One problem with a Segway is that there isn't great space for it. It's far too fast for sidewalks at 10MPH and it's too slow for bike lanes where cyclists often want to go 15MPH. We don't have space to accommodate them and cities are often unwilling to make even minor changes to their infrastructure, never mind the large changes that would be needed to accommodate Segways throughout cities - and take away space from other modes of transit like cars.
E-bikes piggyback on roads and bike infrastructure that cyclists have been using for a long time. It's often less than ideal infrastructure, but it works. Likewise, bike parking accommodates e-bikes in a way that it might not accommodate a Segway as well.
E-bikes are also a lot cheaper. $1,000 can get you a solid e-bike (RadPower just launched its RadMission 1 today at $999). While many e-bikes are $2,000-$3,000, that's still around a third of the price of a Segway. Walmart has some e-bikes for around $700 which are nothing amazing, but have more speed and range than a Segway.
E-bikes typically have a lot more range than a Segway. While a Segway X2 SE has a range of 12 miles, e-bikes typically start at 25 miles of range for low-end bikes on very high assist levels. My e-bike ($1,500 purchase price) is rated for 50 miles and I can usually get 80+ on eco mode which still offers decent assist.
I think there's definitely utility in mid-speed (10-30 MPH, faster than walking, not quite car speed), battery-powered, lightweight transit devices. I just think that Segway missed the mark with something that was way too expensive, put riders in a riding position they didn't really like, had a control system that didn't seem to connect with people as much as it needed to, and didn't fit in with existing infrastructure enough. We're seeing a huge surge in demand for these type of devices, just not Segways. Heck, Ninebot (who purchased Segway) is selling loads of electric powered razor-style scooters.
I loved the iBOT. When I heard that the creator of the iBOT was making a mobility device, I expected something amazing. The iBOT was a wheelchair that could go up and down stairs and keep someone at a 5-7 foot height. It seemed amazing. Then the Segway was introduced and I thought "how on earth could someone think cities would be reconfigured for this?" It seemed to ignore what we knew about what people liked to ride while being incredibly expensive and generally less useful.
I can use my e-bike for so many things. I can get around my city with little worry about range and I'm usually faster than car traffic. I don't have to worry about range because I have so much extra. If I had a Segway, I'd be moving about at under 10MPH (with traffic signals and such) and I'd be constantly worried about range. 12 miles is a short distance for a round trip. If I travel 6 miles on my e-bike, I have at least 40 miles of range left. If I travel 6 miles on a Segway, I'm down to half my battery - or less if there were hills. I might not have power to get back.
The Segway was just never useful enough and it cost so much. E-bikes, electric kick-scooters, electric long-boards, etc. are all showing that there's a big market for mid-speed mobility tech. There just wasn't a market for Segways.
The bike is a Packster 80. The new ones since I bought mine have more power. https://www.splendidcycles.com/products/riese-and-muller/rie...
It wasn't a problem that needed solving, but it was a solution that rich people rediscovered. I guess two-stroke engines were beneath them?
That this bike is expensive has nothing in the slightest to do with it being electric.
Too much maintenance with mixing up oil and gas.
Why doens't an E-bike doesn't need annual inspection while something like
does require annual inspection? Still looking for a real lightweight bike with an ICE. Speed wouldn't matter, 20MPH / 30km/h would sound reasonable.
Emission testing as a moped, which is inapplicable to e-bikes.
(Probably also some bureaucracy, but that's separate.)
> lightweight bike with an ICE
That's an oxymoron. You can, however, get lightweight and entirely stealthy e-bike.
That gives you much more for much less, saves you the terrible noise of a small ICE with improper exhaust dampening, saves you a lot of maintenance, and probably also saves you and those around you some lung cancer while we're at it.
Alternative interpretation: It wasn't a problem that you needed solving, but others may have had a different experience.
Cargo e-bikes are vary niche, but still have real advantages over two stroke engines.
 By scooter I mean the Vespa variety not the children’s toy.
So I never considered buying a mid-motor ebike.
Having it apply torque via the chain/belt also mean you can gear the motor output on your back wheel.
They weight near nothing for power levels legal on bicycles.
Even on low end mopeds, motor weight is not that big of a problem.
It is at power levels of around 7.5kw, when it becomes a problem.
