The bicycle is making a comeback in US cities(bbc.com)
bbc.com
The bicycle is making a comeback in US cities
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36778953
106 comments
The true revolution has hit public consciousness yet and that is the rise of electric bicycles. I own one and nearly every time I ride it cross town I think again that it's nearly the perfect form of human transportation. It is said that pedal bicycles are the most efficient form of human transportation. With a motor and a lithium ion battery that charges up at a rate of 150W for 3 hours and then delivers 12-15 miles of transport at 20 mph, depending on much pedaling is done to assist uphill, and I imagine that you only increase that efficiency. Electric bikes are allowed to use the bike lanes in California, while fossil fuel powered motors are not, so bikes can take routes that beat all the car and truck traffic. I don't break a sweat riding an electric bike so I don't need to take a shower when arriving at work. Take the optimistic tone of this article and add electricity and you really have a revolution.
Are electric bicycles desirable mainly because of lower physical effort, or higher top speed? I am an avid cyclist in NYC and I don't think I would be comfortable going any faster than my current top speed. And I really enjoy the exercise. So why would I choose an electric bicycle over my traditional one?
I'd love to upgrade my bike to an electric one. A couple of things holding me back. In Seattle in rains a lot. So for those days I use alternate commute. Electric bikes are pretty expensive. I wish there was a monthly payment option like car loans.
I live in SF and feel a similar way; cycling is dangerous enough at my relatively slow speed and offers exercise built into my every day routine.
The one nice use case is for people discouraged by the distance of their commute (due to their fitness) or people discouraged by the one or two hills on their likely commute route.
The electric assistance can push these folks over the hump.
The electric assistance can push these folks over the hump.
Anecdotally, I hear hills cited pretty often as a reason not to bike-commute. I live in Pittsburgh and the city is taking biking more and more seriously, but there's only so much one can do about topography. An electric boost could make a big difference for some. (Then again, if you live on the hill and work in the valley, the morning commute is pretty fun!)
To extend your range?
But the ultimate answer is maybe you wouldn't choose an electric bicycle. That's ok.
But the ultimate answer is maybe you wouldn't choose an electric bicycle. That's ok.
In my experience (as someone who cycles 50-75 miles a week) people go for the electric bikes for less exertion. Probably 3-4 times a week people on e-bikes pass me on hills, zooming along.
They always seem to be heavier-set than your typical bike commuter, so if the motor's getting them out on the road and getting some exercise and fitness in, I think that is just fantastic. Anything to get people out of their cars! Maybe they'll even upgrade to a real bike some day :)
They always seem to be heavier-set than your typical bike commuter, so if the motor's getting them out on the road and getting some exercise and fitness in, I think that is just fantastic. Anything to get people out of their cars! Maybe they'll even upgrade to a real bike some day :)
In 1990 I got a bike (Miyata Triple Cross) and started using it for my daily commute. I started leaving my car parked at the office, so that when at home I only had the bike and so also used it for much of my grocery shopping and trips to bookstores. This all worked out great, although I initially had a problem with spokes breaking on the rear wheel, as I'm a fat guy. I asked the shop to make me a stronger wheel, and they did (48 spokes) and everything was great after that.
That was in Cupertino, California. Then in 1992 I moved to Seattle, Washington to a place on the low side of the U-distract. I got on my bike, took one ride around the block, and learned that while fat guys on bikes might work out fine in relatively flat Cupertino, not so in Seattle. That once around the block felt like it almost killed me. The bike has been in the closest/shed/garage ever since.
An e-bike sounds like it would have been perfect. Let it do the work when I need to go up hill, and let me do the work when I'm going across the hill.
(Now I'm across Puget Sound from Seattle. It's not flat like Cupertino, but it is not nearly as un-flat as Seattle. I've pulled my bike out of the garage and am trying to get it back into riding shape. I'm pretty sure I'm significantly under my Cupertino weight, so I think I should be able to find plenty of places to ride).
That was in Cupertino, California. Then in 1992 I moved to Seattle, Washington to a place on the low side of the U-distract. I got on my bike, took one ride around the block, and learned that while fat guys on bikes might work out fine in relatively flat Cupertino, not so in Seattle. That once around the block felt like it almost killed me. The bike has been in the closest/shed/garage ever since.
An e-bike sounds like it would have been perfect. Let it do the work when I need to go up hill, and let me do the work when I'm going across the hill.
(Now I'm across Puget Sound from Seattle. It's not flat like Cupertino, but it is not nearly as un-flat as Seattle. I've pulled my bike out of the garage and am trying to get it back into riding shape. I'm pretty sure I'm significantly under my Cupertino weight, so I think I should be able to find plenty of places to ride).
> Maybe they'll even upgrade to a real bike some day :)
Several stories I've read about ebikes point to stats about nearly all ebike owners getting hooked and continuing to buy them instead of regular ones.
That said, an ebike turns into a regular bike immediately after you turn off the assistance.
Several stories I've read about ebikes point to stats about nearly all ebike owners getting hooked and continuing to buy them instead of regular ones.
That said, an ebike turns into a regular bike immediately after you turn off the assistance.
Regular and heavy as hell; those batteries won't pull themselves (well they could, but you get the point ;))
To give my anecdote, I'm considering getting an e-bike for commuting, or perhaps retrofit onto my regular bike: the ride is not long (~10 miles x2), but hills on both sides are significantly easier with an assist.
To give my anecdote, I'm considering getting an e-bike for commuting, or perhaps retrofit onto my regular bike: the ride is not long (~10 miles x2), but hills on both sides are significantly easier with an assist.
One way to think of it: assistance for commuting to avoid sweating / no assistance with battery left at home when wanting to exercise.
Btw. I've had an ebike for 4 years and I'm a skinny 34-year-old man. It can still be plenty of work to ride it during the Finnish winter :)
Btw. I've had an ebike for 4 years and I'm a skinny 34-year-old man. It can still be plenty of work to ride it during the Finnish winter :)
Not everyone is able bodied and has nice showers at work to change in.
Happily, most people are able-bodied, and for those for whom a regular bike will never be an option, there remain cars, buses, light rail, electric bikes, and so on and so on.
As for showering, I think that will probably start to matter less as time goes on. In the last few years, in the Pacific NW, I've noticed it's become somewhat acceptable to show up to meetings a bit sweaty, if you've just gotten off your bike. At least, among the business meetings I attend, of course.
As for showering, I think that will probably start to matter less as time goes on. In the last few years, in the Pacific NW, I've noticed it's become somewhat acceptable to show up to meetings a bit sweaty, if you've just gotten off your bike. At least, among the business meetings I attend, of course.
