Slashdot Mirror


Electric Bicycles Surging In Popularity

gollum123 writes "An accidental transportation upheaval began in China, where an estimated 120 million electric bicycles now hum along the roads, up from a few thousand in the 1990s. They are replacing traditional bikes and motorcycles at a rapid clip and, in many cases, allowing people to put off the switch to cars. The booming Chinese electric-bike industry is spurring worldwide interest and impressive sales in India, Europe, and the US. China is exporting many bikes, and Western manufacturers are also copying the Chinese trend to produce models of their own. From virtually nothing a decade ago, electric bikes have become an $11 billion global industry. In the Netherlands, a third of the money spent on bicycles last year went to electric-powered models. Industry experts predict similar growth elsewhere in Europe, especially in Germany, France, and Italy, as rising interest in cycling coincides with an aging population. India had virtually no sales until two years ago, but its nascent market is fast expanding and could eclipse Europe's in the next year. In China, electric bicycles have evolved into bigger machines that resemble Vespa scooters. These larger models are causing headaches for global transportation planners. They cannot decide whether to embrace them as a green form of transportation, or ban them as a safety hazard. Some cities are studying the halfway measure of banning them from bicycle lanes while permitting them on streets."

533 comments

  1. Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ah, yes, the transportation planner, one of the modern evils, who uses dubious logic to impose brain-dead transportation priorities that do wonders to destroy the planet...

    1. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by NetNed · · Score: 1

      You forgot the "indubitably" at the end there, Mr. Smith from Lost in space.

    2. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by siloko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm sure electric bikes have a use but I always feel a bit sad when I see a twenty-something dude riding an electric bike whilst I scoot past on my pushbike. O and transportation planners - don't get me started! In my town to satisfy a push for more cycle paths they simply painted a picture of a white cycle at the head of all the sidewalks . . . chaos and injury ensued. No back tracking though - just some back-slapping about implementing a 'green' transportation policy!

    3. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While some twenty-something dudes would otherwise be riding a normal bicycle, most would be driving a car. If it takes electric bicycles to kill the idea that cycling is a sport instead of an efficient form of transportation, so be it.

    4. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder about how safe they are. My heart rate scales with the speed I travel and my reflexes tend to scale the same way. Sometimes I get scared riding with a strong tail wind because I feel that I am going faster than my body is setup to do.

      The other thing is that sometimes I need to go slow, and sometime I need to go very fast. A power limited electric motor can't do the latter and would make me feel vulnerable in traffic.

    5. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      And here in central florida they put it on the road which resulted in an even greater amount of chaos and injury.

      I've got a lot of foreign friends, the one thing they have in common is that they consider us delusional for believing that bicycles are not pedestrians.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    6. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1
      In Australia they are also vehicles (not pedestrians). Of course, they do tend to obey the road rules 50% of the time, but then whisk up on to the footpaths at will.

      They are great for inner-city transportation, but I wouldn't like to ride along busy suburban main roads on one.

    7. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Your friends must be motorists. In countries with high percentages of bicyclists, people would certainly disagree with the pedestrian classification. Studies have shown that bicycles belong on the road: Bicycle paths remove the cyclists from the view of motorists, which means that instead of preventing accidents, they cause them, especially at intersections. Bicycles certainly don't belong on the sidewalk, because actual pedestrians behave very differently from vehicles. Mixing pedestrians and cyclists is a recipe for disaster.

    8. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Australia's already famous for trying its best to kill all the humans living there, that's hardly suprising.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    9. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by brianosaurus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have a "hybrid" electric bike. It has an electric motor in the hub, and regular pedals for the human powerplant. The motor works best as an assist, particularly nice on steep hills. I mainly use the electric motor to get up to speed, then can pedal to maintain. Using both at the same time gives a good quick launch from a standstill. The electric motor on mine tops out at about 15mph, which is decent. I can go faster on a normal bike, but I break a sweat. :)

      --
      blog
    10. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Laser_iCE · · Score: 0

      Maybe the fauna, but the Government is doing everything it can to increase the population, from the baby bonus and all the constant city expansions, to everything related to the Government (council, trains in Queensland, etc.) being so critical about safety that it impacts on the employees ability to complete their job better than usual, and insists on everyone taking twice as long to get a job done, to ensure nobody gets hurt. Either that, or so when somebody does hurt they can raise their hands up and say "hey hey, we put all these restrictions in place -- it's not our fault". It's a shame, there are a LOT of great people working for the Government, but with the shit-house managers that are put in place (appointed from outside of the workplace -- something that should NEVER happen for a managers/supervisors position), morale is at an all time low. What do you do though? They all (managers) look after each other. Basically, if you're not in the "club" -- then you're a nobody, and a nobody is worth nothing apart from the money they are forced to pay you fortnightly.

    11. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How about: stop being a pussy.

    12. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I get scared riding with a strong tail wind because I feel that I am going faster than my body is setup to do.

      Good equipment helps. This is one of the reasons I'm not really big on e-bike conversions which take a conventional frame and add a 750W or larger motor with no other modifications -- particularly if it ever might spend time on trails, a powerful ebike should have a frame designed for the forces it's going to be handling; forks, shocks and brakes from the downhill racing market; and a low center of gravity to keep the whole thing maneuverable (some manufacturers put the battery up on the rear rack behind the seatpost; ugh!)

      The other thing is that sometimes I need to go slow, and sometime I need to go very fast. A power limited electric motor can't do the latter and would make me feel vulnerable in traffic.

      Unless your battery is dead (in which case you're pulling some dead weight along with you -- but nothing horrid), there's nothing making a leg-based sprint any harder on an e-bike than it is on any other pedal-powered vehicle; to the contrary, it's much, much easier to keep up a sprint when there's an extra 650W added to the output from your legs. :)

      There have been a few idiotic designs in the past that interpreted the laws in such a way as to automatically enable regenerative braking over 20mph. These are no longer made.

    13. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Some important words/ides for you.

      Helmet: A thing to keep your brains in your skull while on a bike, a motorcycle, skis, or during rough sex.
      Throttle: a device to control the speed of a vehicle.

    14. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by iamapizza · · Score: 1

      In my town to satisfy a push for more cycle paths they simply painted a picture of a white cycle at the head of all the sidewalks . . . chaos and injury ensued. No back tracking though - just some back-slapping about implementing a 'green' transportation policy!

      You were lucky. In my town, they painted a picture of a white cycle on the bus that was waiting to hit you. And they covered the bus in sharp spikes just in case you had the luxury of brakes.

      --
      Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
    15. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Your foreign friends bedamned; bicycles are not pedestrians, and never have been in the U.S. Whenever you start treating them as such (i.e., putting bicycles on pedestrian paths) you end up with a lot more injured pedestrians than injured bicyclists on the street.

    16. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      Yours is not the hybrid, yours is the electric bike, no pedals and it is and electric scooter, not a bicycle. The balance in electric bikes is efficiency, how much braking energy is recovered, how much energy storage capacity is provided, is there any solar recharge capacity, pedal style chain to drive wheels or straight pedal to generator, also there is the tricycle.

      They certainly do make sence, not only should they be allowed on streets but the should be tax and other advantages for using them instead of less efficient fossil fuel burning vehicles, especially when you add in the space saving, in terms of roads and parking, even with tricycles. For those that want to claim that power stations generate as much carbon (depending upon type), remember they are far more efficient energy produced than you typical infernal combustion engine and they can be supplemented with non polluting renewable energy sources, and of course major power plants are not embedded inside major city centres, so healthier cities.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    17. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Unless your battery is dead (in which case you're pulling some dead weight along with you -- but nothing horrid), there's nothing making a leg-based sprint any harder on an e-bike than it is on any other pedal-powered vehicle; to the contrary, it's much, much easier to keep up a sprint when there's an extra 650W added to the output from your legs. :)

      Where I live, having an engine over 200 watts makes your bike a motorbike. I have never seen a power assisted bicycle with decent pedals so I doubt they are going to keep up in a sprint. I see a few converted bicycles and a few electric motor scooters in the sub 200W category. All of them are very slow.

    18. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Some important words/ides for you.

      Helmet: A thing to keep your brains in your skull while on a bike, a motorcycle, skis, or during rough sex.

      Yes. I have one of those.

      Throttle: a device to control the speed of a vehicle.

      My bicycle doesn't seem to have one of those, which is part of the problem. The low rolling resistance means that if you turn left on a wet surface when the wind is pushing you to the right, you could wind low on coefficient of friction.

    19. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

      Had seriously considered the electric bike route about a year ago. With the chemicals of the batteries...the weight & the cost of replacement...decided to head the "standard" route of going with a 4 stroke gas engine. It's not zero emissions...but I can replace a gas engine for a cheaper cost than batteries. You have to remember that you usually replace all the batteries...not just one.

      I can get around 150-200 miles per gallon of gas...compared to 50-80 miles on a charge for an electric. Plus...I don't suffer the problems with heat or degradation of the chemical in the battery. No one talks about these items...but you better consider them...especially as I can keep on going when you've run out of juice. When these drawbacks get worked out...if ever...battery powered bikes will be a great option...just not yet.

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    20. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Well I have four years of cycle commuting in heavy traffic behind me for a total of 15000km. I broke my right humerus on a tram line in July 2009 and recovered. I had a generalized tonic-clonic seizure in December 2009 and I am probably going to go back to cycle commuting in three months or so.

      So how about you, AC? Do you reckon I am a pussy because I express my concerns about cycling conditions?

    21. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't a powered electric bike allow you to go even faster? As for reflexes, I don't see why you can't train yourself to do better if that's a problem for you. People manage to cope with driving cars, flying RC helis, and playing FPSs without needing an active heart rate.

    22. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by cduffy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unless your battery is dead (in which case you're pulling some dead weight along with you -- but nothing horrid), there's nothing making a leg-based sprint any harder on an e-bike than it is on any other pedal-powered vehicle; to the contrary, it's much, much easier to keep up a sprint when there's an extra 650W added to the output from your legs. :)

      Where I live, having an engine over 200 watts makes your bike a motorbike. I have never seen a power assisted bicycle with decent pedals so I doubt they are going to keep up in a sprint. I see a few converted bicycles and a few electric motor scooters in the sub 200W category. All of them are very slow.

      Indeed, local laws do matter. Here in tx.us, the cutoff is going faster than 20mph on flat ground with a 180lb rider without pedaling, or a vehicle weight of over 100lb. Unlike several other US states, wattage isn't a factor in legality here -- but in those states where it is a critical factor, the law is ambiguous enough to allow a measure based on the entire system's real-world output at the wheels rather than the motor's nominal output.

      Anyhow -- the (US-made) bike I own games these rules a little by being designed to run at peak efficiency when the user is keeping the cadence up -- so while it's capable of only 20mph without pedaling, 27-28mph is easy to sustain on flat ground. Serious cyclists (in better shape than I) and folks with Rohloff hubs fitted (which are now available from the factory with this year's models) have posted much higher sustained speeds; more to the point, unlike a sprint on a conventional bike, high speeds with the electric assist can actually be sustained over time.

      With respect to pedals -- my preference is for the Crank Brothers Mallets (which are cleat-compatible with the Eggbeaters on my unassisted bike). Opti just started offering a wider range of pedals with their new bikes, and I'm very disappointed that their only clipless option is Shimano. To each their own, I suppose.

    23. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by gd2shoe · · Score: 2

      I have a "hybrid" electric bike. It has an electric motor in the hub, and regular pedals for the human powerplant. The motor works best as an assist, particularly nice on steep hills. I mainly use the electric motor to get up to speed, then can pedal to maintain...

      Yours is not the hybrid, yours is the electric bike, no pedals and it is and electric scooter, not a bicycle.

      Just why do I get the impression that you didn't read what he wrote?

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    24. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by thsths · · Score: 1

      > The electric motor on mine tops out at about 15mph

      Yes, they do that in western countries. But I am sure the Chinese version has no artificial limit, and probably a more powerful engine, too. It may well be more like a scooter than a bicycle, and then it certainly should not be allowed in bicycle lanes.

      But the real question is: is an electric scooter the (an?) answer to our transport problems? I cannot see it working for the family shopping trip, but going to work in good weather should be a breeze.

    25. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      I've got a lot of foreign friends, the one thing they have in common is that they consider us delusional for believing that bicycles are not pedestrians.

      I'm not sure why this was modded flamebait. There's a point to be made here. I've lived in Downtown Portland and traveled a lot as both a pedestrian and a driver. I have to say this: I would MUCH rather dodge bicycles on the sidewalk than hit one with my car. It's not that cyclists are stupid, it's that they are so overwhelmingly out-classed that any collision is frightening. I'd rather have the fear of colliding with a cyclist while crossing a street than living with the guilt of accidentally paralyzing somebody who wobbled into my path. That's one of the key reasons why bicycles on the road are so frustrating. It's like being a waitress while she's carrying four drinks on a tray and a bunch of kids are running around wild playing.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    26. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Plunky · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have the fear of colliding with a cyclist while crossing a street than living with the guilt of accidentally paralyzing somebody who wobbled into my path.

      Perhaps you should just slow down and leave more room when overtaking slower vehicles? That fear of living with guilt sounds like it ought to be addressed and "get them off my road" is not addressing it because it is not actually your road..

      btw I am a cyclist and sometimes wobble intentionally when cars are approaching too fast from the rear. I want them to notice me. I also ride way out towards the centre of the lane if there is not enough room to pass safely. It doesn't last for long but sorry if that adds seconds to your journey time - you can always get me back when you reach the traffic lights. Just halt really close to the kerb so I can't get past..

    27. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by xaxa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I cannot see it working for the family shopping trip, but going to work in good weather should be a breeze.

      That depends how you do the family shopping trip. With my large panniers (and normal, non-electric bicycle) I could carry enough food for two people shopping once a week. By adding a rucksack I could carry enough for three with the small inconvenience (my back would get sweaty). A family of five might buy a cycle trailer, or get things that keep delivered, or use a taxi once a week (cheaper than owning a car?), or join a car-club.

      If I'm cycling right past the supermarket on my way home I sometimes stop and buy 8 1L cartons of juice and some tins, just to save carrying them some other time. This only takes 5 minutes.

    28. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah but I am suggesting that a motorised vehicle is inherently less safe then a human powered vehicle because there are fewer barriers to going fast. It takes time to increase your fitness to be able to ride a bicycle fast. In that time you gain experience in handling the vehicle. On a power vehicle you can go as fast as you tell it to from the word go, so I suggest that overall it won't be as safe.

      I see this as a problem, because bicycles are not particularly safe to begin with.

    29. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      sometime I need to go very fast. A power limited electric motor can't do the latter and would make me feel vulnerable in traffic.

      I don't see how a bicycle can ever be safe when mixed up with fast moving heavy traffic; and I doubt that the ability to go "very fast" is what prevents most bicycle accidents.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    30. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by orasio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, we have a better invention, the human-adapted city. In cities that were build for people and not for cars, the grocery store is no more than two blocks away.
      No need to be lugging your food around, the miracle of logistics takes care of that.

      And you can drive a car or ride for work, but there are lots of cities that have a good, fast, working public transportation system that doesn't smell funny, even in third world countries, like mine.

      The crazy thing is trying to replace the car in cities built around cars. Those cities don't work for people, you have to change cities, change the city, or just keep your damn car with all its disadvantages.

    31. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by hack++slash · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The electric motor on mine tops out at about 15mph,

      The throttle control on my 3 year old Urban Mover UM36 is now derestricted, normally the throttle maxes out at 10mph and the pedal sensor maxes out at 15mph, but now the throttle can get me to 20mph along the flat without pedalling (and no panniers), faster if I pedal whilst the throttle is on maximum.
      Sure it's illegal here in the UK but it's so much fun and journeys are shorter than before, took a short while to get used to the increased speed but I'm still safe with it, I make sure I don't ride dangerously because I don't want to get hurt or hurt others.

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    32. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      I've been riding bicycles all my life, never owned a car but do have a driving license, got an ebike 3 years ago and it's been great, given me a lot more mobility especially shopping & carrying stuff around because with the assistance of the motor the bike doesn't feel heavy even with a several kilos in the panniers.
      The other major benifits of using ebike is you don't need tax, insurance, MOT and the 'fuel' is dirt cheap compared to petrol, especially here in the UK.
      Even factoring in buying a new battery every ~2 years it easily works out cheaper than a car.

      The obvious downsides are you have to suffer whatever the weather throws at you and the range isn't anywhere near that of a motorbike or car, but if you don't have to go 10's of miles regularly then an ebike is a great money saver.

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    33. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So powered vehicles = bad, bicycles = badder than powered vehicles.
      Ah I've got the solution - nobody goes anywhere, we all stay at home and watch tv!

      Where did that darn remote go...

    34. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by xaxa · · Score: 2, Informative

      I live in London, but I live somewhere relatively cheap, so it's a 5-minute ride (or 8 minute drive, or 20 minute walk, or 20 minute walk+wait+bus) to the nearest supermarket.
      There is a small shop less than a minute away, but it's only useful for beer, milk and frozen pizza.

      My preferred route to cycle to work goes along the riverbank near a nature reserve, so there's no shops. It takes 30 minutes.
      My more direct route takes 25 minutes, as I use the main road.
      My public transport route takes 45 minutes, of which 20 + 10 is walking to and from the station. Of course, the station is very close to the shops.
      I don't own a car, but it would take 20-40 minutes to get to work using one. It would be less-convenient for shopping after work, as there's probably nowhere to park at peak times on a work day. Most people round here only use their cars at the weekend. (But there's lots of traffic from people from outer London driving to central London.)

    35. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also ride way out towards the centre of the lane if there is not enough room to pass safely. It doesn't last for long but sorry if that adds seconds to your journey time - you can always get me back when you reach the traffic lights. Just halt really close to the kerb so I can't get past..

      I also ride out into the center of the lane during the sections of roat that are only just wide enough to accomodate two vehicles passing each other let alone me+vehicle+vehicle, but I also get pissed off with the car drivers that speed up to overtake me just as I'm getting to a junction/roundabout and the brake hard in front of me.

      I've always wanted to attach a horn from a train or very large truck to my bike for just those occasions, see how much the driver jumps when they try that shit with me.

    36. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are other problems. Pedaling 20 miles to work = working with really stinky people. Most offices and even shops do not have showers. Also changing from a motorcycle or car to a bike typically triples the commute time (except for places like new york where you sit in your car for 6 hours to go 1 block) as you cant maintain an average speed of 35 miles per hour on a bike unless you are an athlete. So instead of leaving for work 20 minutes before I need to be there, I need to leave 1.5 hours early so I can bike there for 1 hour and spend 1/2 hour showering and dressing for work.

      THAT is the problem that biking to work faces. and looking at ALL my coworkers, maybe 3 of them can survive a 10 mile bike ride. the rest would be dead on the side of the road barely able to breathe after 3 miles. Silly part is, the 3 that can survive all are 40 somethings the 20 somethings are all horribly out of shape drinking their latte' with extra whipped cream.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    37. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Power assist works great. I have it on my recumbent and it helps to maintain a average speed and even out the hills. BUT I'm dragging around an extra 8 kilos and downhill I regenerate power.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    38. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Yes you can buy a gasoline engine, but then you have to deal with the extra noise it creates. Electrics are significantly quieter and hearing loss is definitely a cost to consider when in such close proximity to engine noise for prolonged periods of time.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    39. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You should upgrade.....

      http://www.go-one.us/Pictures_of_go-one3.html

      They actually are made in europe and imported to the USA. They are utterly fantastic. I got to ride one 2 years ago, in a downpour you stay mostly dry and you have a covered place for your backpack behind you.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    40. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      The problem is then you have contention between cyclists and actual pedestrians, which happens far more frequently than when cyclists use the roads. It also nearly always injures both the cyclist and however many pedestrians get in the way of the now out of control bicycle.

      If you pay attention to cyclists on the road, there is no problem because we don't generally want to get hit either. It's not hard to slow down a little and give a little more space as you go by a cyclist.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    41. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Which is why you should support stricter fines and laws against hitting a cyclist with a car.

      mandatory 30 days in jail and all liability to the medical bills of the cyclist might get idiot drivers looking for and paying attention to bikes.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    42. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I added high end lighting to my bike. you can get a http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Bike-Blinky-eXtreme-Bicycle/dp/B000KBEH1W/ref=pd_bxgy_sg_img_c red led blinker for your back that will nearly blind cars in the daytime. same for the front. along with that I wear high visibility colors and have a flag. the Flag is the only thing that will save you when a idiot in a SUV blocks the other cars from seeing you, they see the bright orange flag over the suv.

      Another good thing, if your bike does not have disc brakes, either upgrade or get a new bike. the increased stopping power is well worth it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    43. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So don't live 35 miles away from work or at least do so if you are able to cover a hefty portion of that through a mass transportation service. Why on earth should you be forced to drive an hour or possibly two each day just to get to work? You end up spending more time at the wheel of your car than with your own kids. And that's unacceptable.

    44. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      I think transportation planners have to be the worst paid and the worst trained. I have yet to hear any good come from them. In my town, where I live we have a very busy street that has been decided to add a lane for bikes.
      They chose this street for some reason i will never figure out...anyways...of the 2 sides they decided to place it on, they chose the side that has more traffic and could have used 2 lanes instead of 1 due to the bike path, and the other side is parking, instead of switching the bike path to the other side, and then placing the parking on the other side but with parking restrictions to allow a second lane to appear in the mornings.

      When I see the lack of intelligence in such posts that affect daily lives of many people, I have to wonder why we don't hold more accountability for those people and just line them up and shoot them. Might get our point across.

    45. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well, we have a better invention, the human-adapted city. In cities that were build for people and not for cars, the grocery store is no more than two blocks away. .

      And the food costs quite a bit more because it has a much smaller customer base than most supermarkets. Oh yeah, it also has less variety because, again, it has a smaller customer base.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    46. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Evtim · · Score: 1

      "Bicycle paths remove the cyclists from the view of motorists, which means that instead of preventing accidents, they cause them, especially at intersections"
      "Mixing pedestrians and cyclists is a recipe for disaster."

      How the hell did you figure that out? Any statistics on the bicycle deaths per ca-pita from Holland? Cause over here we have a road for the cars, a separate road for the bikes (where small motorcycles are allowed as well) and another one for pedestrians. In fact every time a road is renovated if there was no separate bike path a new one will be laid and existing ones will be widened. It's perfect! My ass is on bike every single day for the last 10 years with an average of 12km a day. I have been drunk like pig on bike. Been stoned too. Never had any trouble - except last year when due to poor maintenance there was an unexpected icy patch of road so I fell badly (and another 20 people on the same place in the same day. They fixed immediately, the whole road - no kidding. And minutes after I fell there was a person with warning lights and message "beware of the ice"). But this accident had nothing to do with cars or other participants in the traffic.

      I think most of it is the car drivers getting used to bikers. The rules of the game are slightly different when you have a city with 800 000 people and more than 1 000 000 bikes (Amsterdam). Just give the drivers a bit of time and it's OK.

    47. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      Looks fantastic, I'd like an all-enclosed bike or motorbike like that, probably the Carver which has been on Top Gear a couple of times and looks a heck of a lot of fun:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb-MIuXTlEs
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPOkeJCiw9A

      Shame they're priced way out of my range :(

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    48. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      For some, maybe. Part of the reason I ride to work is that it's quicker cheaper and easier. The fact that it's environmentally friendly and healthy is just a bonus. I work in a city (Bristol, UK...it's hardly New York) and live in the suburbs. It takes me about 20 minutes to ride to work - quicker than driving or getting the bus.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    49. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by AlecC · · Score: 1

      In the UK, the electric motor is regulated to 15mph. Any faster and it is regarded as a motor bike, needing driving license, insurance, and crash helmet. The motor might take it faster, but the control system will not request it.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    50. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Jhon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I used to bike to work before my employer was bought out by %HUGECORPAGENCY%. The new bosses require me be available to travel within a range of 200 miles on a moments notice -- so I'm stuck.

      I also have an electric bike. It's a hybrid. You can't just push a button and go. It requires you peddle -- and it will assist you. I like this because it makes the hills and inclines much easier to manage and I didn't show up to work smelly and sweaty. On the ride home, I'd generally ride with the motor off to get a workout.

      Right now, except for the occasional weekend, this bike sits in my garage collecting dust.

    51. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

      Used to work in commercial radio for many years...so the noise isn't so much an issue anymore.;)

      With many people in the US being rural...an electric bike as a means of transportation isn't there yet. When they bring the weight of the batteries down & the mileage is comparable to that of a gas engine...then yes. Until that time...no.

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    52. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree, since houses in good communities are free and good paying jobs easy to come by, it's really a wonder that everyone doesn't just live 1 minute away from their job. Each time you a change job, all you have to do is simply find a new house you like, kill the person who lives there and steal his deed. Then find a moving company, kidnap their children until they move your stuff there. Unlike the house owner, you have to kidnap the kids instead of just killing them, because if they're dead they obviously can't move your stuff for you.

      Or maybe, just maybe, the economics are different for other people in different places.

      --
      I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
    53. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by dasunt · · Score: 1

      THAT is the problem that biking to work faces. and looking at ALL my coworkers, maybe 3 of them can survive a 10 mile bike ride the rest would be dead on the side of the road barely able to breathe after 3 miles. Silly part is, the 3 that can survive all are 40 somethings the 20 somethings are all horribly out of shape drinking their latte' with extra whipped cream.

      That's not a problem that bicycling commuting faces.

      That's a problem that your coworkers face.

      Really, if you are in your 20s, and a 3 mile bike ride is your body's limit, you either have some horrific genetic abnormality, or you have made bad life choices.

    54. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that in a city not built for cars you build up rather than out. This allows a land density which does put more people in the ~2 block radius xaxa was talking about. Any price increases actually come because of the cost of space, not the size of the customer base. So you may be right about price and variety, but for the wrong reason.

    55. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could have just said "I have a moped."

    56. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out the Pedego electric bikes. They would not ever be considered mopeds.

    57. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

      You're right about all the benefits of any assisted bike. The insurance/licensure/cost of fuel is minimal.

      As for the downside...rode motorcycles for several years before being able to afford a car. Living in Arizona made swallowing bugs the worst outdoor thing you had to worry about. On the other hand...there are coverings you can make/buy which make the rain & such a non issue.

      My biggest worry...the elderly idiot not seeing me when riding. Seen it too many times.

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    58. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by ianezz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are other problems. Pedaling 20 miles to work = working with really stinky people

      Where I live (northern Italy), we are trying to solve this problem with local trains carrying people and their bikes, and with bicycle parking racks near stations. This way, most part of the travel can be done on public transport, and the last 2-3 miles can be done on bikes. It is less clumsy than it sounds.

    59. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you have the plates and vehicle registration to operate on the road? Assuming you're in the US those people have paid to use their vehicle on the road. You haven't.

      An object going significantly slower than traffic is every bit the danger as one going significantly faster.

      The solution is simple: get off my damn roads. Even if this means we have to build bike paths.

    60. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that is not at all the real question. You are making a straw man here.

      I don't think anyone expects the masses to replace the cargo-carrying utility of a car anytime soon. However, electric bikes makes short-distance one-person transportation less of a chore and extends the range of fine-weather commuting.

      All in all, the electrobike competes more with subways, trams and buses than they do with cars.

    61. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by RobDude · · Score: 1

      Even at half that distance riding a bike can be awfully difficult.

      I was 11 miles from work. By car it was a 20 minute drive (22 according to Gmaps).

      On my bicycle it was, easily, 3x that time. More like an hour and twenty minutes. And in the few months that I rode my bicycle I had flat tires on three separate occasions.

      After the first flat, I learned to carry gear and be able and ready to change the tube - but seriously, what a headache.

      It was winter, so just getting dressed for the ride was a pain in the ass. When I got to work, frozen, I'd go straight to the bathroom and try to clean myself up enough to not be a distraction. Then I'd change out of my cycling/winter gear and put on business casual crap.

      It was a huge friggin pain in the ass. Compared to the car, where I'd just take off my coat when I got into the office.

      It took my ~40 minute daily commute and turned it into a 2.5 hour nightmare.

    62. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      I've lived in places where the only way to get around is public transportation and in places where you had to drive a car. Both models are broken and in need of a new model. Public transportation doesn't work because everyone has to go out of their way to get to their location, be it one block or 30. It isn't very efficient. Cars aren't practical because you're hauling so much more than you need everywhere.

      What is needed is a new paradigm. There needs to be a way to have your own single/family occupant vehicle that can attach to mass transit. Something that protects you from the elements, rain, cold, heat and allows you to transport groceries and other goods. There are some neat ideas about having cars that connect to a "train" on the road and can leave the "train" when they need to without disrupting the flow. This allows for mass transit arteries while having the capillaries be maneuvered by individual cells.

      Smart highways would be nice. During the move to electric cars it would be nice if highways acted like rail systems. You queue up at the on ramp and are connected to a base power that also controls the car. You let the smart highway know where you want to exit and it does the rest. If you need to stop for a bathroom break it would route you to the nearest exit and then allow you to resume control of the vehicle at the exit. This would improve efficiency while maintaining independence.

    63. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Foolicious · · Score: 1

      Yeah - totally. Just get another job. Because there are so many of them these days!

      --
      Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
    64. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      switch to a "ride flat" inntertube. It's a very stiff thick rubber innertube. you can still pump it up to 80psi, but if it get's a flat, you can still ride home safely, just extra work riding a tire at a 50-60 psi squishyness.

      I use them on every bike now, got tired of patching a tube on the side of the road.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    65. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Just hope they don't source the motor controller from Toyota.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    66. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's about a third of a horsepower, right? I could produce that with my legs when I was younger. Although it sometimes made the onion fall off my belt.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    67. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

      How does the said food get into the grocery store, if the city is not built for cars (trucks)?

      I am not saying I wouldn't want that but there are a few problems with it.

      Density! There is a required 'critical mass[population]' required to suppport a store, and that population must all be within 2 blocks of the store.
      Current status! Density brings me to the fact that massive roads, and even larger parking lots brings density down. Not to mention large blocks of commertial or residential area that is alerady built out.
      Job longevity! In the old days you would work at a job for 10s of years. Allowing you to live very near by. Now working at a single job for more than 5 years is not that common. You can't just up and move every few years, espically without a pickup truck.

      I want it to happen, but it wont happen. The solution is massive and efficient public transportation. Then it will be possible to back build our cities to accomodate walking and other non-auto forms of transportaiton.

      --
      My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    68. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      Similar situation, different results. The non-scenic ride to work has never taken more than an hour, usually 50-55 minutes (it's slower in the winter, what with the colder air, bulkier clothes, and snow tires). Ride home is a reliable 50 minutes or less, unless I stop to run errands. If I need to be there a hair faster, it is 45. (Work is uphill from home). If I am in a supreme hurry, I go over a 300 foot hill; that is the "short cut". I'm sure of these numbers; I measure, I notice the difference in rolling resistance between different sorts of tires.

      I get flats once in a blue moon, but I always carry gear.

      I got to work today, and changed in my office. It takes a few minutes. I've ridden in jeans, but today I felt like wearing tights.

      And by-the-way -- I'm a few weeks away from 50, overweight, and a regular 2 commutes/week on my bike is keeping me off meds for middle-aged blood, and keeps my knees and back flexible. I was off the bike for two weeks at Christmas, and started to feel like crap. The bike is hardly a speedster -- it weighs I don't-know-how-much (it's a steel cargo bike), with fat tires, an internally geared hub, chain case, dynamo hub, fenders, steel flip stand, and a substantial tool kit.

      I'm not sure about getting an e-bike; I might ride a hair more, but the added speed really would cut into the safety. By the way, in all these articles mentioning "risk" and "safety", they don't mention the big risk, which is diseases of the unfit (heart disease, stroke, diabetes, mostly). Add that to the pool, and a car-never-biking is (so I read, source is Mayer Hillman) TEN TIMES as dangerous as the average bicycle.

    69. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by hitmark · · Score: 1

      mostly thanks to the car again.

      if the number of cars where down, the number of customers at the more local store would be up, and the prices would be down.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    70. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Well, we have a better invention, the human-adapted city. In cities that were build for people and not for cars, the grocery store is no more than two blocks away. .

      And the food costs quite a bit more because it has a much smaller customer base than most supermarkets. Oh yeah, it also has less variety because, again, it has a smaller customer base.

      You know, I don't know if that's necessarily true. Our local supermarket (before it sadly shut down a couple years ago) had, for instance, a very good deli section, a good selection of gluten-free products, produce section at least as good as any other local supermarket, plus a beer and wine aisle (unusual for a supermarket in Massachusetts, where liquor licenses are unnecessarily hard to come by). The only thing that was missing were the aisles and aisles of crap that are in most supermarkets. I mean, two whole aisles dedicated to toys, DVDs, and seasonal junk? Really...

      Can't remember how the costs stacked up. It was on par with Stop & Shop, I believe, but not as cheap as Market Basket.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    71. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe you chose a profession where that was one of the trade offs? I'm sure there's a very strong correlation between profession and commute time.

    72. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      We don't own a car, so here's how we do the shopping for our family of 4. Once a month we do a large groceries with all the canned goods, and other non-perishables, along with frozen foods, and get it delivered. Costs $8 for delivery, but it's cheaper than owning a car. The other weeks we only need to pick up fresh veggies, meat, bread, eggs and a couple other necessities. This can all be carried in a couple bags. We're not poor or anything. Just that we've chosen to do without a car, because cars cost a lot of money, and for the 1 or 2 times a week that we would end up using it, it just isn't worth it.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    73. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      How does the said food get into the grocery store, if the city is not built for cars (trucks)?

      You misunderstand, I think.

      A city built for cars is designed around the idea that anybody, going anywhere for anything, is going to be driving - most of them just a single person in a normal-size car.