Or, of course, I could buy a cheaper regular gas car. One main benefit of a car is resale value. I'm pretty much guaranteed that it'll sell for not a lot less than what I bought it for, especially if I buy it several years used.
Prior to the 2016 model year, the Volt required premium gasoline of (R+M)/2 octane rating of 91 or higher because the higher octane permitted the 10.5:1 compression ratio engine to use more ignition timing advance to maximize fuel efficiency by 5 to 10% compared to regular gasoline. For users who drive mostly in electric mode, and to avoid maintenance problems caused by storing the same gasoline in the tank for months, the 2011 Volt has a sealed and pressurized fuel tank to avoid evaporation. As a result, the fuel filler must be depressurized before opening the tank. Also, the engine management system monitors the time since the engine last ran, and prompts the driver to run past the 40-mile (64 km) all-electric range before recharging to consume some gasoline. If the driver does not run on gasoline, the system automatically runs the maintenance mode, which starts the engine to consume some of the aging fuel and circulate fluids within the engine.
However, according to https://www.cars.com/articles/does-the-chevy-volt-require-pr...:
Premium gas will maximize the fuel economy when the engine is used, GM powertrain spokesman Tom Read said. In an emergency, regular gas can be used on the Volt, but fuel economy will be compromised, and the engine may become noisier. The Chevy Volt’s engine computer will detect the octane change and retard ignition timing. Still, Read highly recommends refilling the Volt’s tank with premium fuel as soon as possible to avoid damaging the engine.
Also, from https://www.reddit.com/r/volt/comments/5nghhu/do_i_really_ne...:
Premium gas has a much longer shelf life and even though the gas tank is pressure sealed, lower grades of gas can chemically degrade over time (ethanol can oxidize into acetic acid in certain conditions). Not sure how the gen 2 volts deal with that but maybe the pressure sealing works better than expected. Besides that you will get worse gas mileage as the timing is adjusted for a smaller compression ratio (higher compression = more efficient otto cycle) and carbon build up could occur on the exhaust manifold with reduced exhaust gas temps, but who knows. I don't think you'll see a real impact in engine life if you burn all the gas in the tank always and you run premium occasionally.
There's nothing in this bike that makes it reasonable to price it like a small car.
I love biking but 8 grand is just taking the Mickey.
On the other hand an $8000 bike, while it may work just fine for OP, is absolutely insane for most people out there. You can get the same functionality out of a <$2000 bike. Regardless, the way OP is using it is neither safe, not legal. I hope it was done just for the photo op and some Twitter likes but I would hate to be around that bike when one of those chairs fall off, or a gust of wind catches the payload like a sail, or simply ride past it and be forced to move further into the traffic or pedestrian lanes to go around Oversized Load here...
Love your ride so much you want to display it in the living room? Can't do that with a car :-D
You've clearly never seen houses of millionaires.
And anyway, I like my bike but since it's always full of dust from the streets or brake pads and even worse when it's raining why would I bring it in the living room, that's just crazy. My bike is tool to get me from A to B, not a hobby to spend my time tinkering with or cleaning every day.
Funny thing is, when I first saw cargo bikes when I moved here I thought they were super goofy, but after trying one I was blown away at how functional they are. I can just imagine people in my hometown being very confused if we ever take it back to the UK.
I own a similar sized and prized cargo bike. It replaces all my urban transportation needs, carrying me and my 3yo kid and all the cargo we need. It’s cargo capacity is in line with a small car. My average speed in the city is about 20km/h which is very much in line with a cars average speed in an urban setting. On many of our daily commutes it’s even faster than a car. For us, it entirely replaces a car. It’s cheaper to maintain. I can largely fix it myself.
I ride it for about 3000-4000 km per year, which is a definite indicator that it’s not a toy device.
Personally I almost always buy my bikes second hand, there are always deals to be had where bikes are only a few months old and are sold with a 50% or more discount.
I agree with you comparison to cars. In the last five years prices have significantly gone down thanks to big players like Decathlon or online brands, but they're still quite high. 500 euros can buy you 1000 kg of second hand metal, or an entry-level bicycle. I know there's more to it, but I still don't understand why good quality bicycles cost so much to produce.
Brussels and cities in Wallonia can be very hilly and valley-y and require either a good enough bike and/or physical condition. Outside of the cities, Ravel are a good way to travel and avoiding small roads when cars are going way to fast because of habits. An e-bike in those cities is really a nice tools to navigate. The bike infrastructure is not as much there than in Flanders but it will finally come to the same level, I hope. I see way less cargo bike than in the Netherlands too but that will come with the bike infrastructure because riding the city is still tough IMO.
There's also the mix of leisure practice of cycling that clashes with a more practical use. In the first case, bikes are almost a Veblen good. People are happy to spend crazy amounts of money to save what is in the end very little weight.
For instance I recently looked SRAM Eagle groupset prices. The cheapest version is $380, and the most expensive one is $1,381. The weights are 2032 g and 1,502 g respectively. Almost 4 times the price for saving 25% of the weight!
Consumers that are ready to spend that amount of money get a lot of attention from the industry, that has little incentive to cater to the needs of daily cycling commuters, who're looking for cheap, reliable and durable bikes.
But new bikes get stolen to be chopped up for parts regularly. Joke on the subject: The bike theft report form for the Netherlands contains a field labelled: "Where did you steal the bike yourself?"
If you want a car, the value is not comparable, and you should get a car.
If you do not want a car (for any reason), it doesn't make any sense to "compare value".
I do not understand why so many people react with "you could get a car for this much" when looking at expensive E-bikes. Well, perhaps you could, but so what? A car is not equivalent to an E-bike, except that they are both options for transportation. But so is public transport, an airplane, an 18-wheel truck and a cargo ship.
In my case, while I would probably not want an $8000 cargo bike, I do not have a problem paying around $2000 for a good quality E-bike — and I would not compare it to a car, nor would I compare it to an 18-wheel truck. It's a different mode of transport.
But it depends where you are. American towns and cities are largely built for cars. Many European cities are built for walking and are pedestrianizing their city centers. Depending on your situation there's no need for a car aside from really occasional use. Calling a cargo bike "purely a high-class fashion vehicle" is not correct.
But that's true of any motor vehicle that isn't a sub-$1000 used Corolla.
Buying a $10,000 e-bike isn't something I'd do personally, but it's certainly no crazier than buying a $100,000 Tesla.
Mobility choices are lifestyle choices. Buying a bicycle means getting rid of parking issue and exercising everyday by default, without the cost of having to decide to do it. Despite road violence coming from car drivers, it's less stressful because it keeps you connected to your environment. The value of a bike compared to a car is like the value of a lower paying job that has less pressure, in a lower cost of living area, a shorter commute, and better offices and colleagues. You can't compare them easily.
Agreed, but for opposite reasons. As someone living in a city I drive a few times a year. I bike 200kms a week, though. So the value of a bicycle is vastly better.
You don't know anything about electric cargo bikes, but you're confident in judging them anyway. Why?
The response is quite mind boggling. Are you really implying a vehicle with engine, safety systems that have been refined for a century and probably has markup in single digit percents is less valuable than a niche product that produced for the high-class with a 1000 percent markup?
I know many tech people are spoiled high class citizens but this thread is just ridiculous. There's nothing wrong you liking the bike just don't judge the rest of the world's peasants claiming that it could equate and replace whatever poor people are using.
The ignorance displayed here is astounding. Appealing to the length of cars' history, when bikes have been around for even longer? Really?
> produced for the high-class with a 1000 percent markup?
Even more absurdity. I'm sure the markup is higher than for cars, but a thousand percent just reveals how little you know in a subject you're nevertheless overwhelmingly confident on.
You complain about the actual knowledgeable people being "spoiled high class citizens", even as you advertise your ignorance on the subject with nearly every sentence.
It's a niche product for upper class urban citizen, of course markup is high here. You can't serisouly be thinking that a electric bicycle has actually worth 8000$ of parts right? Not even 4000$, right?
The first car dates from 1769, the first bicycle from 1839.
The other poster said Home Depot though so is most likely American. Go reply to that person with your myopic views.
And yes, different countries, different prices, requirements etc. Comparison is fallacious but taking inspiration of something done in another part of the world and applying it with the constraints of your own environment is always useful.
The question of mobility is much centred around the mobility in urban areas of various sizes. I may project here because I used to live in urban areas most of my life.
unrelated, it's been too long - we should grab lunch after this mess starts to settle down :)
That garage holds 12500 bikes!
Getting hit by one of these would be not much different than getting hit by a small car, yet they race along narrow bicycle lanes, next to little children learning to drive their bicycles. I hope these get banned soon.
