Passed by a guy on an electric assist bike

[kevin_cambs_uk]

Tried to keep up but on the MTB, it was a killer and I ran out if gears, I think if I had been on my road bike I could have kept up, but I just kept thinking that its cheating, you can't over take me unless its 100% of your own effort!

But maybe I am missing the point ?

Anyway my thought for the day !

 

[HovR]

I'd rather him be on an elec assist bike than driving a car!

I've started to see an increase in electrically assisted bikes on my commute.. I want to see what sort of pace they can keep, but they're never going the same way as me!

 

[smutchin]

But maybe I am missing the point ?

Yes. It isn't a race.

I mean, you're allowed to treat it as a race if you like but that's your problem, not his.

d.

 

[Ian Cooper]

I'd rather him be on an elec assist bike than driving a car!

Why? Electric assist bikes run on electricity. Electricity is generated mostly by coal. Coal is worse than oil in terms of its environmental harm. Imagine that electric-assist bike spewing out the black smog of the coal-fired power plant that generates its electricity. Okay, the energy needed to power an electric-assist bike is probably nothing like what's needed to propel a 3000lb car, but still, it's hardly clean or renewable energy. And nowadays there are very fuel efficient cars.

I'd rather him be on a real bicycle than on an electric-assist bike. Real bicycles have a comparatively negligible one-time cost in terms of fossil fuels.

 

[HovR]

Why? Electric assist bikes run on electricity. Electricity is generated mostly by coal. Coal is worse than oil in terms of its environmental harm. Okay, the energy needed to power an electric-assist bike is probably nothing like what's needed to propel a 3000lb car, but still, it's hardly clean or renewable energy.

Who said anything about the environment? The more bikes on the road, whether human powered, electrically powered, and even to a lesser extent petrol powered - The more aware car drivers will be, making the roads a safer place for us - and hence encouraging yet more cyclists.

 

[gaz]

I'd rather him be on an elec assist bike than driving a car!

I've started to see an increase in electrically assisted bikes on my commute.. I want to see what sort of pace they can keep, but they're never going the same way as me!

I've come across a few who have modded theres. Had to push to over 30mph to overtake them.

 

[Ian Cooper]

The more bikes on the road, whether human powered, electrically powered, and even to a lesser extent petrol powered - The more aware car drivers will be, making the roads a safer place for us - and hence encouraging yet more cyclists.

This 'safety in numbers' notion is a victim-based cycling safety ideology based on the flawed premise that the roads are currently unsafe for cyclists and that only motorists can change the cycling safety status quo. This is not the case. Sure, as with any mode of transport, there are deaths and injuries that happen while cycling. But about half of these occur due to poor cycling practices - most often through faulty lane positioning. But even with all the bad road safety practices of cyclists and motorists alike, cycling is still very safe. the lifetime risk of dying on a bike is something like 1 in 140. Motoring has a much higher risk, at 1 in 75.

So I don't buy this 'safety in numbers' BS. It places cyclist safety purely in the hands of drivers, making us out to be passive victims. And even if it's true that more cyclists make the road safer, we have yet to see an increase in cycling that would make a big difference. A much bigger difference can be made by educating cyclists in terms of lane positioning and other safe cycling practices that put us in charge of our own safety.

 

[gaz]

This 'safety in numbers' notion is a victim-based cycling safety ideology based on the flawed premise that the roads are currently unsafe for cyclists and that only motorists can change the cycling safety status quo. This is not the case. Sure, as with any mode of transport, there are deaths and injuries that happen while cycling. But about half of these occur due to poor cycling practices - most often through faulty lane positioning. But even with all the bad road safety practices of cyclists and motorists alike, cycling is still very safe. the lifetime risk of dying on a bike is something like 1 in 140. Motoring has a much higher risk, at 1 in 75.

So I don't buy this 'safety in numbers' BS. It places cyclist safety purely in the hands of drivers, making us out to be passive victims. And even if it's true that more cyclists make the road safer, we have yet to see an increase in cycling that would make a big difference. A much bigger difference can be made by educating cyclists in terms of lane positioning and other safe cycling practices that put us in charge of our own safety.

victim blaming?

 

[HovR]

This 'safety in numbers' notion is a victim-based cycling safety ideology based on the flawed premise that the roads are currently unsafe for cyclists and that only motorists can change the cycling safety status quo. This is not the case. Sure, as with any mode of transport, there are deaths and injuries that happen while cycling. But about half of these occur due to poor cycling practices - most often through faulty lane positioning. But even with all the bad road safety practices of cyclists and motorists alike, cycling is still very safe. the lifetime risk of dying on a bike is something like 1 in 140. Motoring has a much higher risk, at 1 in 75.

So I don't buy this 'safety in numbers' BS. It places cyclist safety purely in the hands of drivers, making us out to be passive victims. And even if it's true that more cyclists make the road safer, we have yet to see an increase in cycling that would make a big difference. A much bigger difference can be made by educating cyclists in terms of lane positioning and other safe cycling practices that put us in charge of our own safety.

Victim based? I've never been the victim of a collision with a motorist, yet I still believe that having more cyclists on the road can do nothing but good for us - Not only in the attitude and awareness of motorists, but also in the quality and quantity of cycling facilities provided by the government and our local councils.

Take the large Dutch cities for example - The attitude towards cyclists is a substantial improvement to what we see over here, as are the cycle routes.

 

[snorri]

Tried to keep up but on the MTB, it was a killer and I ran out if gears, I think if I had been on my road bike I could have kept up, but I just kept thinking that its cheating, you can't over take me unless its 100% of your own effort!

Wrong bike, wrong gears, foul play, bla bla bla bla, don't these youngsters give you a pain at times?
Same time same place tommorrow kevin-cambs?

 

[Miquel In De Rain]

Tried to keep up but on the MTB, it was a killer and I ran out if gears, I think if I had been on my road bike I could have kept up, but I just kept thinking that its cheating, you can't over take me unless its 100% of your own effort!

But maybe I am missing the point ?

Anyway my thought for the day !

I have a video of one of these and I don't actually agree,even though the guy overtook me when I wasn't at my fittest (no excuse).I also rode the German Kalkoff Electric assist bikes in Phuket,Thailand and I thought they were very good.Rather an electric bike than a car.IMHO.

To Ian Cooper,I actually feel safer riding in the rush hour with other cyclists as opposed to riding in just a car dominated situation.

 

[MrJamie]

More cyclists is also more overtakes/inconvenience for the impatient motorist. I've wondered if there were a lot more cyclists on the roads, drivers would feel less able to wait behind or wait for a safe overtake when theres probably another and another ahead they'll have to get past.

 

[Miquel In De Rain]

I've come across a few who have modded theres. Had to push to over 30mph to overtake them.

That's right,they are limited to 15mph by law.So fitted with limiters.

 

[srw]

This 'safety in numbers' notion is a victim-based cycling safety ideology based on the flawed premise that the roads are currently unsafe for cyclists and that only motorists can change the cycling safety status quo. This is not the case. Sure, as with any mode of transport, there are deaths and injuries that happen while cycling. But about half of these occur due to poor cycling practices - most often through faulty lane positioning. But even with all the bad road safety practices of cyclists and motorists alike, cycling is still very safe. the lifetime risk of dying on a bike is something like 1 in 140. Motoring has a much higher risk, at 1 in 75.

So I don't buy this 'safety in numbers' BS. It places cyclist safety purely in the hands of drivers, making us out to be passive victims. And even if it's true that more cyclists make the road safer, we have yet to see an increase in cycling that would make a big difference. A much bigger difference can be made by educating cyclists in terms of lane positioning and other safe cycling practices that put us in charge of our own safety.

Come to London and observe.

 

[John90]

The lifetime risk of dying on a bike is something like 1 in 140. Motoring has a much higher risk, at 1 in 75.

Can you give a reference for that? Not that I doubt you, but I would like to look at the basis of it (population, miles travelled, journeys undertaken).