      A city not built around this assumption would still have perfectly good roads, just not built to handle that kind of rush-hour volume. It would have fewer alternate routes and significantly less parking - but trucks could still get to grocery stores. Likewise, living in such a place doesn't mean you don't have a car, it just means you're not using it all the time.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    74. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Which is quite funny, because most cyclists can do 30 km/h (18 mph) on flat ground easily. Why they would limit electric bikes to be slower than regular pedal bikes is beyond me.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    75. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      I have a (long) bike, not an electric scooter, but it seems to cope fine with the family shopping trip, not always in good weather. What you need is a proper cargo bike. Look here for examples.

      For example, heading home after work and a stop by the grocery store a couple of years ago.
      Studded tires are useful on ice.
      You can tow your kid's bike home in a snow storm..
      You can haul a shrubbery to a neighbor's house (it was really heavy, the bike was probably 15 degrees off vertical the whole way).

      And if you need to, say, haul 480 lbs (gross weight) up a 31% grade , there's a motor for that.

      I'm a little tired of all the negativity. Get a good cargo bike, and ride, and you can do a load of stuff. So the answer is, yes, the electric scooter, or something very like it, is a big part of the answer to our transport problems, and as long as pedaling is still in the picture, it would do a heck of a lot for our health. Over half the commutes in the US are e-bikeable (by commute count, not mileage -- the median commute is 10-12 miles).

    76. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... I work with several people who have never exercised a day in their life, and boy, do they ever stink! I wish they'd figure out how to use modern-day technologies such as soap, shampoo, and laundry detergent.

      Ironically, the people who ride/walk to work are for more conscientious about their personal hygiene. Perhaps there's a connection between caring about one's health and caring about one's hygiene.

    77. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should just slow down and leave more room when overtaking slower vehicles?

      I'm already doing that. The fundamental problem is traffic still moves in a flow at a certain speed.

      ...because it is not actually your road..

      Wanna bet? I'm paying registration and taxes on gas to pay for roads.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    78. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      peddle == sell
      pedal == push something with your foot

    79. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Nope, I worked with several muscleheads that lived by their copy of "mens health" and would do a workout lunch and return smelling like a bin of stinky jock straps and old socks.

      Their excuse was "no time for a shower, I sprayed a lot of Axe on me..."

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    80. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Or maybe you chose a profession where that was one of the trade offs? I'm sure there's a very strong correlation between profession and commute time."

      There is a correlation. Frankly, I'd much rather work in a field where I can make enough money to afford MORE than a bicycle as my main form of transportation.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    81. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I'm not sure about getting an e-bike; I might ride a hair more, but the added speed really would cut into the safety. By the way, in all these articles mentioning "risk" and "safety", they don't mention the big risk, which is diseases of the unfit (heart disease, stroke, diabetes, mostly). Add that to the pool, and a car-never-biking is (so I read, source is Mayer Hillman) TEN TIMES as dangerous as the average bicycle."

      I'd much rather ride in a car, or my motorcycle (when weather is nice), and be able to save the driving time, and to more easily be able to carry my stuff (lunch, gym bag), and be able to easily go to the gym after work and do my exercise there (weights AND aerobic exercise). Frankly, I like the scenery at the gym better...good looking co-ed girls in spandex.

      This way, I'm also not having to worry about being wet, sticky when I get to work.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    82. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Trouble is, this electric bike is quite similar to the mopeds of old. And you know the old joke about them, eh?

      "What does a moped and a fat chick have in common?"

      "Both are fun to ride, but you don't want your friends to see you on either one of them..."

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    83. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      If you ride a cargo bike, there's no problem with carrying your stuff. That's why I got one, because I couldn't stand riding with a backpack.

      As for the exercise, for a given amount of time, you get more of it (though not as much variety) if you ride a bike, because time spent driving is not exercise. The shower time is invariant -- either you shower after you exercise at the gym, or you shower after you exercise on the bike. For variety, I shovel snow.

    84. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by knarf · · Score: 1

      Sheez, I don't know how you people manage to live in this dirty, stinky world. That line about cyclists being smelly and dirty is getting really, really old. If it were true you would not be able to enter most Dutch schools, let alone houses. Let me tell you from experience that that whole smelly-cyclist-story is mostly based on nonsense and seems to be not much more than an excuse to keep driving that car instead of cycling.

      That your cow-orkers would not be able to survive cycling 16 km should be a temporary thing. Get them in shape and they'll be able and possibly willing. And talking about smelliness and out-of-shape colleagues... I'd rather sit next to someone who has cycled 16 km than next to a MacDonalds regular with the shape of a car seat in his ass...

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    85. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I somehow get the idea from reading posts on this thread..that many people ONLY shop at one grocery store at a time??

      I look at the sale ads that come out weekly, and often on my shopping day (either Sat or Sun) and go hit 1-3 different stores to get the deals on what is on sale. I also love my favorite store, Sam's Club....the warehouse type store to buy things in bulk.

      I dunno how people shop for a family on a bike..I've had small 2-seater sports cars all my life and I have to be creative quite often just to fit my purchases into them?!? I like to smoke foods...I doubt lugging around a 15lb brisket on a bicycle is much fun, especially if you're also buying stuff to cook it with (side dishes, charcoal, wood for the smoker). I like to buy on sale and in bulk, and I'm a single guy and there is no way I could do my food without a car. I can't imagine trying to fit all that onto a bus...that doesn't come very close to my house.

      And no, I really can't do a 'little shopping' every day. My days are already filled with going to work, then to the gym...then home to eat, do stuff there and crash for the next day. When I'm in between girlfriends, well, I don't have anyone to help out with my stuff (Hey babe can you pick up my stuff at the cleaners?)..so if I don't get it done, it doesn't get done. I dunno where you have all this time to shop almost daily...and cook almost daily.

      I pretty much spend my Sundays cooking multiple things and meals for the entire week for breakfast, lunch and dinner...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    86. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Plunky · · Score: 1

      So you have the plates and vehicle registration to operate on the road? Assuming you're in the US those people have paid to use their vehicle on the road. You haven't.

      Actually, I'm in the UK but the same principle applies - yes I have all the required plates and vehicle registrations that I need to operate a bicycle on the road. That the government requires none is incidental. That some people have to pay more than others is incidental too. (In the UK at least, different classes of vehicles pay differing amounts of road tax). Wear and tear on the road from bicycles is minimal, shrug.

      An object going significantly slower than traffic is every bit the danger as one going significantly faster.

      I think you rather miss the point that the danger comes from the fast vehicle driven recklessly, not the slower vehicle which bears the brunt of the damage. (this applies to cyclists vs pedestrians on the pavement too)

      The solution is simple: get off my damn roads. Even if this means we have to build bike paths.

      Thats no solution as it is not your road (ask representatives of your government if you don't believe me). I don't mind if you want to build bike paths but if they are not suitable for my use then I won't be using them. I will use our roads when I want to go someplace..

    87. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Plunky · · Score: 1

      ...because it is not actually your road..

      Wanna bet? I'm paying registration and taxes on gas to pay for roads.

      Can you get a statement from your government (who collect those registration fees and taxes) that those monies, all of those monies, and nothing but those monies is used for funding the road network in your country? While there, perhaps you can get some kind of assurance to the effect that those who contribute more have a higher entitlement?

      (Good luck, but I think you won't be able to)

    88. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "If you ride a cargo bike, there's no problem with carrying your stuff. That's why I got one, because I couldn't stand riding with a backpack.

      As for the exercise, for a given amount of time, you get more of it (though not as much variety) if you ride a bike, because time spent driving is not exercise. The shower time is invariant -- either you shower after you exercise at the gym, or you shower after you exercise on the bike. For variety, I shovel snow."

      I guess it also depends on where you live. It just isn't practical here. I don't see how I could pack on everything I wanted for a bike ride to work. I pack my lunch, etc...some days I have to bring the laptop with me home and back...etc. Not to mention, living in New Orleans...the rainy season and seasonal street flooding, the heat and humidity, etc. I'd certainly not look professional when I got to work after a bike ride. I won't even go into the poor conditions of our roads here.

      No option to shower after getting to work...?

      As for showering after the gym..I leave work in the evenings...go to the gym...then drive home to use my own shower.

      Don't get me wrong, a bike is a great exercise and recreational tool, I'm hoping to get a nice one for good weather coming up soon, to ride on the weekends over at City Park...lots of good looking chicks over there to meet and a bike is great for that. But as for it being a practical means of general transportation for me? I don't see it happening. I'd rather not have to get up earlier in the morning because a bike ride would turn a 7-10 minute drive (I speed a lot in the car by the way) into 1-1.5 hours on a bicycle if all went nicely.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    89. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Can you show me how your bicycle riding is paying more for the roads than my car driving?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    90. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by dr2chase · · Score: 2, Interesting

      New Orleans (well, most of the Gulf Coast) is a special case -- except that this might motivate e-bikes, which as I recall was once being discussed here :-). No e-assist, showers are really not optional there, at least in the summer. They are optional here (near Boston) for most of the year, but they are also available. I did commute by bike, a short distance, in Houston, one extremely hot summer. Leave early, come home late, minimum effort, steer for puddles of shade. And I've also spent years aiming for a job were being a snappy dresser was not the most important qualification. (And, to be blunt, where the rational analysis that says "50 miles of biking per week is the most time-effective way to get the exercise I need to stay healthy, plus a lot of other good things" is valued.)

      As for "chicks"-and-or-coeds, I am nearly 50. And happily married. We're talking purely Walter Mitty territory here.

      You really can carry plenty on a bicycle, depending on the bicycle. I got a cargo bike because I was tired of backpacks and panniers. 50lbs of stuff, I can still ride no-hands (summer tires, at least). 100lbs, I am still comfortable on the bike. 150+, I have to pay attention to the handling. 200 is the official limit, but people have carried more. I've hauled my wife a short distance, in the snow (storm), when it was easier than shoveling out the berm that had been plowed up behind the car. I've also arranged the bike so that I don't need to ride in fancy clothes, or even with pants clips -- nice saddle, chain case, when the weather's right I ride in work clothes, and I've even used a bike to get to a quite-fancy dinner in quite nice clothes.

    91. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever since I bought Schwalbe Marathon Plus tires years ago, I haven't had a flat tire. They aren't cheap, but they're definitely worth it.

    92. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Plunky · · Score: 1

      Can you show me how your bicycle riding is paying more for the roads than my car driving?

      No, but I am not claiming that I am somehow entitled to use the roads but you are not.

    93. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      You're the one that brought up road ownership, not me. And, no, you're not really getting my point. This is not about convenience or about 'who owns the road'. I do not want to be responsible for your safety. You are a hazard. You move too slow and you're unprotected. No amount of complaining about how rude drivers are does not change this fact.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    94. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by ldcroberts · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um with Electric bicycles pedalling is optional and an average speed of about 20 miles per hour is provided for you by the engine. There is no need to shower if you don't pedal. I commute about 3 miles and park my bike in the corner of the office. Door to door is less than 15 minutes, and thats faster than I can do in a car as I need to park a bit further away and walk. I don't think you can compare normal cycling to an electric bike, as electrics are much faster up hills than most cyclists so can produce pretty good average speeds. Living 20 miles from work is a bit far for an electric cycle, but you could do it in an hour without breaking a sweat.

    95. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      There are other other problems too, like how is a bike, electric or otherwise, going to perform when there's three inches of compacted snow on the road? That's the main reason I drive a car to work.

    96. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by celle · · Score: 1

      You left out that bicycling is only effective certain times of the year. Weather, health issues, physical condition, distance, and just plain time limit it's use. Or you could ride your bike to work and drop off the kids at school during a snowstorm in ten below zero temperatures and huff and puff the 25 miles to work after the 10 miles to the school to arrive just in time to leave for lunch.(run-on sentence intended)

    97. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Sheez, I don't know how you people manage to live in this dirty, stinky world. That line about cyclists being smelly and dirty is getting really, really old.

      I'd like to see you try biking 15-20 miles (each way) through 100+-degree heat without breaking a sweat. Throw in some hills while you're at it, too.

      (Hint: what works well in some parts of the world isn't necessarily going to work as well elsewhere. Most of the world isn't flat. Big chunks of it regularly see temperatures above the 60s and 70s, often for months at a time.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    98. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Emperor+Cezar · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. I feel for you. It most be horrible to live in a place where there is that much snow year round.

    99. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah its is intended to give you a power assisted bicycle, nothing more than that unless you want to build a proper motorbike and get a license. There was this guy who used to ride on my cycle commuting route who had hotted up his two stroke power assisted bicycle, partly by removing the muffler on the exhaust. He would sit right beside me on hills, deafening me and pissing me off. I am glad that if power assisted bicycles have to come back, they are electric.

    100. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      Kinda hard to get a bike stuck in the snow.

    101. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      I dunno how people shop for a family on a bike.

      My last haul from Costco consisted of a 55lb bag of dog food, two gallons of orange juice, four gallons of milk, various meats, and quite a lot of miscellany besides. Yes, on a bicycle. My trick? A trailer. Other folks do the same thing with a cargo bike (the Bakfiets and the Xtracycle are two well-respected designs).

      People carry all kinds of crazy things on Xtracycles -- I've seen photos of people carrying ladders, planters, other bicycles, etc.

    102. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Can't get a company car? Can't park your car at work for the week?

      Have the faiths, there is always a way!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    103. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by ngg · · Score: 1

      o instead of leaving for work 20 minutes before I need to be there, I need to leave 1.5 hours early so I can bike there for 1 hour and spend 1/2 hour showering and dressing for work.

      Well, there's no reason to shower twice in the morning. Just shower once you get to work instead of before leaving home. How much time does it take to park your car and walk to the office? I, too, live about 10 miles from work, and driving really only saves at most 10 minutes on the morning commute, less if I go during rush hour.

    104. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see you try biking 15-20 miles (each way) through 100+-degree heat without breaking a sweat. Throw in some hills while you're at it, too.

      Since we're talking about electric assist, it's a fairly germane challenge. :)

      Okay, no, I can't avoid breaking a sweat in the middle of the Texas summer, electric assist or no... though I found that by the end of my first summer commuting my heat tolerance had increased pretty significantly. Fortunately, my employer (in Round Rock; I'm in Austin) provides showers (and unlike the last several places I worked with showers, also free dispensers for conditioner, shampoo and body wash) for use by cycle commuters (and for folks who pay to use the company gym). For companies with such facilities (and I can only think of two buildings I've worked in that didn't provide them... one of which had a gym across the street), the cyclists-as-smelly meme is overblown even in the Texas heat. For those who work downtown, there's also a local bike shop (co-owned by a rather famous cyclist) which offers cycle commuters a place to shower and lock up their bikes for $1/day.

      Doesn't work for everyone, certainly, but it works well for me; the extra time I spend on two wheels is stress-relieving (rather than stress-inducing, as is more typically the case on four), and with my higher speeds on the e-bike is fully offset by the time I don't need to spend at the gym.

      My point? Just because some parts of the world require additional facilities to make cycle commuting easier doesn't mean that people and companies can't rise to the challenge and get those facilities built. My employer self-insures its health plan; encouraging even partially human-powered commuting among employees is thus very much in the best interest of the corporate pocketbook.

    105. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      That is MIGHTY impressive.

      How much of a distance did you have to make this haul? How heavy of traffic?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    106. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News flash: you have to build up infrastructure if you want to make alternate modes of transportation viable. In Brisbane, where I work, every office built or renovated in the last 10 years has shower facilities. All of the new ones have bike storage.

      Secondly, with effective bike paths, everyone within say 15km of the city centre now has a much faster commute since they don't have to wait for buses, or put up with peak hour traffic. If I take the bus, it takes me a little over an hour to get from my front door to my office door. If the bus is on time, and not early (+ 1/2 an hour), late (+ 15mins to 1/2 an hour), no congestion problems (+ 10 mins to an hour). If I ride in, it takes me 20 minutes from door to door, plus a 10 minute shower / change.

      Finally, yeah, your out of shape coworkers will need to develop a base level of fitness before they are comfortable riding in. That is not a bad thing, and it's not a hard thing either.

    107. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Just looked it up on Google Maps; the route I took comes to 5.4 miles each way.

      Traffic was light in the residential areas I cut through, and moderate on the main road (there's a major highway which needs to be crossed; the bridges over it act as choke points, and are the only part of the ride I'd call difficult).

      Frankly, I think the trailer makes things easier rather than harder in most respects -- starting from a complete stop feels a little different (overcoming the initial inertia, or maybe the moment before the trailer's brakes disengage), but cars give more leeway to someone towing a bright yellow reflective trailer with an orange flag waving above it (and for good reason; with the cover on, the cargo and child-carrying models don't necessarily look all that different from a distance), and as this is one of the units with a separate braking system, it didn't have an appreciable impact on stopping distance.

      Next weekend will be my first time doing the Costco run with the e-bike (which I'm picking up from the shop tomorrow after some upgrades), and I look forward to seeing how it goes.

    108. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Thats very interesting. Can you point me to some information about your recumbent? I have considered using one for commuting.

    109. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      sometime I need to go very fast. A power limited electric motor can't do the latter and would make me feel vulnerable in traffic.

      I don't see how a bicycle can ever be safe when mixed up with fast moving heavy traffic; and I doubt that the ability to go "very fast" is what prevents most bicycle accidents.

      Consider three modes:

      • Fully integrated flow. Bicycles moving in line with other traffic at the same speed. Nose to tail collisions are the greatest threat but the risk of this is mitigated because each driver gets a consistent view of the flow, ie, they know what is in front of them and avoiding it is relatively easy.
      • Fully separated flow. Bicycles moving in their own space (possibly a bicycle lane) with lateral separation from other lanes. Conflict at intersections is the greatest threat where vehicles cross each others path.
      • Partially integrated flow. Bicycles are moving in the same space (lane) as power vehicles, power vehicles are overtaking partly in the same lane. The greatest threat here is misjudged overtaking manoeuvres, particularly by long vehicles. Drivers assume that the bicycle is a stationary object, when in fact it is moving at half their speed. That kind of thing.

      Transitions between modes present their own risks:

      • Fully separated to fully integrated: The bicycle lane ends at an intersection. Bicyle has to merge right (we drive on the left here) and merge into another lane of traffic. In this situation, it is safer to match your speed with the traffic you merge in to. The faster that lane of traffic is going, the greater will be the separation between vehicles and the easier it will be to merge. Consider that merging into stationary traffic is impossible because nobody can move. So you need to match your speed as the other lane decelerates with means bringing your speed up and down again once you have achieved integrated flow.
      • Partially integrated to fully integrated: You are cycling along in a narrow curbside lane. Cars are overtaking on the right. Lights ahead go red and almost immediately traffic slows. If I stay where I am I will wind up with flow kind of solidified around me, ie, with a car stopped in the middle of an overtaking manoeuvre, taking up part of the lane to the right. Drivers don't think ahead, you see. So as soon as flow gets down to about 50km/h or so I indicate right and merge into the middle of the lane. I match my speed with that of the vehicle ahead of me and stop behind it. Control of speed here is important too, because I need to transition to integrated flow before that last driver to overtake stops in the middle of overtaking. In conditions like that I cruise at 35km/h but I can accelerate to 45 to encourage integration.

      Control of speed is also generally important because braking is your best way to avoid trouble, and using your brakes won't help you if you are moving slowly. Moving fast gives you choices which you won't have moving at a slower speed.

    110. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Jhon · · Score: 1

      Nope. Can't get a company car. And yes, I COULD park my car at work for a week -- and have done so. Only to have it broken in to once, gas stolen another time (I caught that guy -- he didn't know it was my car -- he was pretending it was his and he couldn't start it. Called the cops and they arrived in 2 mins and arrested the dork).

    111. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I have a regular recumbent that I took apart the back wheel and had a hub motor installed.

      http://www.goldenmotor.com/ is where I got my stuff to replace the rear wheel with a hub motor wheel. I use Li-Ion batteries, but I should change to Nickle Metal hydride as those take multiple charge discharge cycles better..

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    112. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Thanks. It must fly.

    113. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The fundamental problem is traffic still moves in a flow at a certain speed.

      Yes -- it moves at the speed of the vehicle in front. If that vehicle happens to be a 15 mph bicycle, then so be it!

      You have exactly the same responsibility to pass safely (or not at all) whether the vehicle in question is a bicycle, mail truck, horse and buggy, tractor, or anything else.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    114. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Yes -- it moves at the speed of the vehicle in front. If that vehicle happens to be a 15 mph bicycle, then so be it!

      Right, a safety hazard and legal landmine has intentionally been thrown into the road designed for vehicles to safely travel at 35mph. So be it!

      You have exactly the same responsibility to pass safely...

      You also have an expectation of safe travel. That's why we have things like stop-lights instead of nothing but 15mph rods and four-way stop signs.

      You do not belong on the road with cars. You are a hazard. You rely on the skill of drivers on the road and you don't require it of yourself. There is nothing about a cyclist that makes them any smarter than the people they're intruding on the road with. At least do everybody a favor and fill out an organ donor card.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    115. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I'd much rather work in a field where I can make enough money to afford MORE than a bicycle as my main form of transportation.

      People don't necessarily ride bikes because they're cheap. I'm pretty sure my nice one is worth more than my car right now (no question it's worth more than the motorcycle I'm getting ready to sell), and until I got hooked on one of these I frickin' loved that car. Hell, my bicycle cargo trailer cost more than twice what my first car did... but if it gives me an excuse to go out for a ride with my wife every week, that's money well spent. (Yes, there are lots of cheaper ones... but this one's American-made, has a no-questions-asked lifetime warranty, uses full-sized wheels so the trailer and bikes can share spare tires and tubes... and nobody else has brakes).

      I ride because it keeps me in shape both physically and mentally, and (with the electric assist making me faster while still letting me offset time at the gym) doesn't take me away from other things. I turn into a serious grouch when I'm driving, whereas when I'm cycling I show up where I'm going alert and with a sense of accomplishment. Also, I tend to eventually get lazy and fall off a gym regimen, but short of working from home it's harder to stop commuting.

      I don't doubt the main point that's being made in this thread, that not everyone's life is set up to make cycling convenient -- but the "cyclists are a bunch of cheapskates" meme is one I've gotten a bit tired of hearing lately; it's part of what some local businesses here are using to fight designation of a bicycle boulevard downtown, though similar projects elsewhere have resulted in massive increases in land value for residential and retail use (and pretty much break even on non-retail commercial values).

    116. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electric bicycle, a pollution of the perfect machine. Take a machine that makes the human form 5 times more energy efficient than walking a given time and distance, then weigh it down with batteries and a motor that give about half the range of the naked bicycle and, when the battery has run out, eats up all that efficiency the naked bicycle offers its rider.

      Electric bikes are both a con on short-range cyclists (not to mention useless to long range cyclists) and a pox on cycling.

    117. Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils... by steelersteve13 · · Score: 1

      While I'm reading this, it's snowing and/or raining, from NC to PA and NJ. Yeah, this is a great idea.

      --
      Can my karma get any worse than bad? Let's find out!
  2. Too bad "Hey baby I ride a motor-bike"... by syousef · · Score: 1

    Doesn't quite work when it's "like a Vespa" ;-)

    I have a mental image of Howard from "Big Bang Theory" on his scooter, with Sheldon in a pink Helmet screaming and clinging on for dear life.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Too bad "Hey baby I ride a motor-bike"... by PatDev · · Score: 3, Funny

      NOT EUCLID AVENUE!

    2. Re:Too bad "Hey baby I ride a motor-bike"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people live for more than just picking up shallow whores.

    3. Re:Too bad "Hey baby I ride a motor-bike"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. My penis is so big I need to find really deep whores..

    4. Re:Too bad "Hey baby I ride a motor-bike"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think scooters aren't sexy, go to Italy.

    5. Re:Too bad "Hey baby I ride a motor-bike"... by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      plenty of chicks dig the old vespas. roll up in a mid-60's model sometime.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
  3. reasons this may not catch on in the US by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Informative

    Two of the many reasons this may not catch on in the US:

    One is drivers. I ride a (nonmotorized) bike to work twice a week. It would sure be nice if drivers here in the US showed that they had some clue that cyclists exist. This morning I got to deal with a woman who decided to pull her car over into the bike lane so that she could talk on her cell phone. On the way home, I got a teenage girl eating a banana while wanting to turn left in front of me without signaling. Other fun experiences include people swerving around me and cutting me off because they're too impatient to let me get across an intersection, and people yelling at me because I'm not in the bike lane (hey, sometimes cyclists do need to turn left, and in any case the law says that cyclists can ride in regular lanes).

    Another reason is weather. US weather has more extremes than Europe. There's a reason that all the early colonists from England died of tropical diseases.

    1. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by YojimboJango · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll second Parent here. I have a two and a half mile ride to work, but I'd have to cross two interstates and a 6 lane highway to get there. I can do it in the summer, but trying to get a bike through 6 inches of snow in the dark mornings while dodging traffic isn't fun or safe.

      Down south this might be more viable as a car replacement, but up in Michigan I need a car 4 months out of the year. It sucks, and I end up paying more for PLPD than I do for gas, but it has to be done.

    2. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe if you cyclists would quit dragging ass in a 45 zone with no shoulder. I know you top out a lot higher than 25.

    3. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      American weather isn't that bad. Note that two of the biggest bike cities in the world are Copenhagen and Amsterdam, neither noted for its pleasant conditions.

    4. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by clarkkent09 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a careful driver but many cyclists I come across make it hard not to run over them, what with driving through every gap between cars they can fit into regardless of the lanes, going through a car or a pedestrian green light, whichever comes first, and acting like jerks every time a car fails to signal or otherwise violates some traffic rule while they themselves almost completely ignore every single one of them.

      Oh, I'm sure you are not one of those, but since you are generalizing I thought I'd join in.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    5. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another reason is laws. Here in New York electric bikes are illegal - http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmvfaqs.htm#motor

    6. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by jchernia · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think you'll be surprised and that it will.

      I upgrated my old steel hardtail mountain bike into an ebike becuase I have a ~400 vertical foot climb from the train station to work.

      I bought the Phoenix motor kit by Crystalyte (http://www.electricrider.com/crystalyte/phoenix.htm) and swapped out the acid batteries for a Lithium Ferrous Polymer at a very reasonable price (thank you Lau Chen of Hong Kong).

      The result is a bike with almost 2000 watts max power (48V x 40A = 1920W) with 10Ahr of total juice. The practical range is about 10 miles at a speed of 30 MPH (I have a motor wound for slightly more torque).

      My time up the hill basically beats driving (surface streets, not freeway). An interesting thing happens when you go as fast as cars - they see you better, you can get out of the way better and you take fewer stupid risks. For example, you are less likely to run a stop sign if you can re-accelerate easily. Also, if you're not pedaling hard you have more energy to focus on what's around you. It becomes more like riding a motorcycle.

      I love my e-bike - once people see
      1) How versatile they are (go anywhere a car can go and slightly more)
      2) How cheap they are (fuel cost approaches zero even charging at home)
      3) How normal you look on them (it's just a bike)
      and most importantly
      4) How lazy you can be on them (you don't sweat at all)

      You will see much better adoption in the short range commute, even in the US.

    7. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Funny

      You have bike lanes where you live? Lucky.

      When I can, I ride a bicycle as a form of transportation. Even though it helps me stay healthy, saves gas, pollutes less, and takes less parking space, I don't expect a medal for it. But it would be nice if I didn't have to face the dangerous neglect and even outright hostility of American motorists for it.

      I can see electric bicycles catching on in the US... for recreation. Instead of replacing automobiles with electric mopeds, we'll replace bicycles with electric mopeds, and take them on joy rides in the country on weekends (transporting them there in the SUV). We won't burn any less gas, but we'll use more electricity, and exercise less.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    8. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where I live, 95% of all drivers are very good regarding cyclists. There is 4.9% that are idiots. And then there is the 0.1% that are out there to kill/maim/etc. a cyclist for using a road. You know, on purpose. These people should be jailed for a long time.

      Traffic laws needs to change in the US and Canada. In more friendly jurisdictions a car/bike collision automatically means that the car driver is at fault unless it can be proven otherwise. And if you think about it, that really makes sense. Anytime a cyclist or a motorcycle rider gets hit by a car, they are the ones that lose. Therefore, it is generally the inattentiveness and downright criminal actions of the driver that results in a crash.

      Netherlands has a much larger bicycle population than anywhere in US/Canada, yet per capita collision rates are much lower. The reason is precisely laws that favour cyclists, not cages.

    9. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Both Copenhagen and Amsterdam benefit from the Gulf Stream. Although Copenhagen is at a similar latitude as Edmonton, Canada, the climate is nowhere near as cold. For another example, compare the climate of Copenhagen and the climate of North Dakota, which is at similar latitudes as France.

    10. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, the reason is because pretty much everyone else in the world has the sense to realise that bicyclists are pedestrians. They don't belong in the road any more than joggers or skateboarders.

      I was just in Helsinki last august, they just doubled the size of the sidewalk and allowed the section nearest the road for bicycles pretty much everywhere and where they don't they just treat a bicyclist that hits a walker the same as a car that hits a pedestrian.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    11. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      going through a car or a pedestrian green light, whichever comes first

      This is perfectly legal, although of course the cyclist may want to make his intentions clear to avoid getting hit.

      and acting like jerks every time a car fails to signal or otherwise violates some traffic rule while they themselves almost completely ignore every single one of them.

      The problem is that when drivers ignore the traffic laws around cyclists, it's a threat to the cyclist's life. People tend to get testy when other people are acting like they want to kill them.

    12. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Those kinds of motorists are actually why you want e-bikes to catch on.

      Statistics show a 30% increase in safety of each individual cyclist whenever the population of cyclists doubles; much of this is presumably related to folks in other vehicles learning to expect bikes on the road (though there certainly may be other factors -- such as cyclists being taken into account in roadway design -- involved as well). Something that gets more people off of four wheels and onto two is thus in all of our best interests. (For this reason also, mandatory helmet laws actually decrease cyclists' safety by discouraging cycling; while any individual cyclist is safer if they experience a head injury with a helmet than without, laws making helmets mandatory reduce the population of cyclists and thereby result in an increase in the number of head injuries suffered; even the practice of strongly encouraging helmet use may be counterproductive, as the perception that cycling is dangerous is also a deterrent to having more cyclists on the road. Nobody wears helmets cycling in downtown Copenhagen, and they seem to be doing just fine).

      As for the weather argument, I don't buy it. First -- why would this apply only to electric bikes and not to conventional ones? Second -- I ride an electric bike, and live in Texas (which tends towards the high-temperature side of the extremes you speak of). The manufacturer, like many of their early customers, is in Colorado (which tends towards the cold side of things); lots of folks in California as well, and many customers overseas. The only fellow on the mailing list who's had problems with his bike linked to the weather? Northern England[1]. Yes, the Colorado folks have to put on spiked tires for navigating ice some of the time (and the company's marketing guy got himself a conversion with skis on the front and a tread on the back of his bike for Christmas), but we have folks who commute in the snow. Sure, that's a pretty extreme commute -- how would you rather start your day, with a drive or an adventure? :)

      [1] - Apparently a small amount of water managed to get through multiple layers of seals and into the motor. We all ride in the rain, but he deals with some truly torrential downpours on an extremely regular basis. In any event, changes were made to address the issue, and no like problems have been reported since.

    13. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, the reason is because pretty much everyone else in the world has the sense to realise that bicyclists are pedestrians. They don't belong in the road any more than joggers or skateboarders.

      I suggest you look again at Copenhagen.

      Regardless -- the numbers show that vehicular cycling is safe -- and that in the US, riding on the sidewalk dramatically increases the chances of a car/bicycle collision (as drivers don't look for fast-moving vehicles on the sidewalk when pulling in and out of driveways). The League of American Bicyclists tracks statistics and offers classes (which leverage these statistics) on driving one's bicycle in a predictable, courteous, and safe manner; the accident rate for League members is on the same order of magnitude of that of motor vehicles when measured per mile traveled, but far lower when measured by other criteria.

      Regardless, while the accident rate per mile is somewhat higher, the accident rate per hour spent traveling is dramatically lower for cyclists. This is critical, as the curve for peoples' commute time tends to be fairly constant regardless of vehicle -- people who use a faster mode of transport arrange their lives such that they live closer to work. As such, for a person who makes their decision to use a bicycle as a long-term lifestyle choice (and is thus eventually able to take such into account when selecting either their employer or their living space), the chance of being harmed during one's commute is actually much lower.

      You might find Ken Kifer's analysis useful; the statistical arguments made are compelling. (Ken passed away some time ago, killed by a drunk driver; for anyone interested in making a point of this, I suggest comparing the frequency of this event to the rate of 3rd-party deaths caused by drunk cyclists).

    14. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One is drivers. I ride a (nonmotorized) bike to work twice a week. It would sure be nice if drivers here in the US showed that they had some clue that cyclists exist, etc.

      It would also be awesome if cyclists would show that they aren't oblivious to drivers. "Share The Road" goes both ways, bro.

    15. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My favorite kind of bicyclist are the ones who think stop signs don't apply to them. Yes, I'm talking to you Mr Lance Armstrong wannabe in your yellow jersey. The red octagon you shot past read stop and that meant you as well.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    16. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      As a cyclist (and a driver) I think there's one fine which should be handed out FAR FAR FAR more often.
      It's called "failed to indicate" hooo boy is it a doozy.

    17. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can see electric bicycles catching on in the US... for recreation. Instead of replacing automobiles with electric mopeds, we'll replace bicycles with electric mopeds, and take them on joy rides in the country on weekends (transporting them there in the SUV). We won't burn any less gas, but we'll use more electricity, and exercise less.

      I don't see that at all.

      • The recreational cycling community is well-established, and they clearly see e-bikes as "cheating"; that's not going to change. ("I'm not cheating, I'm commuting!" is the best on-the-road comeback I've found).
      • "Electric mopeds" is offensive to those of us who ride actual %@#^% bicycles with electric assist. There are "electric mopeds" with useless little pedals way out to the side sold as "electric bicycles" to get around licensing laws -- but while those are big in China, they haven't caught on in the US whatsoever.

