buy a used car. The only acceptable car is a brand new car (think $50,000-75,000 in equivalent U.S. value), often a nice BMW or similar luxury European car. They will even borrow money from family and friends, but usually not a bank (that's looked down upon), all so they can buy something new and special to show off. The way cars and clothes are used as status symbols here is terrible. If you want to see vanity at its worst, come to China and look at the rich people. I don't even feel comfortable around the middle class people, really.

      --
      Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
    11. Re:best quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've lived in China for 5 years and these things are pretty much standard for anyone (hundreds of millions of people...not kidding) who doesn't have a car or needs the extra push of a real motor bike.

            It's a little funny to see how far usa is behind the times.

    12. Re:best quote by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Funny

      >> people dressed in bright nylon tights and oddly-colored sunglasses.

      > *shudder*, that should be banned!

      Agreed ... oddly-coloured sunglasses are a blight on society, and should be banned!

      Or ... ray-banned?

    13. Re:best quote by Calinous · · Score: 1

      To protect the aluminium frame and the paint work, I'm resting my bike against posts/trees by the saddle or by the rear wheel, not by the top bar. And even if my bike is having a lowered and oblique top bar (Focus Dirt Decision 2.9), I keep the saddle low and mount/dismount in the "classic" way.

    14. Re:best quote by Herve5 · · Score: 1

      very interesting, all the more for electric bicycles where mass is somehow less important... would you have some references?

      --
      Herve S.
    15. Re:best quote by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I do not. I read this recently, but I do not recall the source, and a quick Google search did not turn one up. But I do know the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and an informal poll; I am not generally swayed by casual news reports of correlation, and I doubt I would have remembered if it were such.

      But if I recall correctly, the correlation was between bike design (top bar/step through) and injuries in general, not just groin injuries. Surprisingly, the top bar seemed to be the cause of other injuries as well.

      I wish I had more information for you. If you are that interested, maybe an internet search of more than a couple of minutes will find what you are looking for.

    16. Re:best quote by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this is what Jane Q. Public was thinking of.

    17. Re:best quote by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Why must it mean something?

    18. Re:best quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a direct correlation between the number of bicycle injuries and whether the bicycle is a "male" bike (with a top bar) or "female" (step-through)

      [citation needed]

    19. Re:best quote by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      The one with the bar has a more rigid frame, and is therefore a better bike. The more rigid the frame is, the more efficient the transfer of energy onto the asphalt (you waste less energy bending your frame).

      Women occasionally wear a dress, which is why an adaptation to the optimal design was made. Unfortunately, this means they waste slightly more energy (both due to wind resistance that lifts their dress/skirt and because of the slightly less rigid frame).

      If you occasionally hit your balls on that bar, you shouldn't be biking at all (or register for the Darwin Awards straight away). I bike every day, for the last 25 yrs, always on one of those with the bar, and I never hit my balls on it. Ever.

    20. Re:best quote by kinnell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is it just me, but the only bikes I could see on that site all appeared to be "Girl/Female" bikes with a step through design. Personally the whole concept of the "Male" and "Female" designs boggle my mind, why is it that one with the balls gets the one with the bar? (I understand the whole dress thing on the female bike design, which is where I'm lead to believe it came from..)

      I'm pretty sure it's from the days when women wore long skirts. It would be impossible to mount a "male" bicycle without showing some inappropriate leg and getting the petticoat all tangled in the back wheel. The "male" design makes a lot more sense from a structural perspective, so would have been the norm for trouser wearing men.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    21. Re:best quote by TBoon · · Score: 1

      Unless number of each kind of bike sold/used is taken into account, this would be obvious and expected. Seems to me that there are way more "male" bikes sold than "female" ones. And the "female" designs tend to be made for more "gentle" usage, while all high-speed or off-roading bikes tend to be of the "male" designs, where injuries more easily become large enough to register...

    22. Re:best quote by westlake · · Score: 1

      I understand the whole dress thing on the female bike design, which is where I'm lead to believe it came from.

      The safety bicycle became popular and affordable in the 1880s and 1890s.

      The "dress thing" was a serious barrier to women who wanted to engage in any active sport. The Prairie Pioneer

    23. Re:best quote by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No, that wasn't it but it is certainly interesting.

    24. Re:best quote by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I thought of this myself. The fact that one style is sold more than the other won't affect a correlation, but the fact that more of one style is used for more extreme sports certainly would. Not having the original material at hand, I can't say honestly whether that was taken into account.

    25. Re:best quote by Sancho · · Score: 1

      It likely has to do with how the bike was used and how safe the rider was trying to be. People with the top bar are more likely to be male, and males are more likely to take chances than females.

      There's a similar correlation with cars. Men are more likely to be in severe accidents, whereas women are more likely to be in fender-benders.

    26. Re:best quote by need4mospd · · Score: 1

      Yeeeeeaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!

    27. Re:best quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a cultural difference.

      In China, bike -> e-bike. In United States, auto -> e-bike.

    28. Re:best quote by Zerth · · Score: 1

      I can think of a few times where a tumble turned into a bad fall because I couldn't get away from the bike.

      On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'd rather have risked a fractured tibia instead of a displaced kneecap.

    29. Re:best quote by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Nobody on here is going to be taking 3 girls home on a bike.

      They'd die of a heart-attack first, either from the effort or the anticipation.

    30. Re:best quote by danerthomas · · Score: 1

      The position and angle of the top tube are a factor in the overall structural rigidity and strength-to-weight ratio of the frame, but not to the same extent as the configuration of the intersection of the top tube, seat tube and seat stays. Simply lowering the rearmost attachment of the top tube creates more standover space, but it also creates a significant bending moment in the middle of the seat tube that does not exist with a more conventional design. A mixte configuration fixes that problem at the expense of extra weight and complexity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-through_frame Pretend that you are a mechanical engineer next time you look at it and the reasoning becomes clearer.

    31. Re:best quote by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Nobody on here is going to be taking 3 girls home on a bike.

      This is slashdot, nobody here is going to be taking 1 girl home on a bike, limo, car, or bus.

    32. Re:best quote by supermank17 · · Score: 1

      I believe the reason behind the step-through / low bar bicycle was originally to allow women to mount and ride bicycles while wearing skirts or dresses.
      The reason you don't (generally) see that design in men's bikes, is that the design is less stiff and strong than a traditional frame. You also never see the step-through design on a racing bicycle for the same reason, regardless of whether the bike is designed for a female or male.
      I did notice while I was in Germany that nearly every commuter bike had the step-through design, both for male and female (although they used oversized tubing on the bike to add strength). It makes sense as well; the bike doesn't need to be super light or stiff for performance, and the convenience of not having to swing your log over the bar is handy when you're carrying groceries, or your laptop bag.

  5. Old by ZirconCode · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We had those here (Japan) for 5 years now, they're quite popular in rural areas or for shopping but otherwise everyone takes the train.

    1. Re:Old by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Train.

      A train would be nice. Coast to coast bullet trains would be awesome in the US. A Northern Route, a Southern Route, and some North and South bound routes. Heck, the Northern and Southern route could be the same trains making a big circle and the North and South bound routes could be smaller circles bridging the line. Amtrak is a joke, and we as Americans should take issue with the French having awesome train when we don't have one - we don't let them show us up on anything else, why do we allow them to do it on this?

      I think we could do it without spending much tax money at all if we just spend the tax money to clear the paper trail for private developers and investors to get in on the deal. Personally I would prefer a good high speed train setup over the airline industry.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    2. Re:Old by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      We had those here (Japan) for 5 years now, they're quite popular in rural areas or for shopping but otherwise everyone takes the train.

      In Germany, I'm sure many people would love to have something that they could take on and off the train, to make the medium-distance trips from station to destination. Traditional bikes are already a hassle and few carriages allow something like that.

      Folding bikes are often crap, scooters are too big, an electric folding bike might be popular here. Of course, getting everything down to size...

      Cars are a hassle and expensive to maintain and park. There just needs to be something that complements trains, not to replace them or anything.

      As for the states, the only real bicycling culture are in the biggest cities. Mass Transit is nearly non-existent outside of that or just more hassle than it's worth. It's better to buy a $2300 car than this for 99.999% of cases.

    3. Re:Old by Animaether · · Score: 1

      Folding bikes -are- often crap.. but only because people buy crap folding bikes.

      I see them in NL trains in a lot of varieties, thanks to folding bikes being allowed at all hours and at no extra charge (regular bikes only at an extra charge and only outside of rush hours)...
      - the cheap student: take an existing bike, cut the frame in half, weld industrial-strength door hinges to the two halves. Voila - 'folding bike'.
      - the noob: buy the bike that folds the smallest... which also has wheels not much larger than a pair of inline skates' wheels. Have fun pedaling and steering. Fail.

      Here's a pretty good one for a 'fair' price:
      http://www.foldingbikes.co.uk/dahon_roo.htm

      These are considered among the best still affordable options:
      http://www.brompton.co.uk/

      And here's an electric one:
      http://www.ezeebike.com/Quando_product.htm .. though that seems a bit like the 'cheap student' variety :)

      If it's a bit smaller, though, so that folded up it could still fit into the trunk of a car as well, it would be quite nice. Drive near where you need to go (if the train/bus can't take you there conveniently), park on the outskirts, take the bike to the exact place / a guarded bicycle parking place.

    4. Re:Old by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I see the expensive ones in London a lot, and I haven't really seen any cheap ones, but I think £1000 on a folding bike is either
      (a) no big deal, when you work in the City and earn more than that every week
      (b) good value, when you realise how much the alternative costs (e.g. a 1-year central London transport pass is just over £1000)
      (c) good value, since it means you can live somewhere much cheaper (bike-train-bike is obviously much, much quicker than walk/bus-train-tube-walk).

      At a rough guess, London has 5% folding bikes, 5% city bikes (hub gears, coming with a rack etc), 30% hybrid bikes with a rack+mudguards etc added, 30% cheap mountain bikes, 30% racing bikes (with lycra-clad rider). I guess the NL has a lot less of at least the last two groups?

      (London also has 4900% trains, tube, bus, car, taxi and walking.)

  6. Laziness! Now in disguise! by Engeekneer · · Score: 1

    So, this will mean people will sit on their assess, riding the electric bike and go "oh, that was some good exercise, now I can eat a tub of chocolate ice-cream since I burned all those calories". Then they bitch everywhere that they can't lose weight no matte rhow much they exercise.

    Not that I'm against electric bikes, that would make a 15km trip to work enjoyable, without too much sweat on the way there. But I fear laziness will win for most people.

    1. Re:Laziness! Now in disguise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nice stereotyping. What's wrong with laziness, anyway? One of the virtues of a good programmer.

    2. Re:Laziness! Now in disguise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell? A bicycle is firstly a cheap means of transport, and secondly a way to exercise while you get from point A to point B. This has just made the bicycle more economical. I'm sure that the people who need exercise would not bitch about not losing calories while cycling. It'd be like bitching that walking doesn't make you any fitter.

    3. Re:Laziness! Now in disguise! by ianezz · · Score: 1

      It's not just laziness: in the town where I live (northern Italy) half of the residential areas are on hills, while offices and factories are on the bottom of the valley, with level differences of 200-400m. Electric bycicles are quite popular among middle-aged people (and I'd say also younger ones), because they allow them to ride to work for the most part of the year. An healty man in its thirties has few reasons to buy an electric bike, but things change once you get older.

    4. Re:Laziness! Now in disguise! by cduffy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not all ebikes are built alike.

      I ride a mid-drive bike. The motor (built into the bottom bracket) is optimized to work with a rider pedaling with a cadence in the 85-90 range, and the bike just doesn't feel right unless you're working along with it. Indeed, one proponent of a competing product has made a point online of calling us "Optibike huffers", referring (I presume) to our tendency to be getting enough of a workout to be panting at the end of a ride. (My commutes are fast, and fun... but not by any means sweat-free; thankfully, work has showers).

      My heart rate is regularly in the 150-170 range for about 90 minutes a day while I'm riding -- which is pretty much where it should be for the kind of exercise I'm trying to get -- and the regime has my employer's health coach downright thrilled with my weight loss, lowered cholesterol, lowered resting heart rate, etc.

      So -- enough of the stereotyping, 'kay?

    5. Re:Laziness! Now in disguise! by hrvatska · · Score: 1

      If an ebike can increase a person's average speed by enough, it can be the difference between using a car and not using a car. I ride bike a lot recreationally (3 to 4 thousand miles/year) and I've considered getting an ebike. I live 15 miles from work in a largely rural area. I occasionally ride to work, but there are some large hills (500 to 600 feet vertical and 5% to 8% grade) on the way that cause my average speed to fall below 15 mph. This means the commute takes over an hour each way by bike. If a significant part of a ride consists of climbing, those climbs will drastically influence the average time of the ride. The fast downhill times don't influence the overall average nearly so much as the really slow uphills. If an ebike can significantly reduce my times uphill it could make riding into work a lot more practical. The commute is over some very bike friendly roads, it's just that it takes too much time to do regularly.

    6. Re:Laziness! Now in disguise! by Engeekneer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice stereotyping. What's wrong with laziness, anyway? One of the virtues of a good programmer.

      That is actually one statement I disagree with completely. Laziness is not a virtue. Code reuse is a virtue. If you're really lazy you do an ugly copy-paste, and leave it like that. Then you hardcode some stuff in there because it's easier. If you put some effort in it, you integrate it properly, which is more work, but it'll make it easier to maintain in the future. Laziness in all IT in general is bad, horrible in most cases. Put some effort in it and you reduce your workload.

    7. Re:Laziness! Now in disguise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bike savvy... employer's health coach... showers... sounds like my employer. Do you also have a really dopey HR department? Sorry, that's redundant, isn't it?

    8. Re:Laziness! Now in disguise! by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Not everyone is a fatass; I have trouble keeping weight on. The point of bicycling isn't excersize, it's transportation. Riding an ebike instead of a car saves money and reduces your carbon footprint.

      I walk to work when the weather permits, an ebike wouldn't help in my case. But If I worked farther away from home it would save money. I walk to the bar, too, an ebike wouldn't do any good there. You can get a DUI on a bicycle as easily as in a car.

    9. Re:Laziness! Now in disguise! by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Laziness is not a virtue.

      I'm convinced that excersize is bad for you! I see construction workers at the bar who do real WORK all day long, and guys ten years my junior look like they're ten years older than me. I like to walk, but if I walk too far my feet hurt the next day. If I'm forces into physical activity, my muscles hurt. I mean, come on -- pain is your body's way of telling you something's wrong. How can anything physically painful possibly be good for you?

      I do as little physical excersize as I can get away with. I don't like pain.

    10. Re:Laziness! Now in disguise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spelling is good for you, however.

  7. These are useless as transport by heffrey · · Score: 1

    Surely humans can produce well in excess of 250W. The problem with these things is poor handling due to battery weight and their inability to go uphill again down to weight. Once the hill is steep enough it's harder than without battery assistance! Wouldn't want to ride one of these in San Francisco!

    1. Re:These are useless as transport by pitterpatter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Probably Lance Armstrong can produce over 250W for much of a day. I on the other hand, break a sweat just thinking about it. A hardworking horse can keep up about 750W (definition of a horsepower). Imagine yourself and two buddies playing tug-of-war with a Clydesdale.

    2. Re:These are useless as transport by GAB_cyclist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That, in fact is not the problem. The e-bikes perform quite well on steep climbs and recharge a bit on the way down. The test has been done on the Mont Ventoux without problems. I do have concerns on how long it takes for the battery to lose it's full power capability. Six months? A year, maybe? And what will be the price of a new battery?

    3. Re:These are useless as transport by cduffy · · Score: 1

      The BMS programming makes a big difference in terms of how long the batteries last.

      My bike has a 3-year / 30,000 mile prorated warranty on its batteries -- but they do that largely because the battery is overprovisioned; it only charges to 80% of what the cells are rated for, and the battery management system also has a hard cutoff before allowing the voltage to drop too low. (Excessive battery temperature? A limit is placed on drain. Excessively low battery temperature? Needs to warm up before being able to charge; etc).

      Also, there's no regenerative braking -- regen tends to strain batteries substantially, provides relatively little benefit on a vehicle as light as a bike, and is incompatible with a freewheeling mid-drive design.

      I'm entirely happy with these limitations, as that kind of expected lifetime and warranty is next to unheard of in this space at present.

    4. Re:These are useless as transport by julesh · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Surely humans can produce well in excess of 250W.

      Yes. 250W is only "twice as much power as you provide" if you're taking it very easy. Based on measurements provided by the exercise bikes at my gym, I know I'm able to produce around a kilowatt for 5 minutes or so at a time, and can sustain 500W practically indefinitely.

      OTOH, there are regulatory reasons for the motor being 250W: at least here in the UK, you'd need a full drivers licence, annual vehicle inspection and all-around crash helmet to ride it if it were more powerful. It should also be designed so that the motor cannot make the bike go faster than 15mph.

    5. Re:These are useless as transport by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      An electric bike with only a 250-watt motor (the Eneloop) will not go up any mountain, much less Ventoux.

    6. Re:These are useless as transport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Average sustainable power output of a normal (non-overweight) person is about 100W. The hub motor only provides the 250W in bursts while accelerating from a stop or going uphill. The rest of the time, assist power is less than 100W, but still more than most people would put in pedaling.

    7. Re:These are useless as transport by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I know I'm able to produce around a kilowatt for 5 minutes or so at a time, and can sustain 500W practically indefinitely.

      Maybe you can beat Lance Armstrong and the others:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/weekinreview/24kola.html

      --
    8. Re:These are useless as transport by Calinous · · Score: 1

      Assuming that you weigh 100 kg (220 pounds) and climb stairs on 10-feet tall stories, you use 250W to climb a story every 12 seconds.
            With a bike, climbing a steep hill (12%) with some 3% rolling resistance, assuming you and your bike are 100 kg total (220 pounds), you can go on electric motor alone at 1.5 m/s (5.4 km/h, 3.3 mph, a fast walk)

            by the way, those ~750W were for a mine poney (the first steam power plants were used to supplement coal mine poneys), not for a full horse.

            As for climbing a steep hill on a bike at a fast walk speed, let me tell you that it's quite a bit of work, hot and sweaty (I'm talking about kilometer-long climbs)

    9. Re:These are useless as transport by bertok · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Surely humans can produce well in excess of 250W.

      Yes. 250W is only "twice as much power as you provide" if you're taking it very easy. Based on measurements provided by the exercise bikes at my gym, I know I'm able to produce around a kilowatt for 5 minutes or so at a time, and can sustain 500W practically indefinitely.

      OTOH, there are regulatory reasons for the motor being 250W: at least here in the UK, you'd need a full drivers licence, annual vehicle inspection and all-around crash helmet to ride it if it were more powerful. It should also be designed so that the motor cannot make the bike go faster than 15mph.

      Errr... according to this:

      Lance Armstrong can ride up the mountains in France generating about 500 watts of power for 20 minutes, something a typical 25-year-old could do for only 30 seconds. A professional hockey player might last three minutes and then throw up. (source)

      ...it sounds like you're either an olympic-level athlete... who reads slashdot... or your gym equipment is severely miscalibrated. I've tried those bikes at the gym, and 250W is
      my limit for a 10-15 minute stretch, and I'm by no means unhealthy. Are you sure those weren't imperial units? I know the UK has switched to metric, in theory, but I know some of you poms still get confused. 8)

    10. Re:These are useless as transport by kurthr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I call BS.
      Perhaps you're an elite cyclist, or someone is editing Wikipedia to make you look silly, but averaging anything like 500W for an hour (much less indefinitely) would make you the worlds best distance cyclist.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance

      Lance Armstrong near his peak was reputed to be capable of ~520W for 20min.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/weekinreview/24kola.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

      Ok... so your gym exercise bike is a flattering, but I agree that 250W is within the range of most regular cyclists, although most won't push that hard.

    11. Re:These are useless as transport by qc_dk · · Score: 0

      You have to remember to factor weight in. I commute daily by bike and my cruising speed is around 30 km/h, on a crap bike. But I probably weigh almost twice what Armstrong does (130 kg). So while my power output is comparable my real world performance obviously isn't. Plus the sports i do are not based on endurance but explosiveness. I can probably create a peak of 2-3 horsepower, but can only sustain it for a very short period.

    12. Re:These are useless as transport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.adventuresofgreg.com/HPB/uploaded_images/powerprofile-758728.jpg

      Here's a handy link for all of those who are very confused about how much power a person produces on a bicycle. Regarding Mr. Armstrong's reported 6.8 w/kg for 20 minutes from the article in the nytimes; If this is done cleanly then I'm the king of spain. I've never been to spain.

      250W is not very much when you're carrying a heavy motor and a battery. I generated 245w for an hour the other day as measured by a very precise crank system involving a network of strain gauges. It only got me up the hill home at 12mph and it's only a 6% grade. My bike weighs perhaps 7kg and my body 60kg. Also consider that this is roughly equivalent to 1000 food calories spent or about a half pound of carbohydrate.

      The poster who believes he can produce 500w indefinitely has been mislead by the poor calibration or function of his exercise bike. Virtually no one can, not even the largest strongest cyclist.

    13. Re:These are useless as transport by EJB · · Score: 2, Informative

      The average in-shape 70kg person can produce 200W for a more than an hour on a bicycle (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance)
      Ever sat on a bicycle in a gym with a wattage meter? It is actually very hard to only produce 125W on a bicycle. On the road you'd go very slow and risk falling over, and in the gym the pedals almost spin faster than your legs.

      And of course Lance Armstrong can do that. I am a "recreational" amateur cyclist who does no more than 2500 km/year and can maintain more than 250W for hours. It's not difficult.

    14. Re:These are useless as transport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are mistaken. I suspect you mixed up "watts" with "kilocalories per hour". Sustaining 500 watts indefinitely would make you superhuman. Sustaining 500 kcal/h makes you about ... average. Coincidentally, that is just about the 125 watts that the OP referenced.

    15. Re:These are useless as transport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy a Cycleops power meter, dude.
      Its the only way to be sure.
      If you're really in a spending mood, get the Saris "400 Pro Indoor Cycle".
      Upload your logs to your online coach.

      You can probably put out 1600W for a 10 second effort. Then you're done for the day.

      Btw, its all about power to weight ratio, so if you're 120 kilos putting out 500W isn't going to get you up that 8% climb very fast.
      It will get you from Martic Church to Montauk in a big hurry, though (most flat metric century I've ever seen).

    16. Re:These are useless as transport by Confuse+Ed · · Score: 1

      re:
      > a kilowatt for 5 minutes or so at a time, and can sustain 500W practically indefinitely.

      You've probably been mislead by much exercise equipment being (deliberately?) vague about whether they are measuring power output / mechanical work done, or 'equivilent food energy burnt'.

      A typical assumption used is that the human body is only 20% to 25% efficient, so if you output 150W of mechanical power for 1 hour on a bike you've supplied 540KJ of energy (129 kCal), but the chances are your heart-rate-monitor, bike computer or whatever is going to tell you that you've offset the consumption of more like 2.4MJ or 600 kCal of food-intake (or a equivilent fuel intake to over 600W if you work back the other way through the calculation)

      Some generous exercise equipment may also include your BMR in their display of calories-burnt, which is another 100W or so of power output but entirely lost as heat not mechanical power.

    17. Re:These are useless as transport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a flat road 250W will get you from point A to B easily.

      The problem comes in when you go uphill. Then you have to really look at your sustainable W/kg over the course of an hour. The higher that ratio the quicker you will climb. Obviously this will vary from person to person.

      Myself, I weigh 170lbs and the bike apparently weighs 50lbs, so that makes 76.5kg and 22.5kg respectively. So that means my W/kg is 250/99 = 2.52W/kg. Not great, but not "untrained" either. That power output would be consistent with a new Cat5 (beginner) road racer.

      Of course you can add in any power you provide when pedaling as well. But you would still be in at a Cat5 level. You really need to break ~3.2W/kg to move into Cat4.

      And there is no way you can sustain 500W indefinitely. When going uphill, world class riders shoot for the "magic ratio" of 5.8W/kg. Lance usually weighs about 67kg. That means hes putting out 388W when he climbs.

    18. Re:These are useless as transport by prefect42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Energy cost, perhaps, but I don't know about kinetic energy output. If you're saying you can use 500W for long periods (let's say a couple of hours), then match that to calorie intake. That's 860 kcal to replace the energy cost for that additional work. That's believeable right?

      Muscle efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle#Efficiency

      "The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 18% to 26%"

      So if you were right, you'd actually need 3400 kcal to replace losses from that 2 hour exercise. That's waaay too much.

      With my logic, that means you actual power output is actually more like 125W, almost perfectly inline with the motor being twice as powerful.

      --

      jh

    19. Re:These are useless as transport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      500 watts during 30s means that you can make 50 kg climb 1 m/s during 30 seconds....Or, being about 80 kg, climb about 20 m in 30 seconds or less. 6 floors in 30 seconds, I guess most reasonably fit peoples can do that....even me, not so fit and closer to 40 ;-)

      36 floors in 3 minutes (hockey players), out of my league...But, having played inline hockey, typical action more like 1 kW during 5 seconds...

      Speaking of Armstrong, he would climb the Burj tower in 20 minutes...Impressive :-)

    20. Re:These are useless as transport by dasunt · · Score: 1

      The average in-shape 70kg person can produce 200W for a more than an hour on a bicycle (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance)

      My morning coffee hasn't kicked in, so can someone tell me what mistake I'm making?

      Wikipedia says: 1.62 kJ/(kmkg) or 0.28 kcal/(milb) for cycling

      I weigh 200 lbs (90 kg). I can easily maintain a speed of 15 mph easily (25 kph) for hours on end, on a heavy touring bike which adds another 50 lbs (20kg) to the equation. By "easily", I mean that I'm not exhausted at the end of the day, even after 100 miles.

      So, plugging in the numbers, I get 110 kg * 25 km * 1.62 kJ/km*kg = 4455 kJ per hour.

      So, 4455 kJ/h = 1237.5 watts, according to google.

      That doesn't look right. The units cancel out. But the result is different.

      Hmmm, another website points out that the human body is about 20% efficient at turning food into power. That makes the result around 250 watts/hour, which falls in line with what I'm reading a human body can easily do.

    21. Re:These are useless as transport by Alinabi · · Score: 1

      Lance Armstrong can produce almost 500W and that is exactly what makes him Lance Armstrong. Playing tug-of-war with a Clydesdale has to do with force, not power. When it comes to sustained power output over long periods of time, no animal can beat a human. I am willing to bet that I can outrun a Clydesdale on a distance of 20 miles or more. Under 20 miles, my money is on the Clydesdale.

      --
      "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
    22. Re:These are useless as transport by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      actually a hardworking horse can keep up about 375W - for the definition of horsepower the guy measured the output of the strongest horse he could find, then doubled it...

      not quite sure why...

    23. Re:These are useless as transport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are reading the kcal per hour value.

    24. Re:These are useless as transport by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      You've got it.

      I'm a bike racer, training 4-5 days per week, and use a PowerTap, which measures wattage on the bike (it's built into the rear hub of my bike.)

      500w is very difficult to maintain, and impossible for the 'average' person...i think 30 seconds is pushing it, i'm a fairly strong rider over shorter distances, and i can hold it for perhaps 1.5mins, if i'm having a spectacular day! I am doubtful a hockey player can sustain that for 3mins unless they've trained extensively on the bike as well...

      Over an hour, my FTP (functional threshold power) is in the 265w range...so all things being equal, i'd be able to edge out one of these bikes over the distance. The FTP of Lance is probably in the 420-450w range, and an average person ought to be able to hold 90-140w over an hour. 250w gets you up over 30kph on flat terrain, so you're moving at a pretty good speed, and that's the speed where the limiter usually kicks in as well.

    25. Re:These are useless as transport by EJB · · Score: 1

      Same problem here with the lack of caffeine. Hmm. It almost seems these figures are a factor 10 too high, but then the numbers get too low again.
      And they don't factor in the wind-drag which is proportionate to the square of your speed, as the article mentions later.

      Don't know. I guess the wikipedia article needs more references; I don't think you can say "Generally used figures" and then not provide a source.