But personally I think electric scooters are the future rather than e-bikes. They are simpler to maintain and cheaper to produce. I think eventually (in the next 5 years) they will get significantly cheaper as well, owing to improvements in competition, volume, and battery tech - imagine if the current M365 cost only $100 new. They’re fast enough for the bike lane or streets, and they’re small enough that it’s less scary encountering them on a sidewalk. And you can bring them on public transportation more easily.
Even now you can get that M365 for less than $400 (think I paid 350), amortized over a year that’s about $1/day and all you need to do is keep the tires pumped/replaced and charge it. It’s perfect for me for “last mile” to and form public transportation
Only issue is the rough roads - when I want to ride on the rough roads I use bike.
In every other aspect e-scooter is better: doesn't require special outfit; I don't sweat; it's compact enough to take it to the shop or cafe (without bending); less details I need to care about - pedals, brakes, speed switches, saddle - I just use what I've bought and it works fine. My bikes usually worth ~$500 (same as e-scooter) and they requiere some fixes/replacements from time to time. Scooter had just one flat tire replacement, that's all.
So people wearing helmets riding on bikes are mostly doing it for legal not safety reasons, regardless if they know it or not.
However this is likely to change very soon since COVID-19 - there is "urgent legislation" on e-scooter rental trials going on: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/legalising-renta...
Infuriatingly, privately owned e-scooters will remain illegal even if rental fleets are legal. I do not understand why it would be legal to drive a rented e-scooter, but illegal to drive a privately owned e-scooter :-/
But the Government's hand is being partly forced here. Despite the current legal situation many many people have e-scooters and use the on the streets.
They are widely sold, even on the high street by major chains like Halford's etc, and the current restrictions are widely ignored or not seen as a priority by all parties, as it is quite rightly seen as hopelessly out of date by everyone expect perhaps the Department for Transport.
> But the scooters, which are already in widespread, if unlawful, use across the UK, will initially only be allowed in four “future transport zones”: Portsmouth and Southampton; the West of England Combined Authority (WECA); Derby and Nottingham; and the West Midlands.
I agree it is not super-fast, but for use in urban environments 15mph would be pretty usable I reckon. My pre-lockdown commute in london on the tube would take about 35 minutes door to door. Walking it is 4.2 miles, cycling 4.9 miles. lets call it 5 miles for sake of argument.
So for a 12.5mph scooter it would be 24 minutes.
For a 15.5mph scooter it would be 20 minutes.
That is pretty good I reckon - it takes me 10 minutes to walk to the tube station, so to be half-way/almost half-way to work before I would have even got to the station would be pretty decent I think.
Only thing is, this all makes sense when it is glorious sunshine and warm outside. It might be less appealing in December :-)
In theory a scooter would be legal on roads if you could convince the DfT you met the safety regs, had a type certificate, license plate, VIN etc - it would still be illegal to use on a bike lane and I don't know that anyone has managed to do this!
The people who say "who cares if you look like a dork" either have a less-important use case for their own public-facing image than others, or exist in a cultural facet that perceives those things as more culturally acceptable. Even some people whose personal appearance is extremely professionally important— lawyers for example— can withstand looking really square because the cultural context they exist in calls for it. If a bouncer at a nightclub looked as square as a lawyer, their job would be a lot harder. A lawyer would get raked over the coals for wearing a club bouncer's poorly-tailored polyester suit. Your appearance influences most people's perception of you, and their appearance influences your perception of them, whether you care to admit it or not.
I mean, I know some people who thought google glass looked cool. I wouldn't wear google glass if it could make me fly.
Speaking of which, now that the Segways are done for, I wonder if Google Glass will overtake them as the cultural icon for dorkiness in the aughts? I heard people explain google glass as being like "a Segway for your face." I wonder if now Segways are going to be "like Google Glass you could ride."
But when a lot of people decide to look like dorks for a while, that effect wears off. Everyone made fun of the e-scooters for the first few months they came out, but they’re just so darn practical, they’re not weird anymore.
I think your right on the other part though. The Segway's target market is people that live and work and play mostly within a 1.5 mile radius. Unfortunately the original Segway was too expensive but more critically, far too big and bulky. The target market which stays within a tiny region are able to do so because it's so dense. But that density means that apartments (and stairwells and elevators) are too small to fit the original Segway. Nor did it fit well in the trunk of a car. Leaving very few buyers outside of Segway tours for tourists.
I have a steel frame touring bike that I use to get to work on (a Trek 520 clone) occasionally. It's great but if it was a bit easier I would probably commute by bike more often.
For my needs, I ended up with a geared rear-wheel hub kit, as the motor is smaller and hidden by the gears and disc brakes. The battery came from Luna Cycle.
(the power limit is on average, btw, not peak power delivery, but that’s a nitpick)
You are probably also right about the power, but from my workout yesterday my avg was 242 watts, and peak 686 w. So I still think it's about the same 8)
Check out Endless Sphere.
E-bike is more likely to replace a car trip.
Of course it's not like these ideas were just waiting around for the taking when the Segway came out. Battery tech has gotten a lot better in the years since the introduction of the Segway, and a lot more is possible at various price points than it was at the time. It's clear that the Segway doesn't match up well against any of these lower cost devices today, but this class of device wasn't possible at a competitive price point when the Segway was released, either.
It's obviously not competitive now, but I'm not sure there was an alternative / more successful approach available when the Segway was released. The strongest case against the Segway, I suppose, is that "maybe it should have been a really expensive bicycle instead of a really expensive scooter," but I'm not sure it would have done any better. It's fundamentally the "really expensive" part that was always going to be a limiting factor, and there was no way around that.
That's car speed. It isn't highway speed, but when an ebike passes me at the dog beach doing 25mph I'm tempted to put a stick through the front spokes. In a car, 30mph in a school zone would get you a massive ticket ($$$+). Any vehicle capable of such things should be limited to the roads, plated and licensed like every other electric motorcycle. (Don't bother with the helmets. Darwin can work that one out.)
You're tempted to risk killing someone because they're doing something dangerous? I'm not sure that's a reasonable response.
So an ebike is typically a regular bike PLUS an electric motor. Not sure how that can be quieter than just the regular bike. You can definitely hear whirl of the electric motor as well.
>> Plenty of dogs, and people, are hit by ebikes
Last year only 9 of the total reported bicycle-pedestrian acidents in NYC were with e-bikes.
If you have a situation where dogs regularly interfere with bicycles and the other way around then I suspect that the problem is more with the dog owners (you?) than with the cyclists. I've been a dog owner for many years and my dogs have never been in a situation where cyclists would endanger it, though, I have to admit, one of my hounds once did endanger a cyclist by giving chase (pink spandex, not 100% the dogs fault, but then again they supposedly don't see color). I consider that wholly my fault, the dog pulled the leash right out of my hand and then refused to stop giving chase and that should have never happened.
It all sounds to me like you need something to be worked up about and you've decided that e-bikes are a menace to dogs when in fact the spaces where dogs are allowed to run free are not typically exclusive to dogs but are also shared by dogs with foot and cycle traffic. The responsibility for keeping the dogs and the other traffic safe lies squarely with the owner of the dog. A well mannered dog will stay with its owner and will not interfere with others on foot, bike or otherwise.
Finally, dogs are a much bigger danger to other pedestrians, and children in particular than your typical e-bike will ever be to a dog.
Bikes can stop faster, maneuver easier, and cause significantly less damage than a car when striking something. You rarely ever hear of bikes seriously harming pedestrians for a reason (but of course yes it does happen on occasion).
I'm not supporting dangerously biking through a school zone but this is a silly comparison to make, of course the fines would be lower for a bike.
Furthermore, in NYC, half of serious pedestrian injuries are caused by bikes, meaning a cyclist is about 200 times more likely to seriously injure a pedestrian than a driver.
I am all for bikes, but let’s not be delusional about the safety issues or basic physics of how poorly they brake.
I would be interested to see that citation.
I would also note that very very few people have ever been killed by a bicycle, which cannot be said for cars.
8 over the past 15 years, vs 2300 killed by cars: https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestria...
This absolutely false, but nice try.
2017 city wide stats:
Bicycles: 315 accidents involving pedestrians with 1 fatality.
Motor Vehicles: 10,561 and 106 pedestrian fatalities. Not to mention 4,397 bicycle injuries and 24 fatalities.
I am not against bikes, cities need better infrastructures, I only needed to drive once on a busy city and I said that I never do it again.
A longer distance car drive may happen on a highway fully separated from pedestrians, while cyclists are almost always on bike lanes right next to sidewalks or trails/paths basically shared with pedestrians.
Car infrastructure in most places probably has had 1000x as much money pumped into it as bike infrastructure. If bikes had even 10% of that, you could have luxury, hyper-safe bike paths anywhere and everywhere.
Motorcycles can also generally brake at 1G, again limited by the presence of an ABS system, so it's not a physics question, it's that either you have bad brakes or you do not know how to brake on a bike. Even only using the rear wheel should allow you significantly more than .3G
I measured my mountain bike, and the seat is 41” high, and 35” behind the front contact patch. This is terrible for braking, though not entirely out of line with some of the fancy road bikes in the bike room. I should probably get a different bike, as I am quite sure I go over the handle bars at about .3g rather than the more normal .5g.
At any rate, I am not sure how one learns limit braking on a bike. Modern cars the computer does it for you if you just stomp the pedal and some cars even do it preemptively with collision avoidance.
It's really quite simple. And you learn it with cursory research about braking on bicycles. Really this ought to be taught in schools.
Indeed, it is actually possible to brake ever so slightly more efficiently without ABS than with ABS using very slight wheel slip, and smoother braking allows for weight pre-loading going into a turn.
According to this study, braking using both wheels on modern motorcycles (And, by extension, modern bicycles as both have in the past decade standardized braking systems that operate at the limit of grip) achieved .75G +- .15G. This is without ABS, and the limit using perfect braking at higher speeds yielded deceleration rates greater than 1G.
If the average, skilled rider is able to achieve .7G on modern bikes, this is not at all worse than cars where the average driver is assumed to brake at .4G. According to https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/vehicle_stopping_distance_and_ti... , a moderately skilled driver is assumed to be able to brake at about .5-.6G. This compares favorably.
As for braking technique, it is about extracting as much braking force as possible from the rear tire, then attempting to lower one's center of gravity by leaning down and backwards. An absolutely crucial difference is that in a car, braking is very detrimental to turning, causing over-steer. This is not so on a bicycle or motorcycle, which contributes furthermore to safety, as most accidents are avoided via steering, then steering and braking, and then only braking.
According to this, braking forces of up to 0.83G are possible on a normal bicycle, without suspension nor special positioning: http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/braking-pitchover.pdf
So the argument is that it isn't bad when a small percentage of cyclists hit 25 - 30 mph, but when all of them are able to that is where the issue is.
My personal feeling, however, is that especially the models that are pedal assist (where you put some effort into it, and it multiples your effort) is a good way to get otherwise low-fitness people to bike ride more. The more cyclists, the more push for bicycle friendly infrastructure. And people still get exercise on them, more so than in a car.
But regardless of powered vs unpowered, anyone that rides a bicycle fast by pedestrians and dogs is doing it wrong. On an ebike, it should be no effort to slow down to 5 - 8 mph, then speed back up after passing someone.
I can’t wait for pedal assist ebikes to become more affordable. It opens up biking as an option for a lot more journeys, not just for lower-fitness people, but in regions where it’s hilly.
For where I live in Los Angeles, the places I bike to are a couple of miles away (or close enough that walking makes more sense), but uphill all the way. Having pedal assist would mean that I don’t arrive sweaty with tired legs. I don’t need to go 25mph, just 10mph with less effort.
Second type is torque sensing. This is quite a bit more expensive (an additional couple hundred, plus higher installation skills if you are converting yourself).
Another note is that most assists don't sense hills, so you will have to manually adjust the assist level when going up hill. So at that point, using a throttle-only setup, with a throttle lock (hold throttle in a position for 2 seconds and it keeps it at that setting) works really well. In that case it gives you the sensation of having a good wind at your back helping you out.
The primary cost can be the battery -- anywhere from 200 to 1000, depending on capacity and quality. Second is the motor, 200 - 500. Some come with kits that give you simple throttle control, or you may want to add an advanced ebike computer kit (like I mentioned in the previous comment).
All told, I'm about 1200 in my ebike, plus the bike itself.
Electric bikes allow people who don’t have fast riding skills to ride faster than they can control, which makes them a danger to other users of the footpath.
E-bike users usually have a better handle on the control part than the users of other motorized vehicles, if not they won't make it past the first turn. Besides that, all e-bikes sold legally have a motor that progressively down-tunes as it approaches it's legal limit speed (usually at or near 15 mph / 24 km/h). That's easily achievable on a regular bike so people can't ride faster than they could normally. They can however do so for longer and it takes them less effort to start up or go against the wind or up a hill.
Even worse are the high powered e-bikes (rated for 50kph, helmet required), because their users ride them as if they're either a bike or a scooter depending on the situation, zipping between bike lanes and the road whenever. And they're silent.
You won't see me near one, going fast on a racing bike is already dangerous enough, anything faster and I'll take four wheels over two any day.
Yes, but all other motorized vehicles need a licensed operator and to be driven on a road, which I think should be the case for e bikes as well
> That's easily achievable on a regular bike
That really depends on your definition of a regular bike.
The Japanese commuter bikes everyone rides to work or school might get up to 10km/h with some effort.
Giving someone who has only ever rode at about a pedestrian’s jogging or running pace a machine that can hit twice that is a recipe for injuries or death.
TL;DR: E bike riders should be licensed and not share footpaths with pedestrians
Requiring high school age kids to get a license for a bicycle would make absolutely no sense because there is nothing that such a license would give them that they didn't already have. Traffic lessons start pretty early at school here and by the time kids are 10-12 depending on how good they are at this they go to school on their bikes by themselves.
What really helps is that bike traffic here gets prioritized in many places over vehicles, that hitting a cyclist with a car is going to get you into a lot of trouble and that most vehicle drivers are also cyclists. Those things more than anything else helps to keep cyclists safe.
It makes sense that's why my opinion is that e Bikes are too fast to be used on footpaths and yours is different.
> What really helps is that bike traffic here gets prioritized in many places over vehicles, that hitting a cyclist with a car is going to get you into a lot of trouble and that most vehicle drivers are also cyclists. Those things more than anything else helps to keep cyclists safe.
This is exactly the same in Japan. A car hitting a bike is automatically judged to be at fault even if the bike was breaking traffic laws, so drivers are very cautious. In principal the same applies to cyclists vs pedestrians.
That of course, doesn't stop people from being terrible drivers or cyclists!
I don't think there should be a draconian licensing scheme, just the same rules that apply to the slowest grade of motorcycles (speed limit 30 km/h)
- Must pass a theory test. The moped test written test is quite easy but anyone who can pass it will know basic road rules and that pedestrians always have the right of way, and that if you hit someone you are in big, big trouble.
- age 16+
- must wear a helmet
* < 10 km.h^-1 & < 15 kilograms vehicle for pedestrian paths (Which would for exemple allow small kids to ride there).
* < 25 km.h^-1 < 30 kilograms for the bike lane equivalent.
* > 25 km.h^1 or > 30 kilograms on the road.
The tour I did in DC had 3 accidents in 75 minutes with ambulances called for two of them. It was wild.
Sorry I have to ask but this reads weird to me, but do you mean accidents in DC or accidents with 3 people from your tour?
The next one was going off a sidewalk if memory serves but was minor.
The third one was over on the north side of the Capitol- we were idling around while the guide was talking and this older lady in her fifties or sixties was kinda floating through the crowd but didn't seem out of control- she went around this big tree and either lost control or wasn't paying attention as it was getting dark and went full speed around the side of a tree and ran right in to a lamp post. It knocked her out.
I was getting nervous riding back feeling like we were all going to experience some mishap.
Not saying that was the only factor, it could easily have been the tour guide not giving adequate safety instructions or simply people ignoring those instructions... or a mixture of all three!
I think the marketing approach they took was part of the problem. I remember early segway ads and stuff, they always took this elitist 'we're going to change the world' sort of spin with their ads that was trying to appeal to a higher end market more interested in fads than anything else. They hooked the 'stubborn early adoptors' while alienating the larger market. At least in my opinion.
This is how their marketing always came across to me and probably helped form my opinions on segways and similar vehicles in general and I doubt I'm alone in my views.
The funny thing is, I bet if they'd found a way to appeal to the extreme sports market they may have found a small niche for themselves. Strange vehicles like this seem to keep a strange second life in that market.
I still see people occasionally riding those razor scooters that were popular for a while in the early 2000's, but, it's always people that are really good at them have spent lots of money customizing them and use them for trick riding. And of course, the skateboard, which has gone through a ton of designs and incarnations, but has been kept alive for half a century or more by people pushing it do the limits. Despite being fairly impractical for primary transportation and I tried for a while as a teenager.
I'm not sure if segways are the best for this, but I bet with some effort, they could have created a small market there that would probably still be popular.
On that note though, I do still see a fair amount of people riding devices clearly inspired by the segway, those handle-less varieties and other gyroscope balanced things and such. So, I think they're not dead so much as they've evolved and the concept of 'personal electric vehicle' has grown beyond what the segway originally was.
I do feel like the electric vehicle future they marketed is coming, they're just not the leaders they told us they'd be and instead of one strange new thing, we've got a variety of things now and on the horizon.
Never seen a segway advert, so I never really got an elitist vibe from them (although I did see one for a similar product marketed at kids called a dareway - it was this kind of standing Davros chair thing that balanced on two drive wheels and a number of hidden casters).
Since everyone using them was still also learning how to ride them, they were constantly crashing into cars, people, dogs, gardens, and anything else that wasn't moving out of their way. The complaints to the city were endless, and I think the local alderman managed to get some kind of restrictions on them.
I thought they seemed like a good idea, though a little large. I expected they'd eventually take off, but now that I live somewhere that tourists don't venture, I'd actually forgotten that Segways exist.
The critical thing for all of those, though, is that they can work as last mile devices because you can carry them indoors, onto buses/trains, etc. A segway is strictly worse than a bike in that regard because you still have to park it outside somewhere, but it's an awkward shape that doesn't fit into the usual facilities for doing so (and obviously it wasn't supposed to get wet, either).
Still, it's scary to think about how dangerous they are and iirc you can ride them without any sort of motorcycle license.
Got pulled over for going down a "one way after dark" street. Asked the cop how I was supposed to know. He said "Natives just do." Didn't give me a ticket though.
Sorry, random unrelated memories.
I look at a Segway and wonder where that deck would intersect with my ankles today.
All in all, the Segway tours were a really great way to see a lot of things you don't normally see at Disney. I would totally recommend taking the tour if they still offered it.
They were especially great in hilly Rome. We hit all the major spots within a few hours. Cruising around the Circus was pretty cool!
But -- we all had minor falls at some point. Cobble-stone streets are not to be messed with!
It's the last place on earth I would consider getting on a Segway with the speed/mess of traffic I encountered.
Even riding a bus felt like a serious gamble.
Walk, take the public bus, take the metro.
Skip tuktuks, Segways, quads, organized tours, "sightseeing" private double decker buses.
Gentrification is killing the beauty of Europe and other places, tired feet or not.
Yes, do as the locals do is a great way to go about actually knowing a place. But if you want to spend one day of your multi-day trip ticking off things to see in a more efficient fashion-- on a "hop-on, hop-off" bus or Segway or whatever-- go for it. I've been on several trips with my kids (youngest, now 6) where a day of easy sightseeing in the middle has been a lifesaver.
Locals just have to pick up the trash, see the prices skyrocket and remember how unique the place uses to be.
Have a nice day.
It's not the occasional use of a bus tour that does it.
You'll have to find a different boogeyman to blame instead of a symptom.
Here are some of his recent comments:
Americans systematically avoid hard discussions, to preserve that "everyone is happy" feeling
Just look at a typical city council video in the United States. Everyone who is there is old (because they have nothing better to do than spending 4 hours in a city council meeting), 60+, and they're against anything new.
But dorky stuff can be a lot of fun. Maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker but "dorky" doesn't have a super negative connotation to me, it can be quite endearing actually.
Dorky is such a razor-edge. Basically it means you're doing something culturally unusual that maybe has connotations of being "too technical" at the expense of, I guess aesthetics. Like using technology to get around instead of moving through the world like a graceful gazelle with pure and beautiful movements that approach art, you know like all of us do all the time when we're not on Segways riiiight? (cue 5 seconds of news report on obesity epidemic with the usual footage of random overweight people lumbering down the street)
Thing is, even iPhones were dorky at first. So then how did iPhones become cool (except secretly as a Gen-Xer who lived 10 years of life without so much as an Atari, I still think you're all dorks and myself too but anyway) but Segways remained dorky? Ironically the only explanation I come up with is that they (Segways) never became wildly popular. But that's essentially a circular argument. I dunno, I dont expect I'll ever be able to explain the behavior of "the crowd."
Segway made it into Weird Al's "White and Nerdy" parody song https://youtu.be/N9qYF9DZPdw?t=74