      I commute with a conventional bike and an e-bike. Regardless of which bike I'm riding, my heart rate is in the 170s and my average cadence right around 90. The difference is that when I'm on the e-bike, my commute is 45 minutes each way instead of 75. There's a big difference between 1h30m each day (equivalent to a commute by car followed by a workout in the gym) and 2h30m; the latter is simply more time commitment than I can afford to maintain year-round.

    18. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would also be awesome if cyclists would show that they aren't oblivious to drivers.

      Along those lines, you might find the "vehicular cycling" school of technique worth promoting; it teaches consistency and communication in how one drives one's bicycle (not just through hand signals and the like, but also things like positioning within one's lane to indicate future intent); classes are offered throughout the US by the League of American Bicyclists.

      It would also be awesome if people acknowledged that there's more than one subgroup of cyclists, and that some of them treat the roads differently than others.

    19. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by a+whoabot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Okay, I bike everyday, in Canada. Whether snow, ice, or -40 Celsius. I hate this just as much as you. Because I stop, and I follow all the laws to the best of my ability -- little useless bell (voice is much louder) on my handlebars and all. Here's one I also follow: the speed-limit. However, pretty much every automobile driver I meet does not follow the speed limit. So, it's not like motorists are somehow more law-abiding than cyclists -- because almost 100% of motorists break the speed limit. There's this one road I go down -- 30kph speed limit, and yet every car behind me always seems to catch up and pass me rather quickly when I'm going along at 30kph. In fact, I would say that most are going 50kph. That's more than 66% over the speed limit. Is every motorist continuously late for work or something? And in 50kph zones, it seems that 70kph or greater is the norm amongst motorists. On the highway you would be as lucky as a lottery-winner to see someone cruising not more than 90kph, the speed limit.

      And cars seem to have trouble with stop-signs as well. They slow-down for them, but as for a complete stop -- that's a rarity. They seem to like to just crawl through them at 1 to upward of 5 kph.

      Really the only group of motorists with which I'm continually impressed are the school-bus drivers.

      But I've been semi-facetious so far. This is how it actually is: The motorist thinks on the highway: "Well, this highway is still safe at 100kph. It's only 10kph over the speed limit and visibility and conditions are fine. So even though it is breaking law, I'll do it." If he actually thought that he would get into an accident, he wouldn't do it. This is what the cyclist is thinking at the stop-sign: "No one else is coming, so, if I just go through, it will be fine. So even though it is breaking the law, I'll do it." If he actually thought that he would get into an accident, he wouldn't do it.
       

    20. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Two and a half mile sounds fine even as a walking distance TBH; perhaps shorter than that, actually, since often you have more options than following the only sensible bike road. But I guess pedestrian routes and safe crossings generally are also neglected?...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    21. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I guess most important reason is that bikes simply aren't perceived as a status symbol, which is a problem where such symbols have too much weight and/or people don't feel the need to be careful with their finances.

      That also influences how motorists "treat" bike drivers on the road, I guess...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    22. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Motorists who think stop signs don't apply to them aren't your favorite ones?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    23. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Helsinki and find the cycling ok, but not as good as you claim: Bicycle lanes aren't everywhere and when you need to go on to a street you are in mortal danger as car drivers are surprised about it. Often the lanes are so broken up (because they are essentially sidewalks) that you can't really get any speed on them.

      The Copenhagen model is vastly better in my opinion and has clearly encouraged much more people to use bicycles.

    24. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      n more friendly jurisdictions a car/bike collision automatically means that the car driver is at fault unless it can be proven otherwise. And if you think about it, that really makes sense.

      No, it really doesn't. We need sane laws for everyone, not preferential ones for cyclists.

      Anytime a cyclist or a motorcycle rider gets hit by a car, they are the ones that lose. Therefore, it is generally the inattentiveness and downright criminal actions of the driver that results in a crash.

      Faulty logic. People do stuff that they know (or should know) will hurt them all the time. They do it a lot when driving cars, anyway, why should bicycles be any different?

      I've seen way too many cyclists weaving through traffic lanes when it's clearly unsafe to do so (e.g. right after red turned green, and cars are starting to move), ignoring stop signs, and ignoring bicycle lanes when they don't need to turn left.

    25. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that when drivers ignore the traffic laws around cyclists, it's a threat to the cyclist's life.

      The problem is that when cyclists ignore traffic laws around cars, it's also a threat to cyclist's life.

    26. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Along those lines, you might find the "vehicular cycling" school of technique worth promoting; it teaches consistency and communication in how one drives one's bicycle (not just through hand signals and the like, but also things like positioning within one's lane to indicate future intent); classes are offered throughout the US by the League of American Bicyclists.

      Why don't we require a license to drive a bicycle on shared roads, with mandatory teaching of those principles?

      We could also use some more stringent standards for getting a car driver's license as well, while we're at it.

    27. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As another poster mentioned, Helsinki isn't that great...

      But most importantly, you are misguided in proposing that the space for bicycles should be taken out of space for pedestrians. Bicycle in a city can have comparable speed to a car, if not forced into pedestrian sidewalk, so it has no place there.

      The solution is much simpler - don't let cars eat your cities, dividing them into inaccessible islands on the premise that cars should be priviledged when it comes to trying, and failing most out of all alternatives (when given the chance), to provide safe and fast mass transportation for people living in said city.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    28. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by crazycheetah · · Score: 1

      You know, this is my thought. When I was going to high school in Wisconsin, I was riding my bike through the snow as much as 2.5 miles to school and back home every day. Even there, people thought I was rather crazy, but it wasn't bad, really. Once I learned how to handle the ice and other such sketchy situations introduced by the weather, it wasn't bad. Hell, being comfortable in a t-shirt by the end of it during below freezing temperatures was worth it, in its own just fun way.

      Sure, weather might stop some, but the extreme weather just makes it that much better for others!

    29. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In more friendly jurisdictions a car/bike collision automatically means that the car driver is at fault unless it can be proven otherwise. And if you think about it, that really makes sense.

                So you punish people based on no evidence? Interesting law.

                Brett

    30. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by nobdoor · · Score: 1
      But stop signs are an inefficient method of traffic control when taken literally. I take stop signs to mean slow to a crawl, and take turns passing. Be aware of who is around you, and cooperate to get by. Don't speed off. Be predictable.

      It's more complicated than 'come to a full and complete halt'. I think that 'stop' was just the easiest word to describe the task.

      Try getting on a bike and going for a ride. You'll get a new respect for momentum once you're providing it and not just pressing a gas pedal.

    31. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Most of your trouble is the fault of cities designed solely around the automobile and having bike lanes to ride in. Riding a bike in an older US city where the streets were laid out before the rise of the automobile is nicer. You will have a road network that tends to offer more options for routing yourself. You don't have many roads with more than four lanes of traffic to deal with so setting up for left turns is easier. In a city that doesn't have bike lanes there is no potential for arrogant drivers to expect you to be trapped in them or do stupid things like parking in them or right hooking the "invisible" cyclists in their special ghetto. This is the most problematic issue with bike lanes. You are placed far to the right, outside the zone of awareness of the typical driver and they will happily ignore your presence when moving across your path. Without bike lanes drivers are more obliged to let you blend in with them and you are more favorably positioned in their cone of vision. If the local car culture is more laid back then it can be mostly pleasant to ride in a city like this. You will still encounter idiots on a regular basis but it is a manageable problem in my opinion.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    32. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Why don't we require a license to drive a bicycle on shared roads, with mandatory teaching of those principles?

      The obvious problem here is the erection of a barrier to entry of a behavior we (not just the cycling community, but municipal governments) would like to promote. Cyclists who practice vehicular techniques are much safer than those who don't, absolutely -- but otherwise-sedentary folks who get on a bike increase their lifespan by doing so even without that advantage.

      A much better approach, I think, is to have active enforcement of traffic laws for cyclists and to allow the League's traffic safety classes to be taken in lieu of a ticket for minor violations (just as we allow motorists to take a driver's ed class to get out of one minor violation per year). That way scofflaws eventually get funneled into the safety education system, but without the big up-front hit on adoption rate.

    33. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      pretty much everyone else in the world has the sense to realise that bicyclists are pedestrians. They don't belong in the road any more than joggers or skateboarders.

      I don't suppose you've ever ridden down a sidewalk at 30mph? How about trying to avoid getting hit by cars pulling in and out of driveways while riding down a sidewalk at 30mph? Nobody expects fast moving vehicles on a sidewalk and they are a hazard to any cyclist capable of maintaining high speed. The widespread development of smooth paved roads was initially done at the behest of cyclists 100+ years ago who wanted a better surface to ride on than dirt or gravel. Now all of a sudden the automobile comes along and we can't use the roads originally made for us. That's very fair.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    34. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You know here in Norway a lot of people cycle in the winter. Studded winter tires on a bike makes breaking on ice almost as easy as on a dry road. But at -18C i feel it is too cold to take the bike to work even if they have showers and a sauna there.

    35. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by sznupi · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the only time when cyclists in some places take over the road to similar degree that motorists do daily, is during critical mass events (which personally I consider to be silly)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    36. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      45 is the speed limit, not the desired speed.
      Besides, you already stated that you know the vehicle tops out at 25, so what do you expect?
      It's a shared road, you'll learn that one way or another. Choose your method.

    37. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I agree. By far the craziest drivers I know are on motorcycles and bicycles. The fact that they generally lose in collisions with cars has absolutely nothing to do with who caused the accident.

    38. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by alexandre_ganso · · Score: 1

      Hey, when I'm drunk, I can't cause a death on the bike no way! Not even my own, as I tend to ride real slow then.

    39. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you note the American laws, they are legally vehicles and share the road.
      Note the word "share". You can think of them as pedestrians, and it makes life easier for everyone but legally they are vehicles that must obey the same laws... but share the road.
      Where I live, in Arizona USA, there's a legal boundary of 1 foot on your left, and 2 foot on your right. It's there so when the time comes when your riding in one of those conditions where there is no bike lane and the side of the road turns into swiss-cheese, you have something to keep you from being pushed to the edge of oblivion.

    40. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

      Motorcyclists do exactly the same thing...at least the younger ones do. Too bad their stupidity makes for a great looking corpse.

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    41. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      More or less same thing in Germany. Cyclists are only allowed to drive on the sidewalks if there is a special bicycle road on it or if they are under 10 years old.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    42. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      it's total nonsense to claim riding a bike in traffic is safe. your in a slow moving less visible vehicle, and your highly exposed with no metal chassis to protect you. if anything hits you your fucked.

      the only place for bikes is in their own seperate lane, anything else is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    43. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It would sure be nice if drivers here in the US showed that they had some clue that cyclists exist.

      To quote Jeremy Clarkson

      some of them[cyclists] even believe they are going fast enough to not be an obstruction.

      I'd very much like it if cyclist would realise they are incapable of exceeding 40 KPH in a 70 zone, pull over and allow other vehicles to pass. I hate being made late for work by becoming stuck behind some cyclist who is riding at under 40 KPH down at a busy 2 lane street just far enough away from the curb that no one can pass the slow moving, highly visible bugger.

      And I take the bus to work, that puts me in Clarkson's 2nd most hated group.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    44. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by trawg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's this one road I go down -- 30kph speed limit, and yet every car behind me always seems to catch up and pass me rather quickly when I'm going along at 30kph. In fact, I would say that most are going 50kph. That's more than 66% over the speed limit.

      My brother is a cycler and comes home regularly with tales that make me cringe for his safety.

      I've often wondered if he had an LED display on the back of his bike that showed how fast he was riding, if cars would be more prone to backing off. He is like you sound - regularly doing the speed limit - and is overtaken a lot, I assume because people think "well, bikes are slow, so I can drive faster".

    45. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've seen way too many cyclists [...] ignoring bicycle lanes when they don't need to turn left.

      Where I live, cars are often allowed to park next to, and even in, bike lanes. As a result, riding in the bike lane often puts one in "the door zone" -- the area in which a car door suddenly opening can throw one off one's bike and under nearby traffic -- or puts one at risk by forcing frequent lane changes (merging in and out of the bike lane to avoid parked cars). Additionally, while the city is generally quite good about keeping bike lanes and improved shoulders clean and safe, several suburbs which I ride through on my way to and from work don't share that priority.

      For these reasons and others, one of the things taught in the League's traffic safety classes is recognition of times and circumstances when it's appropriate not to use bike lanes.

      To summarize -- while I don't support the other misbehaviors you mentioned, if you see a cyclist ignoring a bike lane, they may be doing so for one of several good reasons.

    46. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 1

      Speed limits, especially in the U.S., often are set too low, and hence many folks treat it as the minimum speed they should be going; drive with the flow of traffic.

      In regards to your observations about motorists catching up seemingly quickly, some drivers purposely speed up when they see a bike to more quickly pass.

      Ron

    47. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can say it's nonsense all you like, but the statistics don't lie.

      "The gain of 'life years' through improved fitness among regular cyclists, and thus their increased longevity exceeds the loss of 'life years' in cycle fatalities. (British Medical Association, 1992) An analysis based on the life expectancy of each cyclist killed in road accidents using actuarial data, and the increased longevity of those engaging in exercise regimes several times a week compared with those leading relatively sedentary lives, has shown that, even in the current cycle hostile environment, the benefits in terms of life years gained, outweigh life years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of around 20 to 1." -- Mayer Hillman, Senior Fellow Emeritus, Policy Studies Institute, and British Medical Association researcher

      See:

      • British Medical Association, Cycling towards Health & Safety, 1992, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-10-286151-4
      • Hillman, M., Cycle Helmets, The Case For and Against, 1993, Policy Studies Institute Report 752, ISBN 0-85374-602-8
    48. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A much better approach, I think, is to have active enforcement of traffic laws for cyclists and to allow the League's traffic safety classes to be taken in lieu of a ticket for minor violations (just as we allow motorists to take a driver's ed class to get out of one minor violation per year). That way scofflaws eventually get funneled into the safety education system, but without the big up-front hit on adoption rate.

      THIS

      I think a licensing requirement would be a little over the top, but the problem is that you can't really maintain a "biking" record without some sort of identification, but having a requirement that you get a state ID in order to ride a bike on public wouldn't be THAT difficult to handle. I am in full support of police officers perhaps better enforcing street laws with bicyclists. There are just too many bicyclists out there that don't follow laws. There have been plenty of times where I'm driving sanely, down the middle of my lane, and a cyclist cuts me off. Oh and I just love it when I stop at a stop sign and then start crossing, then a biker just blows through the intersection and I almost hit him... and suddenly I'm the jackass.

      I don't have anything against cyclists... just the ones who think they're better than people driving cars and therefore they deserve special treatment (which, to be honest, is most bikers in the bay area... and even bikers I know are willing to admit that).

    49. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      What the US needs is segregated cycling facilities, like the ones we have here in Finland, or in Sweden, Denmark, Holland etc.

      They cost money to build and maintain, so financially poor countries such as the US and Canada can't afford them. Yeah I am sarcastic, but man, it's the 21st century; not having segregated cycling facilities in a 1st world country should be embarrassing!

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    50. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by collywally · · Score: 3, Informative

      I did the same thing with my bike. At first I would pedal my bike to work and back every day but I would always be working late and after a 14 hour day at work I would then have to pedal, mostly up hill, to get home. Then I would have to wait about 2 hours or so until my body would relax enough to get to sleep. I eventually got sick of this and decided to buy a kit for my bike. 750W motor and a 48v 20Ahr LiPo battery pack does the trick. I get about 40kms and I can go about 55kph without the speed limiter. I also don't have to pedal at all if I don't want to, even while going up hill. This setup can be illegal where I am if I unplug the limiter but that never happens ;) .

      The big difference that I found is that I stopped running stop signs and I would actually stop when people were in a crosswalk instead of driving around them. When I was on my normal push bike I was always trying not to lose momentum since it was so hard earned with sweat and energy. But on the electric bike I don't care since it costs me nothing in effort to start from a complete stop. I'm much more aware of my surroundings which I'm sure is from not having to spend so much energy peddling. I realize that i'm now treating the ride as if I'm on a proper motorbike and I've been driving much safer because if it.

      I charge the battery at work for the most part but even if I didn't electricity is about 5.91c a kWh where I live which ends up being practically free for me. And the guys I work with appreciate it much more now that I don't arrive covered in sweat.

      The best part is all the bike lanes and paths we have here in Vancouver, BC. I can get almost anywhere without being in heavy traffic and most of the routes are on proper pavement. With the Olympics coming up and all the road closures that will come with it, the bike will be, by far, the best way to get around town.

      The best/worst part about it is the other bikers swearing at me when I pass them going up the hill on the way home.

    51. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Other fun experiences include people swerving around me...

      What do you expect when you're a fragile obstacle riding erratically down the street at an unsafe speed putting yourself and every driver out there at risk?

      I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but drivers have a side to this story, too. Bikes are too slow and virtually unprotected. The law says you can ride on the roads, which is fine, but it ignores the reality that sudden changes in speed on the motorway increase the odds of an accident. That's why it's worse to travel the speed limit than it is to travel at the speed the rest of traffic is moving at. The best part is, if we hit you, even if it's your fault, there's a serious risk that we get in trouble for it.

      I don't mean to be insensitive. Nobody should treat you like that. But bicycles and cars do not mix. It's dumb that the law tries to put them on the same road. Dangerous, very dangerous.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    52. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 1

      I agree. By far the craziest drivers I know are on motorcycles and bicycles. The fact that they generally lose in collisions with cars has absolutely nothing to do with who caused the accident.

      It sounds like the set of cyclists you make friends with, motor- or otherwise, is skewed toward the young rather than a more balanced sample.

      Reckless motorcycling is a self-correcting problem.

    53. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Malc · · Score: 1

      As a Briton who lived three years in Denver and a decade in Toronto, I can tell you that the N. American weather isn't that bad for cycling. Maybe it's too hot and humid in parts of the south, but elsewhere is fine. -25 to +35 were common temps for me cycling all-year around as I did in Toronto, and that's pretty bloody extreme weather for a European. Guess what? It ain't so hard. And about the southern US: I lived in Shanghai for four months in 2008. Any longer and I would have been cycling there too (it was a comfort thing with the traffic system), and I can tell you that it is higher on the heat index (high humidity) than most places Stateside.

      The drivers: well they're another thing. I used to cheer when I saw the police pull over a taxi driver in Toronto. Jeeze, it's so much easier here in London, even on the narrower more congested roads. The drivers in Denver were far worse: I'd be followed for half a mile or more until the driver behind could pull in to the other lane to pass - thanks, I don't need that much room, but your nervousness is making me nervous! And then there's the moronic fuckwits who scream at you as they go by... only to panic and wind up their windows when they're at the next red light, watching me in their mirror as I catch up.

    54. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weather is not that bad in Amsterdam besides the fall's rainy period. It's the other madmen riding bikes in Amsterdam that's unpleasant.

      I recently crashed right into someone's Macbook he had secured in his front basket because rules are here to break along with your gear.

      I'm kinda surprised a third of purchases in NL are electric. 2nd hand bikes are probably not counted. Nor are the ones that are stolen, wich happen to be a large part of the 'market'.

    55. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      Technically, traffic rules apply to both cars and bikes. In reality, traffic rules are designed around cars and completely fail to take into account the fact that the characteristics of driving and cycling are entirely different.

      Bikes are slow, unless you're Chris Hoy. Stopping and starting continually puts more strain on the rider, as does travelling uphill, in contrast with cars. Their redeeming feature is that they are small and highly manoeuvrable.

      I have never seen a road layout that takes these things into account, so cyclists will inevitably make the best of a bad situation. Don't try to pretend that drivers would behave any different; for example, if a wide, empty road has a 30mph speed limit, it will be broken. Similarly, if a cyclist can use a gap in traffic or hop onto a pavement for a few seconds in order to avoid a large, complicated and dangerous junction that has been designed for vehicles with wholly different characteristics, they will (been there, done that).

    56. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by dargaud · · Score: 1
      Well said. I'll complement what you said about the drivers complaining that cyclists don't respect the driving laws: a bike is not a car ! So it's only common sense that it doesn't follow the same rules, even if the Law ignores this. Drivers have no problem with laws being different for walkers, now don't they ? Bikes, and roller skates as well as a bunch of other means of transportation, are intermediate. I fail to see why one person in a car should be somehow more important than one person on a bike.

      Just one example: you can hear and see a lot better around you when on a bike than inside a car with tinted windows and a blasting stereo, so when you get to a stop sign you know pretty much if the road is free or not. Same for red lights. But of course the law ignores that. And when silent electric cars become common, it may imply some unkind but natural selection.

      Personally I think that any driver guilty of dangerous driving (DUI, cell phone, muscle car accelerations, etc...) should be forced to ride a bike for a while (no public transportation allowed) in order to get a perspective on how to share the road.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    57. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      Cars are much, much slower in the city then a bike and really annoying (overtaking you off because they are a car and need to be faster then a bike and then braking like crazy). Off course, city streets where made for horses and buggies.

    58. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that the cyclist would hate being made late for work because of having to continually stop to let drivers past. That 70 km/h speed limit is a maximum for ideal weather and traffic conditions, not a God-given right.

      And that cyclist is driving a decent distance from the kerb for two very good reasons. First, the gutter is where you will find recessed drains, detritus and slippery road markings; not the kind of thing you want to be riding over on a two-wheeled vehicle. A cyclist who falls off in the conditions you describe runs the very real risk of ending up under the wheels of the car that is following too closely behind.

      Second, if the cyclist was in the gutter, it would encourage idiot drivers to overtake without leaving adequate room, making the road dangerous for everybody on it.

    59. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Kijori · · Score: 1

      Another reason is weather. US weather has more extremes than Europe. There's a reason that all the early colonists from England died of tropical diseases.

      This is only true if you're talking about extreme phenomena like tornadoes that are a problem for more than just cyclists. Europe is pretty big, especially if you interpret it as the bounds of the continental plate rather than the EU; there are plenty of places in Europe that get a lot of snow, and there are plenty of places that get very very hot. There are even places that get both, just like in the US. And, just like in the US, there are plenty of places that are not permanently either snowed-under or pushing 40 degrees C. I don't think anyone's suggesting that you use this in every single location at all times of year.

    60. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by couchslug · · Score: 1

      In the US, car drivers expect to use the road rather than have it clogged with Asian-style mobs of two-wheelers, and speeds are a good bit faster. I doubt we are willing to accept a South Korean splatter rate. :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    61. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Speed limits, especially in the U.S., often are set too low

      No, they aren't. The 10mph difference between e.g. 30mph and 20mph gives a massive increase in the chances of a pedestrian surviving in a collision.

    62. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by chrb · · Score: 1

      No, the reason is because pretty much everyone else in the world has the sense to realise that bicyclists are pedestrians. They don't belong in the road any more than joggers or skateboarders.

      In the UK pedestrians are allowed to walk on the road. The Highway Code states:

      "If there is no pavement keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light, keep close to the side of the road"

      In fact, bicycles are (afaik) the only vehicle which you have a right to use on the roads. For every other vehicle you must have a valid driving license.

    63. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      going through a car or a pedestrian green light, whichever comes first

      This is perfectly legal, although of course the cyclist may want to make his intentions clear to avoid getting hit.

      Not in California: In California, a bicyclist walking their bike is a pedestrian, and a bicyclist on their bike is a vehicle. A vehicle must operate in the lane, e.g. not in the crosswalk. You must dismount from the bicycle, therefore, if you wish to use that crosswalk. You may also not ride on the sidewalk unless permitted by local regulations, but you still can't then ride across the street in the crosswalk, because that's a moving violation and you're subject to the same laws as the cars, motorcycles, and scooters.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    64. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by chrb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Faulty logic. People do stuff that they know (or should know) will hurt them all the time. They do it a lot when driving cars, anyway, why should bicycles be any different?

      When it comes to sharing the road with cars, many people seem to assume that such accidents are usually the cyclist’s fault — a result of reckless or aggressive riding. But an analysis of police reports on 2,752 bike-car accidents in Toronto found that clumsy or inattentive driving by motorists was the cause of 90 percent of these crashes.

      ignoring stop signs

      Some cyclists do those things, and I can understand why it is frustrating for other people, but it rarely causes accidents: 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor.

      ignoring bicycle lanes when they don't need to turn left.

      I suppose you mean "turn against oncoming traffic" - left turns are certainly not a problem here... anyway, the main reason for avoiding bike lanes in cities is people parking in cycle lanes. The Door Prize: Cyclists killed by dooring - a list of cyclists killed because of motorists opening their door in the cyclist's path. It happens all the time - I had it happen to me once, and now I will never use a cycle lane that has cars parked along it or in it.

    65. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Speed limits, especially in the U.S., often are set too low

      No, they aren't. The 10mph difference between e.g. 30mph and 20mph gives a massive increase in the chances of a pedestrian surviving in a collision.

      Collisions between pedestrians and autos are overwhelmingly more often the pedestrian's fault. In fact, one study suggests that around half of pedestrian vehicle fatalities involve a ped under the influence of alcohol (scroll for it... lots of good info there, though.) More tidbits from there: The single largest contributor to vehicle-ped collisions is where the ped "ran into road" (At 15% of cases) while the most common contributor on the part of drivers is "failed to yield to ped". See especially Table 15; crashes which are solely the pedestrian's fault significantly outnumber those which are solely the driver's fault; shared-fault collisions are significant, but much lower than either.

      The pedestrian's chance of survival, therefore, is very much up to them. If they stop running out in the road when they aren't supposed to and doing similar stupid shit, the majority of such fatalities will be eliminated. Further, you should never assume a car will stop for you even if you make eye contact with the driver. It's a lot easier to stop Chevrolegs than Chevrolet.

      Right now I'm in Panama and people walk in the street a lot. Partly this is because ALL vehicle-ped collisions are legally the driver's fault, even on the Interamericano. But also, the majority of people here don't own a car. They need to be able to walk. We've given this up in the USA... You NEED a car to participate in modern American life.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    66. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Now all of a sudden the automobile comes along and we can't use the roads originally made for us. That's very fair.

      I built my house in the country, and now they want to pave my road and I'll have a bunch of neighbors and traffic! How unfair! *wrings hands*

      I agree that bicycles need a safe place to operate, but since they take up so much less space than cars, they don't require roadways of this size in any case. Your complaint therefore should be that there are no bicycle roadways. Roads of this size and in this quantity would not be built for bicycles, because they are only financially valid with vehicular traffic (and arguably, not even then.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    67. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No, that does not follow at all. I did not state that the motorcyclists and bicyclists I know tend to be crazy drivers. I stated that the craziest drivers I know are motorcyclists and bicyclists. Those are two completely different things, and you assumed the wrong one.

    68. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Hope yours are better designed than the ones in the places I've lived. In the UK the cycle lanes appear to be designed by car drivers for car drivers, and many cyclists believe they're much safer on the road than the cycle path. In Spain half of the cycle lanes I've been on have surfaces so smooth that it's not really safe to go faster than walking pace in the dry, and when it's raining just forget it.

    69. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Get it into schools. My primary school (in the UK), I think in conjunction with the local council, offered a week-long bicycle training course with a test and qualification at the end. For some reason I couldn't do it in school, but I took the course with the council in the holidays and passed. Full marks on the theory, reasonable performance on the practical. I still have somewhere the badge they gave me.

    70. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      people who use a faster mode of transport arrange their lives such that they live closer to work

      I don't think you mean that, surely it's the other way round?
      Interesting post otherwise.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    71. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by supercrisp · · Score: 1

      There are many flaws in your assumptions. The first of which is that metal chassis protects you. You might do a search for a study that found that drivers of vehicles like SUVs are actually LESS safe because they FEEL more safe. This is based on data, and it's counterintuitive. And I'm sorry I don't have the link to the study for you.

    72. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Where I live, cars are often allowed to park next to, and even in, bike lanes. As a result, riding in the bike lane often puts one in "the door zone" -- the area in which a car door suddenly opening can throw one off one's bike and under nearby traffic -- or puts one at risk by forcing frequent lane changes (merging in and out of the bike lane to avoid parked cars).

      Or you could use those gosh darn useful things called side mirrors, that all cars have, to see if they have someone in them.

      And in case you think I'm just an oblivious cager, I do cycle, but for fun and fitness, in places that do have parked cars and no cycle lanes.

    73. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Collisions between pedestrians and autos are overwhelmingly more often the pedestrian's fault.

      Without reading any further, so what? Do they deserve to die for it?

      crashes which are solely the pedestrian's fault significantly outnumber those which are solely the driver's fault

      43% vs. 35% isn't that much difference, it's hardly overwhelming.

      Notice that 23% + 12% of collisions are when pedestrians step into the road, and are struck before they get halfway across. The report says "Driver has no time to react to avoid collision." for these. If the driver was going 10mph slower, most deaths or severe injuries in this situation would be avoided.

      If they stop running out in the road when they aren't supposed to and doing similar stupid shit, the majority of such fatalities will be eliminated.

      But people do. How can we stop them? They do it even though they might die.

    74. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But people do. How can we stop them? They do it even though they might die.

      We can't stop them, but neither should we penalize drivers. Speed limits are often set so low that if traffic follows them it results in traffic congestion.

      What we should do is create foot paths for the use of pedestrians, so that if they want to walk long distances they can do it without having to walk on the road where they have to suck exhaust anyway. But we're very car-centric in the USA, and that only happens in major urban areas with lots of peds, yet with a place for a path.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    75. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Chatterton · · Score: 1

      I vagely remember that there is another sign who mean slow to a crawl and take turns passing. But I am pretty sure it is not the stop sign but the second one in this picture: http://www.karnal.gov.in/Road-Sign-complete.jpg

    76. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bike to work occaisionally, and most of the cars that "stop" for stop signs actually roll through them at close to my top speed on a bike anyway, so there is no real difference.

    77. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by smchris · · Score: 1

      So much depends on government initiative. I walked/jogged/ran to various jobs for 20 years and told myself I would never bike. I would be dead so many times if I hadn't been able to pull back _fast_ from drivers who made it their priority to run me over. And I've known a couple people who were rear-ended. But Minneapolis/St. Paul has quite a bike system now and I get to it from 1/2 a mile of sidewalk by crossing _only_ one side road and 2 sides of a four-way light. It's great and a person doesn't realize how many strip malls have bike entrances and racks until you become part of the culture.

      Weather is obviously an issue but, again, it is a question of mindset. Many suburbs don't plow snow and officially close the bike system in winter even though a small minority would still be on the lanes. One mall I know of takes away the bike racks around the first of September assuming, I suppose, that "the kids are in school now." Attitude. Sort of like the Arby's I often pass 1/2 a block off the lanes that isn't smart enough to invest in a bike rack. Attitude and vision.

    78. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I guess all the slashdotters who modded this one up failed at basic statistics. Parent claims that riding bike in traffic is more dangerous than riding bike on sidewalk. Your rebuttal is that the life expectancy of bikers far exceeds those who live sedentary lifestyles. How does that disprove the parent's statement?

      Bad analogy time, that would be like me claiming that eating genetically modified vegetables may be unhealthy and you replying with a study that shows that those with diets high in vegetables are far healthier than those consuming a diet rich in fatty foods. Completely misses the point.

    79. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by noidentity · · Score: 1

      It would sure be nice if drivers here in the US showed that they had some clue that cyclists exist.

      As a bicycle rider and sometimes car driver, I can say that cyclists will get more respect from me and others once they decide to follow traffic laws. The most common violation is failing to stop at stop signs (including four-way stops) and traffic lights. The cyclist can see that he will get through the intersection just fine, but car drivers don't necessarily see that.

      Cyclists: stop at stop signs and traffic lights, FFS!

    80. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      As someone who also owns a scooter which routinely gets called a "moped" despite the fact that it has no pedals whatsoever, I invite you to take your offence over "electric moped" and stick it in your ear. :P "Moped" does not mean "small motorcycle". If it has a motor and pedals, and the motor is electric, it's an "electric moped".

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    81. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I can do it in the summer, but trying to get a bike through 6 inches of snow in the dark mornings while dodging traffic isn't fun or safe.

      There are several people around her e that bike to work all through winter. 2" ice 12" snow, 6 degrees. they simply have studded tires and the right gear. Heck there is a chick that rides her motorcycle year round, even winter.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    82. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      if anything hits you your fucked.

      Same goes for convertables, motorcycles, and F1 formula cars.

      Guess what, even in a Escalade, if anything hits you.... I see those things every winter ripped open like melons after they roll over on icy roads... they have 4 wheel drive, they can go anywhere......

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    83. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by peragrin · · Score: 1

      That because they feel safe and fail to drive their vehicles properly. SUV drivers tend rouse their four wheel drive to accelerate in bad weather. Because of that they drive faster thanroad conditions actually allow. Many times I have seen siv going 20-30% faster than the rst of the traffic. What each of those drivers forget is that you have to decelerate a lot more weight from higher speeds. They then slip and crash into someone. Or run the light and crash into someone as they can't stop.

      As for bike riding there is one guy I pass regularly. I pass him on the same stretch of road every morning. In the summer it isn't bad in the fall and winter all you can see is a flashing strobe. The reflective stripes aren't useful until the headlights come around the long bend. He rides safe but I wonder how many near misses he has in a week

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    84. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Reckless motorcycling is a self-correcting problem.

      Yup... Yet I dont understand why we allow the kids to buy crotch rockets, the cheapest bike you can get, and let them on the road.

      Honestly, if you are under 25, you should not be allowed to ride anything over 250cc. The retard parents around here buying little jonny a Hayabusa at age 16 is simply ridiculous.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    85. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Where I live, cars are often allowed to park next to, and even in, bike lanes. As a result, riding in the bike lane often puts one in "the door zone" -- the area in which a car door suddenly opening can throw one off one's bike and under nearby traffic -- or puts one at risk by forcing frequent lane changes (merging in and out of the bike lane to avoid parked cars).

