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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
[...] Of course, fully separate lanes are even better, and I'm all for funding those. And they seem to be heading that way here in Vancouver lately.
Mmmph. I like fully separate lanes. I also like having the ability to negotiate traffic when I need to, and having the drivers of other vehicles aware of (and practiced in) the habits necessary to behave safely around me... and while there might be a (very) few places where separated facilities are available, forcing cyclists onto them (by unjustified fear, or force of law, or social stigma, or any other means) makes unmotorized transport that much less practical, and is thus harmful to society as a whole.
I live in Austin. We're no Portland or Boulder, but cyclists are expected on the roads and our rights as fellow road users generally respected (even if in some cases that respect is a bit grudging); as a general rule, I wave to motorists when making eye contact, and it feels like at least half of them (when stopped at intersections, or waiting to pull out, or such) wave back. I've had a few near left hooks in cases where my speed was misjudged by the other party, but never has anyone attempted anything so rash as cutting me off to then turn in in front of me as you describe... in part because I keep a close eye on closing traffic (helmet mirror) and, in cases where such an action appears likely, position myself on the left side of my lane to allow the following vehicle to execute its right turn behind me rather than in front of me.
Excessive reliance on segregated facilities is harmful in that they result in cyclists who have little experience sharing the road (and an expectation that areas they can't reach using such facilities are off-limits to them), drivers who have little experience sharing the road, and both parties involved learning not to expect to interact with the other. This experience is critical; when the number of cyclists in a given population doubles, the accident rate for any individual member goes down by about 30%... but cyclists who don't share the roads presumably don't contribute to this effect.
It's not fundamentally different in the case of two (three,...) lanes with moderately heavy traffic. If one lane in such situation is "blocked off" by a cyclist, it will be treated much the same (with added bonus of cars trying to merge into the other lane hastily, etc).
Let me be clear: I time my commute and select my route to avoid heavy traffic. Being downtown (and thus in the same direction as rush-hour traffic) is a significant strike against a potential employer when I'm looking for work (if that employer expects traditional office hours), and being opposite that direction or being flexible on hours is in my view a substantial benefit. This policy began long before I started commuting by bicycle.
That said, on the one part of my (longer, more scenic) commute route where I regularly encounter moderate traffic, that traffic is slow enough (by virtue of the same bottlenecks causing it to accumulate) that I'm not impeding it at all. (I don't find myself regularly blocking other traffic from being able to pass cleanly on the shorter route with the faster roads either, on account of the aforementioned planning with respect to timing and direction -- but as starting and ending my day unstressed is one of my goals, I use that route only when on my electric bike [thus reducing the speed delta] and in a hurry).
Anyhow, getting back to the point of contention here, on whether sharing the road with heavier and faster vehicles is safe -- vehicular cycling is mile-for-mile moderately more dangerous than driving a car (cycling as a whole is considerably more dangerous, but when considering only vehicular cyclists one can factor out accidents caused by running without lights, on the wrong side of the street, etc), but much safer than walking or (if looking at fatality rate as opposed to accident rate as a whole) driving a motorcy
I suspect (didn't look at the website, just at the link you gave) that the most common accident involves car turning right and ramming a cyclist moving forward in the bicycle lane (or on the right side of the road if there isn't one).
This is indeed one of the most common causes (excluding cyclist misbehavior -- riding without lights at night, riding on the wrong side of the street, and dodging on and off sidewalks), and is a problem which can be quite effectively addressed through lane positioning and, in those cases where lane positioning is inadequate, emergency maneuvering (there's a reason the League teaches the quickturn; even when this particular accident isn't avoidable, its severity can be mitigated).
The problem with speed difference is indirect. If cyclists are on the road with other cars, they can't help but slow the traffic down, and get drivers agitated (I've been on both sides of this - as a driver following a cyclist on a one-lane road with double solid line, and as a cyclist in a similar situation when I got lost and didn't know any other route to get out; both times it was extremely frustrating). The drivers will then try to change lanes aggressively, which doesn't exactly help safety.
Right again -- but there are solutions here.
As a cyclist, one can ride in a position which doesn't allow drivers to make risky passing attempts, and then pull over to allow passing when a safe opportunity to do so presents itself, just as a conscientious motorist does when holding up faster traffic on a narrow country road.
The narrow-one-lane-road scenario is a fairly narrow corner case, and (most often) avoidable regardless; I'd hardly use it to argue about the safety of cycling in general.
(I was a bit careless in this claim -- this 3.9% is after excluding causes relating to visibility and predictability, which you claim to be not at issue).
Let me add -- if your theory were correct, the most common cause of accidents would tend to involve a car approaching from the rear. In only 3.9% is this the case.
You can claim that it's impossible -- but the accident rate per million miles does not lie.
Members of the League -- which teaches vehicular cycling -- are vastly safer than uneducated cyclists (who are more likely to do things like dodge on and off of sidewalks rather than safely using the road).
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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!
Indeed -- I caught that error only after posting, and decided that the intent was clear enough not to bother with a followup.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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!)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't see that at all.
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.
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).
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.
Mmmph. I like fully separate lanes. I also like having the ability to negotiate traffic when I need to, and having the drivers of other vehicles aware of (and practiced in) the habits necessary to behave safely around me... and while there might be a (very) few places where separated facilities are available, forcing cyclists onto them (by unjustified fear, or force of law, or social stigma, or any other means) makes unmotorized transport that much less practical, and is thus harmful to society as a whole.
I live in Austin. We're no Portland or Boulder, but cyclists are expected on the roads and our rights as fellow road users generally respected (even if in some cases that respect is a bit grudging); as a general rule, I wave to motorists when making eye contact, and it feels like at least half of them (when stopped at intersections, or waiting to pull out, or such) wave back. I've had a few near left hooks in cases where my speed was misjudged by the other party, but never has anyone attempted anything so rash as cutting me off to then turn in in front of me as you describe... in part because I keep a close eye on closing traffic (helmet mirror) and, in cases where such an action appears likely, position myself on the left side of my lane to allow the following vehicle to execute its right turn behind me rather than in front of me.
Excessive reliance on segregated facilities is harmful in that they result in cyclists who have little experience sharing the road (and an expectation that areas they can't reach using such facilities are off-limits to them), drivers who have little experience sharing the road, and both parties involved learning not to expect to interact with the other. This experience is critical; when the number of cyclists in a given population doubles, the accident rate for any individual member goes down by about 30%... but cyclists who don't share the roads presumably don't contribute to this effect.
Let me be clear: I time my commute and select my route to avoid heavy traffic. Being downtown (and thus in the same direction as rush-hour traffic) is a significant strike against a potential employer when I'm looking for work (if that employer expects traditional office hours), and being opposite that direction or being flexible on hours is in my view a substantial benefit. This policy began long before I started commuting by bicycle.
That said, on the one part of my (longer, more scenic) commute route where I regularly encounter moderate traffic, that traffic is slow enough (by virtue of the same bottlenecks causing it to accumulate) that I'm not impeding it at all. (I don't find myself regularly blocking other traffic from being able to pass cleanly on the shorter route with the faster roads either, on account of the aforementioned planning with respect to timing and direction -- but as starting and ending my day unstressed is one of my goals, I use that route only when on my electric bike [thus reducing the speed delta] and in a hurry).
Anyhow, getting back to the point of contention here, on whether sharing the road with heavier and faster vehicles is safe -- vehicular cycling is mile-for-mile moderately more dangerous than driving a car (cycling as a whole is considerably more dangerous, but when considering only vehicular cyclists one can factor out accidents caused by running without lights, on the wrong side of the street, etc), but much safer than walking or (if looking at fatality rate as opposed to accident rate as a whole) driving a motorcy
This is indeed one of the most common causes (excluding cyclist misbehavior -- riding without lights at night, riding on the wrong side of the street, and dodging on and off sidewalks), and is a problem which can be quite effectively addressed through lane positioning and, in those cases where lane positioning is inadequate, emergency maneuvering (there's a reason the League teaches the quickturn; even when this particular accident isn't avoidable, its severity can be mitigated).
Right again -- but there are solutions here.
As a cyclist, one can ride in a position which doesn't allow drivers to make risky passing attempts, and then pull over to allow passing when a safe opportunity to do so presents itself, just as a conscientious motorist does when holding up faster traffic on a narrow country road.
The narrow-one-lane-road scenario is a fairly narrow corner case, and (most often) avoidable regardless; I'd hardly use it to argue about the safety of cycling in general.
(I was a bit careless in this claim -- this 3.9% is after excluding causes relating to visibility and predictability, which you claim to be not at issue).
Let me add -- if your theory were correct, the most common cause of accidents would tend to involve a car approaching from the rear. In only 3.9% is this the case.
You can claim that it's impossible -- but the accident rate per million miles does not lie.
Members of the League -- which teaches vehicular cycling -- are vastly safer than uneducated cyclists (who are more likely to do things like dodge on and off of sidewalks rather than safely using the road).