The Pacific Northwest is badly non-representative of most of America, especially the east coast.
Well, let me ask you--what is more likely to change in the next 10-15 years? Think we'll go back to higher standards of cleanliness in the Pacific Northwest, or think standards will relax on the east coast? Cause I assure you, things won't just stay the way they are.
It's an honest question, really, I don't know! (though I know what I'd prefer!) What do you think?
It's an honest question, really, I don't know! (though I know what I'd prefer!) What do you think?
Being sweaty is first of all uncomfortable for myself.
Ew. What I'm noticing is the opposite trend: "yeah, we got showers installed."
(While a long-term trend away from sterile-squeaky-clean might be useful, I still have a strong emotional aversion to "sweaty at console": I'm not comfortable that way if it's me, plus everyone starts smelling when sweaty. At one job, I even washed up quickly using the hand sink, just to avoid this)
(While a long-term trend away from sterile-squeaky-clean might be useful, I still have a strong emotional aversion to "sweaty at console": I'm not comfortable that way if it's me, plus everyone starts smelling when sweaty. At one job, I even washed up quickly using the hand sink, just to avoid this)
I lived there too and would see people show up and start work fully kitted out in what I call their "TRON gear" (though they would take the helmet off indoors).
Denholm Reynholm in the stress episode of The IT Crowd may have been hilarious in London, but he wasn't too far off the mark in Portland.
Denholm Reynholm in the stress episode of The IT Crowd may have been hilarious in London, but he wasn't too far off the mark in Portland.
> Denholm Reynholm in the stress episode of The IT Crowd may have been hilarious in London, but he wasn't too far off the mark in Portland.
He wasn't too far off the mark for Reading (boring town west of London, where it's set). That was entirely the point of that episode.
He wasn't too far off the mark for Reading (boring town west of London, where it's set). That was entirely the point of that episode.
> Are electric bicycles desirable mainly because of lower physical effort, or higher top speed?
I don't have one myself, but I know that in Europe, they can't go over 25km/h (higher than that, they're not considered as bicycles anymore) so the interest is to lower physical effort.
> So why would I choose an electric bicycle over my traditional one?
Not everybody enjoy exercising on their way to work, but even if they do, with electric assistance, they can cycle on longer/hillier commutes than what would be possible/convenient with a regular bike.
I don't have one myself, but I know that in Europe, they can't go over 25km/h (higher than that, they're not considered as bicycles anymore) so the interest is to lower physical effort.
> So why would I choose an electric bicycle over my traditional one?
Not everybody enjoy exercising on their way to work, but even if they do, with electric assistance, they can cycle on longer/hillier commutes than what would be possible/convenient with a regular bike.
Yes but the downside is worser handling, more weight, added complexity, added price and maintenance.
Not worth in my case (I tried it)
Many of the folks considering e-bikes here are not generally comparing them to traditional bikes, but rather with cars. In which case all of the negatives you cite here, become positives.
In my case it's primarily the assistance the motor gives me up hill. I'm nearly 60 and my knees are worn out so pedaling unassisted is just too painful. There's quite a bit of ego involved among physically fit riders, riders who are into it for physical fitness I should say, but I feel they're not considering that not everyone can ride a bike without some help. And not only that, if you live in a hilly city and there are no showers at work, your coworkers might not appreciate you riding a bike to work.
> I'm nearly 60 and my knees are worn out so pedaling unassisted is just too painful.
Electric assistance is not uncommon in the Netherlands among the 50+ age category, and we don't even have significant hills to speak of.
Electric assistance is not uncommon in the Netherlands among the 50+ age category, and we don't even have significant hills to speak of.
Not higher top speed. Unless you change your gear ratio's, the electric motor can't keep up with the normal top speed going down hill.
I bike to/from work (on a regular bicycle) over a few hills. I enjoy the exercise in general, but I would still like a electric bike for the summer; a sunny Texas day with 98+ Fahrenheit weather is rough.
Where I live (Netherlands) they are mainly used by seniors (60+) or people covering long distances. Top speed is limited to 25KM/h, and that is more than enough to get quickly to any place on your range distance.
They are also useful in cities (e.g. Madrid) where hills maybe problematic for normal bikes.
They are also useful in cities (e.g. Madrid) where hills maybe problematic for normal bikes.
The higher speed uphills is appealing to me. If I could climb at 20mph it would shave a lot of time off of my commute, it would probably be as fast as driving most days.
The other appealing thing would be hailing a trailer for groceries and still being able to make it up the steepest hills.
The other appealing thing would be hailing a trailer for groceries and still being able to make it up the steepest hills.
I have an E assist cargo bike and it's average speed is close to its top speed (20 mph). It's not that it's faster, it's that I'm not going slow very often. It also makes me happy to stop at stop signs.
I rode a Stromer for a while it's best feature was a top speed that could easily exceed the auto speed limit on local bike routes (some of those that are still 25 mph instead of 20). Taking the lane at the speed limit sends a clear message to cut through drivers.
I rode a Stromer for a while it's best feature was a top speed that could easily exceed the auto speed limit on local bike routes (some of those that are still 25 mph instead of 20). Taking the lane at the speed limit sends a clear message to cut through drivers.
It is incredibly difficult to sell electric bikes in a normal bike shop, for every one sold there are hundreds or maybe even thousands of regular bikes sold. This is a pity as electric bikes can be very good.
Some electric bikes are a lot heavier than they need to be, you have a rear rack that contains brackets to house boxes that have more brackets on them and deep inside those boxes are some batteries held at the worst place for centre of gravity.
All of this needs to be done as a system with the battery made a structural part of the frame. Then the bike as a whole can go back to being performance oriented instead of senior style.
In my opinion the extra torque more than makes up for the weight when it comes to handling. Electric bikes don't feel heavy when you are riding one, it is just getting the thing up the stairs to your flat at the end of the day that is a pain.
I hope some player from outside the bicycle industry - a Tesla - re-engineers the electric bicycle to make it a whole new product. As it is the electric bicycle just does not catch the public imagination.
Some electric bikes are a lot heavier than they need to be, you have a rear rack that contains brackets to house boxes that have more brackets on them and deep inside those boxes are some batteries held at the worst place for centre of gravity.
All of this needs to be done as a system with the battery made a structural part of the frame. Then the bike as a whole can go back to being performance oriented instead of senior style.
In my opinion the extra torque more than makes up for the weight when it comes to handling. Electric bikes don't feel heavy when you are riding one, it is just getting the thing up the stairs to your flat at the end of the day that is a pain.
I hope some player from outside the bicycle industry - a Tesla - re-engineers the electric bicycle to make it a whole new product. As it is the electric bicycle just does not catch the public imagination.
Not just electric bikes, but also electric skateboards and other electric personal mobility devices. Unlike bikes these things can be brought on public transit, and greatly reduce time spent on the last mile (or two). For example the boosted board can travel 25 MPH, which is much faster than rush hour traffic, and even at times the grade-seperated light rail in San Francisco.
I've just ordered a kit for one of my bikes, I'm hoping it will allow me to replace more car journeys.
I don't have an e-bike but I agree completely. The only downside to my bike is that I can't really go anywhere in nice clothes because I'm likely to break a sweat. An e-bike would be a true all-purpose city vehicle.
One ingredient is missing, some innovation to secure the bike against theft, since $1000 electric is a target.
most electric bikes I see are ridden dangerously to pedestrians; by NYC deliverymen (doubt I've ever seen a woman on one), swiftly and silently sneaking up to run you down on sidewalks or the wrong way on one way streets.
I would vote hard in favor of limiting speed and or requiring them to make artificial noise, unless we could get some other type of pervasive and privacy intrusive monitoring of riders' behavior.
I sometimes ride my pedal bike the wrong way, and sometimes on sidewalks (two avenue blocks out of your way in NYC to get around the block is quite a long distance) but I always do it "respectfully": slowly and yielding the right of way. Till there is a system in place to effectively educate the constant churn of the class of people who deliver goods, I am soooo anti.
electic bikes are technically illegal in NYC; it's a law that is never enforced.
edit, addition: the mix of cars vs pedestrians works as well as it traditionally has worked and I and many other people don't have a problem with it; due to various types of complexity theory, adding bikes to the mix does not work as well, it particularly degrades the pedestrian experience, and is quite dangerous for bikers.
I find electric bikes even more destabilizing and most objectionable, because they are faster and quieter, and I think because they are favored by a statistical sample that skews toward more selfish/self-interested.
Why is it so hard for discussion groups to accept that somebody has an opinion with muddying it up? What I said originally should not require so much refinement for people to grasp that it's my one little opinion and it doesn't threaten your worldview more than your worldview needs to be shaken up.
I would vote hard in favor of limiting speed and or requiring them to make artificial noise, unless we could get some other type of pervasive and privacy intrusive monitoring of riders' behavior.
I sometimes ride my pedal bike the wrong way, and sometimes on sidewalks (two avenue blocks out of your way in NYC to get around the block is quite a long distance) but I always do it "respectfully": slowly and yielding the right of way. Till there is a system in place to effectively educate the constant churn of the class of people who deliver goods, I am soooo anti.
electic bikes are technically illegal in NYC; it's a law that is never enforced.
edit, addition: the mix of cars vs pedestrians works as well as it traditionally has worked and I and many other people don't have a problem with it; due to various types of complexity theory, adding bikes to the mix does not work as well, it particularly degrades the pedestrian experience, and is quite dangerous for bikers.
I find electric bikes even more destabilizing and most objectionable, because they are faster and quieter, and I think because they are favored by a statistical sample that skews toward more selfish/self-interested.
Why is it so hard for discussion groups to accept that somebody has an opinion with muddying it up? What I said originally should not require so much refinement for people to grasp that it's my one little opinion and it doesn't threaten your worldview more than your worldview needs to be shaken up.
> most electric bikes I see are ridden dangerously to pedestrians; by NYC deliverymen (doubt I've ever seen a woman on one), swiftly and silently sneaking up to run you down on sidewalks or the wrong way on one way streets.
Both of those uses of a bicycle - operation on a sidewalk and riding against traffic on a one-way street - are a violation of NYC traffic law [1]. The operator is the one causing danger, not the bicycle.
[1] http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicyclerules_engli...
Both of those uses of a bicycle - operation on a sidewalk and riding against traffic on a one-way street - are a violation of NYC traffic law [1]. The operator is the one causing danger, not the bicycle.
[1] http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicyclerules_engli...
what you say is true, but what I said is also truly what I wanted to say, so to clarify:
NYC has widespread ignoring of many traffic laws, and that does not bother me. I am talking about, in the context of widespread violations, what does bother me: the electric bikes. You could accept that there is some validity in what I say without agreeing with me.
Given the choice, I would not be in favor of pedestrians and bikers being forced to follow all traffic laws. However, I would be in favor of electric bikes being forced to follow all traffic laws, especially the one that bans them! :)
NYC has widespread ignoring of many traffic laws, and that does not bother me. I am talking about, in the context of widespread violations, what does bother me: the electric bikes. You could accept that there is some validity in what I say without agreeing with me.
Given the choice, I would not be in favor of pedestrians and bikers being forced to follow all traffic laws. However, I would be in favor of electric bikes being forced to follow all traffic laws, especially the one that bans them! :)
I see, and I agree that the accountability of cyclists (and slightly less so for motorists) in NYC is almost zero. I also agree that electric powered bicycles should be held to a higher standard than normal bikes, particularly in that their use is entirely illegal so it should be much easier to spot and ticket them. I mostly posted these facts because most non-NYCers don't even realize that these uses of a bike are actually against the law.
EDIT: I just read your edit,
> I find electric bikes even more destabilizing and most objectionable, because they are faster and quieter, and I think because they are favored by a statistical sample that skews toward more selfish/self-interested.
This is a good summary of my thoughts about electrical bicycles as well.
EDIT: I just read your edit,
> I find electric bikes even more destabilizing and most objectionable, because they are faster and quieter, and I think because they are favored by a statistical sample that skews toward more selfish/self-interested.
This is a good summary of my thoughts about electrical bicycles as well.
Cars are by far the most dangerous things to pedestrians. If electric bikes get people out of their cars, pedestrians will be better off on balance. Rather than banning electric bikes, NYC could to better to build separate infrastructure for bikes.
That has almost nothing to do with the post you responded to. Electric bikes are faster than normal bikes, and people treat them as mini mopeds rather than normal bikes (and there's already a problem with bicycle/pedestrian collisions).
[deleted]
> requiring them to make artificial noise
Baseball card in the spokes, enforced by government regulation.
Baseball card in the spokes, enforced by government regulation.
I've commuted by bicycle while in school in Toronto and at a couple of jobs since. But I've ceased to be interested in sharing roads with cars. The weight-scale of the two vehicle types is just too different, and I don't bounce as well as I used to. I do love biking on trails though, and welcome the additional trails being built around the nation and here in Pittsburgh.