      Or you could use those gosh darn useful things called side mirrors, that all cars have, to see if they have someone in them.

      And in case you think I'm just an oblivious cager, I do cycle, but for fun and fitness, in places that do have parked cars and no cycle lanes.

      And, when there's a person in those cars, the GP's point still holds. You still have to merge in and out of traffic lanes from the bike lane because you know someone is in the car but you don't know what their intentions are.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    86. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by quadrox · · Score: 1

      I may be completely wrong about you, but you come across to me as the "the law is the only important thing" type of person, which I absolutely despise.

      The purpose of traffic law is to get a maximum of traffic flow (e.g. cars going through a light per hour) with a maximum of security. Of course there is some sort of tradeof or compromise, in order to increase traffic flow you have to decrease traffic security and vice versa.

      My point is that the traffic law has a specific purpose, and that specific purpose is not ONLY for safety, but also to get traffic actually going. You can see that I am right about this part, because if safety was the only concern all forms of traffic would be forbidden because that would give the absolute lowest risk of traffic accidents. Since this is not the case, a part of the laws purpose must be to get traffic going.

      Now why is all this important? That's simple, because what is important is the purpose of the law, not the actual written words. And this is true because it simply is impossible to write the law to take into account all the special circumstances and exceptions that happen in real life. For this reason the traffic law will at times be a suboptimal solution, and in these cases it will be a GOOD thing to ignore the traffic law IF you can keep with the spirit of it. And therefore it is important to understand the actual purpose or spirit of the law, and not only the words.

      If you are acting solely based on the words of the law, you will often do the "wrong" thing regarding the spirit of the law. I ride to work on my bike, and I see all sorts of "good law abiding citizens" comply with the letter of the law, but showing absolutely no regard for their fellow citizens - for example riding very slowly while not giving space to overtake or similar things.

      I absolutely fucking hate these people. Stick to whats important instead of going on about what is the law and whatnot.

    87. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When on my motorcycle, I make it plainly obvious to car drivers that I exist. When they cut me off, I use hand signals and ride close enough to rip off their antennas.

    88. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by quadrox · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And as long as the driver/cyclist take the necessary safety precautions this should be perfectly ok.

    89. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      Only if he does not want to slow down to a safe speed. It would be slow as hell, I know, but it beats getting doored.

    90. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the reason is because pretty much everyone else in the world has the sense to realise that bicyclists are pedestrians. They don't belong in the road any more than joggers or skateboarders.

      Really? You think I should be doing 15-35mph IN THE SIDEWALK?

      Your comment derives totally from ignorance. I suggest you try riding for a month and see what you think. The problems with sidewalk riding are 1) it's dangerous to pedestrians, and 2) it's extremely dangerous to cyclists. Particularly at intersections where cars don't expect to see a vehicle moving 20mph on the sidewalk. Also in areas with a bunch of driveways, since cars don't generally check for traffic on the sidewalk. Then there's the fact that sidewalks are rarely maintained in a condition conducive to cycling.

      The facilities you seem to have observed in Helsinki bear no resemblance to sidewalks in the US.

    91. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by nobdoor · · Score: 1

      I've seen those signs in NZ, but never in the US. Give way makes more sense.

    92. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean 90kph max on the highway? Isn't it 100kph everywhere in Canada? I've never, ever seen a "max 90kph" sign on any highway in Quebec.

    93. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cvtan · · Score: 1

      When we were in Copenhagen in Nov. 1972, we saw elderly women riding bikes to go to the opera in the snow. People were wearing sandals while biking to the Technical University of Denmark (Lyngby). We are wimps. I got my motorcycle license last year and I am totally paranoid. People in the US are not used to dealing with bikes/motorcycles and just don't pay attention to them.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    94. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      going through a car or a pedestrian green light, whichever comes first

      This is perfectly legal, although of course the cyclist may want to make his intentions clear to avoid getting hit.

      Actually, this is illegal in any number of states. In Austin, TX, you will be given a ticket for riding your bike through a crosswalk. If you want to use the pedestrian signals and lanes, you have to be walking your bike, not riding it. If you want to ride your bike on the road with cars, trucks, buses, and motorcycles, you have to follow the same general rules. If cyclists are allowed to pick and choose which motorist/pedestrian laws they want to obey on the fly, the inconsistent application of safety laws will only put them in more danger.

      Also, cyclists who do not ride single file in bike lanes and on bike paths are assholes. Just had to get that off my chest.

    95. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Haxzaw · · Score: 1

      Teenage girl eating a banana; I'm sorry, I missed the rest, I'll try to take it in when I calm down.

    96. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 1

      Hey, I just want to thank you for a good & sensible writeup.

      I am one of those people who architect his life about sensible transportation. I recently bought a house in washington dc, and ride my bike to work daily. I've been a bicycle commuter for 10 years, and have made my living arrangements favor bike commuting accordingly. It's actually pretty wonderful, I spend 15 minutes on my bike every morning and evening to get to work ( and if necessary, to stop at the grocery store on my way home ).

      Frankly, it's an absolute joy. My colleagues bitch and moan about traffic, yet they insist on living as far as possible from where they work and spend more than half of every day.

      Anyway, I had to comment simply because so many internet discussion threads about cycling tend to devolve into name calling and internet-tough-guy-ism.

      --

      lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
    97. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      The problem with bikes is, they don't really fit on streets OR sidewalks. A 20 MPH, small, fragile bike doesn't mix well with 45 MPH, large cars. They also don't mix with even smaller more fragile 3 MPH pedestrians. And all of them, drivers, bikers, and pedestrians, are idiots talking on their cellphones.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    98. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by psyklopz · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem with cyclists who obey traffic laws.

      But I would like someone to comment on this:

      If, as a car driver, I pass a cyclist, and then reach a red light, why does the cyclist always ride along the right-hand side of all the cars in the line and go straight to the front of the line?

      This to me seems strange. In a car, I don't try to get around the other cars in front of me at an intersection.

      In the past, when I used to do my commute on a bike, I'd always maintain my correct position in line at an intersection (once a driver has successfully passed me, he or she shouldn't need to pass me again, in my opinion. To most drivers, it's actually *stressful* to pass a cyclist, because they are worried now about traffic both to their left and their right).

      So, what is the recommended course of action at intersections-- should the cyclist maintain their place in line or go all the way to the front. And if the answer is to go all the way to the front-- why is that?

    99. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 2, Informative

      You must be joking. Side mirrors are made to allow the driver to see out of the car, not to let others see in. Trusting your safety to a glimpse, taken at speed, of a reflection in a six inch mirror at least ten feet away is madness.

    100. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      There's this one road I go down -- 30kph speed limit, and yet every car behind me always seems to catch up and pass me rather quickly when I'm going along at 30kph

      30kph? That's less than 20mph. Here in the US, 20mph is reserved for active school zones and parks. I can't remember ever seeing anything less than that unless it was a park road. Residential areas are almost universally either 25 or 30mph. Less dense residential areas are 35mph or sometimes higher. Maybe the reason you are being passed is that the speed limit is unreasonably low for normal, clear, dry travel.

    101. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Southern city infastructure isn't as centralized as most northern cities because population density is lower (lower geographical constraints for expansion, lower land value). For most southern cities, scale down LA or Atlanta and you'll in the right ballpark. Also, biking to work in 100 degrees is not practical nor safe, especially with little to no bike lanes and overcrowded roads.

    102. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 1

      If it has a motor and pedals, and the motor is electric, it's an "electric moped".

      In the US, NTHSA and CSPC regulations (and a great many states' laws [ignore the chart, it's badly incomplete; read the state-by-state text]) place the "electric bicycle" in its own category.

      Granted, your usage is consistent with the origin of the word -- but today, "moped" is increasingly used to apply to vehicles with either (1) a gas engine, or (2) no pedals whatsoever. Regardless, mopeds are typically handled by different state laws than electric bicycles (usually with a higher top speed, usually with a licensing requirement), and some states even require that there be no external shifting mechanism (which is certainly not applicable to most bicycles).

      When discussing which vehicles you'd care to share a lane with, I'd argue that these differences (licensing requirements, top speed w/o human power being applied) are quite germane.

    103. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by compro01 · · Score: 1

      A stop sign means to come to a complete STOP. The concept you are referring to is known as yielding and there is a separate sign (an upside-down red and white triangle here) for it.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    104. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      Actually, you must be. It's a MIRROR. It works both ways. It's not like everyone has an FBI-like car with super tinted windows... if you can't see anything in it, well, go get your eyesight checked. Seriously.

    105. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 1

      So, what is the recommended course of action at intersections-- should the cyclist maintain their place in line or go all the way to the front. And if the answer is to go all the way to the front-- why is that?

      The approach taught by vehicular cycling is to wait in line in the same position one would if in a car. This is safer in part because it maintains visibility and predictability, and in part because there's less chance of getting right-hooked by someone who's turning.

      That said, some cities have started installing "bike boxes" (only for use at intersections where no right turn is allowed), marked areas at the front of the line where traffic is supposed to stop intended for cyclists to wait in after going to the front of the line. If there's a bike box present, then the cyclist is acting in accordance with the intent of the street planner if they make use of it -- though I'm personally rather skeptical with respect to their benefit.

    106. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Grandparent was claiming that riding a bike in traffic was unsafe (as an absolute). It was this claim, not that it was more unsafe than riding on the sidewalk, that the parent was intended to address. If you'd care for a study addressing the other claim, they're available.

      Getting back to the appropriateness of the parent's argument -- claiming that an action is unsafe where that action increases rather than decreases one's life expectancy is... more than a little disingenuous.

    107. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by dasunt · · Score: 1

      Collisions between pedestrians and autos are overwhelmingly more often the pedestrian's fault. In fact, one study suggests that around half of pedestrian vehicle fatalities involve a ped under the influence of alcohol (scroll for it... lots of good info there, though.) More tidbits from there: The single largest contributor to vehicle-ped collisions is where the ped "ran into road" (At 15% of cases) while the most common contributor on the part of drivers is "failed to yield to ped".

      In a fatal auto/ped collision, is the pedestrian around to tell their side of the story?

      I'm not saying that the automobile driver is consciously lying. But perhaps that pedestrian that came out from nowhere was actually operating in a predictable manner, and the driver of the automobile was zoning out/fiddling with the radio/trying to remember what else he had to pick up at the corner store.

      As a cyclist, at night, my bike has a bright headlight, a dimmer flashing front white light, and a rear (flashing) red light. I also wear an ANSI Class-2 safety vest. I've had situations where I've stopped at a four way stop, seen a car coming from the left (not stopped yet). I start going through the intersection as the driver stops, and then the driver starts moving through the intersection again before noticing me and stopping again.

      The driver isn't out to kill me. He or she only looked for something approximately car-sized before moving again. If they hadn't seen me before hitting me, I wouldn't be surprised if I appeared to come out of nowhere, and therefore *must* have run the stop sign. I've also had people try to merge into my lane without seeing me. Again, I'm sure I appear to have come out of nowhere.

      As a pedestrian, I've had similar occurances. Someone is so focused on catching that break in the traffic for a left turn that they neglect to check the crosswalk. Or the light turned red a second ago, and they are running late to work, there is no cross traffic from the left, and it's only a right turn.

    108. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Shane+A+Leslie · · Score: 1

      Same rules apply here in Canada. You'll also get a ticket for trying to pass a bus or streetcar that has its doors open ($120 fine, same as a car).

      --
      If no one has your back, time to move your back.
    109. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      If, as a car driver, I pass a cyclist, and then reach a red light, why does the cyclist always ride along the right-hand side of all the cars in the line and go straight to the front of the line?

      Because they're inconsiderate idiots with a deathwish?

      No, really, I'm a cycle commuter, and that very behaviour drives me *batty*. It's a fantastic way to get nailed by right-turning traffic at an intersection or cars that drift right as they slow down, it pisses people off, and it's just generally a dick move.

      The correct thing to do is, upon approaching stopped traffic, to move fully into the lane and take up a normal spot just like a vehicle. Unfortunately, too many cyclists see themselves as exceptions to pesky rules like that (and, for the record, I do selectively break rules, like running stop signs at unoccupied intersections, but there are certain behaviours I absolutely refuse to participate in, and this is one of them).

    110. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In a fatal auto/ped collision, is the pedestrian around to tell their side of the story?

      Read my link, and all will be revealed; a very large number of the cases are recorded as having indeterminate fault. Also, the pedestrian doesn't need to be there to tell a story in all cases; that's what forensics and witnesses are for. I suppose not quite ALL will be revealed, but there are plenty of citations, and if you want to pull the references and debate the issue, that's welcome.

      My lady went through a situation where she was driving down a residential street and some bat stepped out in front of her from behind a van without even looking her direction. She managed to not kill the insane old bag, and honked at her as she nailed the (ABS-equipped) brakes. The woman then called the cops and reported her as speeding so that she wouldn't have to examine her own behavior. My lady and I went out with a tape measure and proved that she could not have been speeding and the case was dismissed, but what should really happen in those cases is that the pedestrian should not be permitted to leave their house with a chaperone. The point of this rant is that the pedestrian can lie when they're not dead, so all statistics are suspect, but that's in every direction. If the pedestrian is dead, and the vehicular operator becomes a defendant, they can easily be found at fault when they are not at fault, just as the opposite can happen; the DA has motivation to appear to be tough on bad drivers, even if the driver in question is not actually bad.

      Short form: read the citations, and then tell me... but until you read the citations, don't tell me :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    111. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by nobdoor · · Score: 1
      No, this is not the concept I'm referring to. There is no such thing as a 4-way yield intersection. Yield means that you have to merge with traffic that has right of way.

      There are only two circumstances I can think of when people need to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. 1)while waiting for your turn. If the intersection is congested, then yes, people need to stop and take turns. 2) If you cannot adequately anticipate oncomming traffic without halting.

      If there are only two cars across from each other in a 4-way-stop, and they both want to go straight, then what is the point of coming to a full stop? They will both go by without hinderance. Yes, they need to slow down to a crawl like I said earlier, so they can react to anything unexpected.

      Do you guys really come to a full stop when it's clear that there's nobody around?

    112. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Shane+A+Leslie · · Score: 1

      I do the same thing - ride 365, but I do it in a heavily modified 350watt ebike (32km/h before I start to use my pedals). Back when I was a young cyclist I was one of the idiots that everyone complains about, but now that I'm old I've learned to follow the rules. The odd thing is, I actually outpace most cars in crosstown traffic even with following the rules (full stops, signaled turns, giving right of way to cyclists, watching out for pedestrians). I act like a bike in the bike lane, and like a motorcycle when I'm not, giving way and signaling well in advance as I change between the two 'modes'. I average a continuous 30Km/h in stop and go city traffic, rarely having to stop because I watch the road ahead and time the lights, turning drivers, and streetcar stops. I'll admit, I've modded my bike to intimidate drivers - its about 6 feet long and the handlebars top out about 5 feet off the ground and looks like the bastard child of a Harley Chopper, a downhill racer and a bmx having a orgy in the Thunderdome. I've also chosen my riding gear to look intimidating - knee length black leather duster and a four foot length of 0 gauge chain looped over my shoulders combined with my steampunk helmet, goggles, and mask tends to give me a good 3 meters of 'personal space'

      --
      If no one has your back, time to move your back.
    113. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Shane+A+Leslie · · Score: 1

      I've thought of doing this as well, accelerometer and a LED display on the back of the helmet.

      --
      If no one has your back, time to move your back.
    114. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take some time to consider the other side: So you don't want us to ride in the gaps between cars and you don't want us to ride in the lane with cars. If there are no bike lanes where should we ride?

      As for "acting like jerks every time a car fails to signal..." You are in an enclosed 4000lb piece of fast moving metal; us, atop a 20lb chromoly frame. Riders want very much to avoid any coming together.

    115. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Foolicious · · Score: 1

      It would also be awesome if people acknowledged that there's more than one subgroup of cyclists, and that some of them treat the roads differently than others.

      This is a great point. I ride my bike for transportation, but I mock the "cyclist" with all the gear and garb, probably for the same reason I mock people that customize their Honda Civics. I know it is some people's passion and hobby, but it's not for me. So I am not a "cyclist", but I ride my bike because sometimes it's the only way to get where I want to go. And when I ride, I am paranoid of drivers. I give them every opportunity to do what they need to do and enough room to make a lot of mistakes. I know I have a right to be on the road, but my rights expire when I do, so I'm more concerned with getting to my location without dying or being injured than making a point. I am sure if I rode my bike exclusively, I would get a bit more adamant about cars being more bike-aware, but as it is, I think reality (that is, assuming the worst of people and that ALL people are unsafe jerks, regardless of the type of vehicle they're using) is one great way to stay safe. As a side note, it would also be interesting to compare cycle vs. car accidents and pedestrian vs. car accidents.

      --
      Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
    116. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Shane+A+Leslie · · Score: 1

      A bike is not a car, but once on the road most places consider it a vehicle under the law, and both drivers and riders should treat each other with the same level of deference and respect.

      --
      If no one has your back, time to move your back.
    117. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Actually, you must be. It's a MIRROR. It works both ways. It's not like everyone has an FBI-like car with super tinted windows... if you can't see anything in it, well, go get your eyesight checked. Seriously.

      Tell you what -- I'll start looking in car mirrors when you can start looking in the 1" squared rear-view mirror mounted to my helmet.

      Huh? Whadayamean you can't see what's in it? I can see you behind me just fine. It's a MIRROR. It works both ways!

    118. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Shane+A+Leslie · · Score: 1

      We have them in Canada as well, same shape, but yellow, and they say 'yield' - which means 'to give in' or 'submit'.

      --
      If no one has your back, time to move your back.
    119. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Heian-794 · · Score: 1

      Ever see the Speed Vest, which does just what you describe? (Only with electro-luminescent wire rather than LEDs; it looks quite a bit like a Nixie tube display.) I'm looking forward to seeing this produced commercially.

      http://speedvest.com/faq

    120. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Where I live, cars are often allowed to park next to, and even in, bike lanes. As a result, riding in the bike lane often puts one in "the door zone" -- the area in which a car door suddenly opening can throw one off one's bike and under nearby traffic -- or puts one at risk by forcing frequent lane changes (merging in and out of the bike lane to avoid parked cars).

      It's a good point, and I do not think that bike lanes should be allowed to be used like that. On the other hand, I see the same behavior in (long) sections of the road with bike lanes where there's no parking permitted on the side at all, so there's clearly more to it.

      On the whole, I still stand by my assertion that mixing bikes and cars creates more problems that it solves. Yes, fully segregated bike lanes are more expensive than just painting a line and a couple of bicycle signs on the road, but it's still well worth it for everyone involved.

    121. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by xaxa · · Score: 1

      The obvious solution is to have bikes on the road in cities and residential areas (20-30mph limit, actual speeds often less due to congestion) and have segregated bike paths on intercity routes.

    122. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      I was wondering when someone would trot out those fallacial Vehicular Cycling studies. They're about as unscientific as you can get, and get shredded fairly regularly Here: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?100823-Sidewalk-bicycling

      But if you really think that it's sound reasoning to just total up all "accident events" without any sort of severity grading and then say that pedestrian cycling is X-Hundred% More Dangerous than Vehicular Cycling go right ahead and obstruct the flow of traffic for real vehicles until you're turned into paste.

      Also the argument that sidewalk riding is more dangerous because of people behaving in ways that would get them just as injured on the street? Yeah, you're going to have to find something a little more solid.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    123. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      I think that, in your urge to rant pointlessly, you missed the part where I said that I cycle. I do look at car mirrors, and it has saved my ass a few times. You know, if you listen to what other people say, you may actually learn something now and then.

    124. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Shane+A+Leslie · · Score: 1

      750W! Where did you get a 750? I want!

      --
      If no one has your back, time to move your back.
    125. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Shane+A+Leslie · · Score: 1

      My mad-maxish harley/downhill-racer/bmx looking ebike started out as one of those 'electric mopeds', and yes, the pedals on them are worthless. It took me a year to get around to it, but I swapped in a full size chain-ring and pedals, and doubled my battery life and top speed.

      --
      If no one has your back, time to move your back.
    126. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Swordsmanus · · Score: 1

      It would also be awesome if people acknowledged that there's more than one subgroup of cyclists, and that some of them treat the roads differently than others.

      No kidding. I hate cyclists who don't follow traffic laws as much as, if not more than drivers. They make cyclists who obey traffic laws and act predictably/courteously look bad. It creates a negative stereotype, and it shows in these comments.

    127. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One is drivers."

      Where I live, drivers have gotten worse as the cyclists have gotten worse.

      I used to bike avidly, 20-30 miles every 2 days on average, whether for exercise or transportation. Sure, I put up with bad drivers, but nothing unusual out if I were driving a car. The attitude from drivers when they saw a cyclist was patience and to be careful.

      Somewhere along the way, the dickhead cyclists heard this area was a nice place to cycle, and started infiltrating the area for about 5 years. Cyclist "tours" of the country, the more wannabes in small group, or the exercise couple, all often riding 2 or more to a lane, not bothering to try to stay right, etc. Technically legal, as the state has no strict lane limit, but if you are to act like a vehicle, you are suppose to act like a vehicle, not group 3 to a lane. Or just respectful, like switching from single file to side by side without any indication when you _hit a hill_, thus backing traffic up deliberately and knowingly. Drivers in the area eventually lost patience.

      The area became crap to be a cyclist. I gave it up for the most part. Now, there are few cyclists because the driving behavior is bad; cyclist showed a lot of respect pushing their "rights", and drivers said screw it about being careful, it's a dickhead cyclist coming up.

      Just for 2 comparisons, there used to be a fair amount of female cyclists around. Not any more. It was always male dominated, but to hazard a guess, maybe 20% in times past were female. I think I've seen 1 female cyclist over the past 8 months.

      The second point, there are a lot of Amish buggies in the area. People are still very careful about them. It's distinctly targetted against cyclists, particularly on narrow roads where the cyclist doesn't even both to at least try to stay to one side of the lane.

      "Another reason is weather. US weather has more extremes than Europe."

      That's BS. Next you'll be saying the cycling tours in Europe are for pansies.

    128. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Merge? I have a feeling we're talking about different implementations of yield signs.

      I have personally seen 4 way yields, which function exactly like 4 way stops, aside from the stopping part. They're common in smallish towns and outlying developments around here.

      As far as your second point, I would argue 2 is almost always true in urban areas, either downtown or residential. Unless you've got nothing but buildings with glass corners or treeless yards, you cannot see far enough to tell if anyone else is coming.

      As far as I see it, if you're already coming to a crawl, it's not that much of a problem to come to a stop and spend a moment checking.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    129. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In more friendly jurisdictions a car/bike collision automatically means that the car driver is at fault unless it can be proven otherwise. And if you think about it, that really makes sense. Anytime a cyclist or a motorcycle rider gets hit by a car, they are the ones that lose. Therefore, it is generally the inattentiveness and downright criminal actions of the driver that results in a crash."

      I disagree, but let's use your words.

      "Generally." So you admit that not in all cases, yet you want to put the burden of guilt on the driver anyway? Seems you want to take away rights from the plane of reason in the court system.

      "inattentiveness." Really? I've seen bicycle accidents. Usually it's the bicyclist who tries to weave their way through a tight spot and the driver didn't realize they were being passed from behind. If they were treated as a vehicle, such action would be illegal. YOU want to make this commonplace.

      "criminal actions." Holy shit, biased much? Even most car on car accidents are not considered criminal in the manner which you put it. They are considered traffic violations.

      Now, more to argue against your "idea":

      "Anytime a cyclist or a motorcycle rider gets hit by a car, they are the ones that lose. "

      That's a subject of physics and while without a doubt, I don't see how that translates into a legal argument that drivers rights to a fair trial and an possibility of defense are to be removed.

      So that makes cyclists rights of greater importance than the primary reasons the roads in the US were built for? There rights take away from other's due and fair process? Good luck; if this came to pass, drivers would rebel and cycling would likely be straight up outlawed.

      Further, maybe the cyclist should have thought about that when they ride their bike. They know and should know they will lose and be MORE careful. I don't see that in real life though. I see bicyclists more and more taking daring attempts to run across lanes because they think a vehicle will stop. They hang on the side of the road instead of taking a position in traffic, then creep up on the side of vehicles from behind. They sit in your blindspot. I've seen cyclists sprint in front of vehicles. All these are abnormal (they would be considered passing on the right). I've seen cyclist run stop signs, cut across side walks, and cars slam their brakes to avoid. You want such practice to become commonplace *legally*.

      You pass your "idea" in the US, and there will be more liability and massive backlash against bicyclists in the US.

      In a prima facie situation, something appears strictly as such in the law. A white guy doesn't hire blacks is a clear situation. A driver hitting a cyclist is not. Anyone can think of a reasonable and believable traffic situation where a cyclist acted recklessly and was hit. You want, instead, to put that burden on the driver.

      Even in a rebuttal presumption situation, I don't agree either, since there is no given reason right to assume the cyclist is in the right. Indeed, you don't even mention it; you just put it that since a cyclist is more suspectible to damage, they didn't cause the situation. That's absurd, since situationally that's not true, cetainly not enough to put the burden of proof solely on the driver, but also logically, since it absolves the cyclist of any responsibility in sharing the road, which is what I would think here is something that should be advocated, not made a point of contention.

    130. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Shane+A+Leslie · · Score: 1

      Because right of way stages outward from the curb - Light Goes Green. Outside, Curb (cyclists) , and Pedestrian crosses. Outside may start left turn. Inside and Outside waits for Pedestrians and Curb to cross. Inside makes right when Pedestrian and Curb crossing is clear. Outside completes left when oncoming Outside, Pedestrian, and Curb crossing is clear. This of course only works if there are no assholes in the Inside lane trying to race through ahead of the people in the Outside lane or that don't give pedestrians crossing at the lights the due right of way.

      --
      If no one has your back, time to move your back.
    131. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      Here's something sub-optimal, which perhaps you haven't thought of:

      If you get hit, but you are not following the law, and the person who hit you was not particularly neglectful or malicious -- I fear that you're not going to receive a thin dime in compensation, because his slick lawyer will raise just the points that you: 1) were impossible to deal with because your behaviour was unlawful, unexpected, and hence random and dangerous; and 2) showed yourself not to care at all about your own safety.

      If I'm ran down and left in traction and/or a wheelchair for months (or worse), I want more than just medical expenses covered (most of that is covered by the state-run healthcare in Canada anyway). But what's the chances of me getting decent compensation if I'm hit while running through a stop sign, failing to signal, riding on the sidewalk, or otherwise breaking the law? Pretty slim I would think.

      If someone hits me he'll be paying for it, because for him to know what I'm doing and where I'm going on my bike so that he may not ram into me, all he has to do is exactly what he's expected to do: pay attention and remember the Highway Traffic Act which he should have read.

      But we can debate "letter" versus "spirit" of the law if you want. Here's my argument: If your intention is to follow the spirit of the law, how do you first determine the spirit of the law? Through reading the written law, through having received some "folk" wisdom passed to you unofficially from some other persons, or some mixture of the two? If the first, then you are just following the letter of the law. If the second, then why not just write down that folk-wisdom and make that the letter of the law? For the third, mutatis mutandis, as for the second. Any "spirit" of the law which you can actually cogitate on necessarily takes the form of some meaningful language. If it's that language which you suppose one should take into consideration when you seek to follow the law, then why not use that language as the letter of the law? Or do you think that one can understand intentions which are neither expressed nor expressible in meaningful language?

    132. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Shane+A+Leslie · · Score: 1

      I love rolling up on those idiots, repeatedly, light after light, halfway across the city during rush hour. Hell, I sometimes slow down just so I can keep rolling along side them occasionally staring at them and fingering my bike lock, I'll never do anything, but it has a tendency to make jerkwad drivers (which only some are, as with cyclists) slow down and be a little more respectful of the other on the road.

      --
      If no one has your back, time to move your back.
    133. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      You're no more fucked on a bike than on a motorcycle. I think it's a bit absurd and dangerous to ride a bike on a 45 mph rode, for sure, especially without a bike lane. But a 25mph suburban or city street? Hell yeah. Bikes can go that fast pretty easily. It sure as heck beats running down pedestrian on the sidewalk.

      It's unfortunate that in the US few bikers OR automobile drivers know (or obey) how bikes should behave in vehicular traffic.

      anything else is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

      Do you really think of driving in traffic as fighting with the other vehicles?

    134. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for clarifying that for the OP. I assumed thats how it works, but have no clue if my local/state laws specify that.

    135. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      ". I think it's a bit absurd and dangerous to ride a bike on a 45 mph rode, for sure, especially without a bike lane. But a 25mph suburban or city street?"

      Hmm...I dunno where you live, but any city I've been in in recent history HAS no areas that are 25mph streets. Around here, if you are going less than 45-55 mph on a city street, you are gonna get run over...even if in a car!!

      I know you are likely talking about posted speeds. Honestly, I have only see 1 or two streets posted at 25mph, most are unposted so 35mph is supposed to be the speed there.

      In reality, that posted speed has NOTHING to do with how traffic flows and moves these days. The only use for posted speeds is for the cops to collect revenue when needed, as that no one travels that slow.

      That's why I've thought it stupid for a bicycle to be allowed on city streets...it IS just too dangerous for them with the realistic ways people all drive cars on them.

      I'm scared as hell when I go out on my motorcycle...they don't see me either, but at least I have a fighting chance on the bike since I have power and can out accelerate the autos...and I generally have a helmet on.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    136. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Yeah - agreed that you have to be practical when it comes to "actual traffic speed" versus posted speeds.

      The downtown area near me, fortunately, does have 25mph speeds and 4-way stops at most intersections. The stop signs keep speeds low and also pushes cars to a handful of cross-city streets that are 35mph or 45mph.

      Out in the suburbs though, it's rare that you can get anywhere useful without traveling on a 45mph street. The block I live on is literally surrounded by 45 mph roads (where people drive 50-55). There's even a park 1 mile away, but everyone has to drive to get there safely.

    137. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      Grandparent was claiming that riding a bike in traffic was unsafe (as an absolute).

      I have a problem with your claim that he made an "absolute" statement. "Safety" is one of those terms that in general have to be used as a comparitor. Otherwise, what does it even mean to declare "X is unsafe" in a context like this?

      Certainly I hope you do not believe that he meant 100% of the time people who ride bikes in traffic are killed.

      claiming that an action is unsafe where that action increases rather than decreases one's life expectancy is... more than a little disingenuous.

      Not really.

      You are using life expectancy as a substitute for safety, but haven't shown that they are linked.

      It may very well be that riding a bike in taffic is unsafe.

      It may also be that on average, the health benefits for riding outweigh the unsafe activity of riding in traffic.

      Just because the benefits (on average) outweigh the safety issues doesn't mean that the safety issues cease to exist.

      In fact, I bet the numbers in the study show that you could even kill and maim a bunch more bicyclists and still come out ahead in life expectancy terms. Perhaps we could call this state "more unsafe" than the current one.

      Does that mean the current situation is safe? No.

      Also, since one can get the same life expectancy increase out of riding a stationary bike, the case could be made that "riding a bike in traffic is unsafe" is quite true in comparison.

      tl;dr

      Just because something on average will increase your lifespan does not mean that activity is safe! All it means is that the benefits outweigh the probability of incident.

      Regards.

    138. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I upgrated my old steel hardtail mountain bike into an ebike becuase I have a ~400 vertical foot climb from the train station to work.

      Years ago I upgraded my steel mountain bike to an aluminum road bike, which has the same overall effect - the 400 foot climb would be slightly harder than the electric, but the "whole rest of the trip" would balance it out. Actually, that's probably not even that true. Road bikes tend to have some pretty low low-gears, and they're extremely light. The climbing portion would likely be *longer* rather than *harder*. And there are even lighter road bikes available now.

      They work really well on roads, hence the name. I honestly can't understand why anyone would buy a squishy, heavy monster of a beast designed for maneuverability while going down root-covered game trails with the intention of using it in an urban locale. Weight on a mountain bike is a feature.

      My suggestion to you is that if you want to bike, an electric scooter isn't a bike. Learn to use the gears and don't be afraid to put them all the way to the bottom. You're not trying to build muscle, you're just trying to get there efficiently. Get the right kind of bike for your conditions. And don't be afraid to go clip-less. The extra couple minutes you spend changing shoes is more than made up for by the increased freedom to vary your stroke.

    139. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by quadrox · · Score: 1

      "Or do you think that one can understand intentions which are neither expressed nor expressible in meaningful language?"

      This would be one way to put it, but perhaps a better way of saying what I mean is "to read between the lines". It is simply impractical to cover each and every eventuality in a traffic law, so it is written the cover the most common cases as reasonable as possible. If you read between the lines however you will get some sort of understanding what the law was trying to accomplish, and from that understanding it is possible to extrapolate to special circumstances. I'm not saying everyon would get the exact same understanding when reading the law, but I don't think our disagreements would be too big.

      Furthermore, I'm not saying that you should ignore the law as much as you can - but for example it is illegal to drive on one side of the road. Now suddenly a pedestrian runs across the road without looking - do you follow the law, stay on your side of the road and hit the pedestrian, or do you try to evade and use the other side of the road (assuming noone else is driving there)?

      All I'm saying is that the letter of the law is not all that counts. Follow the law by all means, but be sure to also think about WHY the law is as it is and follow the spirit of the law as well. Furthermore, respect your fellow citizens and try not to be an annoyance.

      If you think that the law is ALL that counts, you're an asshole, it's as simple as that really.

