254
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
254 points (89.2% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
34391 readers
142 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The speed limits they listed seem so low given that 90% of bicycles in Amsterdam (or at least, those that are “victims” in traffic accidents) are unpowered. I’m not even a hobbyist cyclist, but on my (unpowered) entry-level hybrid bicycle I rode faster than 25 km/h (or 15 mph) the last time I took it out… and heck, I can run faster than 15 km/h.
The accident stats also don’t back up the idea that e-bikes are a problem demanding regulation, which makes me think that there’s knee-jerk politics at play here rather than this being a clear-headed response to a real problem. I’ll explain how I arrived at that conclusion.
First of all, as an aside, it’s weird that they said “more than half of all traffic victims were on a bicycle,” when the metric here should be the number of traffic collisions caused by cyclists. But supposing that’s actually what they meant:
Obviously these stats are fairly sloppy, but I worked with what I could find.
Assuming my conclusion is accurate, this still doesn’t mean that e-bikes are less dangerous than bicycles - the accidents they’re in may be worse - but it certainly doesn’t suggest that e-bikes are the problem. I’m aligned with the other commenters here - this isn’t going to address the problem of people riding already illegal e-bikes.
The tech sounds cool and I’d love if it could be applied to cars, too, even if it’s opt-in only.
25 km/h is a sporty bike ride tempo, not a going to the shops to get some food bike ride tempo. Especially considering that most bikes here are upright sitting city bikes rather than sporty, leaning forward bikes.
I have a step through frame that you sit upright on. 20-25km/h is my average commuting speed for getting to work and going to the shops. I regularly have to push to 30km/h+ because of motor traffic trying to ride up my ass even though I'm in the designated bike lane. (cars in Australia like driving fast in the bike lanes to avoid the chicanes on the road designed to slow motor traffic for cyclist safety)
If ebikes are disproportionately represented in cycling accidents, then I would argue it's not the speed, it's the barrier to entry. People who have never ridden before, people who aren't physically able to ride a standard bike, these groups make up a significant portion of ebike riders because ebikes are accessible.
Yes, speed will contribute to this, people with limited riding experience being able to ride fast, possibly without the physical fitness required to control a bike at high speed.
The issue then isn't the speed itself, but rider education and training.
To be clear, based off the (incomplete) data I have, it looks like e-bikes are under-represented. 22% of bicycles are e-bikes and e-bikes only make up 10% of cycling accidents.
It’s possible the 10% stat was of total accidents, making it 20% of cycling accidents, meaning they’d be properly represented. Or maybe the stat is from multiple years ago, when e-bikes made up 10% or less of bikes on the road. Or both, in which case they would be over-represented, at which point it would at least make sense to include the stat.
If they are over-represented, what you said would make sense! And at that point, I would think it would be most effective to focus on providing more opportunities for training and education to riders. Maybe they’re already doing that, too, and this is just one more thing they’re exploring.
Maybe in NL.
On my bike commute (about 4km one-way) lightly down hill I can easily reach 30km/h.
Uphill the same route (depending on how fit I am) I can more or less pull 25km/h through.
Though I am not in a busy city. I would probably get killed with the way I am driving where I live.
Depends on how often you ride I guess but if there is an e-scooter infront of me (they go 20 km/h), I have to hold back a bit.
I can easily ride my bike at 25-30km/h on flat even surface.
Light hills are more difficult on the long run but I can probably manage 20km/h.
Edit:
A relative worked in the ER so I have some ideas why e-bikes are maybe more prone to accidents. My theory: Older folks.
The usual demographic driving e-bikes usually are/were +50 years old.
With reflexes being not what they were and them going out more due to being mobile again, they surely are more prone to be involved in traffic accidents.
Makes sense, and is aligned with the “reduced barrier to entry” theory posited by another commenter. Just to be clear, though, what I read (though very imperfect stat-wise) suggests that e-bikes are less prone to accidents, not more.
I don't have the data to back it up, but as someone who lives in the Netherlands I can tell you that e-bikes definitely seem like a problem. People who ride a normal bike to go somewhere definitely don't go faster than 15 kph on average. You totally can do so if you want, just like you can run everywhere instead of walking, but then you might arrive sweaty and out of breath. E-bikes allow people who don't usually have the physical strength to cycle that fast to suddenly go 25 kph without much effort. Especially children and elderly are a problem. The bikes are heavy, meaning that they're hard to control for these groups. And children and elderly also both often lack the awareness of their surroundings needed for driving this fast. I've seen many dangerous situations where these groups on an e-bike yeet into a crossing, suddenly have to brake due to other traffic that they failed to account for, and then almost fall over or crash.
E-bikes have a way too large speed difference with normal bikes, and imo they're definitely a danger. Anything that makes them slower is imo a good thing.
The US has several proposals for this on cars. You say opt in only. How about this: when you exceed the speed limit the car automatically notifies the government so they can fine you. You can opt-in to have the car automatically control you top speed so you don't get fined.
The tech I’m talking about isn’t related to speed limits, but zones where pedestrians, particularly children, are much more likely to be in the street.
I assume you meant “fine”; regardless, why is there a need for that in order to enable the second piece?
Change that to “You can enable a feature that will automatically reduce your set cruising speed (or, if you’re not using cruise control at that point, give you tactile feedback on the accelerator foot pedal) when you enter an area where pedestrians are in the street or are expected to be in the street (i.e., there’s a cross walk up ahead and a pedestrian has triggered it).” Or, to summarize similar to what you said: “You can have the car automatically reduce your speed when necessary so you don’t kill people.”
The "zones" should have lower speed limits. That is a traffic engineering problem.
The need for the opt in process is to counter the (stupid) arguments of I need to be able to drive fast to get my grandma to the hospital.
You don't need "tactal feedback." You need to limit the speed of the vehicle, like a rev limiter. Why do you need the ability to break the law?