    26. Re:These are useless as transport by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's 150kg of muscle and in "category 3". 150kg * 3.5W/kg = 525W. He won't beat Armstrong up hills or in acceleration ;).

      Or, the exercise bike is counting how much energy he is burning per second, which is different from how much work he was doing.

      Or as you say- something is wrong somewhere :).

      --
  8. these are great fun!! by mxh83 · · Score: 1

    Ever since I saw the little scooter in Reign Over Me I always wanted it. Where can one get something like this today?

    1. Re:these are great fun!! by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Search e-bay under "gas scooter", or look at cheap tool stores like Harbor Freight or whatever your local equivalent is. These things are horrible, of course, basically a weed-whacker engine mated to a skate board. America's response to environmental responsibility is a $300, dangerous, smoke-spewing, big-tire toy for adult children*.

      *baby boomers

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  9. What's the point? by tafkadasoh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I do bike a lot, but I don't get the point of those e-bikes (except for old people maybe). I'd like to have additional power on long tours but for those these batteries are just additional weight for most of the trip, which you'll feel when going uphill. City trips (less than 20 km) shouldn't wear out a healthy person, so no good point having them there. My bike is 10 kg now and I still think it's too heavy. I don't see a very big market for them. Also, more parts means more things can break.

    1. Re:What's the point? by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The point is that the batteries don't really weigh that much, and are used for regenerative braking so that all the effort used to climb a hill isn't lost on the way down.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they are mainly for old people. That's certainly the market for them here in the Netherlands, where the most popular available electric bikes are marketed as having "invisible motors" so that people don't know you need assist.

      For longer commutes, there are better options than electric assist.

    3. Re:What's the point? by tafkadasoh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed, it's more efficient than older designs, but their basic flaw is still there: After a certain trip length it requires more energy to move the batteries+cables+motor than the batteries are able to hold. So no batteries at all will always be more efficient. So unless you have trouble making a short trip on a bike I see no reason for anyone to by one. ergo, not year of the e-bike.

    4. Re:What's the point? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      After a certain trip length it requires more energy to move the batteries+cables+motor than the batteries are able to hold. So no batteries at all will always be more efficient.

      No, you still miss the point. The idea is not that you charge up the battery and then take it for a long trip over flat road. It's still a bicycle, not a motorcycle.

      The idea is that biking along a flat road, even with 40 extra pounds of battery and motor, is faster and more efficient than walking, and healthier than driving. So the battery and motor are only there to smooth out the hills. The battery only needs to be big enough to get over the biggest hill, and the regenerative braking handles the rest.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    5. Re:What's the point? by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but keeping a certain speed is much much more dependent on the aerodynamics of your vehicle than its weight. Getting up to that speed is affected, sure, but keeping it not so much.

    6. Re:What's the point? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      I'm reasonably fit. However, I'm not fit enough to bike a long way, up hills, under the sun, in casual clothes, without getting uncomfortably sweaty -- that limits its use to me. I see a huge market for electric bikes. The price will come down.

      As for more parts to break, that sounds like a desperate argument. There aren't that many more parts in an electric bike. Besides, a modern bike has many more parts than an old bike, yet they don't seem to be a problem. Or are you one of those crazy single-speeders who doesn't even have front brakes?

    7. Re:What's the point? by dargaud · · Score: 1
      The point ? Well, let's see if I can get you to see it the same way I'm currently thinking about getting one of those beasts. I live in a city that's very bike-friendly: bike paths are everywhere and the entire city is flat. A normal bike is perfect. But the city is surrounded by mountains. If you live 20km from downtown, chances are you already have more than 500m to go up, so that's a bit much for a daily commute. And the roads are few and crowded. An electric bike is allowed on bike paths (but not an electric scooter or even a moped). And if you want to have fun on the way down, cutting through mountain / forest trails, you need a decent mountain bike. Also the roads are often icy / wet, precluding a standard motorbike (an electric bike is slower and doesn't use the road on the way down, so hopefully that implies less risk).

      And one final point is that you are allowed to take a bus with a bike. I hoped I summed up why I'm currently considering it.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    8. Re:What's the point? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      This isn't for long tours any more than an electric-only car is for long tours. Something like this is designed for commuters who are looking at daily rides of 30-50 miles, I suspect.

      I have a 30-mile roundtrip that is largely hilly, so my commute is about an hour each way, or two hours a day. Even after I've commuted on the ride all summer, I can only maintain about 17mph average speed given the terrain. With a family at home, choosing between 40 minutes a day in the car and 120 minutes a day on the cycle is tough. If I could increase my speed to the point where I'm completing each way in 45 minutes (which would be about 20mph) I'd be happy. If I could sustain 25mph on average, I'd be thrilled.

      I've also got a couple of uphills with no breakdown lane and an uphill blind curve. Pumping up those at 8mph is just dangerous, because cars close on me at 50-55mph and don't seem me until they are 30-40 feet behind me. Every little bit of speed I can maintain up those spots means more reaction time for the cars coming around the curve, and less likelihood they'll get impatient and go around me with oncoming traffic.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    9. Re:What's the point? by Kozz · · Score: 1

      tafkadasoh:
          First, full disclosure: I am employed by Trek Bicycle Corp, but my statements don't necessarily reflect my company's opinions. And I'm not in engineering or design (just an IT guy), so I'm no expert on the products. However...

      Some of your answers can be found here:
      http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/rideplus/why_electric_assist/

      The e-bikes primary advantage would not be for people going on "long tours". But if you're a city commuter, the electronic assist can allow you to make the commute in a reasonable amount of time with reduced effort. Why is reduced effort important? Well, the rest of the cyclists may have to bring a change of clothes and shower when they reach their destination. But if you've got an e-bike, you may even be able to accomplish your commute sweat-free. Cyclists who have to bring a backpack or pannier containing a change of clothes can appreciate this.

      If you want to do a "long tour", you can remove the battery and ride w/o the assist (on Trek e-bikes, anyhow). As for concerns regarding parts, the standard Trek warranty covers all Ride+ models. Additionally, "electric components are covered for 2 years or 600 charge cycles (battery), whichever comes first."
      http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/rideplus/faqs/

      Since your comments have mentioned measurements in metric (unlike us backwards Americans), you may find a Trek website to fit your country / language here:
      http://www.trekbikes.com/

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    10. Re:What's the point? by 2short · · Score: 1

      "No, you still miss the point. The idea is not that you charge up the battery and then take it for a long trip over flat road. It's still a bicycle, not a motorcycle."

      It's a motorcycle; you plug it into the wall According to their website, charge time is 3.5 hours.

      Regenerative breaking sounds lovely, and that's probably why they include it. But do the math on the efficiency of capturing that energy and storing it, and using it again, and there's no way it's worth 10 pounds, let alone 40.

      Any trip someone is realistically going to make on this thing, more of the power is coming out of the wall than their legs. Like most "electric bicycles", this is a pedal-assisted electric moped. If someone would just market them that way, I'd probably think it was cool. But a 50 lb bicycle just sucks.

    11. Re:What's the point? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      But do the math on the efficiency of capturing that energy and storing it, and using it again, and there's no way it's worth 10 pounds, let alone 40.

      Okay so lithium ion probably doesn't charge quickly enough to make this work well, and the implementation is botched. But the theory is sound. Even if you only capture and re-use half of the energy, it adds up even in a moderately hilly area.

      I agree that Sanyo is doing a terrible job of conveying exactly what the benefit of this thing actually is. I certainly wouldn't pay $2000 for a half-assed electric moped.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    12. Re:What's the point? by 2short · · Score: 1

      "Even if you only capture and re-use half of the energy, it adds up even in a moderately hilly area."

      If you can capture and reuse half the energy, apply for a patent immediately. But when you say "The theory is sound" and "it adds up", you are not correct; you have not added it up.

      The inefficiency of the system is tangential. Regardless of that, the majority of the energy expended will be lost as air resistance before your system even gets a chance to lose most of the rest of it to inefficiency. I sometimes ride up a mountain near my house. I'm going uphill, at a moderate slope, for 15 miles. If I could capture all the energy from breaking as I descend that would be... pretty much nothing. I don't use the brakes until I get to the very bottom. Air resistance slows me down all I need, and more than I want. Commuter cyclist will need to stop more often than that, but still, the energy bicycle brakes absorb and throw away as heat is not comparable to what goes into the pedals. If it was anywhere close, your bike would melt.

      Regenerative breaking will make you drain your batteries down slightly slower than without. If that is enough to be worth the cost is debate-able, at best. But it's absolutely not worth the weight if you're not already carrying batteries and a motor in the first place.

      "I agree that Sanyo is doing a terrible job of conveying exactly what the benefit of this thing actually is. I certainly wouldn't pay $2000 for a half-assed electric moped."

      The 'benefit' is that you can plug it in; It is a half-assed electric moped. I don't know that they are doing a terrible job of conveying that, so much as that it is not that great.

  10. the alternatives are 10x cheaper by societyofrobots · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An brand-name electric scooter is ~$300, and much more portable.

    A Honda motor scooter is under $2000, can seat two people, and go 30mph.

    $2300 for an electric bike is just silly.

    1. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by cduffy · · Score: 1

      You're making it sound like an e-bike is (or should be) a poor man's scooter; that's missing the point.

      A good e-bike makes cycling practical for people whose commutes otherwise are too long. I pedal just as hard when I'm on my e-bike as on my conventional one -- but on the e-bike my average speeds are almost double what they are unassisted (and remember, wind resistance makes much more than twice the power necessary to hit double the speed). I don't always have the 2.5 hours necessary to commute round-trip on my old bike -- the hour and a half on the Opti, on the other hand, is less time than what it'd take to commute by car and then work out at the gym, and a lot more fun.

      So -- I'm getting great exercise, I'm way less stressed, I don't have the temptation to skip days like I do with the gym... all these are benefits that a scooter (motor or otherwise) just can't deliver.

    2. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Let me follow up taking a different perspective on the argument...

      $2300 is considerably less than what an unmotorized high-end bicycle costs. The local custom framebuilder I recently got a quote from has longtail cargo bikes starting at $3500, plus $1700 to add a motor. Keep in mind, these are vehicles custom-built to the driver's dimensions and specifications, from the frame up, and with capacity to haul a passenger, a load of groceries from Costco, or whatever else you might want -- considerably more cargo capacity than the Honda motor scooter you compare them against. Someone who buys these might be getting a lower top speed, but in other respects they're getting considerably more for their purchase.

      The top of the line in US-made electrics is Optibike. They're expensive toys -- but when you take into account that many of the individual components (just the regular bicycle components that folks might put on a high-end mountain bike, mind you) retail for more than half the cost of your $2000 Honda motor scooter (and some of the individual parts they use on their more expensive bikes, like the Rohloff speedhub, cost more than that scooter as a whole)... they're entirely fairly priced for the market segment they're aimed at.

      There are kits for electrifying your existing bike for $400-600. Perhaps one of those is what's right for you -- but if a $10K conventional bike makes sense for someone (and lots of them do sell!), there are plenty of market niches and price points for ebikes as well.

    3. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by societyofrobots · · Score: 1

      Well, the point that I was trying to make is that from an economic point of view it doesn't make sense. For example, some people just want to save on gas, or use it for short-distance shopping, or to take their girl out on a date. They'd care less about exercise =P

      However, as you point out, there are other reasons to purchase an ebike.

    4. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Can you still pedal a scooter effectively when the battery is flat?

      And if you think that price is expensive, then you haven't looked at many high-end mountain bikes lately. Plenty of people willing to pay a lot for a good bike.

      Besides, they're still new. The price will drop.

    5. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by rcb1974 · · Score: 1
      Scooters compared to an electric bike are bad because:
      1. Scooters are loud. Electric bikes are generally very quiet.
      2. Scooters have small wheels, making it more dangerous for the rider if he hits a pothole, stone, bump, etc. Small wheels also make it more difficult to balance on a scooter. Large wheels are better for so many reasons -- easier to balance, goes over bumps better, etc.
      3. Don't you need to pay insurance and registration fees for a scooter? I'm pretty sure you have to do that for mopeds. You don't need to insure or register your bicycle.
      4. You don't need a drivers license to ride a bicycle.
      5. You can power your electric bike just by pedaling when you run out of "fuel" (low battery). You can't do that on a scooter.
    6. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      $2300 is considerably less than what an unmotorized high-end bicycle costs.

      Just because some people are idiots that will spend several thousand dollars on a freaking bicycle does not testify to the practicality of the cost of e-bikes.

      The median household income in the United States is about $50,000. That $2,300 bicycle of yours is 4.6% of the houses income. This is almost 2.5 *weeks* of income for the entire household, for a bicycle.

      Thats insane considering the alternatives. I can find a used *car* for that price.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by dargaud · · Score: 1

      But an electric scooter is not allowed on bike paths, which in my town saves a LOT of time.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    8. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by societyofrobots · · Score: 1

      1) Electric scooters are quiet
      3) nope, don't need insurance, or even a helmet by law

      My personal preference . . . I don't like to go to work with sweat on my back, and I often like to take 1 or 2 additional people on the motor scooter with me. With ~80 miles/gallon, I'm not worried about gas prices, or even running out of gas.

      There are always tradeoffs . . .

    9. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by dr_leviathan · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe a little silly (pricey) for a 250W ebike -- there are less and more expensive options out there at a variety of power and weight. I assembled a 1.9kW electric bicycle for almost exactly $2300 and it will keep up with your scooter... for only about 10 miles. But hey, it's inexpensive to charge, quiet, and lots of fun!

      --
      Religion is poison to rationality, and we lose sight of that at our own peril. -- Lurker2288
    10. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      I can find a used *car* for that price.

      Don't forget:

      - Insurance
      - Fuel
      - Registration
      - Repairs and maintenance

      That shit can easily add up to more than 2k per year.

    11. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Thats insane considering the alternatives. I can find a used *car* for that price.

      I could find (no, have bought) a used car for the cost of the frakkin' GPS and headlights sitting on my handlebars and helmet. What's your point?

      I don't have that many pet peeves, but the "you're on a bike? -- must be too poor to drive a car" kneejerk response is among them. We've seen that here with business owners objecting to a proposed bicycle boulevard project, though the numbers from other cities show that similar measures have resulted in dramatic increases in residential and retail property values elsewhere (in part because cyclists and pedestrians are going slow enough to actually notice the places they're passing, and thus generate more incidental traffic).

      Do you call people who buy sports cars from Tesla idiots too? They're spending some money -- but it's money they have to spend (meaning it's coming out of an income source much higher than that $50K median), and they're getting a unique vehicle and the experience that comes with it. How is it your place or mine to say how well someone else's money is spent?

      Further, there are very good reasons to be willing to spend some money on a quality conventional bicycle. If you're using something as your commute day-in and day-out, the last thing you want is back pain (or knee pain, or shoulder pain, or any of the other problems that can come from a poorly-fit bike). If you want something you can haul large amounts of cargo with (and by "large amounts" I mean several hundred pounds with lots of bulk), not a single one of the crappy cheap bikes that Wal-Mart or Target sells will do the trick, and (for that matter) not that many specialty shops sell longtail cargo haulers either.

      Anyhow -- sure, you could find a car for that price, but sometimes a car isn't practical.

      If you live in the city, parking is bloody expensive. Have only one parking spot for your two-person family, and both of you have jobs? If you ride a bike, that's not a problem.

      Mandatory liability insurance? Bicycles very rarely generate substantial liability, hence such laws don't apply. Vehicle registration fees? In my state, those go to fund highways rather than regular roads; bicycles don't use highways, thus moot. Gasoline? Hah.

      A folding bike (there are some good ones, and the custom builds tend to run in the neighborhood of or somewhat more than that $2300 watermark) will let you take public transportation for part of your commute or bring your vehicle with you when you travel by air. You can't do that with any car.

      If you get a cheap used car, it'll need lots of TLC and maintenance -- and the skills and tools to do bicycle maintenance yourself are much cheaper.

      A bicycle in the $2-4K range can be the Right Vehicle for many people.

    12. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by 2short · · Score: 1

      "$2300 is considerably less than what an unmotorized high-end bicycle costs."

      Well, I have a bicycle that cost about that, and the people I ride with have ones that cost between that and twice as much. But let's be serious; none of us would consider commuting on these bicycles. I don't have a lock for my road bike because I would never consider leaving it somewhere that one was required.

      I commute on a couple of bikes; the nice one is worth maybe $400.

      Violet Crown looks like they make lovely bicycles, and I wish them all the luck, but; I've got an extracycle that can do all their bikes can (as it's the same, just kludgeier), and it cost me a heck of alot less. Picking out the best-fitting used mtb frame at the sports consignment store provides a pretty good fit. Certainly not as 'optimal' as a custom build, but come on. It's a cargo bike. 3K? WTF?

      "if a $10K conventional bike makes sense for someone (and lots of them do sell!)"
      Selling doesn't equal making sense. And "lots" "sell"? The only 10K bike I've heard of was the one stolen from Lance's bike shop, of which it was mentioned "10 exist in the world". If a 10K bike makes sense for you and you don't get it free in an endorsement deal, somethings wrong.

      In any case, look at the picture of the electric moped in this article. It is not competing with the latest Cervelo, nor with VioletCrown, nor with Optibike. It's competing with a $400 Electra Townie so $2300 is stupid, or with a $2000 scooter, so its lame performance is stupid.

    13. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by 2short · · Score: 1


      "I can find a used *car* for that price."

      I can confirm that, as I recently sold my car for about that much. I spent the money on a bicycle.

      While I don't think I'm an idiot, I don't really disagree with your larger point. The bicycle in question is useless as practical transportation. It has no racks and I wouldn't leave it locked up outside anywhere, assuming I was willing to carry a lock after paying that much for a lightweight bike. The pair of bicycles that had already replaced the car cost maybe $500 combined.

    14. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by 2short · · Score: 1

      "Can you still pedal a scooter effectively when the battery is flat?"

      It weighs Fifty Pounds. When the battery is flat, it's not a good bike. It's not even a really bad bike. When the battery isn't flat, it's not-so-great scooter.

      "Besides, they're still new. The price will drop."
      Nah, someone comes out with one of these every few years. They don't last long enough for the price to drop any, because they aren't very good vs other options that cost a lot less. I don't see how that will change unless batteries get radically better, which they have not done. The middle ground between being a bike and being a scooter just isn't a very useful place to be.

    15. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by cduffy · · Score: 1

      I wholeheartedly agree with you that the particular bike featured in this article is a POS, and I'm disappointed with the Times for painting it in such glowing terms.

      That said, I'm pretty sure that each of the bike shops I frequent has something in the $10K-14K range as the most expensive thing they carry. Certainly that was the quote from Bicycle Sport Shop North when a fellow customer made a joke about buying the most expensive thing they had on a credit card mistakenly left on the counter, and I want to say I've seen bikes in that range at Buck's, Mellow Johnny's, Jack and Adam's, etc. as well. They may not move many, but they clearly move enough to make them worth stocking.

      Now... use any of these as a city bike? Hell, no. But if someone who understands their own personal finances, priorities and goals decides they want to buy a $11K triathelon bike, how's it anyone else's place to say they were wrong to do so?

    16. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by 2short · · Score: 1


      The bike shops I frequent all have 10K bikes on the wall too. But that's not the same as "stocking" or "moving". At Mellow Johnnys, the 10K bike would be the very "10 in the world" one I mentioned, built for a sponsored racer to use in the Tour.
        The highest-end bikes "stocked" (several of each size) at a shop I frequent would be a Cervelo P4 at Excel Sports for 5K, but without wheels, so add in some top-end Zipp discs and you can get to 10k that way. But they're a national mail-order shop; even in Boulder the local population of elite time-trialists wouldn't justify much inventory at that level.
          The fully-built over-10K bike hanging up to be drooled over in your local high-end shop isn't there to be purchased. It's there to make you feel thrifty buying a 4K bike.

      If someone wants to spend 11K of their own money on a non-custom bike, I won't say they were wrong to do so. But I might say it is quite likely they are being stupid.

      Coming back to comparisons with the article, if someone wants to spend $2300 of their own money on a Schwinn Varsity, they are definitely stupid every time. I think the case with the bike/scooter in the article is closer to the Schwinn. Just because 10K bikes exist doesn't mean I can't conclude this $2300 scooter is a bad deal.

    17. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Every year these bikes have been improving, because it's not just a batteries that need improving. Lighter, more efficient motors, speed controllers, and drive trains also make a difference. Plus the experience of incorporating the components into the frame, rather than the older style of simply bolting components onto a traditional frame. If current batteries are good enough for electric cars and Segways, they're good enough for electric bikes. Batteries are only going to get better, as they have actually been doing over the years. And why isn't the middle ground between a scooter and a bike very useful, exactly?

    18. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by 2short · · Score: 1

      "And why isn't the middle ground between a scooter and a bike very useful, exactly?"

      If the vehicle has enough propulsion from the motor to bother with, it's too heavy to want to ride it when the battery is dead. If you're not going to ride it when the battery is dead, you may as well put on more battery to get better speed and range. The battery-powered vehicles you mention are much heavier than anything you want to pedal. The Segway is pretty marginal in terms of speed/range for general transportation yet still weighs 75-100 lbs. A 50 lb. electric bike will have a tiny fraction of the speed/range of a full-scale electric scooter, but is still too heavy to pedal any distance with a dead battery.

    19. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      If the vehicle has enough propulsion from the motor to bother with, it's too heavy to want to ride it when the battery is dead.

      Where's the evidence for that? People manage to ride bikes with panniers loaded with cargo. Rickshaws are even heavier when you have a passenger. And the idea is to assist, so you can't compare it to the range and efficiency of a Segway or an electric scooter. Why does it need to have the same range of an electric scooter, anyway? Doesn't that depend upon how a person plans to use it, how far they need to travel?

    20. Re:the alternatives are 10x cheaper by 2short · · Score: 1

      "Where's the evidence for that? People manage to ride bikes with panniers loaded with cargo."

      Yes, people do. Me, for example. My evidence is not a detailed research study; I'm just relating my opinion, based on my experience. I periodically ride with 50 lbs aboard, so I know what that's like and it is on that basis that I judge how much benefit I'm going to want to get from that and conclude this thing isn't worth it.

      "And the idea is to assist, so you can't compare it to the range and efficiency of a Segway or an electric scooter. Why does it need to have the same range of an electric scooter, anyway?"

      It doesn't have to. But it costs the same as an electric scooter, so if it doesn't it ought to offer some other compelling advantage over the scooter. I do not perceive that advantage.

      "Doesn't that depend upon how a person plans to use it, how far they need to travel?"

      Maybe. The appropriateness of any vehicle depends on intended use, desired range and speed, budget, etc. It is my contention that the set of parameters that make this a more desirable option than an electric scooter or bicycle is a a very small set, possibly empty.

      What way to use it and distance of travel to you imagine makes this a better choice than the alternatives?

  11. Sanyo Fail by dreamer.redeemer · · Score: 0, Troll

    Electric bicycles are a great idea for advancing fitness and reducing energy consumption and pollution, but Sanyo did a terrible job at realizing this. Like the eneloop, most e-bikes have the electric motor mounted as the hub of the front wheel, and this is idiotic for a number of reasons. For one, this placement fails to utilize the ~21 gears that happen to be on the bike already, failing in turn to utilize the variability in power and speed. Second, having the motor in the front hub puts all sorts of stress on the forks, limiting the maximum power and accelerating wear on one component you really wouldn't want to fail during run time. Proper chain oriented pedal assist systems are fully possible, I guess Sanyo just figured it was safer to copy the same design that many others have been peddling with limited success. Sigh.

    --
    the most powerful intellect is that unbounded by indubitable preconception
    1. Re:Sanyo Fail by Calinous · · Score: 1

      If electric cars don't need gears, why would electric bikes? Electric motors have very high low-end torque and quite high max rpm, so they don't need gears.
            As for wear on the front fork, guess what happens when someone brakes hard? An even higher effort on the front fork than what an electric motor in traction mode might put, as there is some weight transfer to front wheel when braking.

    2. Re:Sanyo Fail by dimension6 · · Score: 1

      The Sanyo Eneloop bike is an exception. Nearly all electric hybrid bikes here in Japan indeed drive through the chain, with pedal assist (no throttle). I've been heavily riding my folding Panasonic hybrid electric bike for over two years now, and it's worked almost flawlessly. I replaced the battery once, which was around $300 (though the old battery still holds a decent charge). One issue with the electric assist bikes here in Japan is the fact that the law prohibits any assistance over 20kph. The assistance fades out over this point. For most city riding, it's fine, but for some open areas, I wanted more speed so I had the rear wheel rebuilt with the SRAM DualDrive internally-geared hub. This simple (or complex!) re-gearing increased the assisted top speed to just under 30kph, which is about as fast as I would want to go with the thing. It's still not as fast as my non-electric Dahon Jetstream XP, but it sure is great for hauling stuff (I have no car, so nearly all shopping is done via bike).

  12. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, cause those bike lanes and parks connect to where folks need to go. How dare these people use public roads for transportation!

    (I know, don't feed the immature trolls ...)

  13. $99,800 Yen in Japan. Why so expensive here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    99,800 / 90 Yen/Dollar = ~$1100

    Why is it double the price in the US?

  14. Re:These are (not at all) useless as transport by cduffy · · Score: 1

    Peak? Absolutely.

    Over hours? Not so much.

    Anyhow, 250W is the kind of pansy-ass bike they make for the European market where the laws are ridiculously restrictive. US- and Canadian-made e-bikes are closer to 1kW output; my own ride is, an Optibike 850x, weighs 55lb including the internal battery, sufficient for 40-50 miles. The external battery brings the range up to over 100 miles and adds 15 pounds more. Newer Optibikes (and mine, when it gets back from its current round of upgrades) are using the Rohloff Speedhub, which provides a wide enough range of gearing ratios that there's no reasonable question about any hill, including those in San Francisco.

    For street-legal bikes in Europe or Austrailia -- yes, you have a point. In the US? No. My moderately hilly commute takes 75 minutes each way on my unassisted bike, 45 on the Opti; that adds up to a big difference in time I have available each week for things I like to do.

  15. fatties. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my bike commute is 36 miles round trip.
    Average speed 16-18mph.
    Mostly hills.

    I never have needed a motor.

    I don't get it. Is this like... for people who are trying to get fat?

    I mean. If you want to be fat, go buy a gas guzzling 82 firebird and stay dry. If yer gonna be out in the elements, at least take the opportunity to not be fat.

    1. Re:fatties. by dltaylor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not the weight. I can easily do that distance around here (some long hills), although my commute is about 33.

      It's that I have no place (shower) to become tolerable to my co-workers for the rest of the day.

      With an electric (not the silly Sanyo, but a proper one with a decent CG, and the drive to the rear wheel, if I can ever find one), I can "ride" to work and pedal home. Dragging the extra weight of the batteries would be even better exercise (for that trip) than just a bicycle.

    2. Re:fatties. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you spend 2 hours a day cycling, perhaps some people would like an electric assist bike to make their long journey a bit quicker, not because they are lazy.

    3. Re:fatties. by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      It's that I have no place (shower) to become tolerable to my co-workers for the rest of the day.

      Unscented baby wipes and a change of clothes and deodorant will take care of that. The only other thing you need is an empty bathroom stall.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    4. Re:fatties. by Locklin · · Score: 1

      If you convert one yourself, you can get whatever you want. These guys have an informative website and an applet that lets you calculate the components necessary (motor and battery size) for the performance you want: http://www.ebikes.ca/

      I've thought about it, but I don't see the point in this small city I live in. That and it would end up being an expensive hobby.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
  16. Nice electric, bad bicycle. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I have been watching the e-bike market for years now, and almost all of the reasonably priced products suffer from the same problem: when the battery power runs out, they are lousy bicycles. They are single-speed only, or they are outrageously heavy, or both, or have some other drawback that makes them unsuitable for pedaling any distance. A few even have pedals so far apart that you couldn't pedal them for a block comfortably.

    I want something I can use as a regular bicycle, with electric power I can kick in if I choose. I am fully aware that motor and battery pack are going to add significant weight. That's fine... it just burns that many more calories. But it should be a good bicycle first, and electric vehicle second. Not the other way around.

    By the way, for anyone considering buying an Eneloop for $2,000+, just don't. 250 watts is woefully anemic. It won't get you up an even halfway decent slope. Go for at least 500W or more. The battery life does not suffer as much as you might think: the motor doesn't have to work as hard to get you somewhere.

    1. Re:Nice electric, bad bicycle. by Calinous · · Score: 1

      There are conversion kits for bycicles (those contain front wheel or front wheel hub with integrated motor, battery packs, electronics, command and control systems and whatever else), and those can be adapted to any bycicle:
      http://www.greenspeed.us/bionx_motor_bike_kit.htm
      First hit in a google link, which conveniently suggests "electric bike conversion kit" when typing "electric bike" in its search box.

            As for the higher power electric motors: 250W is enough (unassisted) for a fast walk speed on a 12% hill - but using a bigger motor forces a stronger (heavier) battery and possibly charger. More power than that might be good, though.
            As for battery life, ignoring some extra losses due to the bigger and heavier components, if you ride in the same way, the bigger motor would use just a bit more energy (if you accelerate harder with the bigger motor, it will use more energy, though).

    2. Re:Nice electric, bad bicycle. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I have been researching this for a few years now. The fact is, in any area that isn't fairly flat (mine is quite hilly), a 250W motor simply will not get you anywhere. You claim a 250W motor will take you up a 12% grade, but experience says otherwise; it will not. Unless it is geared down of course, but then it will not produce sufficient speed on the flat.

      In theory, 250W is certainly enough power to get you from here to there, even up a hill. But even with an electric motor, it won't happen without gears or sprockets in the drive train. Theory is great, but practice says no. Professionals in the field of electrics say that if you live in a hilly area you need at least 600W, in order for the motor's torque/power consumption curve to be fairly reasonable.

      And that was my point about trying to use lower-power motors: when you run an electric motor near maximum torque (a hill), you are at the extreme high end of power consumption. If, however, you run a motor designed for higher power output up the same hill, it will be nearer its optimum operating range, generally consuming less power. Up to a point, a higher-power motor might even use less battery power when it's more-or-less idling, on the flat. It all depends on the torque and power curves of the motors. But in general, if you use too low power a motor, it will run hot and use excessive amounts of power, defeating efforts to get better battery life. Its working lifetime will also be shorter.

      Everybody who has been at this for any length of time agrees that 250W is simply insufficient, unless you live in Kansas.

  17. Twice the power? by notanatheist · · Score: 1

    Twice whose power? Twice the average slow poke pedaling at 12mph? Or twice the average cyclist doing 16+ mph? 250W doesn't sound like much to me. I can peak over that power output myself as I'm sure any avid cyclist can. Seriously, how about some real numbers and not this "twice the power" BS.

    1. Re:Twice the power? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      By American and Canadian standards, 250W is a lousy excuse for an ebike -- but for the European market it's the standard, as that's the limit there to be street-legal.

      This article was ridiculously ill-researched -- there are (and have been for years) much, much better bikes out on the US market, the higher end ones having upward of 650W sustained output where the rubber meets the road, and peaking up around 2hp when combined with a strong rider. See the power meter readings at http://groups.google.com/group/optibike-owners-group/browse_frm/thread/3e6e907b3a99f3c1 if you're interested in some numbers.

    2. Re:Twice the power? by risom · · Score: 1

      By American and Canadian standards, 250W is a lousy excuse for an ebike -- but for the European market it's the standard, as that's the limit there to be street-legal.

      Actually you can buy and drive e-bikes with more than 250W in Europe (well, at least in Germany), but for anything more you need some sort of drivers license as a more capable e-bike is legally considered to be a scooter (IIRC).

    3. Re:Twice the power? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Actually you can buy and drive e-bikes with more than 250W in Europe (well, at least in Germany), but for anything more you need some sort of drivers license as a more capable e-bike is legally considered to be a scooter (IIRC).

      A driver's license won't do in and of itself -- the scooter also needs to pass type certification, meaning extra equipment that a bicycle typically doesn't include (brake lights, turn signals, etc).

      One German manufacturer actually does have an ebike that passes type certification as a motor scooter, but to the best of my knowledge they're alone in that.

    4. Re:Twice the power? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind also that 250W is power consumption, not power output. That in itself makes up for some of the difference. You would not be able to sustain 250W output if you took in 250W worth of calories input; these are the inevitable losses in the respective machines.

      And you also have to keep in mind that you are talking about putting out those watts with an efficient, appropriately-geared drive train. While a modern electric motor may have good starting torque, still it has a power curve just like any other power source. Most electrics use no gears, so that 250W will be used very inefficiently in some circumstances. In my experience, most have been designed to operate mostly on flat ground, and come up seriously short when it comes to slopes.

    5. Re:Twice the power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The european legal limit is 250 Watts and you have to pedal yourself to make the electric motor assist you, a throttle is not allowed. On top of that there is a 25 km/h or 16 mph limit where the motor stops assisting.

      In comparsion in Holland mopeds that require a helmet and do 40 km/h or 25mph are allowed to have 400 Watts from a 50 cc petrol engine.

      I cycle sometimes about 10 miles to work, on an 'heavy' aluminium upright city bike with 8 gears, average of about 12 mph. But one does realise it becomes a bit sweaty and strong
      head wind could be a killer. "half a moped" on the back would be appreciated to keep the average speed up and shave 10 minutes of the trip time.

      There are DIY sets, you could even build two 1000 Watts wheels on a bike an make it do .... 80 mph??

    6. Re:Twice the power? by Locklin · · Score: 1

      These bikes commonly allow the rider to do around 20mph more-or-less consistently, without slowing much on hills or going much faster on descents.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    7. Re:Twice the power? by maxume · · Score: 1

      One of the nice things about DC motors is that the efficiency is nearly linear; at higher speeds, they aren't going to have the power to add all that much torque, but they aren't going to lose much efficiency.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Twice the power? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That's true, but it's the lower end that is of concern. Many manufacturers tend to underpower their vehicles, forcing the motors to operate on the extreme lower end of the curve, where performance is not linear. That's exactly what I am referring to.

  18. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by sfcat · · Score: 1

    Do you really have problems with people throwing beer bottles at you?

    Does this comment answer your question?

    Here in Austin the frapping bikers are everywhere. It would be so much nicer if they'd stick to areas with bike lanes, parks, etc, rather than making their political point and stressing everybody out trying not to kill them. Get off the road!

    Drivers are very impatient when it comes to cyclists and don't care if there are no available bike lanes which push cyclists onto the roads with faster traffic. In my experience, most drivers are very impatient and don't even want to wait on cyclists when it won't effect their arrival time. I've seen it get downright nasty even here in San Francisco (to the point of violence in some cases). The truth is that bikes are only practical in certain places, usually very dense population centers. And even there, there is generally quite a lot of friction between drivers and cyclists. Because of the anger among the cyclists, Critical Mass was started which generally only pisses off the drivers but also is a lot of fun.

    And riding a bike in some locations does have a certain amount of cultural cashe (and yes, will even get you laid). The fact that an bike expert doesn't know this says more about the article's lack of research than anything.

    --
    "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
  19. or just bike... by pr100 · · Score: 1

    I suppose an "e-bike" might appeal to some couch potatoes, but a good part of the point of cycling is that you actually get some exercise.

  20. Easy solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just hike the tail of the bike up, like hot rods do. That way you're always going downhill!

  21. Fugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is one of the fugliest bikes I've seen. I'm a cyclist - road and MTB; there's no way in hell I'd be seen dead even *looking* at that monstrosity.
    That will turn more people off biking than it will convert.
    There really is no need for electric bikes - road bikes are light and fast, and reliable, most importantly.

    1. Re:Fugly by Mr_Tulip · · Score: 1
      Really?

      Say what you like about the Sanyo, it is a pretty terrible looking bike, but the gocycle is definately as ugly, if not worse. On top of that, the gocycle looks like it would break in half if it ever hit a speed bump.

    2. Re:Fugly by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Not only is it ugly, but I question the engineering.

      I have heard/seen/read all about modern materials and engineering, and I still have a problem with wheels that are supported on only one side. Inevitably, the damn thing is going to succumb to forces and the wheel will be skewed off vertical. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. I'll pass, thanks.

    3. Re:Fugly by captaindynamo · · Score: 1

      Why not roll-your-own. More power, less money, use any bicycle. http://www.electricrider.com/

    4. Re:Fugly by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      Cannondale has been using the "one-sided" design for a while on mountain bike front forks. A lot of motorcycles use it on the rear, even though they have to withstand a lot more stress.

      Sure, it seems like a bad idea, but if all these people are doing it, there might to be some reason for it.

    5. Re:Fugly by noahisaac · · Score: 1

      I always hate those posts on car sites when a new electric car is introduced that say the thing is ugly. That's really not the point. It's supposed to be about the new energy technology. However, in this case, I have to agree with you. What is the point of the odd styling? That thing is hideous. Why didn't they just make it look like normal bike? What's with the women's-style frame? I'm pretty sure that the largest market for this kind of thing will be younger males.

  22. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because of the anger among the cyclists, Critical Mass was started which generally only pisses off the drivers but also is a lot of fun.

    And you wonder why so many drivers get pissed off to the point of violence? Golly gee, I can't imagine how that could happen.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  23. Illegal in Europe by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The biggest problem with electric bikes in Europe is not technology but politicians. (in the UK, the Government still has not legalised the Segway, despite its obvious utility for post and packet delivery and beat policing.) Under EU regulations soon as an electric bike exceeds 250W, it is classed as a moped (i.e. max. 2200W). This is a huge gap, especially given that you can ride a horse (approx. 1kw and 750kg) on the roads with no legal controls. 250W is too little to be really useful.

    A bicycle is unusable for most people where I live because our town is on the sides of a steep sided valley, and the combination of traffic going up the hills at 30mph, and cyclists at 3mph, on narrow English roads, is lethal. To be really useful, an electric bike needs to be able to go up those hills at 20mph.

    If there was a political will for this, there would be a Europe-wide specification for an electric bicycle of, say, about 1200W maximum output and a continuous rating of 800, with a test and licence requirement but zero tax and a State-sponsored insurance scheme to overcome the objections of insurance companies, who detest anything new in the way of risk.

    Of course there would be a need for new regulations - such as limiting them to 12mph on cycle tracks - but this is nothing that technology couldn't handle (e.g. a "cycle track mode" which flashes a green light, to assist law enforcement.) But an electric bicycle that was fast enough to be safe in European urban traffic would be vastly better than the current situation, where only the very fit can ride a heavy, limited electric bicycle on anything other than the level.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Illegal in Europe by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      They are assisted bikes, they're not meant to go up the hill on the motor alone. You can pedle and use the electric motor at the same time. And most bikers (at least in the Netherlands) top out at 15km/h (you don't want to arrive all sweaty on your work and it saves you 5 minutes if you go faster) it isn't a big deal.

    2. Re:Illegal in Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      250W is too little to be really useful.

      No, it isn't. That's more than twice as much as the sustainable power output of a normal person. E-bicycles are meant to be used where normal bicycles are used. In normal use, the 250W motor doesn't even run at full power, except when accelerating from a stop.

      about 1200W maximum output and a continuous rating of 800

      That's wishful thinking. Do you have any idea what kind of batteries would be needed for 800W continuous consumption? Lithium-ion-batteries have an energy density of 100Wh/kg in mobility applications. To ride at 800W for just one hour, you'd need 8kg of batteries. The weight of the batteries for a realistic range and the power of the motor would require a much sturdier structure and more efficient brakes. It is indeed correct to put such vehicles in the moped category.

  24. Fugly by zag2me · · Score: 1

    I don't know about anyone else but I wouldn't be seen dead riding that sanyo thing. The go cycle is about the only good looking ebike available right now. http://www.gocycle.com/

  25. Lame. by L4m3rthanyou · · Score: 1

    They demoed E-bikes on my college campus, and with good reason- college yuppies are actually stupid and wealthy enough to buy E-bikes. I test-rode one, and it's fun, but not $2000 fun. I'll stick with my regular bike.

    To make matters worse, these dumbasses ride around stupidly and create more hate for cyclists from pedestrians and motorists alike. Also, they're stimulating the bike theft market by locking up poorly. Last week I saw one locked with a U-lock around a single spoke of the front wheel and a cable through the rear wheel... the idiot didn't even think to take out the external battery.

    --
    One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
  26. Unexploded battery under your bum? by jamesh · · Score: 1

    a black lithium-ion battery strapped to the frame beneath the seat

    whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

  27. Re: The Year of the E-Bicycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ebicycle sounds like fuckcycle for russian ear.

  28. So it is like getting Browner? by Fotograf · · Score: 1

    I mean making Green less green by loading it with pseudo green tech?

    --
    God's gift to chicks
  29. Not new, not nearly. by SuperGus · · Score: 1

    Ho hum. Electric assist bicycles have been on the streets for years over here in Japan, most often seen on the "Mama-rin" or shopping/school commute bikes used by mothers around town. Moms load them up with groceries and one or even two kids. Typically can be had for around 800-1000 USD in price. Ugly beasts but practical and popular. Por ejemplo:

    http://www.yamaha-motor.jp/pas/

  30. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by Calinous · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Critical Mass events are held once a month, in a Saturday. A once-a-month event will piss you to the point of violence?

  31. no one perfect transport for everyone by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    I live within a 4 block radius of both work and my preferred food jobber. While I can hoof it to both easily, when I want to run errands (like picking something up at UPS during lunch), this would be a great alternative to driving my car just to run a few errands during lunch. The $500 model mentioned seems a pretty good investment for me, for my situation. This may not be able to be your main method of transport, but it may work well for those small trips other than a daily commute, depending on your situation. I just need to figure out where the hell I'd park the thing at work. Hmm...

  32. The point is going faster. by cduffy · · Score: 1

    Going faster means you can go further in the same amount of time.

    My (hilly) commute takes 1h15m each way on my regular commuter, 45m each way on my electric-assist. I'm still putting in the same effort either way, but on the ebike I go waaay faster for that same effort -- which means that longer distances are practical on a day-to-day basis.