    140. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Hope yours are better designed than the ones in the places I've lived. In the UK the cycle lanes appear to be designed by car drivers for car drivers, and many cyclists believe they're much safer on the road than the cycle path. In Spain half of the cycle lanes I've been on have surfaces so smooth that it's not really safe to go faster than walking pace in the dry, and when it's raining just forget it.

      I don't think I'm getting through to you: I said segregated cycling facilities, not "cycle lanes".

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    141. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Roonster · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see photo's of that setup

    142. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by aldwin · · Score: 1

      Well, the only time I've ever been in a car/bicycle collision the cyclist was on the footpath. My car was completely stationary at the time, I was sitting in my driveway waiting to turn onto heavy traffic, and had been for a few minutes. The cyclist rode almost a block uphill before hitting my car and sprawling across the bonnet, surprising and amusing myself and my wife.

      He didn't even see my car .... thanks to the girl in the short skirt on the opposite footpath.

    143. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by aldwin · · Score: 1

      Know what motorcyclists are called in emergency departments?

      Organ donors.

    144. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm concerned any path specifically designated for cyclists is a cycle lane, whether it's separated from the nearest road by a line of paint or 200m of field.

    145. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      I've always understood "read between the lines" to be a metaphor. You don't actually read between the lines. In fact, what you are reading is the lines themselves -- the metaphor describes reading the lines closely, so closely that you not only see every detail in them but you also metaphorically read "between" them. That is, you're reading so closely that you're "reading" things which aren't actually there. It's an hyperbole. Anyway, from this close reading of the text you determine the intent. So what you call reading between the lines I take to be reading the law -- it's just a close reading of the law. I can only take it then that you are saying that one determines the spirit of the law by grasping the meaning of the letter of the law. So really, the spirit of the law is what is expressed by the letter of the law in such a case. But feel free to contest anything I say.

      Anyway, you've given a case where avoiding hitting the pedestrian, although the avoidance itself is completely safe, is against the law. (This does not describe the case I actually occupy -- because the law of my jurisdiction says that any reasonable measure can be used to avoid such an accident, and that any sections otherwise prohibiting such behaviour are inapplicable in such situations.) So I take it that this is a case where the law itself is unjust. Well of course I wouldn't follow it then -- that's just an unjust law, like a law which prohibits me from feeding my children or something. I may just not ride on those roads since they have such silly laws, just as I would probably leave any jurisdiction which banned me from feeding my kids. Or I would continue to ride with no intention of following that law -- and if it went to court I would argue against conviction on the grounds that the law is unjust, which I always take to be an acceptable defense.

      But I will not break the law just because someone wants the vain convenience of travelling faster than I am travelling. I won't expose myself to all the liability with none of the reward. That's not a contract I'll ever sign. If motorists want me to break the law in order to please them, then I need assurances from them, not just angry honks or jeers. Of course, such assurances are impossible to deliver in these situations.

    146. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by celle · · Score: 1

      "So, it's not like motorists are somehow more law-abiding than cyclists -- because almost 100% of motorists break the speed limit. There's this one road I go down -- 30kph speed limit, and yet every car behind me always seems to catch up and pass me rather quickly when I'm going along at 30kph. In fact, I would say that most are going 50kph. That's more than 66% over the speed limit. Is every motorist continuously late for work or something? And in 50kph zones, it seems that 70kph or greater is the norm amongst motorists. On the highway you would be as lucky as a lottery-winner to see someone cruising not more than 90kph, the speed limit."

      You do realize that the point of driving a car is to get from point A to point B as fast as possible, right?!!!
      Most of us are trying to get wherever we're going as quickly as possible. It's a method to get things done nothing less, nothing more. You may have the time to ride but most of us don't. Cars are meant to be driven fast, if we go as slow as a bicyclist the point of using them is largely lost. Motor vehicles are utilitarian, bikes are not. That's why there's hundreds of millions of motor vehicles used in all situations and bikes mostly in warm climates and only at the interests of certain people with the physical stamina and will to use them.

    147. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Picard_1701 · · Score: 1

      Let's do a thought experiment!

      Let's say I had a samurai sword, and I was swinging it wildly in public. If someone with no arms slowly walks into my blind spot and I injure them, am I more or less responsible than the other person? Note especially that this person can't harm me, while I can kill them without thinking.

      Replace sword with car, and the armless walker with bicycle, and the moral argument is the exact same. It's the ethos of Spiderman: with greater power comes greater responsibility.

      --
      I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question.
    148. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 1

      You said that, but you also said that you can actually see in car mirrors. If I say the moon is made of green cheese, are you going to trust me when I invite you for a tasting?

      Cutting back on the levity -- it may be that you can see through car mirrors, but with my speeds, posture and lane positioning, I can't. Moreover, there are folks whose day jobs involve studying and teaching best practices for cycling safety, and I've never heard one of them support guidelines in line with your "advice". As such, regardless of your claims as to personal status, it's hard for me to take you seriously.

    149. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would also be awesome if people acknowledged that there's more than one subgroup of cyclists, and that some of them treat the roads differently than others.

      So true... I've noticed that, in general, road-bike people dressed up in spandex think they own the road, particularly if there is more than one of them. Ignore stop signs, wide turns into opposing lanes, etc. They give bike-riders a bad name. Those without the spandex generally follow the rules of the road.

    150. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is apt for reckless driving, but not driving in general. The latter cannot, in a sane mind, be compared to "swinging a samurai sword wildly in public", not by a long shot.

      There's one other aspect. Swinging a sword is certainly unusual behavior, and cannot be reasonably expected by people surrounding. A car driving on the road is perfectly mundane, and any cyclist driving on the same road should be prepared to drive alongside them. However, a driver (note that I specifically assume a driver who is following the rules, and otherwise driving sasfely) cannot guarantee safety for the cyclist if cyclist breaks rules - rules are written in the first place largely so that everyone on the road knows what to expect from everyone else, otherwise it's simply impossible to be safe when moving at such speeds.

      To that extent, yes, I do believe that car drivers, when they do not drive recklessly (note that this means more than just adhering to the rules and following signs, but also speeds safe in present conditions & visibility, observing traffic around, etc) has no responsibility whatsoever for the safety of cyclists who e.g. change lanes or turn without signalling, do not stop on red or stop signs, etc. I fail to see how anything else could possibly be rational - you then might as well claim that driver should be held responsible if a pedestrian decides to suddenly dash across the road right in front of a car going below speed limit.

    151. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      The experts seem to think it works for motorcycles. No, I didn't see anyone recommending it for bikes either.

      Granted, the speed differential is much greater for bicycles vs parked cars. Still, I find the person in the mirror visible at 20-30m, which is good for some decent reaction time up to 20-25 mph.

    152. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I think this post wins the discussion.

      Ride along a street lined with parked cars within the door zone *at* traffic speed (20MPH+) and let us know how accurate you are at figuring when a person is in their car using their side mirrors. Once you've done that, repeat the experiment while having enough situational awareness about the other objects in front of and behind you to not get killed at a crossroads. Side mirrors are for viewing *out* - not in. Reflections and tints on car windows severely diminish the imagery.

      Hell, I'm an "oblivious cager" 90% of the year and I can see how ridiculous this is.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    153. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Wait a tick... Where do *you* live that they make sane laws based on actual evidence rather than knee-jerk reaction? Do you take immigrants??

      --
      +1 Disagree
    154. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by IICV · · Score: 1

      You jest, but that's why you see very few bicyclists (or even pedestrians) on the streets here in Irvine. All of the surface streets are at least 45 MPH, which makes for a terrible bicycling and walking environment. The city tries to ameliorate it by making really wide sidewalks, but that doesn't help the fact that there's still cars whipping by you at fifty+ miles per hour.

    155. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree that it is automatically the car driver at fault. Years ago, I was an idiotic and arrogant kid. My bicycle was my only way of getting around and I put many many miles on it. Those roads? They weren't for the cars. They were for me and my bike. Those "Traffic Rules"? Didn't apply to me. I road wherever I wanted, crossed whatever street whenever I wanted, stayed in whatever lane I felt most comfortable in.

      I had a terrible habit of riding against traffic. I felt safer seeing "Those idiots drivings cars" coming at me where I could see them rather than coming up from behind me. Flying through newly turned red lights without my hands even on the handlebars.

      I finally got clobbered at an intersection by a lady turning right when I was doing my biking against traffic thing. She was really flustered and was begging me not to call the cops and was trying to dig around in her ratty car and ratty purse for a few dollars to give me. I realized...wow...this woman is upset and this is really 90% my fault. I don't know why the sudden surge of reasonableness hit my idiot teenager brain but I apologized for the scare I gave her, explained that I should have been on the other side of the road, and let her on her way.

    156. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      Where I live, there aren't really that many bike lanes but the areas that have them are pretty high traffic. High traffic usually means bus routes. Nothing terrifies me more than when riding in the bike lanes than a big honking city bus and a driver that doesn't really care what is between him and the bus stop. They pull off the curb, across the bike lanes, and into the street without much regard for cars...much less bikes. If you are coming up on a bus and see the doors closing, you pretty much have to stop or you will be killed.

    157. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      Texas? California? Even the parts of Colorado that are farther South/away from mountains? You are forgetting to address those of us who live in climates that are icy hell for a good part of the year. I live in Wisconsin and my bike (normal, not electric) has to be put away for a good part of the year. Between piles of snow, sheets of ice, and temperatures well below zero with the wind chill, riding a bicycle year round just is not reasonable.

      We've had a very mild winter this year so maybe I could have kept the bicycle out...but the previous few years have been absurd. In 2007/2008 we had 100 inches of snow dumped on us. Trust me, as much as it isn't fun digging a car out before heading on the road, it is outright dangerous to take a bike out most of the time.

    158. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by collywally · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of stores here in Vancouver so it was really easy to shop around. I got the Kit and batteries from these guys:

      http://www.ecodrive.ca/products_comp.html

      and then bought a 800W motor controller from these guys:

      http://www.e-ride.ca/Electric_VehicleParts/index.htm#

      I have to keep the speed limiter on or the wires get too hot for my liking. Also, keep in mind that the bike I have was never made for anything like this (it an old Rocky Mountain from the late 80's I think )and the bikes front forks flex a bit more then I like when giving it power.

      Over all though I can't complain... They gave me a real good deal on the kit and battery. And when driving downtown I have no trouble keeping up with traffic. The best part is that I keep the batteries in my saddle bags so it's hard to tell that there is anything different on the bike other then the hub motor which nobody seems to notice anyway.

    159. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Just because something on average will increase your lifespan does not mean that activity is safe! All it means is that the benefits outweigh the probability of incident.

      What better metric than "does this increase or decrease my anticipated life expectancy" at which to draw the line? The point of safety, after all, is its impact on longevity -- and choosing not to cycle is a lifestyle choice which clearly has its own risks attached as well.

    160. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 1

      As evidence against the widely accepted wisdom, published in multiple peer-reviewed studies, you point me to... an Internet discussion forum, and then expect me to read all 28 pages (or whatever it takes to get to the meat of the matter) to find whatever supposedly-damning content is supposed to be within?

      I don't have the time. If you're going to argue statistics, let your critiques be peer-reviewed and published, please.

    161. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      You say that as though either one means anything, we have stories here on slashdot infrequently about various published peer-reviewed journals which loudly espouse things which would require the laws of physics to be set on their head with a lasy susan stuck in their ass and spun about until they reached china.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    162. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by hey! · · Score: 1

      Everyone else in the world? Everywhere? Citation please?

      In any case I wouldn't take it for granted that any class of traffic "doesn't belong on the road," because what the heck does that mean? Does it mean that bicycles aren't legally allowed to use the road (untrue in most places)? Does it mean that rational transportation policy would not allow bicycles to use the road? Or does it mean that you don't like bikes and you get pissed when you see one?

      There's no question that bicycles are a vehicle. The reason that it doesn't work to mix pedestrians and bicycles is that pedestrians aren't vehicles. They don't need defined lanes; they don't need to keep to the correct side of the roadway they travel on; they don't need to signal if they are going to stop, change direction, or do any other unpredictable thing; they don't need to use traffic lights and stop or yield signs unless they are mixing with other kinds of traffic; they don't need to carry lights and other markers to make themselves visible to each other.

      Bicycles have to do all these things, and what is more they need all the other traffic using the same space as they do to do them too. So you can't reasonably mix bikes with pedestrians unless you are willing to impose vehicular style regulations on pedestrian traffic.

      So, it all boils down to these options for any vehicle type:

      (1) Put them on road, making any changes to the rules necessary to ensure reasonable safety for all users of the roads.
      (2) Mix them with pedestrians, but impose rules up on all users of pedestrian walkways -- including pedestrians.
      (3) Set aside spaces for the exclusive use of the vehicles and set and enforce rules for their use.
      (4) ban the class of vehicles altogether.

      It sounds like the Helsinki solution you describe amounts to solution (3), that is to say bike lanes. They just happen to be contiguous with sidewalks rather than roadways. I happen to think it's a harebrained idea, because you can't regulate pedestrians without putting some kind of clear physical demarcation of where it is safe to be a highly unpredictable pedestrian, and where they have to be on their guard.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    163. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by quadrox · · Score: 1

      ok, two more points I need to adress.

      1) We agree that it is sort of ok not to follow unjust laws. What about the part where pedestrians are forbidden to cross a red light? If I take a look around and see that there are absolutely no cars around, you're damn right I will cross the road even if the light is red. I may be breaking the law technically, but I still think that I am keeping with the spirit of it, since what I am doing is quite safe and I am trying to get traffic to flow better. Do you disagree with that?

      2) I am not saying you should break the law for the convenience of others - but you should respect their decision if THEY want to break it and not play sheriff - this is of course only true when you think there is no danger in doing so. For example, on the highway you often get idiots who think I am going to fast, so they will demonstratively drive in the left lane and make sure I don't pass them. That's just not your job. Similar, when I decide to safely cross a pedestrian red light, you better not talk smart to me, because I'm a grown up man and I can see for myself whether the road is clear or not. If I happen to get a fine, then so be it, but that is none of your business.

    164. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      "You're not thinking four-dimensionally, Marty". Once you see their reflection, you still have a couple of seconds until you get there, that you can use to gain said situational awareness. I can, and have done this multiple times.

    165. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by chilvence · · Score: 1

      High five, I've been 'doored' as well!

      Some people have a death wish. What is so difficult about looking at the traffic before you open your door into it?

    166. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Nocturna81 · · Score: 1

      Partially correct (I live in the Netherlands).

      Another BIG difference with the US / Canada is that we have separate bike lanes. Sometimes physically separate, both from the sidewalk and the main road as seen in this picture: http://www.frieslandholland.nl/nl/arrangementen/elfstedentours/fiets/pics/BatavusFietspad.jpg. And sometimes separate from the main road by just a bit of paint as seen in this picture: http://www.vab.be/vab/nl/rijschool/uploads/einde%20fietspad.jpg The bike lanes that are not separate from the main road also have specific rules as to when a car is allowed to enter that lane. Basically it boils down too "only when you're not hindering the traffic on that lane" (ie cyclists) and no other laws prohibit you to enter the lane.

    167. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Nocturna81 · · Score: 1

      Faulty logic. People do stuff that they know (or should know) will hurt them all the time. They do it a lot when driving cars, anyway, why should bicycles be any different?

      I've seen way too many cyclists weaving through traffic lanes when it's clearly unsafe to do so (e.g. right after red turned green, and cars are starting to move), ignoring stop signs, and ignoring bicycle lanes when they don't need to turn left.

      Because cyclists are squishy and perhaps it makes people think twice about using their 4 ton SUV to push someone of the road because they can't be arsed to wait for the cyclist to move aside? That at least is the reason why the law over here (Netherlands) makes a distinction who is liable (always the car) and who is at fault.(depends on who caused the accident). It seems to work just fine.

    168. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Shane+A+Leslie · · Score: 1

      I ride daily in downtown Toronto, and obviously look like an electric velocipede; I don't understand why so many e-bikers try and hide the fact that they are juiced. I've had a number of cops grill me about my bike - but always as an interested person, not in an official capacity. If you ride by the rules they don't care.

      --
      If no one has your back, time to move your back.
    169. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 1

      [...]we have stories here on slashdot infrequently about various published peer-reviewed journals which loudly espouse things which would require the laws of physics to be set on their head with a lasy susan stuck in their ass and spun about until they reached china.

      Whereas nutcases posting in forums on the Internet happens so frequently as to fail to be newsworthy whatsoever.

    170. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by the_digitalmouse · · Score: 0

      Another reason is weather. US weather has more extremes than Europe. There's a reason that all the early colonists from England died of tropical diseases.

      erm.. 'weather extremes' related to 'tropical diseases' = pulling silly connections out your ass without a basis of fact.

      Being a former American ex-patriot (I escaped the US in 2000), I've lived and traveled quite a lot in Europe over the last 10 years. Aside from the occassional hurricanes or tornadoes, the US does not have any more 'extreme' weather than Europe does. IF you want extremes, try living in Norway/Finland/Sweden/Russia/Africa/India.

      I'm quite happy to live in Denmark now. They have developed a very decent infrastructure for cycling, even for the velomobiles and recumbent trikes that I always ride. Heck the US needs to take a cue from Europe in general, in regards to cycling infrastructure.

      --
      http://about.me/jimm.pratt
    171. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      Let's do a simple thought experiment. Perhaps that will help you understand the difference between longevity and safety.

      I have a procedure that makes 1 in 10 people live to be 10,000 years old. However 9 in 10 people die from it.

      The average lifespan for people who take this procedure is then ((9*20) + 1*10000)/10 = 1018 years.

      I picked 20 for the losers just for a nice number.

      By the definition given, this procedure is safe, since it increases average longevity by about 900 years, even though it has a 90% mortality rate.

      Therefore I stand my statement that average longevity is not directly related to safety in the manner described.

      Regards.

    172. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cduffy · · Score: 1

      I understand the difference. I am (and was in my prior post) intentionally oversimplifying because I believe that the simplification is, in the common case, more useful for making day-to-day decisions.

    173. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Because cyclists are squishy and perhaps it makes people think twice about using their 4 ton SUV to push someone of the road because they can't be arsed to wait for the cyclist to move aside?

      You conveniently forget to mention that the price to pay for this is when drivers are blamed for something which is not their fault, and which is not even under their control (short of staying away from the roads entirely, which is not a viable option - unless you're a Greenpeace member).

      That at least is the reason why the law over here (Netherlands) makes a distinction who is liable (always the car) and who is at fault.(depends on who caused the accident). It seems to work just fine.

      I guess the definition of "works just fine" depends on your viewpoint. If your sole goals are 1) less cars and 2) more bicycles on the street, then sure, it does work fine. If, however, you care about those pesky things such as "justice" or "due process", then your laws are clearly insane, regardless of their rationale.

      Well, I guess, if I ever happen to be in the Netherlands, I'll have to stay away from the cars.

    174. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I give up. You win.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    175. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Trarman · · Score: 1

      For this reason the traffic law will at times be a suboptimal solution, and in these cases it will be a GOOD thing to ignore the traffic law IF you can keep with the spirit of it. And therefore it is important to understand the actual purpose or spirit of the law, and not only the words.

      You and the traffic officer who hands me my tickets seem to disagree.

    176. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      Not parents bike, but you might want to check out a few of these. An electric version of the Vigilante Chopper would be more my style.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    177. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I've always figured that if I started commuting by bicycle I'd get two things:

      • an air horn, for trying to discourage people from cutting me off in a way that's much more intimidating than a bell, and
      • a glass-breaking hammer, for retaliating against the windows of those who persist in cutting me off anyway.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    178. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      the only place for bikes is in their own seperate lane

      On the contrary, separate bike lanes are worse because cars cut across them all the time (especially when there are right-hand turn bays).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    179. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The problem with your post is that you don't understand the difference between "city streets" and "highways." City streets are typically laid out in a grid pattern, have closely-spaced intersections (say, 1/10th of a mile apart), and have 25-35 MPH speed limits. Highways tend to have 40+ MPH speed limits and fewer intersections, but may still be only two lanes. Residential areas that are called "subdivisions" instead of "neighborhoods" are typically directly attached to highways.

      You're probably confused because you only think you've been in cities, while in reality you were in the suburban sprawl surrounding them.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    180. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      In fact, bicycles are (afaik) the only vehicle which you have a right to use on the roads. For every other vehicle you must have a valid driving license.

      What about tractors, horse-drawn carriages, or even horses by themselves? In the U.S. all those things count as vehicles but don't require driver's licenses, AFAIK.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    181. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I do look at car mirrors, and it has saved my ass a few times.

      That may be true, but I absolutely refuse to believe its a better idea than just simply taking the damn lane to begin with!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    182. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      If you're cycling at or near the speed limit, take the lane (ride in the center, or even towards the left) so that the cars can't pass you. Also take the lane any time being passed would be unsafe (e.g. narrow lanes or blind curves), even if you're going slow. This is not only safer, but legal (in the US) and recommended.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    183. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      " The problem with your post is that you don't understand the difference between "city streets" and "highways." City streets are typically laid out in a grid pattern, have closely-spaced intersections (say, 1/10th of a mile apart), and have 25-35 MPH speed limits. Highways tend to have 40+ MPH speed limits and fewer intersections, but may still be only two lanes. Residential areas that are called "subdivisions" instead of "neighborhoods" are typically directly attached to highways.

      You're probably confused because you only think you've been in cities, while in reality you were in the suburban sprawl surrounding them. "

      I know the cities I've lived in or been around in a lot...New Orleans,Little Rock, Knoxville, Tucson, Houston, Dallas, Memphis, Nashville...etc.

      Most are driving conditions like I've described.

      Unless you only consider a city to be like New York city, then what I describe is what I city I know is with my conditions described above. I've seen very few proper grid cities that were only that way. I'm not talking about the suburbs, I'm talking the city limits proper for the listed cities and more that I've familiar with....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    184. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      ...New Orleans,Little Rock, Knoxville, Tucson, Houston, Dallas, Memphis, Nashville...

      Exactly as I suspected. All those cities -- along with Atlanta, where I live, by the way -- are the poster children for suburban sprawl (especially Dallas, I've heard). Even within the city limits, they still have lots of suburban-style development because they were planned by people like this jerk.

      Even so, the cities you listed do have some city streets. Take New Orleans, for example. See all those little white streets (e.g., in the Garden District between St. Charles Avenue and Tchoupitoulas Street)? Those are city streets. In contrast, see the yellow roads, such as South Claiborne Avenue and Tulane Avenue (AKA, US 90 and US 61)? Those are highways. Even when you drove through the city, I'm willing to bet that you mostly stayed on the highways.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    185. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Nocturna81 · · Score: 1

      I guess the definition of "works just fine" depends on your viewpoint. If your sole goals are 1) less cars and 2) more bicycles on the street, then sure, it does work fine. If, however, you care about those pesky things such as "justice" or "due process", then your laws are clearly insane, regardless of their rationale.

      Well, I guess, if I ever happen to be in the Netherlands, I'll have to stay away from the cars.

      Well, we have semi-legalized soft drugs so hey, I'm not saying you might not be right regarding our laws ;)

      But the main reason is "works just fine" over here is that there is basically now way a car should be anywhere NEAR a biker at any given time. Except when, for instance, a car wants to make a right turn in a bikers path. Of course, then the bike has right of way. Something that might also help is the fact we have a LOT of bikes on the road (mentioned earlier in this thread) and during our lessons in driving school special attention is payed to these kind of situations (you'll flunk for instance if you decide to ignore the right of way thing).

      So no worries if you're ever here, just get in a car, it's quite unlikely you'll ever encounter a biker on your lane if you're going over 10 kph!

    186. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      Point taken.

    187. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "See all those little white streets (e.g., in the Garden District between St. Charles Avenue and Tchoupitoulas Street)? "

      I live in NOLA. Trust me...the driving conditions I mentioned are from here. I've personally been 100+ mph down St. Charles (years ago, long story). But no one here drives less than 40 on most any street, even the ones you named as being city like. Many are one way...some have long stretches where side streets stop, you don't...etc.

      If you go 25mph on almost any street in this city, you will get run over. Of course, while doing this, you also have to dodge all the potholes that will take your undercarriage out. It helps if you have them all memorized, but hey, down here you do that anyway so you can get home ok from a night at the bar(s).

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    188. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Like I said, the yellow ones like St. Charles are highways. Is the speed limit (posted limit, not the speed you might decide to drive) 40+ MPH on those side streets that have stop signs where they intersect St. Charles?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    189. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      In one, the cyclist is at the mercy of the car drivers. In the other, he/she is protected from the traffic. Tell me that for you that's an insignificant difference, and I'll point you to the nearest fool.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    190. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by Shane+A+Leslie · · Score: 1

      That's the kind of e-bikes I'd like to make. My dream job would be designing and building custom e-bikes - frames and all. If figure if I can make them kick-ass awesome enough so that the suits and fashionistas want to ride one as a status symbol I'll have done something for both the environment and my wallet at the same time (and I'll get to build my dream bike-of-the-week in my down time).

      --
      If no one has your back, time to move your back.
    191. Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      My point was that some of the cycle lanes I've used are so badly designed that it's safer to go on the road at the mercy of car drivers.

  4. Nothing glamorous to see by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As someone who spends a week each year in Shanghai, this is nothing special. These bikes are nasty rusty things. Often found in shades of silver and brown with broken seats and bent baskets. The owners don't understand the concept of pride in their own possessions. I find this behavior quite foreign to me, but I suppose that's because I'm an American. In short, leave-it-out-to-rust is the Chinese motto.

    Oh, and for all you living in Shanghai, could you PLEASE for the love of God, change your moped brake pads? That high pitched squealing makes my ears ring :-p.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by magarity · · Score: 5, Informative

      The owners don't understand the concept of pride in their own possessions
       
      I spent the past year in Beijing and can tell you it is not because of lack of pride in their possessions. It's a case of Chinese common sense: everyone knows the omnipresent theives want to steal shiny new ones, so the owner who wants to keep his has a ratty looking one.

    2. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've seen that in other countries. Amsterdam has a lot of bicycles which look like they are about to disintegrate into component atoms due to the rust damage any minute.

      The reason for this is that here in the US, bikes are somewhat a style thing. If you are doing road, you have to have the $7000 carbon fiber frame [1] with Dura-Ace or Super Record, or you will be viewed as an amateur. Similar with a mountain biker coming up to a Cat 1 with anything but XTR or X.0 will be viewed as a hack and told to replace their Huffy with something racable. If you are touring, you must have the latest custom made Vanilla bike, or you will be viewed as someone who got a DWI. Even the hipsters "require" a fairly high-zoot frame for their fixies. A lot of Americans view something like the stereotypical Flying Pigeon from China as a joke.

      [1]: Of course, we all know how fragile CF is... if you don't have a torque wrench and crank a tad too much adjusting your seatpost, expect the thing to break and have a jagged spear pointed right at your bum. However, since CF is light and cool looking, it is the style now... even though a CF bike frame has to be thrown in the trash if it gets even the slightest gouge or crack.

    3. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but I suppose that's because I'm an American. In short, leave-it-out-to-rust is the Chinese motto."

      My ... what an arrogant American you are,in fact, you qualify as an Ugly American at that.

      Apparently you've never been far enough from your insulated cocoon to actually see that there are Plenty of Merkins who chant the same motto.

    4. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, this is my bridge. You didn't pay my toll you fucker. Pay up!

    5. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not just Chinese common sense. I used to work in Hollywood, which is actually kind of a dodgy place. I used to keep my truck unwashed and leave McDonalds bags all over to make it as unattractive as possible. In fact, I occasionally had to leave my pro camera in my car so I would stuff it inside a crumpled fast food bag and leave it lying on the floor.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    6. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they don't clean them because they are made of lead, so they touch them as little as possible, they know lead is hazardous. Why are the bikes in China made of lead, you ask? Well, lead is their version of metal foam, it's soft enough to bend when you hit a pedestrian when cruising at 30 mph, so when the pedestrian (from a Western country) wants to sue you for damages you threaten to sue him for what he had done to your bike and he gives up on wanting to sue you AND buys you a new bike and a yearly supply of your favorite food and alcoholic beverage.

    7. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find this behavior quite foreign to me, but I suppose that's because I'm an American. In short, leave-it-out-to-rust is the Chinese motto.

      a lot of people in china are still getting a 300USD monthly paycheck, they have to pay rent, they have to live lives, they have to support their families. they probably don't want to ride on these "nasty rusty things" if they could spare the cash to change brake pads. i don't see how "leave-it-out-to-rust" is a Chinese motto from your observation

      u don't have to be ignorant and arrogant just because you're an American.

    8. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see nothing wrong with their comment. What, is it racist or something? Why does it upset you so much? He (or she) could have just said 'I am not from China...', would that have upset you as much? Is your life reduced to reading comments, just waiting to be outraged about something/anything? Crap, I live in China and hear much more vicious things coming from the mouths of the locals, but never said 'ugly Chinese' (though other words have come to mind).

      As for the electic bikes, SBD.

    9. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I've spent the last several years outside of Beijing, in "the real China" and bicycle thieves are well aware of the "keep your bike looking nasty" "trick" and pay it no mind. They just steal your bike anyway. The secret to not getting your bike stolen is to not leave it outside overnight, or not leave it outside period.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Funny
      This, sir, is the difference between people who ride bicycles as a lifestyle, and people who ride bicycles as transportation. The "lifestyle" segment is very loud and vocal, and indeed does look down on the "transportation" segment. Heck, looking down on others is half the reason they make themselves highly visible in public - what other group in society would be able to get away with wearing brightly colored tight-fitting spandex? "It's not ME that demands I wear this ridiculous clothing, but I absolutely must be aerodynamic because I'm Lance Armstrong...oh and by the way I have to wear bright, tropical bird-like colors that would be totally unacceptable in any other social situation."

      Contrast this to me, who just rides a bike in whatever street clothes he happens to be wearing that day.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the whole spandex deal, but if you don't understand the importance of hi-vis clothing, you're an idiot

    12. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      In Amsterdam (and most Dutch cities) there is absolutely no place to park your bike inside. So they are left outside all year long (in the rain) for about 20 years and stolen 5 times between that. Most students have one or more bikes (for parts or in different towns) that lay around in the city and should be as cheap as possible.

    13. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the shorts!

      You know you're looking at a hardcore cyclist when you can see both of his helmets.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    14. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everyone knows the omnipresent theives want to steal shiny new ones, so the owner who wants to keep his has a ratty looking one.

      Yep, Ilive in china. I've seen a chinese version of 'cops' that was solely about the COPs who hunt down bike thieves. One episode even involved a carefully planned 3 man stake out...

      Actually I think the common sense is there, but in a slightly different form. Why give shit? You can just buy a new one in three years, slap enough duct tape on that important safety feature that is half hanging off the bottom of the bike and off you go for a few more months. No doubt that even if look after it really well, before the 3 or 4 year mark some expensive and vital component will have a critical failure anyway. Besides, by then all the other people at work have new bikes and you're still riding a 2008 model :-X

      That said, I've recently noticed the % of pimping electric bikes increase dramatically.

      They are the way to get around here if you don't want or can't afford a car. Especially given this City's even tightening grip on Car registration laws and the growing cost of owning a car. If the traffic is in a bad way, you might spend an hour going a few KMs meanwhile about 10,000 bikes will speed past you at comparatively healthy 15km/hr.

      Oh, and for all you living in Shanghai, could you PLEASE for the love of God, change your moped brake pads? That high pitched squealing makes my ears ring :-p.

      Personally, I'm happy for noisy brakes. It's the heads up you need when your crossing the street late at night. Otherwise those things are like silent, and the beep / 'lai' from the rider will come at such a time that maybe you jump forward and survive, or maybe you jump forward into it's path.

    15. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by Kozz · · Score: 2, Informative

      I work for a large international bicycle company. We've got an in-house team that designs cycling apparel. And I've always been put off looking at our online catalog, wondering why I have to look like a billboard on wheels. The truth is that I don't like all the high-graphic jerseys at all. However, if you are a distance commuter or otherwise undertaking a longer ride, it makes sense to get some of the right kind of clothing (frequently lycra, yes) to wick away sweat and also for freedom of motion & comfort. That being said, I try to wear some kind of loose-fitting poly-blend over any lycra. Nobody needs or wants to see that level of detail on me (hey, I'm a slashdotter).

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    16. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by Z8 · · Score: 1

      The lifestyle crowd wears ridiculous clothing like a tropical bird? It sounds to me that you are the one that looks down on them for what they wear, not vice-versa.

    17. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      No place to park bikes inside in America either (unless it's your house).

    18. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by IronChef · · Score: 1

      The reason for this is that here in the US, bikes are somewhat a style thing. If you are doing road, you have to have the $7000 carbon fiber frame...

      Wow, it sounds like you know a lot of jerks.

      I work in a high-tech office and several people commute on bikes. From what I have seen of the hardware it's about 2 beaters to one fancy model, and the fancy ones ain't carbon fiber fancy at that.

    19. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by magarity · · Score: 1

      leave my pro camera in my car so I would stuff it inside a crumpled fast food bag
       
      I know a fellow who leaves his cameras in his car unlocked and the windows down all the time - he has several dozen NRA stickers plastered all over the car.

    20. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by drsquare · · Score: 1

      I find this behavior quite foreign to me, but I suppose that's because I'm an American. In short, leave-it-out-to-rust is the Chinese motto.

      And throw-it-away-and-buy-another-one-from-China is the American motto.

    21. Re:Nothing glamorous to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you deal with the chaffing?

  5. Halfway? by JakartaDean · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Some cities are studying the halfway measure of banning them from bicycle lanes while permitting them on streets.

    Considering them like a motor vehicle is halfway between what and what? It's like people try to copy the the most witless bit of prose from the entire article.

    --
    The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    1. Re:Halfway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      halfway between completely allowing them and not at all

  6. Americans Pay More by hedgemage · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know a guy who, after a trip to China a couple years ago, decided to start up an electric bike business in Portland, Oregon which is one of the most bike-friendly cities in the US. He originally wanted to import the bikes from China, but due to trade restrictions, he couldn't bring in bikes which he could sell here for $US400-600 and instead had to fill his new shop with US and European models that cost 3 to 5 times more.
    He did his research, so it wasn't like the Chinese bikes were painted with lead and made by slave labor or anything. Anyone have any idea why electric bikes would be on the import no-no list?

    1. Re:Americans Pay More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because bicycle is the harbinger of Communism?

    2. Re:Americans Pay More by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably the lead batteries.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    3. Re:Americans Pay More by mirix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I doubt that, as there's nothing like RoHS in North America, and every car has lead acid batteries, regardless.
      There are plenty of sealed lead acid batteries around (old people scooters for example, a similar device...).

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    4. Re:Americans Pay More by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      I'm not 100% sure, but I'd bet this is retaliation for the Chinese Steel subsidies/trade practices. I believe American and European manufacturers are not allowed to buy steel in China or in Chinese-controlled markets. In other words, the price Chinese bicycle manufacturers are paying for steel is artificially low and could be considered by some as an unfair manufacturing advantage.

      That being said, this is just speculation on my part. The Steel thing is real. Many industries that rely on steel in the US are certainly complaining about it. But I don't really know about the rest.

    5. Re:Americans Pay More by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "there's nothing like RoHS in North America"

      I wouldn't be so sure of that. Every place I've worked at or sourced parts from that is in the USA has RoHS implemented, from SMD diode manufacturers to laptop repair.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:Americans Pay More by AVee · · Score: 1

      More likely good old fashioned protectionism.

    7. Re:Americans Pay More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because many of their customers want to be able to sell their products in the EU, and don't want to have to make separate EU and US models.

    8. Re:Americans Pay More by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Why protect bicycle makers in particular, when everything else gets imported from China?

    9. Re:Americans Pay More by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      I used to do a fair amount of important stuff from other countries, China being one of them, to either use or resell on eBay (I was unemployed and broke at the time. It paid the bills and was actually a lot of fun, until Paypal destroyed me but that is another story.) I would talk to people on forums to see if there was experience with a certain company or if you could import certain goods from China....

      What I got out of it is that a lot of things that are manufactured and branded in the United States would get scooped up by customs. I heard of all manner of things getting confiscated (Boots, Jackets, Staplers among those I remember) by customs because it was "Illegal" to import them. Some of these people may have been making crap up, as I never had any problems getting anything into the country, but they seemed very sincere. Perhaps this type of thing is similar to the problem your friend had with importing bikes.

    10. Re:Americans Pay More by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      The trade restrictions are in place to protect the interests of other industries that have more influence over the politicians. There's nothing ideological about them. It's strictly business.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    11. Re:Americans Pay More by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Umm, they already do have to make separate models. First off, most plugs in the EU aren't shaped like ours, on either end, and secondly, most EU plugs run 240v, not 120. For laptops, that means a brand new adapter or on-board transformer change to the mainboard.

      The USA has RoHS implemented. It's called the RoHS Directive. Learn about it sometime.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  7. pollution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Green transportation?

    I live in Shanghai. Yes, there are a lot of electric bikes here. Now guess what will happen to the toxic batteries here.

    This is not a solution (yet?)

    1. Re:pollution by cduffy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I live in Shanghai. Yes, there are a lot of electric bikes here. Now guess what will happen to the toxic batteries here.

      That's a problem because toxic lead-acid batteries are popular in Shanghai. The US e-bike market is almost all NiMH and Lithium-based.

    2. Re:pollution by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      More worried from all of the toxic coal being burned in china for electricity for their electric bikes....

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    3. Re:pollution by Khashishi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Better than cars, which use lead-acid batteries as well.

    4. Re:pollution by cduffy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seems like a relatively minor thing to be worrying about; as e-bikes are such lightweight and efficient vehicles, an indirectly coal-powered e-bike is vastly lower-impact than almost any other motor vehicle on the road. Yes, the electricity comes from an ugly source -- but so little is used that mile-for-mile they're still a net win over most of the alternatives.

      Do all the e-bikes in China add up to be resulting in significant smokestack pollution? Of course -- but that pollution would be far worse if other forms of motorized transport were being used instead.

  8. bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some cities are studying the halfway measure of banning them from bicycle lanes while permitting them on streets

    It's simple, really. Bicycle lanes exist to protect bicycles which travel slower than the rest of traffic. If you're assisted by an electric motor, there is less of a speed differential with traffic, but now you'll be a hazard to all the bicyclists yourself, since you'll be traveling much faster than them.

    I can't wait for the first dooring of a moped rider in a bike lane- maybe drivers will start to take "look in your mirror before you fling open your door" seriously because it'll be in their best interests, both in terms of personal safety and damage to their car; a couple hundred pounds of metal and rider will at the very least bend that door pretty far forward, I'm guessing.

    As someone who has been doored, it REALLY sucks getting doored because some stupid asshole can't take 2 seconds to look in their mirror before they open their door. The worst part isn't flying over your handlebars, or getting your hand permanently fucked up from getting pinched between the handlebar and edge of the car door at +10MPH with 150lb of momentum. The worst part is hitting the door and having that throw you right into the traffic lane and get hit/run over by a car, truck, or bus. It's not the door itself that kills bicyclists- it's getting hit/run over by the traffic that was just behind them. Yet another reason why bicycle lanes in the US, which are sandwiched between parked cars and traffic, are almost worse than nothing at all. In Europe and elsewhere, bike lanes are completely separated and often run nowhere near the road- they're a separate network.

    Also, there is a special place in hell for all the hipster retards riding their 70's-era mopeds (Puchs seem to be the most popular.) In our part of town, there's at least a couple of them zipping around in their tight black jeans and flannel shirts, leaving a contrail of blue smoke which is so bad to ride behind and breathe, one has to pull over and wait a minute or two for it to dissipate. They're putting out 50 times the pollution of the SUV next to them, just to save money on gas and look cool.

    1. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      brotip: if you get doored, it may be your fault.

      i've ridden for years in the city and look way far ahead anytime i'm on my bike. see a head in a driver's side seat ahead? get ready for a door prize or maybe be careful?

    2. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by thesupraman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are many cyclists who are capable of traveling at or above the urban speed limits, and around here do.
      Should they be banned from the bike lanes? what exactly is the bike lane speed limit?

      I would love to see what would happen if someone did try and enforce a nice and slow and safe limit on them, i bet a rather vocal group of riders would go nuts.

      Also, to address your other BS.

      Have you looked in the rear vision mirror of a parked car when bikes are coming past? they are VERY hard to spot, especially when going fast (as they often are), that is why riders must take care - I ride motorcycles, and we get the same problem, except hitting something much faster, attached to something much heavier, kills us more often... you know what we do? take care!

      And there is NO moped in the world that makes more pollution than an SUV, you are just showing everyone your own personal bias and one eyed view of transportation. Stop thinking you are so perfect and deal with the real world, as the rest of us do.

    3. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simple, really. Bicycle lanes exist to protect bicycles which travel slower than the rest of traffic. If you're assisted by an electric motor, there is less of a speed differential with traffic, but now you'll be a hazard to all the bicyclists yourself, since you'll be traveling much faster than them.

      At least in Europe, electric bicycles are regulated so that the assisting motor can only assist up to a certain speed, which is below the average speed of any fast cyclists. Otherwise they're considered electric mopeds instead. In the reviews of electric bicycles I've read, the usual conclusion is that the motor is a convenience when going uphill and also useful, if you have a lot of weight on your bike, like urban mailmen that use electric bicycles. One magazine actually asked the postal service for operating experience of bikes they were reviewing.

    4. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by cduffy · · Score: 1

      "Moped" driver? "Hundreds" of pounds?

      Electric bicycles are not mopeds... at least not here in the US, where the silly useless-pedals-to-satisfy-legality designs are occasionally available for sale but have basically zero market traction. People who want a self-propelled vehicle that weighs hundreds of pounds can buy a motorcycle, even an electric one; the lightweight parts to make a good e-bike (as opposed to an electric moped, which isn't expected to be light enough to pedal and so can use lead-acid batteries, suspension components built for the motorcycle market, etc) are vastly more expensive. No sane person spends the extra money to get an e-bike when what they really want is a moped.

      Moreover -- here in my state (Texas), anything over 100lb can't be legally considered an electric bicycle regardless.

    5. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      And there is NO moped in the world that makes more pollution than an SUV, you are just showing everyone your own personal bias and one eyed view of transportatiom

              Oh, bullshit. A modern ULEV SUV (of which there are several) produce a tiny fraction of the particulate pollution per passenger-mile of almost any two-stroke moped or motorcycle.

              Brett

    6. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      As far as I know all of the electric bikes are designed to top out their power assist at 20mph. This is how they avoid classification as a moped (with requisite MV registration) in those states that don't ban e-bikes outright. There is still going to be some disparity in speed between them and a larger motor vehicle on most roads. While you can pedal them to faster speeds, nobody is going to do that because they weigh a ton and are a chore to accelerate.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    7. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by jeti · · Score: 1

      Using a bike lane is less safe than using a regular lane. Bike lanes exist to spare car owners the annoyance to deal with slower vehicles.

    8. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by minorproblem · · Score: 1

      A mate of mine got doored on his GSXR750 on an 80 road! The lady opened the door completely open and he plowed into it all 200kgs of steel and 80kgs of bloke. He was very lucky he was wearing full gear and only had some minor bruises. The lady had a huge cut up her arm where his clutch leaver snapped off and tore the skin open. Imagine what could of happened to her if it was a truck....

    9. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by shermozle · · Score: 1

      WTF are you doing riding in the door zone? If some idiot road designer has painted some bike logos within a metre of car doors, that doesn't mean you should ride on it!

      I've never been doored because I don't ride anywhere near doors.

    10. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There are many cyclists who are capable of traveling at or above the urban speed limits, and around here do.
      Should they be banned from the bike lanes? what exactly is the bike lane speed limit?

      No, they should be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit. Bicycles are vehicles.

      Have you looked in the rear vision mirror of a parked car when bikes are coming past? they are VERY hard to spot, especially when going fast

      No, they aren't. If your eyesight is that bad, you shouldn't be driving. There is one exception: rider without a light, at dusk or later. But that's illegal anyway, and will probably constitute fault.

      And there is NO moped in the world that makes more pollution than an SUV

      You are completely incorrect. The average motorcycle makes ten times more pollution per mile than the average car. The average SUV makes about twice as much pollution per mile as the average car. Most mopeds are two-strokes and are inherently polluting. In fact, motorcycles are more polluting than the worst SUV. Now we've got motorcycle emissions standards, but just as California smog-exemption has resulted in enthusiasts restoring old vehicles without emissions restrictions, the motorcycle emissions laws have resulted in a renaissance of motorcycle restoration specifically to avoid taking responsibility for emissions. While rare motorcycles offer very high mileage per gallon of fuel burned, these are represented by the most expensive and/or most gutless examples in their respective classes, and they are not appealing to the average rider. Motorcycles are designed and tuned for maximum output in most cases, not for maximum efficiency.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by cptdondo · · Score: 1

      What you said plus....

      Most bicycle commuters are experienced riders; if not, they ride pretty slowly. I ride 9 miles one way and it takes me about 35 minutes give or take.

      An electric bike can do 12 - 20 MPH and the rider is typically not paying much attention. This is a deadly combination; you have a fast moving vehicle in a mixed use bike/pedestrian path with an unlicensed (typically) inexperienced driver.

      I've had to swerve around kids, dogs, leashes, grandmas, you name it. Powered vehicles don't mix.

    12. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Örebro, Sweden, most of our bike paths are separate networks. We just have to watch out for stupid moped drivers. However, if you go downtown, you'll have to bike on the main roads (which may or may not have a bike lane). Luckily these main downtown roads are supposed to be "car-free" (not bus and taxi free, and there are a lot of cars "delivering good" it seems). I bike to work no matter what the weather. Quick, easy and safe.

    13. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by gblackwo · · Score: 1

      Momentum includes driver weight. Hence 150 pounds of momentum- duh.

    14. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      brotip: if you get doored, it may not be your fault.

      i've ridden for years in the city and look way far ahead anytime i'm on my bike. didn't notice a head in a driver's side seat ahead? tough luck, you've got a door in your face.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    15. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      The average motorcycle makes ten times more pollution per mile than the average car.

      This is partially true, though it really depends on what sort of 'pollution' you are talking about. Smoke, fumes, smog, etc, you are probably right, it would suprize me if you weren't. However motorcycles release far less CO2 into the atmosphere than cars, because of their much higher MPGs. Burn less gass, create less CO2. Not that I actually give a crap about CO2 myself, but that might have been what the GP was talking about.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    16. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      "150 pounds of momentum"

      <pedantry>
      Except pounds are a measure of weight, not momentum
      </pedantry> ;)

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    17. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read in a local paper a couple of momths ago, that a legal moped creates 15 to 20 times as much pollution compared to the average car driving around in Copenhagen, Denmark.
      Of course many of them have been tuned and modified to go much faster than the legal limit and their design so they go way about that limit.

    18. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      However motorcycles release far less CO2 into the atmosphere than cars, because of their much higher MPGs.

      I'm terribly tired of this myth. While it's possible to wring good mileage out of small-engined motorcycles, I've discussed this issue with numerous motorcycle riders that I know well. Most bikes are making under 30 MPG in real-world riding, because their owners are addicted to wrist-twisting. If you drive a VW Jetta TDI in an ordinary fashion, it's common to see over 40 MPG. My 1982 MBZ 300SD with an antique-technology 3 liter turbo-diesel makes 30 MPG on the freeway. Now, if you were talking about scooters I might have some compassion. Also, CO2 can be fixed. If you're worried about it, you can buy carbon credits. But unburned hydrocarbons are the single worst pollutant that comes out of any vehicle, and nearly no motorcycles run on diesel, which is FAR less bad to spew than gasoline. Motorcycles are also commonly used for joyriding. Motorcycle rallies, for example, are vastly more common in most countries than auto rallies. Many large M/C clubs do one every week, weather permitting.

      So in summary, motorcycles may get half-again better mileage than the average car in ordinary driving, but in general they do little better. Most motorcycles on the road are not all that efficient. And finally, the type of pollution motorcycles typically produce is worse than the type of pollution that cars typically produce. Any way you slice it, motorcycles must be subjected to emission controls of the same type as cars for their owners to be justified in their smugness as a group. If you're the proud owner of an electronically fuel-injected motorcycle with a catalyst, you can be as smug as you like. I'm only aware of one turbo-diesel motorcycle, and I know nothing of its sales figures, or even if there are any sales to figure, but I think we can safely say it's a minuscule portion of the market. It's also a performance bike, so I doubt the real-world fuel mileage is all that fantastic.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Most bikes are making under 30 MPG in real-world riding, because their owners are addicted to wrist-twisting.

      MPG ratings don't take terrible driving practices into account, nor are they supposed to.

      If you're the proud owner of an electronically fuel-injected motorcycle with a catalyst, you can be as smug as you like.

      Allow me to clarify. I don't own or drive a motorcycle, my car is half a state away in storage because I live in the city, and I really don't care about polution. I was simply trying to explain the probable reasoning the original poster was using when he claimed motorcycles have less polution than SUVs.

      Also, CO2 can be fixed. If you're worried about it, you can buy carbon credits.

      Oh please... buying pardons for your sins is so 16th century...

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    20. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      MPG ratings don't take terrible driving practices into account, nor are they supposed to.

      That makes MPG ratings totally useless, which supports my point, rather than invalidating it. Thanks!

      Oh please... buying pardons for your sins is so 16th century...

      Pardons for your sins? Fixing CO2 is responsible behavior. Planting trees can be nontrivial, likewise maintaining them. Leave it to the experts.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      That makes MPG ratings totally useless, which supports my point, rather than invalidating it. Thanks!

      I agree with that, and I'm not attempting to invalidate any of your points...

      Fixing CO2 is responsible behavior.

      ...Ok, maybe this one. Oh yeah, clear-cutting rainforests to plant tree-farms so a bunch of yuppies can feel good about driving around a tank every day just to pick up their groceries is really responsible...

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    22. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by Shane+A+Leslie · · Score: 1

      Per gallon vs load vs distance traveled; single stroke engines with a fuel/oil mix in the tank ARE worse than modern SUVs - they are essentially chainsaw or lawnmower engines.

      --
      If no one has your back, time to move your back.
    23. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      ...Ok, maybe this one. Oh yeah, clear-cutting rainforests to plant tree-farms so a bunch of yuppies can feel good about driving around a tank every day just to pick up their groceries is really responsible...

      That's a bunch of shit. Right now I'm in Panama and you're not going to get certified as a reforestation project if you cut trees down to do it. But you CAN get a permanent visa leading to citizenship by buying some busted-ass land, and then attracting $40,000 in reforestation investment. You can even plant trees intended for sustainable (read: non clear-cut) harvest; Teak is supposed to take five years to mature. And if that Teak is used for construction, then it's a carbon sink.

      The fact that some people are pulling bogus carbon credit programs off doesn't invalidate the concept.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Panama is hardly the only place in the world with rainforests, your statement proves nothing except perhaps that Panama in particular has their act together.

      But what do I know? Lets see what Bernd Heinrich, emeritus professor at the University of Vermont has to say.

      In the end, what was originally intended as a mechanism for slowing global warming has created huge economic pressure for ecocide. And there will be no objections from easily duped bleeding- heart "environmentalists," who absolutely love tree planting because it sounds so "green."

      That was from December 2009, and I doubt much has changed in the past few weeks...

      The concept can be as sound as bedrock, but if the execution is poor then it isn't worth a shit. Where there is money, there is corruption, and that doesn't get you anywhere.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  9. moped owner here by eobanb · · Score: 1

    Hey, bicycle, electric bike, and moped owner here. And I don't mean scooters like your Honda Spree and Vespa PX. I mean moped. Your Puch Maxi, your Vespa Ciao, your Tomos LX. It's so interesting watching the moped revolution of the late 1970s in the US come alive again in even fuller force in China and other Asian countries today. We Americans could save a mighty lot of gas if a lot of us switched to two-wheeled transport; and I get the feeling that at some point it might have to happen yet again.

    --

    Take off every sig. For great justice.

    1. Re:moped owner here by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 1

      It would happen alot sooner if they weren't so damned expensive. For what they go for, you can buy a pretty decent used car.

  10. fastest ebike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6o-g7YeC4Q - Something about 120km/hour (75mph) seems pretty cool to me. Imagine what you'd think if you were in a car on the interstate and you got passed by someone on a mountain bike. Even though I believe the US states have legal limits at 20mph most everywhere and 30mph in California.

  11. Energy by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In an age when most of us could do with more exercise, not less, and could reduce energy usage not increase it - these seem like a bad idea. It will be interesting to see if the percentage of people who are obese in either of these countries increase in parallel with the switch to electric bikes.

    I've been to Amsterdam, spent a few weeks there, and you'd be amazed at how few people are fat in that city - a lot of which can be contributed to the fact the ride everywhere. Compare that to the US, Britain, and even Australia - and it's quite the difference. America of course wins the prize - so if anything you guys need more incentive to ride pushbikes, not less.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    1. Re:Energy by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In an age when most of us could do with more exercise, not less, and could reduce energy usage not increase it - these seem like a bad idea.

      If you had actually read the article, you'll notice that most of the "electric" bikes here in the US are actually pedal/motor hybrids, which turn off and on at will.

      For my 5-mile commute into work, I'd love to ride every day, but I can't afford to be arrive sweaty and take a shower there daily (in warmer months I try to go 2-3x a week)... now, if I could use a hybrid and cut down the effort so I only got a light glaze of sweat, I'd try to bike much more often... if I don't bike, I pretty much have to drive as I live in suburbia.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    2. Re:Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, the little I remember from Amsterdam is that I don't think most of their physical exercise comes from on a bike - more like between sheets

    3. Re:Energy by trouser · · Score: 1

      You can't afford to arrive sweaty and take a shower? It costs money to shower? Or perhaps time. You don't have the time to shower. And it would be impossible to leave 5 minutes earlier, arrive 5 minutes earlier and take a shower?

      I ride 8 kms (approx 5 miles) each way 5 days a week, rain, hail or shine. There are no showers at the office so I just take it easy on the way to work to avoid getting sweaty. I carry panniers mounted on a rack on the back of the bike instead of a backpack to avoid getting a sweaty back. I ride a lot faster heading home. I have a shower and a change of clothes there.

      --
      Now wash your hands.
    4. Re:Energy by Sparky+McGruff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are no showers at the office so I just take it easy on the way to work to avoid getting sweaty.

      And there, in a nutshell, is why many commuters like the idea of an electric assisted bike.

    5. Re:Energy by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      In an age when most of us could do with more exercise, not less, and could reduce energy usage not increase it - these seem like a bad idea. It will be interesting to see if the percentage of people who are obese in either of these countries increase in parallel with the switch to electric bikes.

      Joe Blow is 350 lbs and can barely walk to his car without having a stroke. He's not going to get on a bike to drive a mile to the store. He's going to take the car.

      Now, if Joe Blow can get to the store and back on his electrical assist bike, he might be inclined to take the bike instead of the car.

      A little bit of exercise is a LOT better than no exercise. And as the small amounts of exercise slowly weans him from 350 to 340 lbs, he'll be in better shape and can do even more exercise.

      Personally, in this weather I'd love to have an electrical assist bike. It's 26C below freezing (-15F), and to get back home from the store (2 km total), I need to get up a 40 meter climb over a 500 meter distance (8% average incline). Now, I'm not in very good shape as it is, and with this kind of cold, I need to wear a balaclava. Even in the lowest gear I have (2.5:1), my heart rate hits 175 bpm. That's not because I'm in horrible shape, but because my breath freezes solid on the balaclava, making it REALLY difficult to breathe. Electrical assist would make it a lot easier.

      But I'm sure you're right. The electrical bike is only interesting for fat ass people who can't sit on a bike without crushing it. They'd never ever be interesting for those of us who actually like riding a bike and would like to get even further about. Possibly allowing us to commute long distances without being soaked with sweat.

      The interesting thing about the electrical assist bikes is that if I'm usually using a 1,100 kcal for an 18 km ride and the electrical assist can provide me with the equivalent of 2,200 kcal, I would now be able to do at least 50 km while using the same amount of fat-energy. It might not get my heart rate up as high, but at least I'll know that if I pretty much die from exhaustion, I'm not stuck in the middle of nowhere until I recuperate.

    6. Re:Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 miles is enough to work up a sweat ? Just go a little slower. It's not going to take long to cover that distance.

    7. Re:Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      meh - i ride about five miles to work every day. I tear it up and - yes - I arrive all sweaty. I fire up my desk fan and in ten minutes, I am cool again and the sweat has dried. I change my top, lay on a quick squirt of 'shower-in-a-can', and I'm good to go. The option of riding to work is *too* important to pass up, for the sake of arriving a bit out of breath.

    8. Re:Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to leave home earlier then.

      Overhere even suits ride bikes. Hell, the former PM rode his bike to work.

    9. Re:Energy by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      Of course, they could ride to a local gym near work and use those showers. Or a racketball court, squash court, tennis court, pretty much any sort of sporting facility would be fine. There's a lot of options available, assuming you need to ride so hard and fast that you're drenched in sweat.

      It may be of no help to some, but many large or even medium sized businesses now have a small gym area and showers - or even just showers. Every job I worked at the last last 8 years at least had showers and a changing room - so it is likely more common than some people think.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    10. Re:Energy by AVee · · Score: 1

      Don't race to work then, just cycle. You don't have to average 20mph, just take it easy and you'll be fine. Save the racing for the way back and take you're shower at home.

    11. Re:Energy by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      Jow Blow will not get on the bike because at 350lbs he'll find the seat very uncomfortable. The bike also is unlikely to be able to move someone of that weight from A to B. It won't be able to go up any decent inclines assuming it can be brought up to speed on the flat. Jow Blow should start to walk more often, swim, and engage in light exercise to shift some weight.

      If getting up a slight incline of 40M over 500M is a problem currently then doing it less is not the answer. You should be looking at cycling up the incline every chance you get. Each time you do it your cardio will improve, you'll shift a bit of weight, and therefore have less weight to move up the incline making it easier. Your muscles will improve contributing to making it a fairly easy incline in time.

      Barely assisting the bike over a 50KM ride is not going to really help your fitness. You need to get the heart pumping, break a sweat, and get breathing hard if you want fitness gains. Sure, you will gain a small amount of energy burn off, but that could have been done over a much shorter, but harder ride that pushed your cardio and circulatory systems.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    12. Re:Energy by SparkleMotion88 · · Score: 1

      I'd love an electric assist bike because my current bike commute is on 5 miles of dedicated bike trail sandwiched between some fairly dangerous road travel (1 mile to get from my house to the trail, 1 mile to get from the trail to work). I would feel a lot safer if I could use the electric assist on the roads so I would be going closer to the speed of traffic while traveling uphill. While traveling on the trail or while traveling downhill on the road, I would turn off the electric assist and just pedal.

      What prevents me from buying such a bike is the concern that I wouldn't be allowed to ride it on the bikeways even if I am not using the electric assist at the time. I'm paying attention to how the laws shape up around this.

    13. Re:Energy by thistle · · Score: 1

      I don't have a reference handy but there was a study of total caloric output (aka exercise) for users of electric bikes vs. traditional bikes. The average energy output per week was higher for the electric bike population. This counter-intuitive result was because the bike was used for more trips. Every rider is going to choose bike vs. car based primarily on a personal time/effort/distance judgement. An electric assist bike ends up getting chosen for a far higher percentage of these trips than a traditional bike. The end result is that electric bike riders burn more calories over a given period of time than traditional bike riders simply because they are going to be riding more often.

  12. in japan... by biggknifeparty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Almost every Japanese senior citizen rides one of these... surprisingly fast. They're expensive too there, like $700 dollars. Also, they don't lock them up because generally in Japan people don't steal things.

    1. Re:in japan... by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Wow, maybe we should send all our thieves to Japan, if they can pull this off , and start stealing everything that is not nailed down, they can live like kings!

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    2. Re:in japan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a mandatory bike registry and wheel locks helps that a bit. Some Japanese people are not averse to stealing wallets or a sweet clip-on bike lamp, though.

  13. Whatever reduces our oil dependency! by mykos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I like this news very much.

    Although I'm not a huge fan of bicycle riding myself, it's good to see people able to find inexpensive and efficient transportation. It won't work where I live (not urbanized enough), but it's an excellent solution for big cities, which is where most of the fossil fuels get burned anyway.

  14. pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a bicyclist (and driver. Remember that- most of us who ride our bikes ALSO DRIVE), I find it very difficult to sympathize with your viewpoint.

    When is the last time you read, "motorist killed by bicyclist"? Bicyclists always lose in car-vs-bicyclist.

    Now, look at the face of cyclist road deaths: Kylie Bruehler, orphaned when both her parents were struck by a truck. Go on, LOOK, Mr. Self Righteous. Look at the face of a 7 year old girl as she buries her parents. Look at her grandfather walk down the line of hundreds of cyclists who showed up to honor them.

    Do you know what usually happens when a motorist kills a cyclist? Absolutely nothing- and this case is not the exception but the rule. Time and time again the cyclist community fumes when another person is struck simply because the driver wasn't paying attention to where they were going, the police call it a "terrible accident", and the driver walks off without so much as a manslaughter charge.

    1. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by causality · · Score: 3, Funny

      As a bicyclist (and driver. Remember that- most of us who ride our bikes ALSO DRIVE), I find it very difficult to sympathize with your viewpoint.

      When is the last time you read, "motorist killed by bicyclist"? Bicyclists always lose in car-vs-bicyclist.

      Now, look at the face of cyclist road deaths: Kylie Bruehler, orphaned when both her parents were struck by a truck. Go on, LOOK, Mr. Self Righteous. Look at the face of a 7 year old girl as she buries her parents. Look at her grandfather walk down the line of hundreds of cyclists who showed up to honor them.

      Do you know what usually happens when a motorist kills a cyclist? Absolutely nothing- and this case is not the exception but the rule. Time and time again the cyclist community fumes when another person is struck simply because the driver wasn't paying attention to where they were going, the police call it a "terrible accident", and the driver walks off without so much as a manslaughter charge.

      I'm glad you used sound reasoning and solid argumentation and did not resort to baser things like guilt-trips and emotional appeals. Well done, sir.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I ride a motorbike (and at times a pushbike) on the road, and have learned one thing very well.

      It is the job of the more at-risk to protect themselves!

      Anything else is just a stupid unrealistic dream.

      Reality is that I must avoid cars pulling in front of me, cutting me off, and at times trying to drive through me when I am stationary. This is life.
      Every day (I commute through an area of main road loved by cyclists) I see them 'downhilling' down a lethal bit of road - not to commut but for fun, and high speed (often above the speed limit), taking wide corners, and without the ability to quickly stop. I have seen several very serious accidents there, however I have never seen a car-on-car accident there as it is a safe bit of road, the usual accident is a bike into the back of a car, or once into the front when taking a corner WAY too wide.

      The road is not a playground, it is there for transportation, and it is dangerous. Many drivers are borderline incompetent, so you must weight up the risks, and make some serious decisions.

    3. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      You seem to be a rather bitter when it comes to this subject so I'll help you out a bit: namecalling and trying to guilt-trip someone who very likely never did anything wrong is not going to win you over any minds. Try keeping a cool head and making reasoned arguments next time.

      As a pedestrain (I neither drive, nor bike to work), I could start ranting about how many people bikers run over and hurt/kill while they were minding their own business crossing the streets at crosswalks or walking down the sidewalk every year. I could link you up with articles from local newspapers about a biker striking an older man, then picking up his bike and riding off as the man lay dying on the curb and suggest furiously that somehow you are partially responsible. But then I would look like a jackass, just as you do.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    4. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      What do you want to happen? Apparently, the civil lawsuit isn't finished yet. The driver wasn't drunk (he was tested right away). He stopped. And he didn't know the victims. Do you want to put the driver in prison for the next ten years? What else are you suggesting?

      He should definitely pay for what he did, but in the form of financial restitution. Personally, I'm sorry this happened, but as long as this isn't a pattern -- I'd rather not have my tax dollars be used in locking this guy up for years.

    5. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by bflong · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not familiar with the sad situation you relate, but I do not believe it has anything to do with the parent comment. Also, I have noticed that at least half of the bicyclists in my area do not obey traffic laws in any form, and the rest obey them sporadically. They don't stay on their side of the road. They don't signal. They don't maintain safe distances. They cut traffic off. The list goes on. Many of the offenders are "professional" riders too. They compete at the local velodrome. They have friken sponsors. Hence, they should know better. When one of these idiots dies, and leaves behind a grieving family and friends, I feel bad for the survivors. However, any anger I have goes right to the idiot who got run over by the 18 wheeler because he did something stupid, not the poor truck driver who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and now has the face of said idiot burned into his mind for the rest of his life. Just because the bicyclist lost the fight with the truck does not mean it's not his fault.

      Really, that's what makes people feel anger toward bicyclists. We all know how we would feel if we were that truck driver. The deceased problems are over. The survivors, including the driver, have to live with it. There is a lot more to weigh down on you then traffic tickets in that situation. I know that if some stupid bicyclist would run a stop sign around a blind corner and I hit and killed him, I would feel absolutely horrible for a long, long time. It doesn't matter who's fault it is. You feel horrible unless you're dead.

      The article you mentioned seems to indicate the parents of that 7 year old were not at fault for the accident, but rather the driver was. That's a sad situation, and I would have fully expected the driver to face charges. Definitely a break down of justice in that case.

      --
      Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
    6. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It seems that a lot of the bike-centric griping is based off of a bicyclist being unwilling to slow or stop because, uh, their heart rate will totally drop or whatever yuppie self-entitled reasons they come up with. Is it really that difficult to ride at reasonable speeds and have situational awareness to be able to stop when a car pulls out or turns? The roads are not a racetrack, and bikers should leave earlier if they can't make it to work at a safe speed and level of vigilance. And frankly, guys, your neon spandex is fucking obnoxious.

      Pedestrians and bike riders have the right-of way on the streets. That is a big mistake. In the ocean, the larger vessels have the right-of-way and the streets would be much more safe if they adopted that paradigm.

    7. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      It's funny that you expect the serious sport cyclists to be more responsible road users; from what I hear from my friendly local League Certified Instructor, it's as often as not exactly the other way 'round. Cyclists who got their start in sport feel like they already know everything and don't need to take classes to learn how to safely, responsibly and legally be part of traffic. The responsible road users are the day-to-day average-Jane commuters who got their start looking to learn how to share the road safely.

      With respect to the breakdown in the justice system you speak to -- it's the rule, not the exception.

    8. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cycle to work where I drive B-double trailers. By your Mad Max laws you car drivers should get the fuck off the road in your little toys or get mashed, and by fuck you would be mashed.

    9. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by sznupi · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hm, "the survivors / community have to live with it", that nicely sums up blaming the rape victims too.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    10. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an idea: Get your fucking bike off my road. Roads are for cars, not people or bicycles. I don't drive on your sidewalk(most of the time), so stay off my roads.

    11. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by alexandre_ganso · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is not entirely correct. The ones with less maneuver capability have right-of-way. And this means small sailboats several times.

    12. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by naeone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly, assume everyone is trying to kill you. you maybe in the right but you may also in the hospital if you dont. just reading these posts is a good demonstration of other trying to blame any /every one else for something that you have a fair amount of control over. it is after all your life and NOBODY really cares about it even 1/2 as much as you , please look after yourself

    13. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Motorists get killed by cyclists too. http://bicycleuniverse.info/justice/motorists-killed.html

    14. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by mdarksbane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Honestly, I feel the same way driving a coupe. If an SUV or a tractor trailer decides to pull into my lane without checking their blind spot, I'm toast. I've ended up literally with parts of a semi trailer *over* the front of my car before.

      The best way to view this is that there is always someone else on the road who is going to do something stupid, and even if one of you end up worse for the encounter... it's still a really bad situation to be in knowing that you killed someone's mom through your negligence, or having to pay thousands of dollars in a settlement. One either side of the debate, you can't control the other idiots on the road. You can control yourself. Stay out of people blind spots, watch for doors opening and people pulling out of driveways, pull to the edge of the road as a slow vehicle or bike to let people pass... there are a lot of things people can do to make themselves safer without bitching about everyone driving around them.

    15. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, your analogy fails for several reasons. (Hint: rape victims have to live with the fallout as well. Rape involves some level of premeditation.)

      What we really need here is a car analogy...

    16. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Absolutely agreed, HOWEVER:

      If we simply give up the fact that car drivers are all incompetent, we lose the backlash against them doing things *wrong*. We can't say "It's OK, the cyclist should have seen it coming." While it may be true in many cases, it isn't always. An incompetent driver can still ruin the day of a cyclist doing every imaginable thing right. What we need to acknowledge is that roads are a shared resource an push for more competence from both parties. Yes, ultimately you are responsible for keeping your squishy ass safe on your bike, but that doesn't matter one lick when cars on the road don't acknowledge their own responsibility.

      This is why we have these stories and discussions- so cyclists know how to be safe around cars, and so cars know how to be safe around cyclists.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    17. Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy. by sznupi · · Score: 1

      rape victims have to live with the fallout as well ...unless they died after the act. And anyways "blame the rape victim" mentality involves large amount of exclusion from community, so the latter is somewhat disconnected from what the rape victim goes through as well (not counting how they themselves add to the suffering of course)

      Rape involves some level of premeditation

      That's not strictly true, most rapes are a "thing of a moment", often involving alcohol, etc. Yes, all those circumstances can be also seen as premeditating factors; but so can be boneheaded city planning, lack of proper training, hostile attitude or...driving while drunk.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  15. In america, COPS force you to register your bike. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where I'm at, COSP always force you to go to a Fire Department to register your bike. They said so, so it must be law right?

    I sold my $600 mountain bike so they would leave me alone, and I bought an older steel-framed bike for US40 and painted it a mix of paints so it looks old and rusted to blend in with dirt and bushes. Haven't been harassed to register it yet, because I look like a hobo now. I swear America has 75% of it's citizens working surveilance in public service and government jobs that have nothing better to do but prey on another's productivity.

  16. Struggling to classify low-speed vehicles. by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Trying to fit these things into traffic in a crowded area is tough. New York State classifies such vehicles as follows:

    • Motorized Scooters, Mini-Bikes, Dirt Bikes, Go-Karts, Motor Assisted Bicycles - not allowed on streets or highways.
    • Limited Use Motorcycle, class C (20 MPH or less) - allowed in right hand lane or shoulder only. Insurance not required, inspection not required, motorcycle driver license not required, helmet not required.
    • Limited Use Motorcycle, class B. (20MPH to 30 MPH) - allowed in right hand lane or shoulder only. Insurance required, inspection not required, motorcycle driver license not required. helmet required.
    • Limited Use Motorcycle, class A. (30MPH to 40 MPH) - allowed in any traffic lane. Insurance required, inspection required, motorcycle driver license required, helmet required.
    • Motorcycle. - allowed in any traffic lane and on freeways. Insurance required, inspection required, motorcycle driver license required, helmet required. Motorcycle Safety Foundation training recommended.

    So New York State makes a clear distinction between a bicycle and anything with power. (Segways are handled somewhat differently, but are limited to 12.5 MPH. New York City prohibits them on sidewalks.)

    Realistically, once you pass 20MPH, you have most of the risks of a motorcycle, and may as well get one.

    1. Re:Struggling to classify low-speed vehicles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      p>
      Realistically, once you pass 20MPH, you have most of the risks of a motorcycle, and may as well get one.

      There is a big difference between a bicycle move at 20MPH, and a motorcycle moving at 20MPH. Mass, size, mindset.

      If I was on a motorcycle, I would not restrict myself to bike paths and sidewalks, and definately not 20MPH. I probably would not be as paranoid as on a bike, leading to a safety issue. On a motorcycle, I KNOW you can hear me coming. Not so on a bike. I have to be ready no matter what. Plus registration, plus insurance, plus storage (at work and home), plus maintenance.

      Just my thoughts.

      AB

  17. I did, didn't I? by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm glad you used sound reasoning and solid argumentation and did not resort to baser things like guilt-trips and emotional appeals. Well done, sir.

    Sure, because the parent I replied to had sound reasoning and solid argumentation when he said that most cyclists on the road are lawless jerks- and implied that they deserve what they get, or that drivers shouldn't be responsible for hitting them. Also, I think it's pretty logical and good reasoning to say, "When is the last time you read, 'motorist killed by cyclist'?"

    You know what? If reading that story and looking at that picture of that orphan makes a couple of Slashdotters a liiiiitle bit more careful driving (around cyclists or not), then it was worth every mod point.

    But yes, I see your point. Unfortunately, when you've been struck by cars twice (both breaking the law, when you were doing everything right), you tend to have a very shore fuse for the whole but-cyclists-are-lawless-idiots comment. Every time cyclist safety comes up in conversation someone has to blurt this out. While I was still in my cast from the first time I was hit, an asshole coworker sat across from me and told the table that cyclists knew that it was dangerous and thus drivers shouldn't be liable. I nearly cracked him over the head with the cast.

    1. Re:I did, didn't I? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When is the last time you read, 'motorist killed by cyclist'

      When was the last time you read "Freight train killed my motorist"?

      We all know that cars are bigger than bikes, but that doesn't mean that bikers are freed of responsibility in all cases.

      If reading that story and looking at that picture of that orphan makes a couple of Slashdotters a liiiiitle bit more careful driving (around cyclists or not), then it was worth every mod point.

      The thing is, guilt-tripping people like that doesn't actually work. If it did, PETA would have long since prevaled I wouldn't still be eating 5 pounds of cow every week. All stunts like that do is undermine your credibility by indicating to people that you are not willing to have a rational discussion, but instead need to resort to emotional arguments.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    2. Re:I did, didn't I? by gmhowell · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm amazed you find time to ride a bicycle what with all the time you seem to spend on your high horse.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:I did, didn't I? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you read "Freight train killed my motorist"?

      Collision with a car ends in derailing relativelly often, y'know...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:I did, didn't I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cyclists like you are idiots and should be shot.please go roll under a car wheel or something.

    5. Re:I did, didn't I? by germansausage · · Score: 1

      Sorry, wrong. Freight trains are seldom derailed by collisions. As a person who works on and at Railways, I have had the chance to be on scene for a number of Car/Freight Train collisions. In the cases I saw, if the train was travelling at full speed (like about 60 mph) the car or truck it hit was annihilated. Shattered into junk, reduced to its component parts, spread out over a mile of track, every one on board instantly dead. The locomotives were almost always barely scratched. Never saw one derailed. Maybe a passenger train might derail if it hit a big truck, but a big freight locomotive weighs almost 200 tons and is scarcely going to notice hitting a car. The enginemen may get PTSD, but the trains are just fine.

    6. Re:I did, didn't I? by Blain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that he never said that bikers should be freed of responsibility in all cases. Nobody has. The closest anybody has come to that is to say that the default should be that the driver should be seen as at-fault unless there is evidence that the biker was as a way of correcting for the disproportionality of risk to the biker v the driver. It's an arguable point, but you're not arguing with it when you misrepresent what was claimed.

      Similarly, providing people with information about the realities of car v bike collisions can help them change how they look at the question, which can lead to changes in behavior. Nothing is going to change everybody's behavior, but that doesn't make it a waste of time or wrong to give people something to think about. There's certainly nothing wrong with bringing a little evidence to a mostly abstract discussion of ideas, and the appeal to emotion here isn't trying to get people to do something unreasonable or evil, so I think you've extended your point a little too far.

      Especially talking about people having credibility on /. Surely you jest. I'm unlikely to ever remember talking to you here to have any idea how credible you are or aren't.

    7. Re:I did, didn't I? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Relativelly. You never seen it, but it sometimes happens (I imagine it usually involves a curve and engine block or transmission of a car getting in the way).

      Now, how many times a bike has derailed a train?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    8. Re:I did, didn't I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, because the parent I replied to had sound reasoning and solid argumentation when he said that most cyclists on the road are lawless jerks

      You need a basic vocabulary lesson in the difference between most and many. The words were chosen carefully to avoid the EXACT interpretation you decided to apply anyway.

      implied that they deserve what they get,

      You know what? The bicyclist that does break the rules of the road and ends up getting killed does deserve what they get. Just like the automobile driver who breaks the rules of the road and ends up getting killed deserves what they get.

      You know what? If reading that story and looking at that picture of that orphan makes a couple of Slashdotters a liiiiitle bit more careful driving (around cyclists or not), then it was worth every mod point.

      Yeah, just think of the children! You used it as a emotional discussion ender, not an attempt to educate anyone at all.

    9. Re:I did, didn't I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, every train that has ever derailed was done so by a bicycle. Proof, you ask for? Why, it was annihilated by the train.

    10. Re:I did, didn't I? by kyz · · Score: 1

      Freight trains are seldom derailed by collisions. [...] Never saw one derailed. Maybe a passenger train might derail [...]

      You should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selby_rail_crash

      * A large car with trailer ended up on the UK's east coast mainline
      * A passenger train hit it at 120mph, causing a derailment
      * The passenger train then hit an oncoming freight train at a combined speed of 184mph
      * 10 people died, 82 suffered injuries
      * It turned out the car driver was in no fit state to drive - how about that?

      --
      Does my bum look big in this?
    11. Re:I did, didn't I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, some irresponsible idiot leaving their car on the tracks can easily derail a train:
      http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=train+crossing+car+derail&meta=

    12. Re:I did, didn't I? by tsstahl · · Score: 1

      Never actually met a real live bike Nazi before now. All I have to offer is: bicycle messengers. Case closed.

      News flash for you, tooling along at 20-30mph on top of a scant 25 pounds of bicycle is dangerous.

      I cycle quite a bit in the warm months, including commuting. I have never been hit because I live by one simple rule: I have the most to lose in a collision. My scant bike injuries have come from avoiding kids running into the street.

    13. Re:I did, didn't I? by Temkin · · Score: 1

      Maybe a passenger train might derail if it hit a big truck

      No, not really. Many of the passenger locomotives are derived from freight units. I was riding ACE from Livermore, CA to Santa Clara back in 2001 - 2002. This consist is 6 Bombardier split-level commuters, with a Boise rebuilt F40PH. We departed Livermore one day, and were running along the south side of Pleasanton at about 45 mph (72 km/h) along the big gravel pits (now closed). A fully loaded gravel truck parked across the tracks trying to gain entry to one of the pits that had recently changed it's rules regarding cross property truck transit. He was arguing with the security guard and hopped out of the truck and ran rather than drop the clutch and run the chain link gate.

      The impact was pretty much a non-event for us passengers. I knew something was up due to the horn, and recognized when the brakes went to emergency. I was riding backwards and put my head against the head rest and braced for impact. 1+ million Kg. vs 36,000 Kg. semi truck. I felt a "thud", and that was pretty much it. It was a bit more exciting for the people in the lead car. The got to roll thru the debris field. The trailer was completely destroyed, and the cargo distributed among the ballast along the track. The tractor lost both rear axles and the 5th wheel, and had it's frame rails twisted like pretzels. Damage to the locomotive was slight. No injuries, no derailment, I think there was some air plumbing damage, and the plow was pushed back 2 inches. ACE called in their bus fleet to finish the trip for us. I was close enough to home that I just had my wife pick me up, and I drove in.

      That was just one event, but... Pretty much the highest mass kind of truck event, load of rock. Might have been worse if it was a D11 CAT on a low-boy I suppose.

    14. Re:I did, didn't I? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Somehow I'm not seeing how providing a single example of an incident contradicts the phrase "Freight trains are seldom derailed by collisions". Seldom != Never. Besides, in that incident it was the passenger train that derailed the freight train, not the car. If we really want to get into rube goldberg-esque cause and effects, then I suppose you could say it was really an internet dating website that derailed the train...

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    15. Re:I did, didn't I? by germansausage · · Score: 1

      Well aware of Selby. The post I was responding to said "Freight Trains". The train that derailed at Selby was, as you said, a passenger train.

    16. Re:I did, didn't I? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I think this crash in 1950 is pretty much the worst-possible vehicle you could hit on a level crossing.

    17. Re:I did, didn't I? by Temkin · · Score: 1

      Indeed! That transformer was 2x the mass of a D11N Cat. That's quite a rare vehicle in most parts though. Gravel trucks are a dime a dozen around a quarry.

    18. Re:I did, didn't I? by causality · · Score: 1

      Sure, because the parent I replied to had sound reasoning and solid argumentation when he said that most cyclists on the road are lawless jerks- and implied that they deserve what they get, or that drivers shouldn't be responsible for hitting them.

      "The other guy did X, which was wrong, making it okay for me to do Y, which is also wrong." In an online discussion this is harmless but with more serious matters it is known as situational ethics. That term is little more than a euphemism for "hypocrisy" to tell you the truth. Besides, why allow the other guy to control what you do? That's what this sort of reactivity really is.

      Let's assume for the sake of argument that the person to whom you replied also failed to use good argumentation. If you want to do something about that, you need to show him the correct way. You need to use better methods and show that they are more than capable of overcoming such shortcomings. That's if your goal is to offer constructive feedback. If you just want to rant, then of course this won't be a concern.

      You know what? If reading that story and looking at that picture of that orphan makes a couple of Slashdotters a liiiiitle bit more careful driving (around cyclists or not), then it was worth every mod point.

      I'm careful not to let my actions harm other people because that's the right thing to do, the right way to be. It gives me joy and purpose to live this way, to have compassion and to try to do the right thing. I don't need to be shocked by a vision of trauma or made to feel guilty. Those carrot-and-stick methods (in this case, the stick) are for people who haven't discovered this and are therefore ruled by consequence. I enjoy being more free than this.

      It's like what Aristotle said: "I have gained this by philosophy, that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." He was much more free than people who needed to be threatened with a negative consequence.

      But yes, I see your point. Unfortunately, when you've been struck by cars twice (both breaking the law, when you were doing everything right), you tend to have a very shore fuse for the whole but-cyclists-are-lawless-idiots comment.

      I'm not sure you do see my point. Listen to what you wrote there. You've been traumatized by something you could have accepted and let go of and now you have a sore spot. Now you have no choice but to take the ignorance of others personally, like an affront or attack.

      You should be in charge of how you respond to something, but unfortunately this indicates that your emotional well-being is at the mercy of what others say and do. Whether you will be happy that day depends on whether or not someone makes a comment about cyclists. Most people are like that and they accept it as normal, probably because of a shortage of good counter-examples. There's no way this brings you joy. I want something better than that for you.

      Every time cyclist safety comes up in conversation someone has to blurt this out. While I was still in my cast from the first time I was hit, an asshole coworker sat across from me and told the table that cyclists knew that it was dangerous and thus drivers shouldn't be liable. I nearly cracked him over the head with the cast.

      It's easy to underestimate the power of graceful, unshakable calmness.

      Let's say you did strike him with your cast. All that could possibly do is make him afraid to voice certain opinions. It does not remove those opinions and does not undermine their foundation of ignorance. You can be a bully, and feel justified, but you cannot intimidate people into doing the right thing. Genuinely doing the right thing must be powered with an energy other than fear.

      If you want to put the lie to his opinion, you'd first have to bear it gracefully and let it have its full expression. That is real

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  18. What most of you have missed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These things are a really really good idea.

    1) Power to weight works in favour of an electric bike. 500W on a bike is a BIG gain, on a 4 Ton SUV it's noise.
    2) The battery range V distance just works.
    Electric cars/motorbikes won't work except as a second or third vehicle simply because most people do drive their car 300km or so now and then. For an electric car that's a beyond there "get me there and back range". For a bicycle 30km return is about all most people would do - beyond that it takes too much time out of a working day.
    3) If you do get stuck (run out of charge) an electric bicycle is small enough to pick up later with a car. An electric car/motorcycle would require a recovery vehicle (big $$)
    4) Cheap enough that most (western) people could afford one as a second or third vehicle. Massively more efficient than taking the car to work where it's a short commute (10-20km) and not a lot slower.

    I'd have to say though - to make these work needs either dedicated bike lanes or banning cars from some of the main roads in commute time

    I used to ride a bicycle to work - gave it up it was simply too dangerous. (I ride a motorcycle and it's FAR safer than a bicycle).

     

  19. Maybe not in North America by spooje · · Score: 4, Informative

    I really don't see this catching on in the US.

    Here in Beijing lots of people (me included) ride electric bikes because it's too expensive to have a car and traffic jams are so bad it takes me 15 minutes to ride to the bank whereas it would take me about 1 hour to get there by car during rush hour traffic. Motorcycles aren't allowed in the center of the city so an electric bike is really convenient for getting around.

    Then there's the question of money. I bought my bike for 2,100RMB (about $300USD). This is a little under half a month's salary for the average Beijinger so these things are very affordable especially compared to cars and motorcycles. I supect this is one of the reasons electric bikes are getting popular in places with a lot of poverty like India.

    Then there's lifestyle. Here there's no Costco so I'm not hauling bags and bags of groceries at one time. Also I live in the neighborhood where I work so my commute is only about 10 minutes. That's the perfect range for one of these bikes. If you had an hour commute like many people in the US, you'd never be able to take the bike since the average charge seems to get me through about 45ish minutes before I really need to recharge. That's with peddling to help out the battery.

    --
    Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix
    1. Re:Maybe not in North America by cduffy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then there's lifestyle. Here there's no Costco so I'm not hauling bags and bags of groceries at one time.

      I'm here in the US, there is a Costco, and I have no problem at all getting groceries home in the cargo trailer attached to my bike; a 100lb load is easy to tow in that trailer even on my unassisted bicycle.

      If you had an hour commute like many people in the US, you'd never be able to take the bike since the average charge seems to get me through about 45ish minutes before I really need to recharge. That's with peddling to help out the battery.

      Range is a matter of what kind of battery capacity (and motor efficiency) one is willing to pay for. My other (US-made electric) bike has a 2h30m runtime per battery (5 hours total if the external is attached) on economy (350W) mode, 50min per battery with no pedaling at full-power 850W. Yes, I paid the early-adopter tax -- but my legs run out of juice well before the bike does.

    2. Re:Maybe not in North America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just flew out of china last week and I van assure you all that the article is pretty spot on for china. One thing it fails to mention however is that regular traffic in china is nothing short of semi-orgNised chaos, and that almost no one wears a helmet (hence the high number of cyclist fatalities). Another point it fails to mention is the prevalence of the electric scooter. These are perfect for most people as they take two people easily, or one and a small load on the back. Given the amazingly low cost, many of these could easily be modified to meet county specific road regulations and, as mentioned, dramatically reduce oil dependence.

    3. Re:Maybe not in North America by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      C'mon now. With a 3 digit UID do you REALLY expect us to believe you are young and healthy enough to ride a bicycle, electric or otherwise? Sorry! Sorry! I'll get off your lawn!

      Seriously though, 100 pounds of weigh behind an unassisted bicycle? I've never ridden a bike with a trailer attached, but doesn't the inertia alone make this a pretty dangerous thing to do? I can't imagine having that sort of weight trailing behind me.

    4. Re:Maybe not in North America by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, 100 pounds of weigh behind an unassisted bicycle? I've never ridden a bike with a trailer attached, but doesn't the inertia alone make this a pretty dangerous thing to do? I can't imagine having that sort of weight trailing behind me.

      With respect to the inertia, one word: Brakes.

      The trailer attaches to a seatpost hitch; on the trailer side of the hitch, there's a ball joint (to let bike and trailer lean separately from each other) and a mechanism with a spring in it which, when compressed, activates hub brakes in both the trailer's wheels. Thus, when the bike is slowing or when the trailer is trying to outrun it going downhill, the brakes activate just enough to keep the trailer in its place.

      Beyond that... the trailer really does ride surprisingly well; it's superbly balanced (very little tongue weight) and if not on a climb or starting from a stop, it's almost possible to forget that it's there... at least when it's holding groceries, as opposed to my 75lb Shepherd mix. He has a tendency to shift around enough (turning around to look out the back, I suspect) that while his movement doesn't pose a stability concern, I'm often reminded of his presence.

  20. Cornball people like you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take your opinions back.

    All a bicycle does is expose peopel to new dangers they were otherwise safe from when in a car. Bicyclists are just another form of pedestrian that doesn't belong anywhere on the same road as a car, and they are a hazard. Bicycling in rain and snow is just your wanting to be like some retards on the Discovery Channel. No doubt you also fly kites in a lightning storm, and consider your opinions more important than another's preferences. Friends of mine have died just from falling off their scooters and bicycles. There is no such thing as a "helmet law" because it fails except in generating revenue to punnish people that are careful or skilled to not need helmets obstructing their use.

  21. Criminally negligent manslaughter by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
  22. Re:Why it cost more in Portland by arminw · · Score: 1

    ....They drop out of Reed ...

    and found Apple, now a $50Billion enterprise

    --
    All theory is gray
  23. I added a side-car so I can go through snow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    To add a sidecar, look for a remnant or broken bicycle that someone either discards or sells as parts. Best places are yard or garage sales, but you realy need to rummage through the dumpsters in a square mile area at-least once a week.

    Try to imagine the verticle pipe of the bicycle frame where the seat mounts into, you need to bend the two horizontal bars to a 90-degree angle or otherwise cut them off to re-weld them at a 90-degree angle. A disc cutter to cut the entire front frame off the rear-wheel would suffice if you have a choice of hardware to hobble it onto your bicycle. You can make a sidecar for someone to sit, or a basket, but the purpose is to just get a 3rd wheel on the ground so you CAN ride on snow without gravity sliding you on your chin and elbows.

    It's a shame that bicycle assemblers put so much crap along the wheels that limit what choice of wheels and traction to use. Bicycle Snow-chains need to be custom-made, and that's why you need to use disk-brakes rather than the cruddy ones they weld onto the forks. Goal is to replace brake calipers on the rims to disc brakes on the wheel axles, and consider quick-release rims because only cheap-bastard assemblers use anything that needs a wrench to remove.

    1. Re:I added a side-car so I can go through snow. by beckett · · Score: 1

      use studded tires.

    2. Re:I added a side-car so I can go through snow. by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

      That sounds SO much easier then driving a car.

    3. Re:I added a side-car so I can go through snow. by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      damn yes. I built some chains following internet instructions, and on a clean road the vibration was simply unbelievable. I was afraid to close my mouth for fear of chipping a tooth.

  24. sustainability and other side effects by Exter-C · · Score: 1

    There are several known benefits to the electric bike which are pretty obvious. However there are some points which I find a little dangerous. The primary point being that you can often not actually hear these electrical bikes coming up behind you. Often its nothing but the risk of being hit is increased and it does happen. The second issue is where do we charge up these bikes? is there any environmental impact to charging the bikes or is it just going to be moving the carbon from cars in the city to coal fired plants in the rural areas?. I also wonder who is going to get heart disease and other health problems from no longer exercising on a daily basis by riding. Are we all going to have to buy gym memberships to keep fit rather than simple lifestyle changes like walking or cycling?

    1. Re:sustainability and other side effects by ras · · Score: 1

      The primary point being that you can often not actually hear these electrical bikes coming up behind you.

      They make about as much noise as a normal bicycle - which as you say is almost none. The assist on e-bikes usually cuts off at 20 mph, which just happens to be the speed an experienced road cyclist curses at. In other words, there is almost difference between e-bike and a normal bicycle coming up behind you safety wise.

      The second issue is where do we charge up these bikes? is there any environmental impact to charging the bikes or is it just going to be moving the carbon from cars in the city to coal fired plants in the rural areas?.

      Where do you charge an e-bike - are you serious? Right next to the nearest power point, usually. A recharge consumes about as much as running a 100W light bulb for 10 hours. In carbon equivalents, that is about the same as driving your car to the end of the street, except the e-bike took you to work and back.

      I also wonder who is going to get heart disease and other health problems from no longer exercising on a daily basis by riding. Are we all going to have to buy gym memberships to keep fit rather than simple lifestyle changes like walking or cycling?

      Most people who commute regularly don't use the engine as a replacement. It is an assist - something that makes it easier to get up hills. Look at the comments above. You will see one poster say his heart rate and cadence (speed he pushes the pedals) are the same for both his e-bike and normal bike. That is my experience too. It seems we have an energy output rate we are comfortable at, and we do that regardless of whether it is an e-bike or a normal bike. The only difference is the e-bike goes faster - or in my case remains off until I hit a hill.

  25. yeah, let's blame the victims! by SuperBanana · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Look, you condescending fuckhead, I know "the road is not a playground".

    In one case I was hit from behind while making a legal left turn from a left-turn only lane, by a guy who went straight, illegally. In the second case, I was doored. The driver flung open her door while I was going about 10-12 MPH, right in front of me. I had just enough time to notice the door opening before I found myself flying through the air upside-down, looking at the cars behind me, and thinking "oh please, may I not get run over."

    I had a cabbie make an oncoming left turn straight at me at an intersection, and then scream at me to get the fuck out of his way.

    I had a valet parking attendant cut me off coming out of a parking lot- in the process of avoiding him, I went over the handlebars and landed in the road. He laughed.

    I know people on a student cycling team who have been out on group training rides and had drivers on side-streets (or making oncoming left turns) drive right into the middle of the pack (with the cyclist hitting the side of the car, usually at +15 mph.) This happens about twice a year, and usually puts the cyclist in the hospital and completely destroys their bike.

    Or how about that doctor who was convicted of slamming on his brakes to "scare" cyclists? Two of them couldn't stop in time, and they smashed into his back window. It came out in court that he had a long history of such road rage against cyclists.

    It is the job of the more at-risk to protect themselves!

    And then, by extension, the victims (let's not beat around the bush here- "the at-risk", my ass) if they don't protect themselves, deserve what they get? I suppose you tell rape victims that they shouldn't have dressed slutty? Or how about telling domestic violence victims that they shouldn't have made their partner angry? Society does not work by lecturing the victims- we punishing the criminals.

    1. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Society does not work by lecturing the victims- we punishing the criminals.

      And how's that working out for you?

      Look, we (hello, push-and-motor-cyclist here) can bitch and moan about cagers all we want, but it's totally and utterly futile. They are not going to change. Ever.

      From your tales of woe, I infer that you didn't anticipate the avoidable hazards. Well, more dipshit you then. Cagers are vicious evil morons out to kill us, and its up to us to defend ourselves. You can rail against that and end up in traction, or you can accept it, add five minutes to your journey, and arrive.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Nobody is putting the blame for those incidents onto the victim. That's your own faulty logic at work.

      You're a squishy mass of blood and muscle, with maybe a pudding basin of packing foam on your head. If you're not looking out for your own safety, why do you expect a tit in a BMW with a map splayed against his steering wheel and a mobile phone pressed against his head in a 2 tonne cage of safety to do the same? He's isolated from you.

      Nobody thinks this is the way things should be, it's just the way things are. Deal / Live with it, or find a new pastime.

      Oh by the way, do you:
      - Wear a crash helmet
      - Wear high visibility clothing
      - Have bright, continuous beam lights affixed to the front and rear of your bike
      - Have reflectors fixed appropriately, front, rear, and to both sides of both wheels
      - Obey all laws of the road, including not weaving around traffic, not ignoring stop signs / traffic lights / pedestrian crossings etc
      - Ride courteously, stopping to allow fast-moving traffic to pass when appropriate (much like agricultural machinery must do)

      If not, you should probably look up the definition of "self preservation."

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your goal is to convince people that bicyclists don't act like a bunch of self-centered pricks then you are your own worst enemy.

    4. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Look, we (hello, push-and-motor-cyclist here) can bitch and moan about cagers all we want, but it's totally and utterly futile. They are not going to change. Ever.

      "Cagers" in some countries are much more courteous than in others, so change is possible.

      One way is getting more people who only drive cars to use bicycles, e.g. by making cycling a better option for getting around town. Another is to force the drivers to drive slower. Another would be to make them want to drive more carefully, e.g. by increasing the penalties for careless driving.

      There's no reason why someone can't be sensible when cycling on a road and get angry and try to force change off-road. I've written to my local government supporting the reduction in the standard speed limit in residential areas, but I'm not going to pull out in front of a car doing 35mph to try and make a point in the meantime.

    5. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by chrb · · Score: 1

      What really gets to me is deliberately running over cyclists. As far as I can see, this should be treated as attempted murder (what do you expect will happen when you run over somebody with a heavy, motorised vehicle?).

      A motorist who deliberately drove into a cyclist, left him lying in the road critically injured and then tried to cover his tracks has been jailed

      A 63-YEAR-OLD disabled woman has been found guilty of dangerous driving after she deliberately rammed a cyclist off his bike as he rode home from work.

       

    6. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Or how about that doctor who was convicted of slamming on his brakes to "scare" cyclists? Two of them couldn't stop in time, and they smashed into his back window. It came out in court that he had a long history of such road rage against cyclists.

      If you are tailgating someone so extremely with a bike that you cannot avoid a collision if they suddenly come to a stop, then you probably damn well deserve it. What is the average stopping distance of a bicycle, 10 to 15 feet? It couldn't have been at a terribly high rate of speed, seeing as this is cyclists tailgating a car.

      Tailgaters get what they deserve, regardless of what they are riding.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    7. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Yerrrs. Well, first up, the "vast majority of the public would like 20 mph on residential roads" where their children play, but want to drive at 40 where your children play. You're not going to win the propaganda war on this one.

      Second, 20 is not plenty. It's too high for some areas, and too low for others. Putting in a blanket 20 limit in the wrong places (most of them) will breed contempt for limits where they're actually needed.

      Third, 20 is exactly the wrong speed for mixing motorised and pedal traffic. I want traffic to flow past me, not to bunch up and drive on my mudguard while staring at the white van tailgating them in their rear view. As you know very well, that's Instadeath if you bin it.

      So, yes to getting drivers on bikes. Hell, I'd make doing an on-road cycling test - and while we're at it, a motorcycle CBT - a condition of getting a car driving license. Sign me up to that. But attempting to deal with the problem of retard cagers by putting up signs that they'll ignore just as much as they ignore 30 signs now? Jog on.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    8. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by tsstahl · · Score: 1

      You are losing all credibility. There are those of us who cycle who recognize _our_ responsibility to protect ourselves.

      Do your part to educate drivers. The next time a door opens in front of you aim for the V, not the road side. Sure, you'll take the hit on their hood, but you have a good chance of breaking the car driver's left leg in the process.

      Or you could hang out on slashdot and sling obscenities. Kind of the net version of hanging out in tree-tops, shouting out rude names.

      And no, I am not really advocating injuring people on purpose.

    9. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by rich_r · · Score: 1

      Or how about that doctor who was convicted of slamming on his brakes to "scare" cyclists? Two of them couldn't stop in time, and they smashed into his back window.

      Then they're travelling too close. Or, to quote my riding instructor - 'only a cunt hits the car in front'.

    10. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by wgaryhas · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, in that incident the driver cut off the cyclists and slammed on his brakes.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
    11. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by Shane+A+Leslie · · Score: 1

      Actually, that is pretty good advice on dealing with the door prize. The first time won it I tried to dodge out into the road and got the edge of the door all down my right side - the bruise took months to fully heal. The second time I turned into the V, hit my front brakes and rolled up over my handlebars and onto the roof of the car. I haven't won since that time, but that's my intended response now.

      --
      If no one has your back, time to move your back.
    12. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by xaxa · · Score: 2, Informative

      He pulled in front of them: story.

    13. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Or how about that doctor who was convicted of slamming on his brakes to "scare" cyclists? Two of them couldn't stop in time, and they smashed into his back window. It came out in court that he had a long history of such road rage against cyclists.

      It should have also come out in court that it was the cyclists fault for *not maintaining a safe following distance*!!!

      You see, for all your sermonising, you just pointed out an incident where the cyclist was at fault but you failed to see that they were at fault due to your emotionally irrational arguments. It's hard to take anything you say seriously, and yes I both ride a bicycle and ride a motorbike, and never had any problems.

      I keep away from parked cars in case the doors are suddenly opened, I never weave in traffic, etc. As a part-time cyclist I have to say that the majority of the accidents I've seen were preventable by the cyclist, not only the motorist. So share the blame - I've seen more cyclists pose a hazard to the free flow of traffic than motorists do, even though there are more motorists on the road.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    14. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      It should have also come out in court that it was the cyclists fault for *not maintaining a safe following distance*!!!

      Please kindly explain how the FUCK you're supposed to maintain a safe following distance -- in a bike or a car -- when some asshole decides to merge INTO you!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    15. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      You never said that - now it looks like you're making facts up purely to make your case. How about a citation so I can read for myself that some "asshole" merged into them, hmmm?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    16. Re:yeah, let's blame the victims! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I never said anything -- you were talking to "SuperBanana." However, the incident in question was cited several times elsewhere in the thread. For example, in this post, submitted 35 minutes before yours. Happy now that I've spoon-fed you?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  26. fule cost are why by luther349 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    lets face it fuel cost are a joke these days. i even have looked into a electric moped the model i am looking at goes 60 and has a 85 mile range all battery powered. a street legile model in other words. most of your driving is to work or around town and that little moped would fufill my needs for almost all my driving.and i live in a state that mostly warm year round. my fule burning car would only be driving on long trips or on the freeway being i woudlent dare take anything that small and noiseless on a freeway even thow its legile to do so. i also see alot more gas powerd ones running around hear more and more every year they get crazy mpg abought the same as the eltric model i am looking at but with fuel of course. why pay crazy fule price whatever amount they dedcide to gourge on this year when for a cuple grand you can get a small ultra efficient means to get around..fuled or otherwise. nut any kind of bike has its risk on the road drivers just dont respect bikes at all in the usa why thers so many accidents on them.. .

  27. I ride an e-bike in China by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    I've ridden an e-bike in China for years. Let me tell you what I've learned, in a disordered jumble of statements.

    E-bikes are fine IFF (if and only if) you live in a compact city. My city is five miles across. If it were larger, (say, Austin-sized) an e-bike would not really be an option. My rule of thumb for battery life is "thirty minutes out, thirty minutes back" which limits your radius of action. An e-bike is a hell of a lot heavier than a regular bike due to the dense batteries. The batteries are in a removable container, so you can take them out and charge them. Let me tell you, it sucks carrying the equivalent of a car battery upstairs to charge every day. When thieves can't be bothered to steal your whole bike, they'll just rip out the batteries. You can charge up directly in the bike, but then you need a safe, secure area to park your bike on the 1st floor, AND it must be supplied with electricity. This is a real deal-killer for most apartments in America. My apartment in China has a special closet on the 1st floor where I can lock my bike up, and the electricity comes from my meter. Let's see...oh yeah you'll be subject to all the nasty weather of bikes, and in winter you really get blasted by the wind in your face (because you can go so much faster than a bike). I've had it before where it was so cold, I could barely see from all the tears streaming out of my eyes. With special bike raincoats, you can get through the rain pretty well, although your feet will get wet, and you need a ballcap to keep the rain out of your eyes. The e-bikes constantly have stuff break on them. I spend $5-10 per month on repairs of various things that break...the last breakage was the rear taillight and the rear brake cable. E-bike drum brakes make an unholy shriek when using them to stop. China has a whole network of dedicated bike lanes that really make using e-bikes a breeze. I wouldn't fancy riding out on the street with cars and bicycles. What else...hmm...E-bikes are a lot of fun to ride around. They zip through traffic with ease. It's nice not having to pay any attention to red lights other than "is traffic coming?" Shopping can be a pain, some of the scooter-like e-bikes have almost no cargo space. The e-bikes that look like bikes with batteries attached usually have bike baskets and other storage paraphernalia. Don't keep anything in the storage for more than one trip, because thieves will just break in and steal whatever you have. Forget using the pedals if you run out of batteries, it's very tiring to pedal the bike, better just to get off and walk the thing. Running out of batteries sucks. You either walk your happy ass all the way home, or get a truck taxi to take you. You do have truck taxis cruising the streets in your city in America, right?

    To sum up, e-bikes are fun and great but you have to have a whole supporting infrastructure to make them worthwhile. I love mine in China but I'd never be stupid enough to ride one in America, unless I was one of those young single people who never leaves the inner city.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:I ride an e-bike in China by ras · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well I suspect e-bikes in China are different to those in the west.

      The batteries in Western bikes they are mostly Lithium batteries of some sort. The result is the batteries cost more than the bike + motor combined, and they are both lighter than a lead acid and have much higher capacity.

      The second difference is the entire thing is sealed. You can literally submerge the bike, and then pick it up and keep riding.

      And finally electricity costs 2/3's of stuff all of nothing. As a consequence everybody is happy to let you charge your bike anywhere there is a power point, which turns out to be just about everywhere.

      Add that all up, and a good e-bike has no difficultly taking you 50 km or so. I ride 22 km's to work myself (44 kms round trip), and charge only when home. The limitation ends up not being the e-bike at all. It is the amount of time you are prepared to send doing the commute.

    2. Re:I ride an e-bike in China by enigmatichmachine · · Score: 2, Informative

      They work in the US too.
      I live in the suburbs, I ride my bike up to my house, then into the yard, then in the back door, then stop in the bedroom and plug it in. I have a higher end model(1500w motor) and I commute 5 miles each way to San Francisco daily. the bike is faster than driving, and I've never ran out of juice, and I can tell down to the mile when I'll run out due to the very accurate power meter. I"m sure the bike would be stolen in 5 minutes were I ever to leave it outside, but it spends the day in my office and night in my bedroom.

      I believe the trick with E-bikes is that everyone may or may not be able to use one, depending on their individual circumstances. You need:
      1. A place to park it safely indoors at night
      2. a place to park at your destination
      3. no stairs
      4. less than 10 miles each way of commute
      5. willingness to deal with weather and assholes and danger.
      That all said, I'll be donning helmet, rain gear, and gloves tomorrow morning.

      --
      -and occasionaly a giant moose.
  28. Netherlands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in the netherlands and i almost never see an electric bicycle i think these numbers aren't completly true

  29. Typical demographic by acey72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You see plenty of them here in Cambridge, UK, but they generally tend to be ridden by the sort of people who would really benefit from having to pedal their bikes...

  30. why does it say www.google-analytics.com when I by JoshDD · · Score: 0, Troll

    refresh slashdot...it does the same thing when I refresh sites that stream illegal copyrighted content now why is that slashdot is associated with sites that contain illegal material? This site is just a datamine for the dod isn't it? Cmdrtaco is a commy. Just like our current president.

  31. This will change..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the way cities are built!

  32. Re:maybe you're just an asshole with no conscience by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    So you admit that a large percentage of your friends are as irrational about diet as they are about traffic laws?

    I deplore feedlot cattle farming, overcrowded chicken farms and the like, as much as anybody. But here are some facts for you: (1) Our species evolved to have meat in its diet. (2) It is actually quite difficult to get long-term good nutrition from a real vegetarian diet. (3) There are not enough resources to feed everyone in the world with free-range organic animal flesh.

    While a vegetable diet is generally more environmentally friendly, it ignores certain realities of our physical nature.

    Now that they are finally starting to develop bulk-grown meat that does not involve killing animals, and is much more efficient than meat on the hoof, maybe these problems will eventually go away. But pretending the problems don't exist, by trying to live on a vegetarian diet we were not built to consume, is simply not realistic.

  33. Motorcycles vs electric in cities by good+water · · Score: 2, Informative

    In many cities in China, including the major cities, motorcycles are not allowed within the city limits, this is one of the main reasons people opt for elec. bicycles though not the only one of course. As the article mentions these bikes are more and more like actual motorcycles while at the same time the driver is not required to have a license. Imagine thousands of "motorcycles" swarming around at high speed without a sound, other than sound of the breaks...

  34. Americans are lazy and built around outdated infra by canadian_in_beijing · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First of all, bikes in China are not produced to western standards either technically (safety standards: saw one blow up in flames while parked), fashionably (clunky, heavy, etc) or socially acceptable. Majority of consumers in the US ride bikes for leisure purposes. Some take the stand of being environmentally friendly or dissing long commute times, but basically it's for an image. Biking around with 20+kg of weight is neither comfortable or convenient. Exercise = pedaling and consumers pay for light weight bikes, not heavy electric bikes. When you turn on an electric motor the majority would rather hop in a car with air con/heater/stereo/etc. Then you start to get into infrastructure... originally Beijing was built around 90% bikes and 10% cars, people grew up accepting bikes as the main mode of transportation and this gradually progressed into todays ring road system (huge nightmare with the on/off ramps... other story)... the US grew up the other way with cars being the main method of transportation. On top of that you have the US desire for instant gratification... time = money. In terms of cars vs bikes... cars will always win with consumers focused on faster commute times with less energy. Those that don't see this are in the minority. When gas triples in price this might be another story... but by then cars will likely be electric anyway. I can see some Europeans buying into electric bikes due to the city infrastructure but Americans are built around highways and cars... good luck changing this except in very select high density areas.

  35. I don't get... by ksemlerK · · Score: 1

    ...the Motorist/Bicyclist animosity to each other. Personally, if I'm on my bicycle, I keep to the right as much as possible, and use hand signals to indicate direction/lane changes. I leave plenty of room for faster motorized vehicles to pass me if they want, (unless I'm changing lanes or direction, but I signal plenty in advance to let them know my intentions). On a bicycle, I am 100% sure that I'm obeying ALL traffic regulations, as I don't really want to die. I've never had anybody ride my ass, or yell at me for doing something stupid. When available, I'll use sidewalks, and go at a relatively slow pace to allow for plenty of time to stop/ maneuver for pedestrian traffic.

    When I'm in my motorized vehicle, I give the cyclist plenty of space to stop if needed, (and myself to stop if all the sudden he bites it for some reason in front of me). If traffic is clear on a 3 lane, I'll drive in the center turn lane to get around the cyclist at 75% normal speed to give him room. If it's a 4 lane, and he's riding on the shoulder, I'll just change lanes, and go around him while not breaching proper directional lane travel. If it's a 2 lane, (highway), I'll straddle the center line, and get around him as fast as possible. I wouldn't want a car passing within inches of me on a bicycle, so I don't do it to other people. I consciously try and give bicyclists plenty of room to maneuver if it is at all feasible.

    1. Re:I don't get... by serialband · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are one of the few who obey the rules on a bicycle. I also obey all the rules of the road when I bicycle, but an overwhelming majority don't. I come to full and complete stops at red lights, behind the crosswalk or limit lines. I don't go unless the light is green. I stop at all stop signs. I'll hop off my bike and walk it across a crosswalk on busy intersections. Others just zip through traffic, ignore stop signs and red lights. They zip around pedestrians in the crosswalk and won't bother to stop for others. They just won't give up any right of way. It's the entire reason why bicyclists are hated. Because of this, many drivers don't know exactly how to behave around bicyclists because too many bicyclists do unexpected things and expect others to read their minds. That's where the animosity comes from.

      Part of the problem is that there aren't enough regular people who bicycle in the USA. Too many are just weekend warriors or just adrenaline junkies. Many of them don't know that bicycles are considered vehicles and must follow the same rules of the road as a car. Too many think that they're pedestrians when they bicycle. Some drivers even come to full and complete stops for bicyclists as if the were pedestrians. The weekend warriors aren't out everyday and don't realize that they need to courteous to other traffic. The adrenaline junkies just ride for the thrill and do dangerous things. The standard rules of the road are ignored. This may explain why there are many more accidents in the USA.

  36. This is incorrect: properly designed ones are OK by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Read it again. It is not legal to add a motor to a standard bicycle. I personally agree with that. It is legal to operate a moped, i.e. a vehicle with a motor and pedals which complies with type regulations, or a motorcycle. The rules do not say these cannot be electric.

    Given the way some of them are thrown together, I'm completely in agreement with the NY view that electric two wheeled vehicles should comply with the same regulations as gas-powered ones. It is not like there are none available.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  37. What? Nobody's done it yet? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

    "Electrical Bicycles Surging" ... come on, it's so easy... you've let me down, slashdot.

  38. Ultimate Max Burn by noisehil · · Score: 1

    I think people are buying more scooter and mopeds then they are bikes. I'd say it probably wouldn't pay to sell bikes on the internet. http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/ultimate-max-burn-review-free-trial-now-1809994.html

  39. Prosecuting the motorist won't revive the dead by jayveekay · · Score: 1

    I commute to work every day by cycling (if the weather is decent) or walking (in snow/rain). In my younger days I would cycle on the side of busy streets and the shoulder of highways. I don't do that any more because I've seen car drivers make mistakes (heck as a car driver I've made a few mistakes myself, thankfully none resulting in collisions are accidents) and don't want to die due to someone else's simple mistake.

    I can recall reading about an accident on the Trans-Canada Highway west of Calgary, Alberta 20+ years ago. A youth group was cycling on the shoulder, with their group van trailing behind them on the shoulder with its hazard lights on, when a car passed the van and swerved onto the shoulder and killed several of the cyclists. A teenage driver with his friends in the car had been trying to light a cigarette, dropped it, and took his eyes off the road...

    More recently a group of cyclists in Ottawa was hit in a similar way with deaths and injuries.

    In my car I've been rear ended twice. In both cases I was stopped at a red light, the car behind me was stopped, and then the driver behind me decided to go while the light was still red. I've seen automobile drivers do any number of stupid things, some of which resulted in serious accidents. I don't want to die or be seriously injured when someone makes a dumb mistake in a car while I'm completely unprotected (other than the helmet) on my bicycle.

    The painted white line to designate a bike lane portion of a road (or a shoulder of a highway) offers no physical protection against a car driver who makes a mistake. The curb up to the sidewalk is something, but you can find many incidences of cars going up onto sidewalks and killing pedestrians.

    I find the best defense to be vigilance, call it "defensive cycling" where you assume that the auto drivers do not see you and/or may turn/accelerate suddenly in any direction. Ride accordingly to protect yourself. Encourage your community to create dedicated bike paths where no motorized vehicles are permitted, those are my preferred places to ride.

    1. Re:Prosecuting the motorist won't revive the dead by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      But prosecution, and proper sentencing, provides incentives for others to drive carefully, and removes the worst drivers from the road. The drivers that rear-ended you (if they hit you hard) at a stop light, should not ever me driving again. Ask yourself, how bad a driver do you need to be, to not see a stopped car at a red light in front of you, and hit it? I don't want people like that on the road, period, and a lifetime ban would do a lot to help.

  40. Better than dinosaur oil, but not "green". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, while using electric bikes is leaps and bounds cleaner than using a 2-stroke engine for power (single-piston engine that burns gas AND oil, the primary technology of old, cheap, slowass mopeds and the current wave of motored bikes) I do have an issue with calling it "green" transportation. The consumption of dinosaur oil is only being displaced by equally non-green batteries. SLA batteries are still the norm. They are the common low-end of many electric bike products which will certainly sell better than NiMH, Lithium or Li-po batteries due to the cheaper upfront cost.

    The granddaddy of green, short-range transportation should aim to implement electric bikes solar charging stations at major destinations.

    1. Re:Better than dinosaur oil, but not "green". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even a solar powered unit would still use batteries. The question is efficient recycling of the cells and a green way to produce the energy.

      BTW; your computer isn't green either. I recommend you go back to cave drawings.

  41. "halfway measure" by SlashDread · · Score: 1

    In The Netherlands there are basically two kinds of scooters/mopeds. The 25km/h and the 45km/h variant.
    The 25km/h can ride the bike lanes, but the 45km/h can only ride the bike lanes when explicitly allowed, otherwise he has to ride the car lanes. This has more to do with speed limit then vehicle size. Also, the 45km/h requires a drivers license.
    We have a great bike lane infrastructure, but it can be very busy, and the speed difference would not work. The size of Vespas is akward sometimes (I drive one, 45km/h 2-stroke) but not a really big issue.
    E-bikes I have seen are primarely the "helper" kinds on regular bikes, although electric Vespa like models are present. They also come in 25 and 45km/h variants.
    I kill for a real Piaggio/Vespa electric scooter, and I seriously hope theyll make one soon, as the 2-stroke and even the 4-stroke fuel engines are just so 20 century ;-)
    Has to be a proper full metal body Vespa, with an extremely reliably engine thou, like I'm used to.

    So no, I dont think its a halfway measure, but smart traffic really.

  42. Ban bikes... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Bikes are already banned from the sidewalks in many places, which makes absolutely no sense...

    Bike hits pedestrian - mostly minor injuries or annoyance for both parties...
    Car hits bike - high chance of serious injuries or death of the rider...
    Larger vehicle hits bike - rider very likely to be killed.

    A cyclist risks injuring himself if he hits a pedestrian, a car driver only risks scratching his car if he hits a bike.

    A pedestrian can also react much quicker than a car, when the bikes invariably wobble around... And up hill, bikes are frequently no quicker than pedestrians... (conversely, i have encountered bikes breaking the speed limit going downhill).

    Couple that with the fact that sidewalks are often far less crowded than the roads, and that cyclists usually ignore things like traffic signals and speed limits... They really don't belong on the roads.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:Ban bikes... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Bikes are already banned from the sidewalks in many places, which makes absolutely no sense...

      You make absolutely no sense. Bikes don't belong on sidewalks because they are going fast and you can't necessarily see them on the sidewalk, especially where there's sidewalk parking and they're thus behind cars. Further, since bicycles are vehicles it's illegal for them to drive in the crosswalk, so riding on the sidewalk creates a situation where they are forced to operate their vehicle (which is what a bicycle is) in an illegal and unsafe manner.

      Couple that with the fact that sidewalks are often far less crowded than the roads, and that cyclists usually ignore things like traffic signals and speed limits...

      Your argument is that bicyclists should be removed from the roads because they ignore traffic laws. I agree, but only in the Darwinistic sense. It should be legal to run over a bicyclist who doesn't signal or obey traffic signals and signs with as many wheels as you can manage.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Ban bikes... by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      Bike hits pedestrian - mostly minor injuries or annoyance for both parties...

      Unfortunately, this isn't true -- there's actually a high chance of serious injuries to or death of both rider and pedestrian.

  43. superbanana used to be by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    a cheerful environmentalist superhero

    but after the accident, he turned to bitter rants

    nowadays superbanana can be found under the highway overpass, yelling at tourists on segways, blustering about the threat of hipster retards, drunk on 100% organic free trade prison hooch

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  44. ORLY? by superdan2k · · Score: 1

    "and impressive sales in India, Europe, and the US."

    Funny, I work at one of the highest-volume bike stores in my state. Do you know how many electric bikes we sold last year? I'll give you a minute.

    That's right. Zero.

    You know how many electric bikes we sold in the last five years?

    One.

    So yeah, sales are "impressive."

    --
    blog |
  45. Weather not a problem if you dressed approriately by cyclocommuter · · Score: 1

    ...well most of the time. Many folks here in Toronto do the Donut Ride even in the height of Winter.

  46. *cycle by mqduck · · Score: 1

    Forgive me if this is an ignorant question, but is there a particular reason these aren't being called "electric motorcycles"?

    --
    Property is theft.
    1. Re:*cycle by amorsen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They are generally just electrically assisted bicycles. Around here they are limited so that the electric motor adds less power at higher speeds and shuts off completely at 25kph. They are allowed in bicycle lanes and have almost the same handling characteristics and looks as regular bicycles, and you can drive them without needing a license.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  47. Bicycle usage correlates with hills by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    In a reverse manner.

     

    --
    Deleted
  48. Better planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I like to ride my bike to work. It is about 40 minutes each way. Nice an calm except that 15 minutes of terror while I have to cross the freeway (zero way around) and then safely navigate through 20 square block where the cops fear to even go. No matter how I cut it I must cross at least one freeway (takes about 5 minutes) and if I want to avoid the nasty neighborhood then I must cross two freeways (and travel down the second one for about 5 minutes). The safer route actually adds about 40 extra minutes to my 40 minute route.

    This could be solved if the city built a bike path or even a traversalable path along the stream that snakes from near my home to near my work (down town). The city council does not really encourage alternative solutions – the current ‘bike’ paths are rough are composed of a lose gravel/sand mix. Part of the city council’s reasoning: it keeps those darn roller blading kids off their ‘walking’ paths.

    The last city I lived in I could roller blade or bike to pretty much every corner of the city. I hardly ever need to use my car. It was great.

  49. This is Asia by penguinchris · · Score: 1

    To be fair, in Asia people tend to be smaller, and they look more ridiculous on a full-size motorcycle than on a scooter.

    I haven't been to China, but in SE Asia there are more motorbikes (scooters) on the road than cars and it works great. It's scarier to drive a car there than a motorbike. I, as a somewhat large white male, may look ridiculous on some of the smaller scooters - but you simply have to choose well when renting.

    Even the silliest looking machines I saw didn't look *that* silly with a tiny Thai person riding them, and over there even foreigners look a little silly riding the larger bikes.

    Actually, the funniest thing is that they're so ubiquitous that people tend to know more about them than they do about cars. Here in the US, everyone at least knows the difference between the different sizes of cars, and can probably tell a "nice" car from a cheap one. In Thailand, while I could tell motorbikes apart by size and style, I noticed that the Thais have all kinds of ways to classify them and can tell how good one is visually where I could tell no difference. Really, it is not hard to impress girls if you have the right motorbike (which I did, luckily...) as even they can tell.

  50. showers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are no showers at the office so I just take it easy on the way to work to avoid getting sweaty.

    And there, in a nutshell, is why many commuters like the idea of an electric assisted bike.

    Then don't peddle that hard. The amount you sweat is related to: how much effort you put in, how out of shape you are, and the difficulty of the terrain (uphill/head wind).

    I cycle to work (where we have showers) from April to November in Canada, and besides a rough first 2-3 weeks to get back into shape, I find I don't sweat much when I get in the office. It's usually on the way home in the summer (+ 30C weather) in the afternoon that I'm dripping when I get home. Mornings are fine (at least for me).

    But if a little "assist" is what's needed to cut down on smog and traffic, then I'm all for it.

  51. In Other News... by Necron69 · · Score: 1

    Scientists report that the average weight of the Chinese has begun to spike rapidly as they begin using electric bikes, and eat at McDonald's, Starbucks, and KFC.

    Seriously, I spent two weeks in China in 2007 and I realized why most of the world views most Americans as fat and lazy - we are! I was positively huge compared to 99% of the people in Beijing.

    Now I've dropped 30lbs and ride my (pedal-powered) bike to work, and for fun, on a regular basis. I can conceed the benefits of electric bikes vs cars, but from a health standpoint, I suspect the Chinese are going backwards.

    Necron69

  52. Re:Weather not a problem if you dressed approriate by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 1

    Toronto barely has winter, let`s see some links from Winnipeg or St. Johns.

  53. bicyclist higher profile is safer by peter303 · · Score: 1

    There are times I cannot see scooters when block by other vehicles. They and their driver are only four feet tall. Bicycles are more like 5 to 6 feet. Both should have flags for even more visibility.

  54. s/live closer/live further/, correct by cduffy · · Score: 1

    Indeed -- I caught that error only after posting, and decided that the intent was clear enough not to bother with a followup.

  55. Few know about the cyclist-road connection. by Shane+A+Leslie · · Score: 1

    And about as many are aware that a bike (at least in Canada) are legally entitled to an entire lane because that are considered a vehicle under the law. If there is no bike lane riding the curb is a courtesy, not a requirement.

    --
    If no one has your back, time to move your back.
  56. Two Sides by lymond01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At first I get sad thinking of younger folk using electric bikes. But there is a practical side and that is, as many have mentioned, replacing the car for commuting. If an electric bike can keep up a 15 MPH run (much faster and I wouldn't want it sharing bike paths with pedestrians and strollers), you could use it for the 5-20 mile commutes to work. I've been starting to realize just how completely absurd it is that we feel the need for 3000+ lbs of metal to cart us around. Even motorcycles are kind of ridiculous. But an electric bike that allows you to both pedal and ride...that's a decent idea.

    I've got a 20 mile commute which is easy by highway, but hilly and 25 miles on a bike. I'd consider it with an electric bike though. But I'd consider it on a normal bike if I could get a bike path the whole way instead of sharing/dodging cars on the road.

  57. Oxford England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of my favourite things about Oxford in the UK is the fact that everyone seems to cycle around. The fact that everyone does it and it's so costly to park a car in the city made me restore my old bike and I can't get enough of cycling now!

  58. Transportation times while riding a bike by gwolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your assertion might be right if you don't live in a major city. I live in Mexico City, which is a huge monster by all standards. The most efficient transportation medium here is by bike, unless you are lucky enough to ride on the major high-speed urban roads on your way to work, and both live and work quite close to their entry/exit points.

    I am by no means an athlete. My average cycling speed is between 20 and 25 Km/h. The city is mostly flat, and whenever I can, I bike to my destination on a ~20Km radius from home. My trips are usually way faster than when I go by car, and slightly faster than when I go by subway. And as there are no major hills on the road, it is not enough effort to make me a sweaty mess.

    Yes, my workplace is where the hilly part starts, and I do arrive somewhat sweaty ;-) But not enough to be stinky. Or at least, so I believe ;-)

  59. cyclists are NOT pedestrians by gwolf · · Score: 1

    Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is way unsafer than riding on the street. Why?

    • Hitting pedestrians is not (usually) fatal, but still, you don't want to do it. A pedestrian walks at 5Km/h tops. I usually ride at four times that speed. And you cannot ask pedestrians to expect somebody whooshing by -- You can expect a cyclist to be aware of faster, bigger objects.
    • Sidewalks' surface is -at least in my country- way less regular than the street. Hitting a 10cm hole or bump in the pavement can be quite nasty.
    • Cars going out of their garages are not expecting you to pass by. They usually back out a couple of meters to have good visibility of the street, and then wait more carefully. You risk being hit (or at least scared) by them.
    • Similar argument goes for crossing streets. Moving cars don't expect a fast object which cannot halt abruptly going by the sidewalk.

    There are more arguments, that's only what I could think of right now.

  60. Re:Weather not a problem if you dressed approriate by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

    People from warm places say that all the time. (I used to say it too.) But there's nothing you can wear to make a couple of inches of snow not make you slip and slide.

  61. Re:Weather not a problem if you dressed approriate by cyclocommuter · · Score: 1

    A lot of times, the roads are salted in the city so there is no snow/ice except right after a snowfall/blizzard... here is a video of a Donut Ride I took a few days after a Winter Storm dumped inches of snow in Toronto: Toronto Donut Ride, 12 December 2009.

    If you search for my other videos under cyclocommuter, you will see that I have been doing the Donut Ride (anywhere from 70-95 kms) pretty much every weekend this winter.

  62. Increasing -- yes, but for different reasons. by cjmapman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Indeed, although the conditions that have spurred popularity of ebikes in China are not the same as those poised to do so in the US. In China, the trend reflects rising incomes and the switch from regular bicyles to electric-assist bicycles (typically with heavy but inexpensive lead-acid batteries.) In the U.S., growth is likely to come (1) because lots of aging baby boomer knees could use a little help, and the number of aging baby boomers is exploding, (2) because the highest cost component is a good Lithium-chemistry battery, and investments in the electric car industry are pushing those costs down fast, (3) because of the Growth of Green, and (4) because they are just SO much fun. Interested? Please join us at http://electriccyclist.com/

  63. Grocery shopping by bicycle by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    I dunno how people shop for a family on a bike..I've had small 2-seater sports cars all my life and I have to be creative quite often just to fit my purchases into them?!?

    Personally, I never have. :) It's just the two of us so far, and when we did have the supermarket just down the street, we'd tend to do fairly minimal shopping trips when biking down. Anything we bought had to fit into our two panniers (one per bike) - that fills up quickly, of course. But biking down for groceries is something I enjoyed and would like to do again - even if it's necessarily just for small trips. We're looking into getting a cargo bicycle for this...

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  64. Downtown vs residential areas by Beerdood · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bikes are already banned from the sidewalks in many places, which makes absolutely no sense...

    Ever try riding a bike downtown on a sidewalk during business hours? Constantly weaving through dozens of people each minute won't allow you to reach a very high speed, and you run a much higher risk of crashing into someone, as pedestrian movements can be a lot more random and sporadic (i.e. riding behind someone that just stops and turns around, people suddenly exiting parked cars or buildings) than cars, which generally travel in their lanes.

    I'd prefer to ride on a sidewalk as much as possible, as getting run over by a pedestrian is a lot less worse for me than getting run over by a vehicle (paying extra attention to right turns and left turning vehicles when crossing intersections). Riding on the road when the sidewalk is empty seems like a needless risk too. Sidewalk-only riding simply doesn't work everywhere, and I'll need to ride on the road sometimes to get to my destination in the fastest possible time.

    --
    Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
  65. Solution, remove cyclists from the road. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Second, if the cyclist was in the gutter, it would encourage idiot drivers to overtake without leaving adequate room, making the road dangerous for everybody on it.

    Solution, remove cyclists from the road.

    Why should the vast majority of people be held up for an insignificant minority of road users that end up being a danger to everyone else?

    I take the bus, so if I get stuck behind a cyclist, 1 person is making 30 or 40 people late. This somehow makes sense to you.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  66. Democracy in China by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    In December, conflict over electric bike safety and design erupted when a government agency introduced a rule effectively banning large electric bikes from bike lanes. But the response from manufacturers and bike owners -- nearly 10 percent of the population -- was forceful. Less than two weeks later, the rule was suspended.

    Waddya know. Enough people speak up, and voila! The big, mean government responds.. in a totally unexpected fashion by some peoples' preconceptions. Okay okay, I'll grant it was probably the manufactures with the clout that had the greatest influence.. but hey, the squeaky wheel..

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  67. Ebiking for 9 months by mbaysek · · Score: 3, Informative

    I got on the road with my ebike in May of last year. I've got close to 3000 miles since then. I live in a city (Pittsburgh) with a lot of hills and my ride is 8.5 miles each way. I have to say that I get to work about 50% faster on average than driving my car. I also save over a thousand dollars a year on parking costs. My daily gas costs in my car were about $2.00. On the bike, it's less than $0.12 per day in electricity (including the half that I charge at work). I estimate the amortized costs of the battery to be about $0.50 per day, though I haven't had to replace my battery pack yet.

    Needless to say, I am extremely satisfied with the experience, and I recommend it to anyone who's not afraid to try it. A few things I'd like to point out.

    • As long I dress correctly, I can easily handle any weather, except snow/ice, including rain or temperatures down to about 20F. Sure, you get a bit wet in rain, but keep a change of clothes at the office in case you need them. Get a decent waterproof coat, shoes/boots.
    • With the proper lighting on your bike, you can make it very hard for people to miss you. You should have flashing head and tail lights. Aim your head light so it will be seen by drivers in their rear and side view mirrors. It will annoy some people, but it will make sure they see you.
    • If you ride at night, be sure to have enough headlighting to see safely at your target speed.
    • Always keep spare batteries for your lighting.
    • Merging with traffic is actually safer when you are moving at speeds closer to traffic. It gives drivers more time to see you and anticipate your movements.
    • Get a good horn that people will be able to hear inside their cars with the windows up.
    • Watch for car doors opening in front of you! And pot holes.
    • Sometimes people like to lay on their horn at you, or pretend to run you down or pass you aggressively. If that's how they get off, then get out of their way, since there's not much you can do about it.
    • Get puncture proof tires and Slime Super Thick inner tubes and you can run over broken glass and hit pot holes going 20 miles an hour without getting flats. I have ridden over 2000 miles since I did this, and still have not had a flat.
    • Carry a complete toolkit with you, including duct tape! You almost never need it but you won't regret carrying it when you do.

    Anyway, I thought I'd share my experience. Ebiking is absolutely a viable and economic means of transportation.

  68. Re:Energy and EBikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I commute daily 10 miles relatively flat (Except during this *&*_ snow) on a 500W conversion I did using the eBike-Kit. Works like a charm ... I can just about keep up with the young and vigorous (I'm pretty old), get to work in less than an hour including clothes change times, and feel great when I do. Breakeven on the conversion should be in another 6 months ... been riding 6. Highly recommend it.

  69. I wanted to switch to bike travel for the longest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...time, but in my East Coast city, with it's hills and curves, as well as mix of urban one-way grids and wide blvd's, combined with an at the time 10mi one way communte, I didn't want to chacne arriving at work smelling like Thor, then riding home in the driving rain. Only recently did my lcoal PT (one of the largest in the country) install bike racks on its buses, and it still doesn't allow bikes on trains during rush hour (yes they are that dumb -- they encourage car use, really), so mixed mode only recently became an option. The best option I could see was an electric bike. It would allow cheap, Earth friendly travel, without the extreme exertion -- and sweating.

    I looked seriously at electric bikes, but most I saw were either not cheap kits I had to install myself, which I balked at, or prebuilt bikes that were expensive and either looked like circus bikes, or something left by aliens. I refused to look like a goober while riding my bike. Fine for ex-hippies but not if I have to pay for it. So I waited and figured someone would sell something for the rest of us. And I continued to drive my not very Earth friendly European sedan.

    While lounging on the couch watching the FineLiving Channel, I saw a piece on a electric assisted mountain bike and perked up. I watched for the next 10 or so minutes a report about exactly the product I'd been waiting for, the Wave Crest TIDALFORCE electric bike. I looked like a real bike with the batteries and motor in the wheel hubs, and it was on a regular bike frame. And better yet it was silent ( or nearly so). I couldn't buy one fast enough! When I went to the website the next Monday at work, the price slowed me down. $2500. I decided to wait a few or 6 months to see if the price went down.

    After forgetting and remembering about a year later, I rechecked the website. Apparently I waited too long and the company stopped selling due to poor sales. All products, equipment, and lic. sold to a French company. I'm sure they have no intentino of selling any products in the US. What was worse, the few used and new units still in channels we often selling for higher prices than new -- the cheapest complete bike I found was $2700. Broken and incomplete examples could be had for anywhere from $1500 - $2000 on Ebay. Once again I gave up.

    Walmart began selling cheap electric bikes, some as low as $200. I was prepared to pick on up, even at the cost of having to ride around with a brick of batteries on a bike rack, but after waiting a weekend to buy off the website, they were all gone. As if they never exhisted. What gives?

    Finally, last Spring, while trolling the web for excitment I came across E+ Motion Systems. They apparenly have resurrected the Tidal Force name, and engineering, added thier own, and are reselling bikes and add-on kits. I happily picked up a kit ( I am a cheao bastard after all), installed it, and haven't looked back. It was as easy as installing two wheels and the connected wire, and done. Reading the instructions took longer than the install.

    My bike commute in the morning including putting the bike on the front of a bus (crappy PT that doesn't allow bike on trains) is only 10 minutes longer than driving. I let the bike do almost all of the work going in, so no sweating, and oddly less stressful. Coming home I could actually use the bike path recently finshed, and the out-ride, in the same direction as rush hour traffic, took between 15mins, and 30, depending on whether I pedalled, the bike dragged by fat ass, or whe shared the load. I must say the bike tops out at 20MPH on cruise control, and I know I could push 25 easily pedalling. Not a big issue. I'd have been ecstatic to average 20MPH on the Expressway at the say time of day, or even during daylight hours! Saved gas and wear and tear alone for the summer recouped a good portion of the kit cos