If there were protected bike lanes along my commute (about 3 miles), I'd cycle to work in a heartbeat. (Well, showers at the office, preferably clean ones, would also help.)
Instead, only about 25% of the trip has bike lanes at all. And they share a curb with the buses (which might be the worst arrangement possible, since cyclists and bus drivers have to keep dodging one another in and out of the lane - endangering the cyclists and slowing the buses).
Instead, I walk when the weather is right. Cycling right beside cars would scare the shit out of me.
Instead, only about 25% of the trip has bike lanes at all. And they share a curb with the buses (which might be the worst arrangement possible, since cyclists and bus drivers have to keep dodging one another in and out of the lane - endangering the cyclists and slowing the buses).
Instead, I walk when the weather is right. Cycling right beside cars would scare the shit out of me.
I had 3 of my coworkers killed in Chicago in last 2 years. One to to drunk driver, 2 to visibility issues( one was extreme downhill curve where a cyclist would suddenly appear out of nowhere. Other was a truck making a left turn between two cars, no way the truck driver could have seen the cyclist) .
Only people with a deathwish would ride a bike on streets shared by other vehicles.
Don't be stupid, think of your family.
Only people with a deathwish would ride a bike on streets shared by other vehicles.
Don't be stupid, think of your family.
> Only people with a deathwish would ride a bike on streets shared by other vehicles.
I'll grant that the risk of death in an accident is probably higher on bike, but the risk of death by being sedentary should also not be ignored in the calculation. I don't have a deathwish, and I commuted 30 miles a day on a bike for years. It was great. I've never been in better shape. We have a problem with cars killing people with alarming regularity. The solution probably isn't to avoid riding bikes or being a pedestrian.
I'll grant that the risk of death in an accident is probably higher on bike, but the risk of death by being sedentary should also not be ignored in the calculation. I don't have a deathwish, and I commuted 30 miles a day on a bike for years. It was great. I've never been in better shape. We have a problem with cars killing people with alarming regularity. The solution probably isn't to avoid riding bikes or being a pedestrian.
surely there are better ways to get in shape that don't involve risking your life on daily basis.
I think you're being pretty harsh. I don't have a death wish, I ride my bike frequently in SF because I love to ride, it's great exercise, it's by far the fastest way to get to work, and it's one less bicyclist-killing machine on the road. From a philosophical point of view, if everyone did what I did, there would be a lot of upsides for everyone. If everyone decided to ride a car, there would be many downsides.
I live in London (UK), cycling is fairly popular here but I'm terrified of being killed so don't bother with it.
I'm wondering how the US approaches bicycle safety as a whole, it's all well and good building a cycle lane, but in some places that's not feasible so you have to merge with traffic. How do US drivers treat cyclists?
I'm wondering how the US approaches bicycle safety as a whole, it's all well and good building a cycle lane, but in some places that's not feasible so you have to merge with traffic. How do US drivers treat cyclists?
I'm wondering how the US approaches bicycle safety as a whole
As a whole, it doesn't. Cities and states are getting a bit better about planning alternative transit in dense areas, but it's a scattershot approach an varies widely by area.
There tends to be significant resistance from drivers to giving up any space to alternative transportation. And leaders can't seem to decide if they want normal bike lanes, separated bike "highways", or something else.
US drivers are terrible in general and awful when it comes to cyclists. Especially in urban and suburban areas, even where bikes are common. Lots of misdirected anger. I've had things thrown at me, been yelled at, passed far too closely, etc.
All that said, the nation, and urban areas in particular, seem to be moving in the right direction. It's just a slow process.
As a whole, it doesn't. Cities and states are getting a bit better about planning alternative transit in dense areas, but it's a scattershot approach an varies widely by area.
There tends to be significant resistance from drivers to giving up any space to alternative transportation. And leaders can't seem to decide if they want normal bike lanes, separated bike "highways", or something else.
US drivers are terrible in general and awful when it comes to cyclists. Especially in urban and suburban areas, even where bikes are common. Lots of misdirected anger. I've had things thrown at me, been yelled at, passed far too closely, etc.
All that said, the nation, and urban areas in particular, seem to be moving in the right direction. It's just a slow process.
A misconception, aided by separate infrastructure, and even seemingly innocuous things like "sharrows" is that cycling in regular traffic lanes is wrong/illegal/whatever, let alone taking the entire lane. There's widespread ignorance about bicycles being vehicles, and their operator being a driver with the same rights and responsibilities as a car. In the very rare altercation I have had with car drivers, it's really scary, as in life threatening. I'm not treated like a slow car but like I'm in the wrong place. And these are tertiary streets, not major strees where it's still legal for me to take a lane just probably rather imprudent.
Pretty much being passed by too closely means you should be taking a lane. Sharing a lane implies room for a car, plus about 4 feet (1 foot for the cyclist, 3 feet in between car and cyclist), and that's from the door zone border.
At least as much as close encounters are speeders. In a car, I don't really car if people go much faster than me or the speed limit. When I'm on a bike in a 25mph zone and people are doing 35+ I get nervous and rather super pissy. It makes it much, much more difficult to change lanes when people aren't sharing via speeding like this.
If the resources were available to totally separate cars, cyclists, and pedestrians, that'd be great but the reality is we have to share.
Pretty much being passed by too closely means you should be taking a lane. Sharing a lane implies room for a car, plus about 4 feet (1 foot for the cyclist, 3 feet in between car and cyclist), and that's from the door zone border.
At least as much as close encounters are speeders. In a car, I don't really car if people go much faster than me or the speed limit. When I'm on a bike in a 25mph zone and people are doing 35+ I get nervous and rather super pissy. It makes it much, much more difficult to change lanes when people aren't sharing via speeding like this.
If the resources were available to totally separate cars, cyclists, and pedestrians, that'd be great but the reality is we have to share.
I always wonder why drivers can't/won't treat me as they would a tractor. Nope, instead I'm treated like some sort of deviant who doesn't belong. And it's not just roads. There are several popular multi-use trails in my area, and intersections aren't any better - cars block crossings, don't yield, and generally act like assholes.
Much of passing too close in done on purpose (along with an engine rev and sometimes some choice words). Taking a lane isn't going to fix that. Education, and penalties, might.
Much of passing too close in done on purpose (along with an engine rev and sometimes some choice words). Taking a lane isn't going to fix that. Education, and penalties, might.
It's because they're surrounded by tons of armor. Until drivers are as scared of cyclists and pedestriansas as they are of big rigs and dump trucks this will continue. For example I and about six other pedestrians were legally crossing at a crosswalk, and a driver decides to make a right turn through us, they then got their vehicle banged on and shouted at by several pissed off people. The driver look genuinely terrified. Since then if I see a non-motorized street user in an argument with a driver I'll try to join (assuming I saw that there was an actual transgression).
My indoctrination to properly yielding to cyclists, before I was one, was being yelled at. But this wasn't just irate yelling. It was Boulder, CO, where it came with a somewhat detailed explanation. The behavior changed due to the explanation, the yelling merely got my attention. Every angry driver I've experienced in this car vs bike debate has not merely been ignorant of the law, they think they know they law but haven't though their version through well enough to realize how totally unworkable it'd be if it were true.
So it's a conversation, to increase the number of better informed drivers. This job should be the state's since they license drivers, ostensibly they should know the rules or fail the test.
But politics being a factor, you're probably right. In the U.S. maybe cyclists should join the NRA en masse, buy guns, and start using them to shoot out tires when threatened. Oh yes, this is surely illegal self defense, but then, the car also was being used illegally to target a much smaller vehicle and its rider. Tit for tat.
But somehow I keep wanting to think the U.S. can be more civilized than regression back to wild west era. Stealing or killing a man's horse would get you shot back then, and the sheriff wouldn't have anything much to say about the matter. My bicycle is kinda like my horse. But I really don't want to carry a gun when I'm biking, if that's what it comes down to, I think I give up riding in the streets.
I'd estimate my near misses, bike vs car, are 1 in 1000. It's really small. Smaller than when I'm in a car, and it's car vs car. I've only had one driver intentionally try to drive me off the road while yelling that bikes belong on the sidewalk (illegal in Denver) not in the street (a legal right). I think he might have behaved differently if his world view weren't so totally backwards.
So it's a conversation, to increase the number of better informed drivers. This job should be the state's since they license drivers, ostensibly they should know the rules or fail the test.
But politics being a factor, you're probably right. In the U.S. maybe cyclists should join the NRA en masse, buy guns, and start using them to shoot out tires when threatened. Oh yes, this is surely illegal self defense, but then, the car also was being used illegally to target a much smaller vehicle and its rider. Tit for tat.
But somehow I keep wanting to think the U.S. can be more civilized than regression back to wild west era. Stealing or killing a man's horse would get you shot back then, and the sheriff wouldn't have anything much to say about the matter. My bicycle is kinda like my horse. But I really don't want to carry a gun when I'm biking, if that's what it comes down to, I think I give up riding in the streets.
I'd estimate my near misses, bike vs car, are 1 in 1000. It's really small. Smaller than when I'm in a car, and it's car vs car. I've only had one driver intentionally try to drive me off the road while yelling that bikes belong on the sidewalk (illegal in Denver) not in the street (a legal right). I think he might have behaved differently if his world view weren't so totally backwards.
Unfortunately, the driver was right (from a physics standpoint), if incorrect from a legal stance.
Bicycles are much closer to pedestrians in terms of protection and kinetic energy than cars in every conceivable measure, so ideally they belong on the sidewalks which can accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists. Or on separate bike lanes.
Unfortunately, the US doesn't have any biking infrastructure, so the legislators decided to dump cyclists on the road with the motorists, which is the easy (and stupid) way out.
Bicycles are much closer to pedestrians in terms of protection and kinetic energy than cars in every conceivable measure, so ideally they belong on the sidewalks which can accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists. Or on separate bike lanes.
Unfortunately, the US doesn't have any biking infrastructure, so the legislators decided to dump cyclists on the road with the motorists, which is the easy (and stupid) way out.
I don't see how you draw the line. From a physics standpoint the same applies to motorbikes and cars. I feel much, much safer around scooters and motocycles than cars. And while creating dedicated infrastructure for bikes sounds nice, the problem is that it just increases the misunderstanding by many drivers that bikes shouldn't legally be in the road. And it does nothing to arrest this ignorance which is just as important in city neighborhoods, country roads, and state highways, where it is legal to ride a bike, and there is no possible way to have dedicated biking infrastructure.
Few areas in the US have cyclists. Most areas are only connected by one highway system or another, and almost no highway system has any bicycle lanes. There are a few exceptions, like the Interstate 90 floating bridge over Lake Washington, which has a bicycle and pedestrian lane. While some cities have a reputation for bicycle friendliness, like Portland and Seattle on the West Coast, many merely give lip service to bicycle lanes. And that's only within cities, often the only way to travel between cities is hoping you can find a bus with a bicycle rack. This is sometimes impossible in rural areas.
Yet there is a trend for bicycle renting, with automated bicycle rental stands in many areas of several large cities. In a way, it expresses the duality of American culture as well as any other measure.
Yet there is a trend for bicycle renting, with automated bicycle rental stands in many areas of several large cities. In a way, it expresses the duality of American culture as well as any other measure.
> And that's only within cities, often the only way to
> travel between cities is hoping you can find a bus with a > bicycle rack. This is sometimes impossible in rural areas.
Here's information on a national bicycle route system. It's actually not impossible at all. Many one-lane highways have generous enough shoulders that allow for safe cycling. I've crossed the country now 3 times on bike (and visiting 8 other countries while cycling). The first cross country route was established in 1976.
[0] https://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-...
Here's information on a national bicycle route system. It's actually not impossible at all. Many one-lane highways have generous enough shoulders that allow for safe cycling. I've crossed the country now 3 times on bike (and visiting 8 other countries while cycling). The first cross country route was established in 1976.
[0] https://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-...
I bike to work every day, year-round. I'm fortunate to live in a city that's fairly bike friendly. Still, my strategy is to avoid high traffic roads. The biggest problem is probably just inattention -- from my vantage point looking down into car windows, it's easy to see how many drivers are texting.
A lot of drivers express a sort of authoritarian entitlement: Roads were made for cars, and paid for by drivers. There's no good reason to ride a bike on the roads, and cyclists are endangering themselves for no good reason.
It does seem that driver behavior tends to improve when cycling gets more popular in a region.
A lot of drivers express a sort of authoritarian entitlement: Roads were made for cars, and paid for by drivers. There's no good reason to ride a bike on the roads, and cyclists are endangering themselves for no good reason.
It does seem that driver behavior tends to improve when cycling gets more popular in a region.
Skateboarding is even worse. Drivers see it as a toy, and get even more pissed that you're in the road. Sadly it's about the only option I have for reliably commuting as the train is too packed to bring a bike onto during rush hour.
In my country, skateboarders and such are considered as pedestrians by law. Thus it is not legal to ride a skateboard on the road. Is it legal in yourstate/country?
It really depends, even from one city or town to another there's different laws. However in California electric-powered skateboards are allowed use of bike lanes (which are generally in the road). The sidewalks around here are either to crowded with pedestrians or in such bad shape as to make skateboarding virtually impossible (you might as well walk to your destination).
If you need to take the lane, take the lane. Do not offer what might look like a "squeeze by" to auto drivers but rather ride in the center of the lane and move to the right when it is safe to do so.
I agree, I think many novice cyclists inadvertently put themselves in dicey situations by being "too nice" to car traffic. It truly is safer to be visible and temporarily "in the way" than to ride in the door zone or gutter and risk getting doored, side-swiped or right-hooked.
Being nice might momentarily appease an impatient driver, but it puts the cyclist at risk and makes them appear erratic to other traffic.
Being nice might momentarily appease an impatient driver, but it puts the cyclist at risk and makes them appear erratic to other traffic.
I do this, I do get some occasional abuse about it but I'd rather that than get run into the kerb.
>How do US drivers treat cyclists?
Not well in my experience. Cyclists dying from accidents is unfortunately more common than it should be. Perception is changing and trending in the right direction, but the attitude that roads are meant for cars and not cyclists is too prevalent.
That being said there are a lot of cyclists who don't obey traffic laws and bike dangerously as well.
It will improve in time as cycling becomes more common and more people do it.
Not well in my experience. Cyclists dying from accidents is unfortunately more common than it should be. Perception is changing and trending in the right direction, but the attitude that roads are meant for cars and not cyclists is too prevalent.
That being said there are a lot of cyclists who don't obey traffic laws and bike dangerously as well.
It will improve in time as cycling becomes more common and more people do it.
How do U.S. drivers treat each other, is the relevant question. And it's pretty impressive that it works as well as it does, considering in most states there's no driver's education requirement, public or private. If you can pass the written test, and a practical test by an examiner in a car, one time, you get a driver's license for life, in effect. Your uncle Bob's best buddy can teach you to drive. Renewals in most states are mainly a revenue source. Most will give a (very) basic eye test. None of the states I've lived in have required written or practical test for renewals.
So yeah, considering the high number of barely qualified drivers, it works remarkably well (although I'm sure this is of no comfort to the families of tens of thousands killed in car accidents every year).
So yeah, considering the high number of barely qualified drivers, it works remarkably well (although I'm sure this is of no comfort to the families of tens of thousands killed in car accidents every year).
How is uncle bobs best buddy allowed to give me lessons, if I am not allowed in the drivers seat, as I do not have a license yet? So you have to break the law first in order to be able to abide by it?
In the USA, you can get a learner's permit that allows you to drive (with some restrictions that vary by state. In some cases, that uncle Bob need not even be present) before you have a full license (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learner%27s_permit#United_St...)
I think this is crazy.
In the netherlands you take lessons and once the teacher thinks you will succeed you can take the practical exam. There is records available about the successrates per school so there is some healthy competition. You are not allowed to drive without a license. Only if you are paying a licensed teacher who is registered as a driving teacher and had education for just that.
It is expensive but our roads feel safe. Very much for cyclists as well.
In the netherlands you take lessons and once the teacher thinks you will succeed you can take the practical exam. There is records available about the successrates per school so there is some healthy competition. You are not allowed to drive without a license. Only if you are paying a licensed teacher who is registered as a driving teacher and had education for just that.
It is expensive but our roads feel safe. Very much for cyclists as well.
http://www.kansasgdl.org/instruction-permit.htm
Age 14, pass a written test, now you can drive, but no alone.
http://www.kansasgdl.org/restricted-license.htm Age 15, and now you can drive by yourself and siblings from home to work or school.
It use to be pretty popular to take driver's education in public schools, but this is not as common in smaller highschools. It wasn't offered at my school. My parents sent me to a private driver's education company to learn to drive where I learned to drive automatic and stick, and also how to get into and recover from slides on wet sand and snow. But most of my friends were taught by a family member or a friend of the family.
http://www.kansasgdl.org/restricted-license.htm Age 15, and now you can drive by yourself and siblings from home to work or school.
It use to be pretty popular to take driver's education in public schools, but this is not as common in smaller highschools. It wasn't offered at my school. My parents sent me to a private driver's education company to learn to drive where I learned to drive automatic and stick, and also how to get into and recover from slides on wet sand and snow. But most of my friends were taught by a family member or a friend of the family.
I lived and cycled in London for several years.
Don't think about cycling on the roads you usually use, which are presumably the big ones you drive down or take the bus down.
Look for the parallel roads, which are smaller and little used by cars. For instance, I used George Street and New Cavendish Street instead of Oxford Street.
Or a different example, look at the roads south of Fulham Broadway Station, and see that the small ones are blocked for cars but allow cyclists to pass.
TfL print free maps with the nicer streets marked.
Don't think about cycling on the roads you usually use, which are presumably the big ones you drive down or take the bus down.
Look for the parallel roads, which are smaller and little used by cars. For instance, I used George Street and New Cavendish Street instead of Oxford Street.
Or a different example, look at the roads south of Fulham Broadway Station, and see that the small ones are blocked for cars but allow cyclists to pass.
TfL print free maps with the nicer streets marked.
There is plenty of animosity between cyclists and motorists. The chief complaint of motorists is that cyclists don't follow the rules, such as stopping at stop signs, and the chief complaint of cyclists is that we have to pretend that we are invisible because motorist don't look out for us. I think this awareness, even if hostile at times, actually keeps us on our toes and makes the roads safer.
>How do US drivers treat cyclists?
Pretty poorly. Anecdotally:
My friend was driven off the road intentionally by a driver.
I was hit from behind in the hills and had to be helicoptered to a hospital.
Pretty poorly. Anecdotally:
My friend was driven off the road intentionally by a driver.
I was hit from behind in the hills and had to be helicoptered to a hospital.
Wow. The first should class as attempted murder.
Depending on how you look at it, cycling is probably safer than driving around cities. MMM has an interesting post about this issue: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safe...
If you take a few simple precautions (don't ride while drunk, wear something visible, don't be a child and most importantly don't cycle up the inside of large vehicles) then it probably isn't as dangerous as you perceive.
In Portland Oregon drivers are polite for the most part, especially when you have kids on your bike. The infrastructure is lacking and it takes newcomers a while to learn how to chill out but it basically works due to the culture.
I can compare to biking in France and Germany, and it's much more dangerous in SF.
Most of the drivers don't know to share the road with bicycles and don't respect cyclist in general. The other day I was hit by a car on purpose.
Most of the drivers don't know to share the road with bicycles and don't respect cyclist in general. The other day I was hit by a car on purpose.
I don't understand why so many people use their cars for every chore in the Bay Area. A decent bike commuter can do 16 mph which is plenty fast for most trips. It's also 'free' in that you burn lunch instead of fuel.
The one thing that gives me pause is that it's relatively easy to steal a bicycle, but it's difficult to steal a car. Here in Portland, bicycle theft is an enormous problem, and I'm not willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a bike that could be stolen with impunity.
A second hand bike for $200 is more than enough for cycling in a city.
I've been in SF for 2 years. Had my $500 commuter bike stolen twice so far. This time I went for a $200 Craigslist big.
One issue is it seems silly to invest properly in security. For example a good lock is $60-100 no matter how much your bike costs, and locking pins for my wheels/seat would be $50 more.
Another thing is getting your bike stolen has a mental effect that I find exceeds the financial. If every time I go somewhere I'm not sure if I will lose my bike, it makes me want to ride my bike less. So I use it mostly to commute where I can keep it indoors on both ends.
One issue is it seems silly to invest properly in security. For example a good lock is $60-100 no matter how much your bike costs, and locking pins for my wheels/seat would be $50 more.
Another thing is getting your bike stolen has a mental effect that I find exceeds the financial. If every time I go somewhere I'm not sure if I will lose my bike, it makes me want to ride my bike less. So I use it mostly to commute where I can keep it indoors on both ends.
I'm 40, I've been cycling almost daily since I was a kid, and my bikes get stolen every 3 years on average, I take it now as a matter of course. My last several city bikes I bought used, spending $400-$600, for rides worth $800 to $1200 new, which I consider worth it. I use a small u-lock that can fit in my back pocket, and I don't get too uptight about leaving my bikes out all night somewhere strange.
I would love to ride a bike around SF, but the thought of being hit by a car is sort of terrifying to me. As a result I ride the bus everywhere: it's non ideal.
Riding around SF is really all about knowing which streets are good for bikers. Many major streets with no hills have bike lanes (Valencia, Polk, Market, Embarcadero, etc). I have not felt in danger of being hit by a car riding on those streets for the majority of my ride.
I was looking into buying a bike for commuting from Mission to SoMa until I noticed how there are multiple hit and runs reported every week. Several times have I witnessed Uber/Lyft drivers (with me as a passenger) endanger bicyclists during the morning commute. How do they solve this in other cities?
The Netherlands does this very well. Car traffic is nicely separated from bicycle traffic, which is nicely separated from pedestrians. There's even an entire nationwide network of bicycle paths.
I suggest using Google street view to look around. Usually, you can see a bike path off on the side of the road that's nicely separated from the cars. I don't think that Google has gotten around to taking street view pictures in all the bike-only paths in more rural areas, although I hear they've done that in some places.
The Netherlands has been committed to improving bicycle use and safety since the 1950s, so they've built up a lot of infrastructure with that in mind. In fact, I hear that in any accident in the Netherlands involving a car and bicycle, the car is always at fault unless they can prove that the bicycle was being reckless. It makes cars a lot more careful, and encourages riding a bike instead of driving.
From what I hear, the effect is from all this that automobile traffic in is pretty congested and slow. The Dutch government seems to be making a general policy of discouraging car driving and encouraging alternate forms of transportation, as a means to unclog the roads and reduce pollution. The Netherlands is very dense, so pollution would be very bad if all those people were driving everywhere.
I'm not Dutch, but sometimes I wish I were, because I would very much like to bike to work on a regular basis. My city in California has some bike lanes, but they aren't very wide and are right next to the cars. They've been starting to build bike paths that are completely separate from roads, but we don't yet have a city-wide bike path network yet. I suspect we'll eventually get one, but it will be decades away. I'll go biking with my children on quiet residential streets or the bike paths, but there's no way I'd take them on the bike lanes on the bigger roads.
I suggest using Google street view to look around. Usually, you can see a bike path off on the side of the road that's nicely separated from the cars. I don't think that Google has gotten around to taking street view pictures in all the bike-only paths in more rural areas, although I hear they've done that in some places.
The Netherlands has been committed to improving bicycle use and safety since the 1950s, so they've built up a lot of infrastructure with that in mind. In fact, I hear that in any accident in the Netherlands involving a car and bicycle, the car is always at fault unless they can prove that the bicycle was being reckless. It makes cars a lot more careful, and encourages riding a bike instead of driving.
From what I hear, the effect is from all this that automobile traffic in is pretty congested and slow. The Dutch government seems to be making a general policy of discouraging car driving and encouraging alternate forms of transportation, as a means to unclog the roads and reduce pollution. The Netherlands is very dense, so pollution would be very bad if all those people were driving everywhere.
I'm not Dutch, but sometimes I wish I were, because I would very much like to bike to work on a regular basis. My city in California has some bike lanes, but they aren't very wide and are right next to the cars. They've been starting to build bike paths that are completely separate from roads, but we don't yet have a city-wide bike path network yet. I suspect we'll eventually get one, but it will be decades away. I'll go biking with my children on quiet residential streets or the bike paths, but there's no way I'd take them on the bike lanes on the bigger roads.
Cars are starting to report collisions automatically so soon it will be very difficult to escape unnoticed, especially when they start reporting on other vehicles around them. At that point collisions, speeding, reckless driving etc accountability will be as automatic as red light cameras and people will drive responsibly all the time because how they drive will always be under so much scrutiny.
http://abc7chicago.com/technology/car-auto-dials-911-to-repo...
http://abc7chicago.com/technology/car-auto-dials-911-to-repo...
convenience, weather immune compared to a bicycle, feeling of safety that steel cage provides, speed (real or perceived)
its never too hot, too cold, to windy, to wet, to anything, for driving a car versus a bicycle or any other exposed mode of transport.
hence you can have all the articles you want about how there is a resurgence but it never amounts to any substantial numbers because weather is the greatest factor against it
its never too hot, too cold, to windy, to wet, to anything, for driving a car versus a bicycle or any other exposed mode of transport.
hence you can have all the articles you want about how there is a resurgence but it never amounts to any substantial numbers because weather is the greatest factor against it
I think the best kept secret of cycling is the convenience of it. Never have to find a place to park, the ride itself is exercise so no need to go to the gym, the ride itself is refreshing and can help with your mental health, no metal cage to isolate you from your environment, so you have a chance to actually connect with your community.
Too cold, windy, and wet? You invest in some proper clothes, and you change when you get somewhere.
Cars are expensive. What I think of when I think of the inconvenience of cars is their cost, and how that translates into how many hours of my life I give up to pay for them.
If riding a bike all year also meant getting two months off every year from work every year (or just pocket/invest in the money you saved with car ownership/upkeep/taxes/gas), would you do it?
Too cold, windy, and wet? You invest in some proper clothes, and you change when you get somewhere.
Cars are expensive. What I think of when I think of the inconvenience of cars is their cost, and how that translates into how many hours of my life I give up to pay for them.
If riding a bike all year also meant getting two months off every year from work every year (or just pocket/invest in the money you saved with car ownership/upkeep/taxes/gas), would you do it?
The Bay Area for the most part has a sublime climate for biking. It hardly rains, and when it does, it never lasts more than a day. The temps seldom top 90 in the peninsula (SF stays even cooler) and humidity is never a problem.
If biking can take off, it should start here. Alas I feel that car culture might be too ingrained in the very fabric of our culture and cities. It's a shame.
If biking can take off, it should start here. Alas I feel that car culture might be too ingrained in the very fabric of our culture and cities. It's a shame.
In New York, one thing I have strongly noticed is the decrease in smog even on rush hour crowded avenues. This alone has made it drastically healthier to go outside whether it be on bike or walk. Just a few more years and we will be able to avoid long trips to the parks and do recreational walking immediately outside of our doors.
Just bought a bike this weekend. Great fun thanks to cycle lanes along the beach. Don't see it being a viable mode of transportation for day-to-day though.
>a bike lane next to [...] church infringed on religious freedom by preventing members from parking.
That's a pretty bizarre interpretation of "religious freedom".
>a bike lane next to [...] church infringed on religious freedom by preventing members from parking.
That's a pretty bizarre interpretation of "religious freedom".
I want three things: 1) Stay dry. 2) Not wear out my normal nor "dressy" clothes. 3) Ride safely.
I can even forgo # 1 if I get to change and shower at the end.
So... you want cyclists? Find out what's really keeping them off bikes, and fix it.
P.S. And theft. You can just park your car and walk away from it -- mostly.
I can even forgo # 1 if I get to change and shower at the end.
So... you want cyclists? Find out what's really keeping them off bikes, and fix it.
P.S. And theft. You can just park your car and walk away from it -- mostly.
Some of these things could be solved with better electronics. Like providing tagging/tracking technology that would keep thieves away, and a proximity warning that would flash a bright taillight at cars coming too close or approaching too quickly.
There are some bright spots, like Cambridge, but there needs to be vastly better enforcement of having drivers keep a distance from cyclists. If cyclist-aware autonomous braking were required for cars, that might do it in a few years. But American drivers are angry and incompetent.
I really hope that motorcycles make a comeback as well. They are incredibly fuel efficient, they don't take up nearly as much room, are far cheaper to buy and maintain than cars, and a heck of a lot of fun.
> They are incredibly fuel efficient,
Sadly, this is a myth.
https://practicalfrugalliving.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/busti...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbuste...
http://motorbikewriter.com/motorcycles-fuel-economy/
Sadly, this is a myth.
https://practicalfrugalliving.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/busti...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbuste...
http://motorbikewriter.com/motorcycles-fuel-economy/
None of those links refute my claim that motorcycles are fuel efficient. The first link says that large displacement bikes are "no more efficient than a prius" which is one of the most fuel efficient cars on the road. Take any new 250cc motorcycle and compare it to any new compact car and the motorcycle will have higher fuel efficiency every single time.
The only article that seems to support your assertion is the mythbusters one, which doesn't refute the claim that motorcycles are more fuel efficient, but instead cites the fact that proportionally more pollution is emitted by motorcycles than by cars which is a completely separate issue altogether. That would be easily solved by stricter pollution control standards on bikes which would absolutely happen if more people started riding. The article then goes onto admit:
"Despite the MythBusters' findings, emissions are only part of the story of a vehicle's true greenness. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council, motorcycle manufacturing requires thousands fewer pounds of raw materials than automobiles. They require less fossil fuel, so they require less energy to pull that fossil fuel out of the ground. They use fewer chemicals and oils than cars. And motorcycles produced today are 90% cleaner in California than they were 30 years ago."
So I stand by my original statement. Did you even read the articles, or did you just whip off a quick google search and link the first three articles that seemed to support your claim?
The only article that seems to support your assertion is the mythbusters one, which doesn't refute the claim that motorcycles are more fuel efficient, but instead cites the fact that proportionally more pollution is emitted by motorcycles than by cars which is a completely separate issue altogether. That would be easily solved by stricter pollution control standards on bikes which would absolutely happen if more people started riding. The article then goes onto admit:
"Despite the MythBusters' findings, emissions are only part of the story of a vehicle's true greenness. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council, motorcycle manufacturing requires thousands fewer pounds of raw materials than automobiles. They require less fossil fuel, so they require less energy to pull that fossil fuel out of the ground. They use fewer chemicals and oils than cars. And motorcycles produced today are 90% cleaner in California than they were 30 years ago."
So I stand by my original statement. Did you even read the articles, or did you just whip off a quick google search and link the first three articles that seemed to support your claim?
> but instead cites the fact that proportionally more pollution is emitted by motorcycles than by cars which is a completely separate issue altogether.
But a pretty big one, that you're side-stepping by quoting a special interest group from the motorcycle industry. Fuel efficiency could be better, but emissions are always worse.
Here's another source for you, Ana-Marija Vasic and Martin Weilenmann. Comparison of Real-World Emissions from Two-Wheelers and Passenger Cars http://josiah.berkeley.edu/MiniProjects/Vasic2006.pdf
I would wager that ab bicycle will have a better fuel efficiency, emissions, and environmental cost of production than a car, or a motorcycle.
But a pretty big one, that you're side-stepping by quoting a special interest group from the motorcycle industry. Fuel efficiency could be better, but emissions are always worse.
Here's another source for you, Ana-Marija Vasic and Martin Weilenmann. Comparison of Real-World Emissions from Two-Wheelers and Passenger Cars http://josiah.berkeley.edu/MiniProjects/Vasic2006.pdf
I would wager that ab bicycle will have a better fuel efficiency, emissions, and environmental cost of production than a car, or a motorcycle.
I was never comparing motorcycles to bicycles. Of course bicycles are more energy efficient. But compared to cars motorcycles are far more efficient - especially electric motorcycles which are starting to hit the mainstream now.