  33. 15 mph ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    That is 24 km.h-1. I am going at 20 on normal time without breaking a sweat, and up to 30/35 when in a hurry and don't mind getting sweaty. 15.m.h-1/24km.h-1 seems unreasonably low as a limit.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:15 mph ? by TBoon · · Score: 1

      The motor doesn't have to go faster than 15mph, because if you're going faster it would be a waste of battery-power, better used for when reaching a steep and/or long hill. It is not meant to drive you around, just assist you, which is why it shouldn't help you increase you actual speed at any given time or location, just your stamina to keep it up for longer.

  34. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by cduffy · · Score: 1

    I don't attend Austin's CM, but I hear that the people who show up typically aren't the same people who are active in more useful pursuits -- benefits for the League of Bicycling Votors, volunteering for Yellow Bike Project, showing up at City Hall to support the Nueces Bike Boulevard, etc.

    Tell me I'm wrong, and I'll be glad to hear it.

  35. YEARS of the E-Bicycle in China by LS · · Score: 1

    They've been here in China since I got here (5 years ago), and they can easily be had for under 150 bucks US. There are all kinds of models with different ranges. They are already mainstream and not a trend.

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
  36. It's because some car drivers are, frankly, morons by N+Monkey · · Score: 1

    Because of the anger among the cyclists, Critical Mass was started which generally only pisses off the drivers but also is a lot of fun.

    And you wonder why so many drivers get pissed off to the point of violence? Golly gee, I can't imagine how that could happen.

    And do you, in turn, ever imagine why cyclists get annoyed with car drivers? There is a simple reason - some are appalling bad. With the exception of Winter months, I try to commute by bicycle and the number of idiots behind the wheel is astounding. Drivers will try to overtake you on narrow roads even when there is a traffic jam in the next 100 yards and so you have to then squeeze past them 5 seconds later.

  37. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by sfcat · · Score: 1

    CM is always on the last Friday of the month at 6pm.

    --
    "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
  38. Worried about battery explosions by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1

    I have a friend who does destructive testing of Lithium Ion batteries --- apparently the engineers get freaked out when a pierced battery doesn't explode. The thought of a fragile battery like that, big enough to provide decent range, that close to my body gives me the willies.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  39. uhm... by 2fuf · · Score: 1

    Regular bikes also have been around for more than a century and actually also help you get the lard of your ass much quicker. I guess this is why America is fat.

    1. Re:uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

  40. Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There is a direct correlation between the number of bicycle injuries and whether the bicycle is a "male" bike (with a top bar) or "female" (step-through). Of course the relationship is not perfectly linear, because there are other kinds of injuries too, such as head injuries from falling off. But the fact is that the "ladies" design, while not structurally as stiff, is safer all around.

    I just read that the Danish Post Office has decided not to buy "male" bikes any more for, citing falling accidents as the reason. A great number of postmen (-persons?) use the bike in Denmark, with short distances, culture, and infrastructure especially well suited for biking.

    So, there must be something to the safety issue with "male" vs "female" bikes.

  41. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by Toonol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes. Deliberate and rude obstructionist behavior that impedes thousands of innocent people does that.

    (Not to violence, of course; just to outrage and contempt.)

  42. Eh-Bikes by FatherDale · · Score: 1

    As an auto-obsessed American, I'd just like to say "So?"

  43. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    Hey cool! I have another freak now, that earns you a fan!

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  44. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    On another note, I actually agree with the grandparent post. I ride my bike in a method that does NOT impede other travelers, I live my whole life in a "if I'm not involved get out of the way" manner. I drive a car the same way, rarely do I make a driving action that would cause another driver to change course or speed because of what I just did, why would I expect any different when I bike? I ride on the shoulder - if there is one, or on a sidewalk - again, if there is one, through parking lots, back roads, etc. every chance I get.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  45. Re:It's because some car drivers are, frankly, mor by gkai · · Score: 1

    Bikes and cars do not share the road easily, it is dangerous and very annoying for the minority (bike or car).
    Ever walked behing someone whose natual pace is half of yours, in a narrow corridor where simply passing him is difficult? Incredibly annoying and nervously tiring, most people simply can not slow down their pace and fall into a very nervous stop/go/stop/go....

    Well, when you drive a car behind a cyclist (or another very slow car), it is exactly the same. Slowing down your natural pace is always annoying, within a car, on a cycle (these pedestrian ar soooo slow and imprevisible), or just walking. Making overtake manoeuvre difficult or dangerous is not a good idea for any shared way/track/sidewalk....

  46. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by pecosdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For the record - I do not ride in a manner that obstructs motor traffic in any way. When beer bottles have been thrown at me in the past I was either on the shoulder of a large road that had one or riding through the grass off the side of the road. I do not ride my bike smack in the center of a lane when it's a major through fare. As a courtesy to motorist and the protection of my own hide I try to keep my much slower than them ass out of the way. I've never been hit by a beer bottle or soda cup, or any other thing thrown at me except for liquid coming out of said cup, but each time it was the motorist being the jackass, not because I was an in-the-way jackass.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  47. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Like those damned people that dare to obey the laws?

    HOW DARE YOU DO THE SPEED LIMIT!!!! ARRGUAHHHHH!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  48. Actually it's worse than that by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    I can't resist pointing out that, unless you are one of the two genuine female /.ers, having an under-saddle lithium battery go wrong is more likely to take away the willy.

    I wonder what thought has actually been given to designing safe battery compartments (e.g. strong metal casing facing up, weak plastic base facing down so that a fire will cause all the nasty stuff to head straight for the road)

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  49. They ARE motorcycles under the law in some states. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note that E-Bikes have to be registered as motorcycles in some states (such as Utah).
    "A motorcycle... has a motor ... three or less wheels on the ground ... not a farm tractor"

  50. Only Old Ladies Ride Those! by kklein · · Score: 1

    I live in Japan, and I see these electric-assist bikes all the time.

    I have yet to see a male or anyone shy of 70 riding one. I use them to tease my wife: "Hey, hon, look! They have electric bikes on sale! You want one?"

    Perhaps kdawson would like an electric wheelchair, too, rather than using his legs like a sucker?

  51. Could work by Niubi · · Score: 0

    But you would need to totally rebrand them to be cool, much like Steve Jobs has totally revived the Apple brand in the last decade. After that, you'll need to sell them cheap, possibly via sites like http://www.dubli.com/ to encourage people who aren't so rich that this is a great transportation method. Bingo - e-bikes are in!

  52. in new york city by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i've seen bike messengers pedal up fast to delivery trucks

    then HANG ON. we're talking 30-40 mph, dense city traffic

    can't imagine what the hell they are thinking. i mean if that truck driver hits the brakes fast...

    then again i used to room with a bike messenger when i lived in brooklyn, and every other week he would bring home some new constellation of bruises (car doors, etc)

    however, i think toronto bike messengers beat new york city bike messengers in the abuse department: one guy held onto a car which swiped him, and the car driver purposefully tried to brush the guy off... into a mailbox, killing him. the car driver was ontario's ex-attorney general who made his name being tough on street racing!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bryant_(politician)#2009_criminal_charges

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  53. No wonder you USians are fat bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    “The average auto trip in the U.S. is five miles or less”

    A round-trip of 8 km! I sure hope thats an overstatement (understatement?). In most other countries around the world, that's bording on walking distance and hardly considered worth getting the bike out of the garage for. No wonders USA allways terrorise oil producing countries into submission.

  54. Why is this news? by tsa · · Score: 1

    I don't get it. We've had these things in the Netherlands for years now. Before the electric verions became en vogue, we had them with tiny petrol engines fitted that powered the rear wheel. The electric ones are much better because they don't pollute their surroundings with noise and gases.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  55. Re:Worried about battery explosions by vlm · · Score: 1

    I have a friend who does destructive testing of Lithium Ion batteries --- apparently the engineers get freaked out when a pierced battery doesn't explode. The thought of a fragile battery like that, big enough to provide decent range, that close to my body gives me the willies.

    You and your friend are probably too terrified to even discuss the far more dangerous vehicle gas tanks, propane grills, and electrical power outlets... Frankly, I think propane grills with a 20 pound pressurized tank just inches from a flamethrower of a burner and burning grease everywhere is an insane idea, although I do own one.

    Whats the best way to blow up a lithium battery? Piercing didn't work for me. A couple years ago I had an old cell phone battery that wasn't holding a charge like it used to, after about 300 or so cycles. Being a typical slashdotter, I wondered just how dangerous these batteries are, because they spend most of their time approximately two inches from my balls in my pants pocket and I hear constantly about how they're terrifyingly dangerous, you know, like "refer madness" level of terror propoganda (agitprop?). So, safety glasses, leather gloves and clothing (don't laugh), all cotton everything else (no flammable fake fabrics), two fire extinguishers, full face shield, water hose at the ready, hard hat, nothing flammable or valuable for several meters around, earplugs in case of loud explosion, I hit the back yard patio like a bad episode of mythbusters. My wife is convinced there will be a giant blast crater and is not amused. I short it, I smash it with a brick, I drip water on it, nothing happens, although it did get pretty darn hot when I shorted it. Pellet gun rather explosively disassembled it, but no worse than anything else of similar size that I've shot, like, say, a Prince cassette tape. Lighting it on fire did nothing obviously different than lighting a comparable piece of plastic. Smashed it to freaking bits and continued its viking funeral. I did this at a very relaxing pace to make sure any "reactions" had plenty of time to bloom. Eventually gave up and disposed of the remains in the ash barrel. I don't think pyro kids are going to switch from gray market M-80s and bottle rockets to used lithium batteries anytime soon, to say the least.

    Now I do realize there's a lot of stored energy in there. I've certainly seen some amazing equipment explosions in real life. In my little electronic lab at home, plenty of electrolytic caps have popped, reverse biased tantalum caps have blown up, and I've smelled the aroma of burning transformer/motor varnish and burning resistors on many an occasion. I've unintentionally blown up NiCads and NiMH batteries. I'm quite certain a lithium powered electrical fire could be most exciting, but then again, any electrical fire is exciting regardless of battery chemistry. I know journalists are profoundly ignorant, so smoking a laptop CPU power supply or high voltage backlight supply or lint in the CPU cooling fan catching fire, in a lithium powered laptop, WILL be reported as a "lithium battery fire", because thats how magic and mythology work, but that doesn't mean its a real problem.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  56. MIT's Copenhagen Wheel by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 1

    MIT has a product in the works called the Copenhagen Wheel that's a straight replacement for your rear tire. The motor, batteries and regenerative brakes are all contained in the oversized hub and the controls are connected via bluetooth to eliminate wiring. They are planning to enter production sometime this year, but no hard details yet.

    1. Re:MIT's Copenhagen Wheel by 2short · · Score: 1

      "They are planning to enter production sometime this year"

      They lie.

      "but no hard details yet."

      No hard details such as how much it weighs. The problems they solve by making it all self contained aren't actually problems. The only real problem with electric bicycles is weight. Making all the weight rotate makes that problem a lot worse. They have extensive slick marketing materials that talk about all sorts of things that are lovely about this wheel, and never mention weight as an issue worth discussing.

      Yeah, Bluetooth! Eliminate an ounce or two of wire to control your fifty pound rear wheel. Sounds great. Once they graduate, those guys have a bright future working on the Moller Skycar.

    2. Re:MIT's Copenhagen Wheel by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      The Copenhagen Wheel looks intriguing, but the details are suspiciously scarce. Also, I question the real-world usefulness of a 3-speed hub, and the practical utility of having to control it via a smartphone.

      While regenerative braking is great to have, there was no real information about torque or wattage or other niceties which are really essential in determining its practicality in everyday use. And while in one place the site mentions getting "bigger batteries", it does not say anything about where those batteries are normally kept. They definitely are not visible in the pictures or video, but for a number of reasons the hub itself is not a very suitable place.

      Although there is some gearing built in (how much? how much variability do you really get with a 3-speed hub?), I am not sure that a hub motor is really an ideal solution. In order to go up a decent hill, the amount of torque a motor like that has to be able to exert is enormous. Where on the other hand, a single large sprocket could be added to an existing 10-speed (or more) bicycle wheel, on the side opposite the existing derailleur, with little difficulty, allowing a more conventional motor to be used easily. Further, a good CVT (the NuVinci is already being successfully used in comparable installations) allows a broad range of "gear ratios". I am not certain but it might even be possible to replace the whole existing derailleur system with a NuVinci CVT, thereby simplifying the whole thing. All that is needed then is a simple one-way clutch so that the motor can remain stationary when one is pedaling.

      It would be rather like the difference between the early hybrid automobiles, with two gearboxes, and the newer ones that just use the engine to power a generator. The whole system is simplified and lighter than having 2 different drivetrains.

  57. 250 Watts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Professional athletes can generate 900Watts and any healthy individual should be able to get at least half of that. Why would I want a 250 Watt motor? It would only make me weak in the process by depending on yet more technology.

    1. Re:250 Watts? by dr_leviathan · · Score: 1

      Yes, 250W is very low power for an electric bicycle. It would help, but the extra weight of the motor and batteries almost doesn't make it worth it. Many states have laws that limit an ebike to 1kW -- above that it needs signals and registration just like a moped or scooter.

      I've got a 1.9kW ebike that is pretty cool. It uses a kit from here:

      http://www.electricrider.com/crystalyte/index.htm

      on a 29er monocog mountain bike. The motor is in the front wheel. I put a bigger ring up front and an 8-speed hub on the back -- I can achieve speeds up to 45mph and a range of only 12 miles if I use battery power all the way, farther if I conserve the batteries and pedal-only when possible. There are some tradeoffs here -- the bike weighs 95 lbs.

      So, for short trips I can outrun any non-motorized bicyclist. For any trip longer than about 25 miles I will fall behind someone of comparable strength as myself.

      Needless to say, I haven't registered it. To most people it just looks like a regular bicycle... until I pass them at 35mph.

      --
      Religion is poison to rationality, and we lose sight of that at our own peril. -- Lurker2288
    2. Re:250 Watts? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Professional athletes can generate 900W for a very short period of time. Typical lactose threshold for a professional cyclist is about 400 Watts, assuming they're doped up. An un-doped cyclist can generate about 325-350W sub-threshold.

      Competitive non-pros (Cat 3 and up) hang around the high 200's.

       

  58. Aerobic Cruiser by cellurl · · Score: 1

    These guys have a Euro-tuned servo that gets more than 40miles per charge plus NO-CHAIN!

    Aerobic Cruiser in Memphis

    After you give to Haiti, check us out
    Quit Speeding

  59. endless-sphere.com ebike r&d forums by Two99Point80 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Some folks there are in the multi-KW range, others commuting almost daily testing various motors and batteries. Lots of, well, roll-your-own activity.

  60. Re:MOD ME DOWN, WASTE A MOD POINT by hao3 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    knight |nt|
    noun
    1 (in the Middle Ages) a man who served his sovereign or lord as a mounted soldier in armor.
      (in the Middle Ages) a man raised by a sovereign to honorable military rank after service as a page and squire.
      poetic/literary a man devoted to the service of a woman or a cause : in all your quarrels I will be your knight.
      dated (in ancient Rome) a member of the class of equites.
      (in ancient Greece) a citizen of the second class in Athens.

    verb [ trans. ] (usu. be knighted)
    invest (someone) with the title of knight.

    DERIVATIVES
    knightliness |natlin1s| noun
    knightly |natli| adjective & ( poetic/literary) adverb
    ORIGIN Old English cniht [boy, youth, servant] ; related to Dutch knecht and German Knecht. Sense 2 dates from the mid 16th cent.; the uses relating to Greek and Roman history derive from comparison with medieval knights.

    --
    "Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." - G.K. Chesterton
  61. Why not air? by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    Why not an air hybrid for bicycles? The conversion efficiency of mechanical to air and air to mechanical is quite a bit higher than the conversion efficiency of mechanical to chemical and chemical to mechanical. Moreover, it seems that with a carbon fiber tank you don't have as much weight as with the battery.

    1. Re:Why not air? by thestuckmud · · Score: 1

      References?

      My source suggests otherwise: "Comparing to the data given for rechargeable batteries, this makes the advanced fiber-reinforced bottle example comparable to the lead-acid battery in terms of energy density and advanced battery systems are several times better. Batteries also provide nearly constant voltage over their entire charge level, whereas the pressure of compressed air storage varies greatly with charge level. It is technically challenging to design air engines to maintain high efficiency and sufficient power over such a wide range of pressures."

    2. Re:Why not air? by Baldrson · · Score: 1

      Air loses on a energy per mass measure but not on a power per mass measure. A 200kg mass (heavy backpacking adult male cyclist) moving at 35mph has 25kJ of energy. So you basically need a mechanical system that can rapidly and efficiently absorb that energy during breaking and rapidly and efficiently deliver that energy during acceleration. Your reference says that at a minimum, the carbon fiber tank system can store 40kJ/kg. As for the main challenge of efficiently converging air pressure to kinetic energy, that is where you need an infinitely variable transmission. Yes, it is challenging to get that right but has anyone seriously investigated it?

    3. Re:Why not air? by thestuckmud · · Score: 1

      Regeneration might recover 30% of the energy with there is no loss of efficiency. That's because at 20 mph, 190lbs of bicycle+rider has 3,500 joules of kinetic energy, but it costs 12,000 joules to travel 1/4 mile. 30% is pretty good, but not so good as a charged battery offering several times the specific energy. Even with electric motors, regeneration current loses to more efficient geared drives on ebikes.

    4. Re:Why not air? by Baldrson · · Score: 1
      So in terms of human powered transport, air resistance and friction overwhelm any advantages of a powerful, lightweight and efficient regenerative braking system?

      Interesting.

  62. Illegal in NY State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    In NY state , ebikes are illegal. It's dumb, but true.

    1. Re:Illegal in NY State by adf92343414 · · Score: 1

      Not if they meet the requirements of HR 727 / Public law 107-319 . See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ319.107 which says (in part):

              ``(b) For the purpose of this section, the term `low-speed electric
      bicycle' means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable
      pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose
      maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a
      motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20
      mph.
              ``(c) To further protect the safety of consumers who ride low-speed
      electric bicycles, the Commission may promulgate new or amended
      requirements applicable to such vehicles as necessary and appropriate.
              ``(d) This section shall supersede any State law or requirement with
      respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law
      or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law or requirements
      referred to in subsection (a).''.

      SEC. 2. MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS. >

              For purposes of motor vehicle safety standards issued and enforced
      pursuant to chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code,

      [[Page 116 STAT. 2777]]

      a low-speed electric bicycle (as defined in section 38(b) of the
      Consumer Product Safety Act) shall not be considered a motor vehicle as
      defined by section 30102(6) of title 49, United States Code.

  63. I used to live in Salt Lake City, supposedly a by aussersterne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    mountain biking mecca. And I had much the same experience cycling in the city. There are few bike lanes, but the roads are pretty wide. You wouldn't think there would be a problem. But the motorists often got angry at bicycles simply because they were there. I OFTEN got honked at by passing cars (they'd wait until they were right on your tail or next to you, then HOOOOONK while they yelled out the window) and I got a decent number of things thrown at me.

    Worst was a 7-11 double gulp cup that was full. It hit me on the side of the head, the lid came off, I got drenched in Coke and then the edge of the cup got stuck between my crank and my chain causing me to wipe out. I was sticky, covered in soda, and had to walk my bike home and use tools to get the thing out and the bike cranking again.

    This was in the '90s before the "national concsiousness of greenness and cycling" hit. Hopefully things are different now.

    These days I live in NYC and would cycle everywhere (there are a lot of cyclists and motorists are aware of them) only my wife forbids it, being absolutely terrified that I will succumb to NYC traffic. :-P

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    1. Re:I used to live in Salt Lake City, supposedly a by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

      As far as downtown SLC goes, there's now quite a few more bikes on the road. It really exploded in the last two years, and isn't slowing down. As far as hostility towards cyclists, I haven't seen any; people tend to just go around, and there's some spacious bike lanes on a few major streets as well. We're not quite Portland, but we're getting there.

      Of course outside the city center in the burbs, I'm sure there's still some yokels who pull that kind of stuff...

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    2. Re:I used to live in Salt Lake City, supposedly a by adjustable_pliers · · Score: 1

      Salt Lake City is working on the problem. As a member of a neighborhood community council, we're doing our part working with the city on accommodating bicycles with lanes, trails, and awareness. (This is the *city*, mind you... I don't know about the county or other municipalities.)

      The mayor is an avid cyclist. He doesn't take kindly to motorists who derive pleasure at intimidating cyclists.

      Still, as we can all agree, the issue is cultural. For daily commuting, I would enjoy riding my bike, or an e-bike, or anything, but the all-out nasty treatment from motorists keeps me a motorist, too.

  64. Electric bike is an electric motorbike by dindi · · Score: 1

    I am searching for a light (preferably less or around 80kgs) electric dirt bike for some time, but battery time still prevents decent length enduro rides.

    The leader at the moment seems to be :
    http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/ - on the dirt bike 2 hour/64 kilometers (almost double on the street version) with 2 and 4 hours to charge.

    Then there is Quantiya
    http://quantya.com/ - similar to zero, seems sturdier, less bicycle like.

    An interesting hybrid is the Stealth:
    http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/ - looks more like a downhill bike (it is) with a motor. It has pedals, so you can trick police into thinking that this is only a bicycle (it is).

    At the point only Zero has a decent site with shopping cart and an easy way to orde one.

    Also worth to note, that KTM (best enduro/offroad bikes currently) is planning an electric bike:
    http://hellforleathermagazine.com/2008/10/ktm-presents-electric-enduro.html
    This is a little like the Apple tablets, with all the sites showing the same few pictures, but they seem definitely authentic, however no news on the rumored 2010 mass production.

    Well, just my 2 cents on the topic. All I want now is a bike that can deliver 60-80 kilometers and can take rough enduro riding. Unfortunately most owners say that with hill climbs, aggressive riding or on a MX track, even the zeros empty a battery in half an hour. While 2 hours and 60 kilometers sound like a nice after work ride (I actually go 3-5:30 2-3 times a week after work, and usually put 60-80 kilometers of trails/road into my KTM 450 or my 300), but half an hour is completely unacceptable, as these bikes do not have pedals to get back to the truck or home after your batteries die (except the Stealth, but it is too bicycle like for what I do.)

    Hope this sheds some light on the offroad segment of the electric market!

    1. Re:Electric bike is an electric motorbike by dindi · · Score: 1

      The correct link for the stealth is:
      http://www.stealthelectricbikes.com.au/

      The copy paste did not work quite well and I put the zero's link there agin...

  65. Re:What's the point? Sweat. by guidryp · · Score: 1

    If you ever cycle commuted, you should know that the main issue isn't getting "worn out", it is arriving soaked in sweat.

    You need shower facilities, you need to bring a change of clothing, store sweaty clothes etc... To much aggravation for me.

    But if I could just twist and go and arrive clean and dry at work, then it would be viable. I could pedal on the way home.

  66. Come to Groningen, Netherlands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Netherlands in general is bicycle-friendly. I currently live in Groningen, where there are more bicyclists on the road than cars. Most main roads have separate bicycle lanes that are sometimes sectioned off from the main road with center dividers. You can ride for miles (or kilometers) without having to worry about running out of bicycle lanes. They even have stop lights for cyclists that give them the right of way. Cars are generally not allowed to ride in the city center, making it a safe place for pedestrians and cyclists to do their shopping and go to work or school.

    Even in the winter, the snow plows clear off the bicycle lanes so that cyclists can continue riding to and from wherever they please. It's virtually unnecessary to have a car here. And only a few people ride an e-bicycle (most of which I would call lazy, because they're in perfectly good shape to be pedaling).

    If all of the major US city governments would have thought to do the same, you would see a large number of people avoiding cars and riding bicycles. You'll also notice when coming to Holland that there aren't very many overweight people here.

  67. Re:$99,800 Yen in Japan. Why so expensive here? by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is it double the price in the US?

    It has to be packaged and shipped to the states - along with stocks of spare parts, etc.

    It has to have an American distributor.

    It has to be successfully advertised and promoted here.

    It has to be sold with a warranty and service plan that will attract the American buyer.

  68. Re:Illegal in America, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yea.. riding anything with a motor is strictly prohibited on "bike paths" in the states, too.

    I yell at people riding rented segways and tell them I'm gonna call the cops! damn lazy folk!

    Since I generally ignore laws, I'd like to try out this motorized contraption in Vail, CO and see how far up Vail Pass the thing can go. I have a hunch the battery would be drained near the end of east vail, before the pass :).

  69. IWhy Bicycles aren't popular by rossdee · · Score: 1

    "Electric bicycles have been around for more than a century, but they have never quite captured the imagination of auto-obsessed Americans. "

    That may be due to the fact that in america we have this phenomena called weather. 2 wheeled vehicles don't work so well on ice and snow covered streets, and -30 degree wind chills are not pleasent when riding.

    Batteries don't work as well at 20 below either, people have trouble starting their cars. I would think that a bicycle with a battery that is parked outside won't go very far. At least a hybrid car has the gas engine to warm it up.

    1. Re:IWhy Bicycles aren't popular by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      htfu

      --
      +1 Disagree
  70. 250W is not enough power. Over $2k is ridiculous by serialband · · Score: 2, Informative

    The electric bicycle rules need to be changed. A 20 mph limit is just not useful to commuters. I can't even fathom the 15 mph limit set for other countries. If I want to use it to commute, I want it to be able to keep up with traffic in a 25mph zone and not block traffic. Even with a 20mph limit, it should maintain at least 20mph going uphill. 275 Watts is just insufficient to keep it going even 5mph up the hills where I live. The only advantage to these e-bikes, is that they can prevent you from sweating profusely when you arrive at work, especially if you had no access to a shower there. Which is what I used it for when I started out. I didn't have to sweat going up the hill.

    I tried out an older 375W Charger Bike when I got back to bicycling to work and my muscles had atrophied from 7 years of having to drive an hour each way to work. It sells for around $750 from a guy who bought the remaining stock ( http://abc.eznettools.net/D300013/X300109/eBike1.html ) and it just wasn't enough power to really go up the hills where I live. It went about 7 mph uphill unless you stood up and forcefully assisted it and possibly doubled the speed. Has anyone seen how fast Lance Armstrong biked up a hill while huffing & puffing? He's not exactly speeding up a hill.

    The 20 mph limit is also too low for me since I now pedal faster than that on a level surface. It's absolutely useless for going downhill too. The motor would cut off at the legally set speed of 20mph. The only time I got the extra power was when I went up a hill and at best it added 5mph to my peddaling. It's been sitting in storage for several years now since I use a more convenient folding bicycle for easier commuting on public transit legs of my trip. The batteries are likely dead now, and I haven't used that in a while. Luckily, the bicycle is still usefull by itself without the battery pack.

  71. Netherlands by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    In the netherlands you move arround fastest in a city on a bike. But it better be an old bike, it will be stolen someday. (~750.000 stolen bikes per year, on 15 million people).

    1. Re:Netherlands by cdfh · · Score: 1

      it will be stolen someday. (~750.000 stolen bikes per year, on 15 million people).

      My understanding is that most of these bikes have built-in locks which go around the back wheel. These are extremely convenient, but provide almost no real security. Thus, your statistics probably don't apply to people who use a decent lock. So, if you want to ride an expensive bike in the Netherlands, use a decent lock.

    2. Re:Netherlands by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      Statistics...

      All locks just provide a delay for someone stealing. a 40 euro lock on a 100 euro bike is quite effective.

      But on a 1000 euro electric bike.... well like a said, you cannot park it on the street.

  72. Unicycles seem better to me ... by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 1

    Because of its simpler, smaller (= leightweight) design, the self-balancing unicycle seems more promising: Focus Designs SBU. I'm not sure if it's really that easy to master, but I plan on getting one.

    --
    "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
  73. Used in Toronto for years by GSMacLean · · Score: 2, Informative

    Electric bikes have been used and encouraged in Toronto for over three years. They can appear like stocky bicycles, or scooter-style. They have a maximum speed of 20 mph, and you don't need a drivers license, motorcycle license, license plate or insurance. A whole industry has sprung up around the legislation with many models of electric bicycles being sold.

    Ontario Ministry of Transportation e-Bike FAQ

  74. Not new; not needed. by MrCrassic · · Score: 1

    There are a few things here that might be problematic:

    • It's $2,300 for a cruiser bike. With that amount of money, one could buy a much nicer looking road or mountain bike or just save it for transportation costs, since it may not save them that much.
    • The cheaper models have to worry about being really, REALLY heavy.
    • A lot of folks buying bicycles are thinking of the price points being at Wal-Mart prices, and is part of the reason why a lot of people just buy used bikes on Craigslist (at least here in NYC, which is a bike commuter-heavy city).

    These bikes are not new, though I haven't seen a lot of bike shops push these. They are super fun to pace though; 450W on a flat road means a pretty high pace to follow... :-)

  75. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by Sancho · · Score: 1

    and don't even want to wait on cyclists when it won't effect their arrival time.

    Does riding a bicycle give you psychic powers?

    The fact is, this is a fast-paced world. People plan arrival times, and a bicycle going 25mph on a 40mph road can affect it. That doesn't excuse violence, but try to understand their point of view and don't assume that you aren't making them late.

  76. Two problems with e-bikes by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1, Insightful

    E-bikes are bringing a couple of new problems to bicycling.

    I live in Portland Oregon, and I put about 3,000 miles on my bike last year. I'll probably double that this year, since I'm riding through the winter for the first time since I was a kid.

    We've started to see e-bikes last summer, and two problems are emerging:

    1. First, when you put a redneck on an e-bike, you don't lose the redneck. Instead you've now got rednecks on the bike paths and the bike lanes. They disrupt the courtesy and mutual cooperation between strangers that makes cycling in crowded conditions work.
    2. Second, the e-bikes are being bought and used by lots of persons who have no experience with bicycling. On a pedal bike it takes a season or more for a new rider to learn the shifting, cadence, and other tricks needed to travel at speed, and during that time they are also learning how to anticipate unsafe conditions and how to get along with other cyclists, skateboarders, scooters, and pedestrians. But with the e-bikes, these persons are speeding along much faster than is safe for them or anyone around them, since they don't know what they are doing. And they are often oblivious to the fact that they are crash waiting to happen.

    So e-bikes are not without problems. There is a place for them in the grand scheme of things, but their introduction is going to be disruptive and a lot of persons are going to get hurt.

    --
    Will
  77. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by sznupi · · Score: 1

    I a bike can affect their arrival time in any meaningful way, the arrival time wasn't really planned...

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  78. Still cost too much by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The interest in these has never been lacking. They simply cost too much for a reasonably well designed model to make any real headway though. If they could get the low end down to below $300 and the high end closer to $800-$1000 they might actually make some progress, but until then, there will be no significant change in the way people use bicycles.

    Especially when you consider the fact that most people (in the USA at least) use bicycles because they either can't afford something more practical/versatile or are using it as a way to exercise.

    --
    "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  79. Re:It's because some car drivers are, frankly, mor by sznupi · · Score: 1

    That is just BS. In my country roads seem to even up to two times narrower than in the US (yeas, probably not really two times, definitely much more narrow though). Nobody has nervous breakdown just because of the need to pass bikes.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  80. But is it ready ...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The year of the E-bicycle"?

    But: Is it ready for the desktop?

  81. Have a shower by Rix · · Score: 1

    Most office buildings have shower facilities, you just need to track down the building manager for access.

  82. Cleaning up at work by jmichaelg · · Score: 1

    I cycle to work and clean up after the ride one of two ways.

    1. If I have a meeting coming up, I'll take a sponge bath. That is, I'll strip down to my waist, wet a bit of my towel and wipe all over. Follow that up with a bit of soap, then wipe again with the wet part of the towel to wipe off the soap. Finally, dry off with the dry part. Takes maybe 2-3 minutes tops. It's not as nice as taking a shower but it works.
    2. If I have more time, I'll use the shower at work.

      Knowing I had the shower at work got me started but I eventually figured out I could get by with just a sponge bath and a change of clothes. Shirts and pants come out fine if you roll them into a log before putting them in a backpack.

  83. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a cyclist, I rarely "impede" any vehicle more than about 5 seconds, but am often cut off, trash thrown at me, yelled at, etc. Is five seconds of time worth threatening another person's life?

    Well, apparently it is, if some of the motorists I've met can be believed. Once I understood this, the nature of war and other human conflict became easier to understand.

  84. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're lucky then. When I was riding near Ft. Worth back in the '80s I got hit in the back by a six-pack and the bottles were not empties, they were all full. I crashed into the ditch really hard, wrenched my knee and my back. I gave up cycling after that, just too risky.

  85. Re:It's because some car drivers are, frankly, mor by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

    Ever walked behind someone whose natural pace is half of yours, in a narrow corridor where simply passing him is difficult?

    I work in a nursing home. You have no idea...

    --
    Redundancy is good And also good.
  86. Electric motorized bicycles do not have range. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was just given a setup 650 watt with battery and controler.
    It has about a ten block range. and back home. Maximum speed up hill dead slow . Maximun speed with a head wind Dead Stop.
    My ICE powered motorized bicycles use about 70 cents a week. Nice speed and infinite range (depending on how much gasoline you purchase during the trip).
    Battery power needs to come way down in price, and size.
    Most people try to use RC batteries. For greater range . LIPO 3 They are VERY DANGEROUS.

  87. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Like those damned people that dare to obey the laws?

    I don't know about GP's jurisdiction, but around here (Vancouver), every time a Critical Mass event happens, the police reminds everyone that it is, in fact, illegal, as the way it's organized it violates the local traffic laws.

    However, because politicians are wussies and can't afford to offend the hip "screw the establishment" crowd, and because dissolving the crowd at Critical Mass would probably end up being effectively a riot control operation with all that entails, the police is told to stand by and watch it, not trying to arrest anyone.

    (Oh, and I do the speed limit)

  88. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by Locklin · · Score: 2, Informative

    When passing a cyclist, the motorist may need to slow for a minute or so, but then is able to catch up the the next car in traffic anyway. If that person was not on a bike, they would be in a car, and would be contributing to congestion -and congestion does slow overall travel time.

    --
    "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
  89. re: guns and cars by eleuthero · · Score: 1

    Living in Texas is about like living in most other places, though the streets do seem to be kept cleaner than in most other states I've lived - this is perhaps because everyone drives everywhere (while it is next to impossible to get anywhere in Houston without driving, most other places in Texas have a same citizen-mentality that if you want to go somewhere you drive--though it is usually possible to not).

    Gun laws are pretty much on par with other places--Perception of immediate harm to self or those around you or invasion of property (yes, this last is not par for the course if I remember my Minnesota law correctly).

  90. Re:It's because some car drivers are, frankly, mor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yes yes, drivers hate cyclists because all cyclists are idiots, and cyclists hate drivers because all drivers are idiots. Does anyone know which group threw the first metaphorical punch? Until someone stands up and says "I don't know who threw the first punch, but I'll be damned if I throw the next", nothing will ever change.

    Not saying you should just stand there and take it, but hatred just breeds hatred.

  91. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

    I've yet to see a 40mph road that did not allow for a car to safely pass a cyclist, and have been on both sides of that equation. The idea that a bike can slow a car down for any meaningful time is ridiculous. More often I've (in a car) been slowed down to 25 in a 40 zone by a slow car, where there is no safe or legal way to pass that car. Trying to understand the angry point of view is like trying to think of an appropriate and equally impossible metaphor (sorry . . . can't do it right now, but you get it . . . it's impossible).

  92. actually you're making yourself impotent by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/health/nutrition/04bike.html

    you're beating your prostate into submission. the result is impotence and erectile dysfunction. the male prostate was not designed to take the pounding a bicycle seat gives it

    they need some form of new bicycle seat for men. greener lifestyles should not result in men who can't have children... to carry on the greener lifestyle

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:actually you're making yourself impotent by fotbr · · Score: 1

      Well, that's one way to be green -- after all, what's the carbon footprint for having and raising a kid?

  93. Maybe not right away, but inevitably by cjmapman · · Score: 1

    The number of aging baby boomers with good environmental sensibilities -- and tired knees -- only rises over time. And the biggest cost in a really good electric bike -- a lithium-based based battery -- only declines over time (especially because those are the same batteries that hybrid- and all-electric cars use, and huge investments are being made to drive those costs down.) Those two curves are fated to cross sooner or later. Interested in joining the electric bicycling community? Please join us at http://electriccyclist.com/

  94. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by cduffy · · Score: 2, Informative

    A good philosophy -- but I'd urge you not to compromise your own safety simply for others' convenience.

    One of the things they teach in the TS101 class from the League of American Bicyclists is that getting on and off the sidewalk is considerably more dangerous than staying in the road -- and that while using an improved shoulder is legal (and often the safe thing to do, if it's clean and in good condition), getting too far over to the right within a lane can encourage cars to pass you when it's unsafe to do so.

    The classroom portion of the course spends a fair bit of time on accident statistics breakdown and discussion on how each class of accidents can be avoided or mitigated. I think it's time well spent.

  95. Like This Is Going To Be Really Appealing... by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    ... during last week's 8 degree mornings with ice all over the place and a bunch of Virginians that can barely drive anyway trying to kill me. No thanks.

  96. i don't understand an ideology by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    that is hellbent on breeding itself out of existence

    of course an ideology is not genetic, but values are values: they tend to overlap mightily generation to generation. you can't depend upon the offspring of the gas guzzlers to always adapt your point of view. that's not a valid mechanism for the continuation of your ideas to remain alive and fruitful in the coming generations

    think of the problem as one of sustainability ;-)

    i agree the planet is overpopulated, and we should have less kids. but the paradox is that anyone who follows through on that thought only leaves the earth to those human beings raised by people hellbent on having 10 kids and consuming everything they can

    its a genuine problem

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i don't understand an ideology by fotbr · · Score: 1

      I think you took me too seriously -- I was just pointing out that not having kids is sort of "green" in a twisted way.

      Personally, this world is simply too f'd up to bring more kids into and feel good about it. And 95% of the "green" movement is about money (the whole carbon-credit ponzi scheme) and control. Maybe 5% of the movement is actually about improvements, which is a shame.

  97. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by yurtinus · · Score: 1

    In-city driving is hardly effected by cycling. There is a remote chance that *on occasion* a cyclist might cost you a stoplight. Typically when I approach a cyclist, if I I can't get into (or there doesn't exist) a left-hand lane, I'm able to get by him/her within a matter of seconds. If it is so god-awful that you need to slow down momentarily to pass a cyclist, how do you deal with slow drivers, stoplights, and any other minor inconvenience on the road?

    --
    +1 Disagree
  98. It's Houston. Carry a gun by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Yes, and people sticking their hands out the window trying to smack you on a high speed drive by, and attempting to side swipe you.

    Don't be such a pussy and shoot the fuckers who are attempting to kill you. At a minimum, fuck up their paintwork.

     

    --
    Deleted
  99. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by Sancho · · Score: 1

    Oh sorry, I forgot that all bicyclists are nice, courteous, and stick to the right side of the road.

    Most of the time I get upset with them, they're taking up the entire lane. Now they're entitled to by law, but there are lots of things one can do under the law that would make me an asshole and make a reasonable person upset.

    If I'm able to pass the cyclist easily, then I'm barely going to notice them and it's not even going to register in my memory as an annoyance.

  100. I object to this article title by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    If in most every other e-something, the E stands for Electronic, it's just annoying to use it to stand for Electric here. It's like how homophobia is an alarmist umbrella term for anyone who disapproves of homosexuals for any reason, while every other phobia only describes an irrational fear. From Wikipedia:

    Phobia: "an intense and persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, animals, or people"
    Homophobia: "a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions[1][2][3] of the term refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and (irrational) fear"

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  101. Re:250W is not enough power. Over $2k is ridiculou by yurtinus · · Score: 1

    I can't really speak from experience since I've never used electric assist on my bike-- but I wonder if it would have some use for smoothing out the spikes of a commute (ie, those damn hills at the beginning and end of the ride). I'd expect to use a motor to assist my pedalling, not replace it. So, while it won't get up the hill on its own, hopefully it makes the pedalling a bit easier? Anyhow, I suppose what I'm getting at with regards to the power, is that 250 watts roughly matches what an average rider puts out (granted, if I'm really hammering up a hill, I should be somewhere north of that)-- so you double the power available when you really want to push it.

    I'm just thinkin out loud here and I suppose it does matter on the implementation, but I could see 250 watts for the climbing sections being a reasonable means of keeping some speed up the hills. Of course, whether that offsets the extra weight you carry around and need to push along the flats is a different story.

    --
    +1 Disagree
  102. E-* by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    When do I get my e-e? It would go so well with my e-bicycle that i would ride to my e-business to write some e-mails to my e-partners and e-buddies of my e-social e-net.

    I’d take two, so I’d have a e-e-e-e!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  103. Re:Bikers and taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "When bikers pay into the highway system, then they can have bike lanes."

    What an incredibly boneheaded statement. I drive a car and I ride a bike and I pay taxes at the federal, state and local. Why shouldn't I and millions of other cyclists have a portion of our tax dollars go towards bike lanes and bike paths? The same people who complain about cyclists being on the road, whine about using tax dollars to provide safer alternatives. Get reasonable.

  104. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No single snowflake ever thinks that it is the cause of the avalanche.

    Again, not excusing the violence.

  105. eZip by Phoghat · · Score: 1

    I live in Queens NY and have an eZip. It's all right, not great. Speeds ok, mileage isn't. They claim 20 miles on a charge and I can only get about 12. As far as buying an ebike for $2300, I'd rather have a second hand motorcycle or a new scooter.

    --
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  106. single brake lever? by inline_four · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why they wired regenerative braking on the front wheel to the rear wheel brake lever. I understand that it lets them have a single brake lever for the whole bike, but generally speaking, most bicycles and motorcycles have separate controls for each wheel's braking for a good reason.

    --
    Alexey
  107. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, in San Francisco, at least, it's held during rush hour on the last Friday of the month. In other words, the time is chosen specifically for maximum interference with motorists.

  108. Re:Sounds like a nice place to live by sznupi · · Score: 1

    If we would have an avalanche (of cyclists; and not as a "critical mass" BS), then that would be a damn good thing, as far as changing attitudes towards transportation goes. In which case hijacking cities by motorists shouldn't be also as acceptable as it is now.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter