If you look at the article that started this discussion, it includes a picture of a 78-year-old riding an electric bike. I think electric bikes are quite appropriate, even by our exacting standards of purity, for people in that age-range.
If we looked hard enough, I'm sure we could find an 85-year-old somewhere who rides a Century every month; but most seniors have limited stamina, limited muscle strength, and, perhaps a bit of arthritis in their knees and hips. If an electric motor allows such people to use a bike for recreation and transportation, I think that's great. It's good for the seniors, since it allows them to get exercise without getting too much exercise. It's also good for the environment and the general safety of the road if it gets them out of their cars. I do agree that these bikes should not be allowed on paths and bike lanes unless their speed is limited. I would not like to see an 85-year-old with macular degeneration barreling down the SW Path at 20 mph. -- but 10 mph. might be OK. For younger, fit, people, I don't think these bikes will have much appeal. You can ride them without power assist, but they're heavy, so you can't climb a hill without turning on the motor. Some people (mostly middle-aged, and not all that many of them) might find these bikes useful for long and hard commutes every day. But most people who ride bikes do so because they like to ride bikes (or because they're really poor -- and those people can't afford an electric bike). So I don't think these electric-assisted bikes will cause many bikers to go over to the dark side. ----- Original Message ----- From: "tim wong" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: "Bikies" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2010 11:44:42 PM Subject: Re: [Bikies] NYTimes: An Electric Boost for Bicyclists It's interesting how people can read the same article and draw completely opposite conclusions: "The point of the article is exactly that these machines for the first time stand to take drivers off the road, not cyclists." As I and at least one other person read it, these things are more likely to get bicyclists out of exercise than cars off the road. On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Richard Schwinn < [email protected] > wrote: Agreed on the power plant issue - but it's still less than the impact of a car. The point of the article is exactly that these machines for the first time stand to take drivers off the road, not cyclists. In places like China and India, it's how they can bypass the car culture in which we in America are caught. The work done to civilize the world for cyclists also makes it easier for these people to get out of their cars. No doubt it will create problems, but far more opportunities. Jym Dyer wrote: They don't stink. They don't make harsh noises. =v= Well, not at the point of use. The stink and noise goes somewhere else, at the power plant, generally over where the poor people live. Out of sight, out of mind. They mean one less car on the road. =v= Or they could also mean one less human-powered bike on the road, as per the story's headline. For decades I've seen the marketing for these gadgets directed as those of us on bikes, not those driving cars. That's not an effort to replace cars and, unsurprisingly, there's no evidence that it's doing so. <_Jym_> _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
