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."

Comments

Ah, yes, one of the modern evils...

[Pig Hogger]

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...

Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils...

[brianosaurus]

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. :)

Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils...

[orasio]

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

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

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

Re:Ah, yes, one of the modern evils...

[Sax Maniac]

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.

reasons this may not catch on in the US

[bcrowell]

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.

Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US

[clarkkent09]

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.

Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US

[jchernia]

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.

Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US

[tverbeek]

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.

Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US

[bcrowell]

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.

Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US

[cduffy]

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.

Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US

[cduffy]

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).

Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US

[cduffy]

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.

Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US

[a whoabot]

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

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

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

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

Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US

[cduffy]

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.

Re:reasons this may not catch on in the US

[cduffy]

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

Re:Nothing glamorous to see

[magarity]

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.

Re:Nothing glamorous to see

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen that in other countries. Amsterdam has a lot of bicycles which look like they are about to disintegrate into component atoms due to the rust damage any minute.

The reason for this is that here in the US, bikes are somewhat a style thing. If you are doing road, you have to have the $7000 carbon fiber frame [1] with Dura-Ace or Super Record, or you will be viewed as an amateur. Similar with a mountain biker coming up to a Cat 1 with anything but XTR or X.0 will be viewed as a hack and told to replace their Huffy with something racable. If you are touring, you must have the latest custom made Vanilla bike, or you will be viewed as someone who got a DWI. Even the hipsters "require" a fairly high-zoot frame for their fixies. A lot of Americans view something like the stereotypical Flying Pigeon from China as a joke.

[1]: Of course, we all know how fragile CF is... if you don't have a torque wrench and crank a tad too much adjusting your seatpost, expect the thing to break and have a jagged spear pointed right at your bum. However, since CF is light and cool looking, it is the style now... even though a CF bike frame has to be thrown in the trash if it gets even the slightest gouge or crack.

bicycle lanes are for BICYCLISTS

[SuperBanana]

Some cities are studying the halfway measure of banning them from bicycle lanes while permitting them on streets

It's simple, really. Bicycle lanes exist to protect bicycles which travel slower than the rest of traffic. If you're assisted by an electric motor, there is less of a speed differential with traffic, but now you'll be a hazard to all the bicyclists yourself, since you'll be traveling much faster than them.

I can't wait for the first dooring of a moped rider in a bike lane- maybe drivers will start to take "look in your mirror before you fling open your door" seriously because it'll be in their best interests, both in terms of personal safety and damage to their car; a couple hundred pounds of metal and rider will at the very least bend that door pretty far forward, I'm guessing.

As someone who has been doored, it REALLY sucks getting doored because some stupid asshole can't take 2 seconds to look in their mirror before they open their door. The worst part isn't flying over your handlebars, or getting your hand permanently fucked up from getting pinched between the handlebar and edge of the car door at +10MPH with 150lb of momentum. The worst part is hitting the door and having that throw you right into the traffic lane and get hit/run over by a car, truck, or bus. It's not the door itself that kills bicyclists- it's getting hit/run over by the traffic that was just behind them. Yet another reason why bicycle lanes in the US, which are sandwiched between parked cars and traffic, are almost worse than nothing at all. In Europe and elsewhere, bike lanes are completely separated and often run nowhere near the road- they're a separate network.

Also, there is a special place in hell for all the hipster retards riding their 70's-era mopeds (Puchs seem to be the most popular.) In our part of town, there's at least a couple of them zipping around in their tight black jeans and flannel shirts, leaving a contrail of blue smoke which is so bad to ride behind and breathe, one has to pull over and wait a minute or two for it to dissipate. They're putting out 50 times the pollution of the SUV next to them, just to save money on gas and look cool.

Re:Energy

[rsborg]

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.

Re:pardon me if I don't have much sympathy.

[thesupraman]

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.

Maybe not in North America

[spooje]

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.

Re:Maybe not in North America

[cduffy]

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.

Re:I did, didn't I?

[Sir_Lewk]

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.

Re:Energy

[Sparky McGruff]

There are no showers at the office so I just take it easy on the way to work to avoid getting sweaty.

And there, in a nutshell, is why many commuters like the idea of an electric assisted bike.

Re:I did, didn't I?

[gmhowell]

I'm amazed you find time to ride a bicycle what with all the time you seem to spend on your high horse.

Re:Nothing glamorous to see

[DNS-and-BIND]

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.