HashtagDadWatts t1_iueb53r wrote
Reply to comment by hollow-fox in Four times a week on average, an e-bike or e-scooter battery catches fire in New York City by geoxol
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
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments