Quoting tim wong:
>> And it's bogus to say these are for sedentary folks.
>> By far, the most people who use them will be former
>> bicyclists.
=v= This is exactly my concern, because for decades the
purveyors of e-gadgets have targeted bicyclists for their
sales and marketing, not motorists. We are in the midst
of a nationwide campaign that is simultaneously lobbying
state legislatures and bicycle advocacy organizations to
accept and promote electric bikes in bicycle facilities
and at bicycle events.
=v= I'm on many bicycle email lists and web fora, and no
matter what the list or forum is putatively for, there is
always someone there to peddle e-gadgets, promising that
they will make all my dreams come true, why don't you try
one right now? You'd like it if you tried it, you know.
And articles like this one by Gretchen Reynolds show up
in newspapers' active living or sports sections instead
of, say, the automobile sections.
=v= My rule of thumb is pretty simple:
If an e-gadget replaces car use, that's good.
If an e-gadget replaces bicycle use, that's bad.
If an e-gadget would get people out of a car who could
ride a bicycle but wouldn't, that just raises questions
about why they wouldn't. Seems more like an opportunity
being lost thanks to half-measures.
Quoting "via Bikies":
> I also don't get all the hostility about them.
=v= I wouldn't say I'm hostile _per_se_, but I am well and
truly annoyed by the relentless shilling and cluelessness.
Certainly I see applications for electric motors, parents
carrying kids in cargo bikes, or folks with actual mobility
issues. I see some of the former and relatively few of the
latter, but mostly I see people 30 years younger the me who
are entranced by gadgetry (and could use some exercise).
<_Jym_>
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
Bikies@lists.danenet.org
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
