hollow-fox t1_iudwntv wrote
The issue is becoming too politicized.
The folks on the right see ebikes as a threat to free parking spaces and car centric NYC because they can be a legitimate car replacement so they over hype the risk.
The folks on the left ignore all the risks of battery fires and just make it about deliverista rights.
There is a sensible middle ground of regulated batteries and incentives to help ease the burden of higher quality and regulated bikes / bike batteries.
bloodhound725 t1_iue5fiw wrote
You’re pulling this out of your ass. Who isn’t concerned about the risk of FIRE??
hollow-fox t1_iuek9qy wrote
NYCHA literally reversed the decision to ban them in public housing due to deliverista rights. It would be fair to say given the current administration and the backlash is coming from the left.
On the right, the NY post has a well documented war on ebikes. A quick google search on ebikes and ny post will show you the depth of car brained insanity.
Edit: example from the right
https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/beware-the-e-bike-menace-in-nyc-they-must-be-banned
bklyn1977 t1_iufhas7 wrote
Your example 'from the right' is about reckless operation of e-bikes with zero accountability. It has nothing to do with where they are parked.
hollow-fox t1_iuhqqtm wrote
Don’t be obtuse. The threat to free parking is bike lanes not ebike parking. Ebikes have made cycling both more accessible and effective as a means to get around the city. Their mass adoption warrants the need to adapt infrastructure to accommodate the demand.
Thus the logical next step is to perform road diets and create protected bike lanes to increase micromobility throughout the city as opposed to maximizing very inefficient cars that take up much space to accommodate what is usually one driver.
This is a huge threat to car dealerships who overwhelming contribute to conservatives candidates. and also why conservatives are against congestion pricing etc. See the open data below.
bklyn1977 t1_iuj2z57 wrote
I don't care if every street was a no parking zone. You lack the ability to have nuanced thinking.
HashtagDadWatts t1_iueb53r wrote
Who are these people on the left you speak of? Can you link us to them saying we should ignore fire hazards?
StrngBrew t1_iueeew2 wrote
While he’s at it also link us to the people that think e-bikes are a threat to… parking?
hollow-fox t1_iuhriyg wrote
Sure it takes some critical thinking and I realize you can’t expect that from Reddit but here it goes:
The threat to free parking is bike lanes not ebike parking. Ebikes have made cycling both more accessible and effective as a means to get around the city. Their mass adoption warrants the need to adapt infrastructure to accommodate the demand.
Thus the logical next step is to perform road diets and create protected bike lanes to increase micromobility throughout the city as opposed to maximizing very inefficient cars that take up much space to accommodate what is usually one driver.
This is a huge threat to car dealerships who overwhelming contribute to conservatives candidates and also why conservatives are against congestion pricing etc. See the open data below.
StrngBrew t1_iuhtznk wrote
Bike lanes have been made all over the city and almost none have replaced any parking.
Classic correlation doesn’t equal causation. Even your own link explains it lol! You’re stretching to create some kind of both sides boogeyman to make owning an e-bike some kind of virtuous act.
If you want to ride a battery powered bike, that’s fine. You’re not making a political statement, you’re not sticking to Trump, you just don’t have to peddle as much. Enjoy yourself and stay safe.
hollow-fox t1_iuhvm3u wrote
Literally what I and many other activists fight for is removing free parking to open up the city for people centric infrastructure which yes includes more bike lanes. Right now the the bike lane infrastructure is not sufficient and to make it adequate for demand will require removing free parking. Cycling also continues to grow:
That isn’t a correlation question, thats just math of square footage of space used by free parking versus the opportunity cost. Here is a great resource for this.
Data aside, I actually do believe someone who chooses to use an ebike as opposed to buying a car, should be held in high esteem for making a pro environmental choice while also taking about much less space in our city.
StrngBrew t1_iuhwfvv wrote
Well at least you admit it!
Accomplished_Pie_153 t1_iufyh8v wrote
read r/fuckcars and see their tweets. probably just due to auto industry lobbyists. but generally, many republicans oppose anything that makes cities more walkable, healthier, greener, etc.
but at the same time, a lot of far-right people are the ones on e-bikes. they are poorer, not worried about electricity consumption and they are "bros" in the jobs that use ebikes more, such as delivery.
hollow-fox t1_iuhs90a wrote
I’ll copy my reply above:
NYCHA literally reversed the decision to ban ebikes in public housing due to deliverista rights. It would be fair to say the current administration and the folks backlashing to the ban identify as the left.
This is to say that there is a heavy contingent of folks on the left who will fight to continue having ebikes in public housing even if there is no regulation. It’s not a question of ignoring fire risks just that there are folks on the left who say the rights of deliveristas are > the fire risk hazards at the moment.
If that wasn’t true, then why reverse the policy without first implementing standards?
HashtagDadWatts t1_iuhsr7m wrote
So before the accusation was:
>The folks on the left ignore all the risks of battery fires
And now its:
>It’s not a question of ignoring fire risks
So you've basically made my point for me.
hollow-fox t1_iuhta6p wrote
Effectively reversing a policy without imposing any regulations or standards is “ignoring the risk”
My latter point is that there are of course folks who fear for fire risks of unregulated batteries. But they do not value that fear over the rights of deliveristas.
HashtagDadWatts t1_iuhu7oh wrote
It's not, that's dishonest hyperbole. Your conclusion assumes that a (likely unenforceable) ban is the only policy approach available, which of course is wrong. There are other items being considered and, meanwhile, active outreach and education occurring, including: https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2022/consumer-alert-attorney-general-james-urges-new-yorkers-follow-e-bike-safety-tips
StrngBrew t1_iuee9w4 wrote
Literally none of this true. What are you even talking about?
22thoughts t1_iuea3ut wrote
Unfortunately, people are always putting politics before reason these days
Accomplished_Pie_153 t1_iufwyip wrote
a lot of far left folks don't like ebikes. they still use electricity and create tons of waste. they get in the way of walkability, which should be the first priority.
even banning all cars from manhattan is sensible and perfectly reasonable if you consider health, cancer, asthma, climate change, sustainability, politics of oil, aesthetics, walkability and fairness, property value. Not to mention, the million+ car-related deaths per year around the world. 1 Billion car-related serious injuries or deaths per century.
woodcider t1_iuh3cee wrote
You have no proof of leftist not liking e-bikes. You’re pulling this entire argument out of your ass.
Accomplished_Pie_153 t1_iuh3yki wrote
https://www.reddit.com/r/bikedc/comments/a2ug7n/ebike_discrimination/
this is real shit. is it really that surprising?
woodcider t1_iuh9u1v wrote
You have no proof that those three measly people were leftists. Just stop with the silliness.
Accomplished_Pie_153 t1_iuhaex7 wrote
sorry with the silliness. 100% of cyclists who hate ebikes must be Right wing until proven otherwise.
woodcider t1_iuhbgxs wrote
It’s not an either/or. This is why it’s stupid to politicize non-political things.
Accomplished_Pie_153 t1_iuhdas2 wrote
they said it was right wing. i said it could also be left. it's both. that's the reality, which is more complex than black/white.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments