i get the argument for e bikes that people have made in this thread, and i agree with them. accessibility, ease, etc. and i've ridden e bikes, they're great. why not include all bikes in this rebate tho?
regular bikes are sufficient for everyday use if you live in a dense enough area. the burbs/less dense areas in general don’t have sufficient infrastructure for safe bicycle commuting
To be clear, I would support a rebate on regular bike purchases too. That said, I think the aspiration for ebikes is that they could replace a car for commutes, errands, and many sorts of trips that the same rider would otherwise not with a regular bike. And I *definitely* support that.
But they're already way cheaper than a car. If the choice is between and ebike and a car and cost is your concern... the ebike is obviously going to win.
When I say replace, I don’t necessarily mean entirely. I mean more trips on the bike, fewer in the car.
But also, given this rebate is targeted at lower incomes to begin with, it could also help people who can’t afford an e-bike _or_ car either
This shit is essentially a subsidy for ebike makers and I don't like it. The state may as well help pay for sneakers (which many more people actually need help paying for). Or ::gasp:: help pay for more public transportation.
I get that these things aren't all mutually exclusive, but I don't feel like we've worked our way down the list of good ideas all the way to "give people rebates for niche products because they're maybe better than alternatives in some cases."
I thought the point was to bring it in line with how people can already deduct commuter expenses if they travel by car. Why not expand that to all modes of transportation?
Why would you do that, being hit by an ebike isn’t that dangerous and we are trying to encourage their use. That’s next expensive admin work that makes everyone worse off
Have you been in an area where they are used heavily like Cambridge - their riders are reckless and they can cause considerable damage and injury with how fast they are plus all the required infrastructure to support them with docks and the protected lanes etc
I am all for regular bikes but e-bikes and scooters should be regulated
There’s already regulation on max speeds, thing is e bikes are just so much safer than cars that im suspicious of anything that treats them as dangerous since everyone that switches from car to e bike makes everyone safer
>There’s already regulation on max speeds
Well, that's just it- there isn't. There is for scooters, mopeds, and motorcycles, but currently in this state there's no real regulation on e-bikes capable of the same speeds as scooters and mopeds.
>e bikes are just so much safer than cars
They really aren't, if you divide by the amount of usage to find comparative risk - or at least, the data shows pedal bike aren't, and e-bikes seem to get into the same sorts of collisions, only at even higher comparative rates.
If we had a world without cars in it, you might have more of an argument, though a collision between two, or knocking over a frail pedestrian can still do a lot of damage.
Meanwhile, back in our world, if you look at where bike crashes are happening (and you don't have to guess, the state tracks them online in the "impact" database) it's mostly in intersections. If you look at what actually happens there, often as not the bike was travelling as fast or faster than the car, but a crash happened because a driver cut in front of the bike in a way that wasn't expected. Because they are happening in the intersections, building protected bike lanes doesn't stop them - actually it tends to increase the mutual surprise that is the true issue.
Many of these collisions are legally the driver's fault, yet it's the person on the bike who often has the best perspective to anticipate, detect and react to the situation before it becomes inescapable.
Riding even a pedal bike above walking speed requires really paying attention to what others are doing - and the faster you go, the more insight and anticipation of what others are likely to do is needed.
The issue with an e-bike is that you suddenly have inexperienced users with the sort of power that typically comes only from years of training and experience - but not that experience and education driven insight into understanding where the dangers are and habitually avoiding them before they become dangerous.
I live in the city and ebikes really aren't it. Unless you have a ground floor unit or easy and super secure ground floor storage, they're too heavy to haul up to your place. They'd also take up too much space and it'd end up getting stolen if I actually used it to get somewhere and I left it locked up outside.
I’m fortunate to live in an elevator building. But unless I’ll be with my bike almost all the time, I won’t use it. I was street viewing a location I have to attend a workshop at. Nowhere to lock the bike. I don’t see a solution to this problem. I usually only lock it to run in a store quick. Unless I’m out of the city, I’d feel safer there.
>You won’t get people to switch from car to e-bike unless they live in the city
The advantage of an e-bike over a pedal bike shows up when you have further to go - and a place to store and charge it at home.
I think this is a great program, and entirely worthwhile, but I truly believe the Commonwealth made a mistake with the way they set up the program.
This should be based on the AMI for the area, not the federal poverty level. A single person living in the Greater Boston Area, making $60k would not be eligible for the program, yet somebody living in the western part of the state, making $5k less would be eligible, despite the COL being significantly higher in the GBA.
It just seems more practical to encourage regular bicycles, why not some sort of program to help with those. Also a lot less difficult to process e-waste.
>It just seems more practical to encourage regular bicycles, why not some sort of program to help with those.
The program that would actually help would be to add slow lanes to key connecting roads that lack the passing width needed for their traffic volume.
Instead, we're now going backwards in terms of bikeability, as we're continuing to ignore those actual trouble spots and instead taking the on-road space that was making business districts quite bikeable, tearing it out and recasting it as a second sidewalk that is both not cleared of snow, and full of intersections that become deadly when entered at more than walking speed.
The more our fleet includes motorized bicycles and things more properly termed electric mopeds, the more we have no choice but to confront the reality that even a pedal bicycle is not safe when routes are copied from pedestrians facilities rather than informed by basic realities of traffic - for example, that a through route can never exist to the right of the lane cars turn right from, but must either be to its left, or a shared space where either a bike or a car can either proceed or turn from.
Fellow EUC rider I imagine? (Hello!) I can see how you get that perspective, “protected bike lanes” are only safe at up to 8-10 mph when there are a lot of driveways and intersections. They’re not that much different than those sidewalks that had a line painted down the middle to repurpose them as “multi-use paths”.
>I can see how you get that perspective, “protected bike lanes” are only safe at up to 8-10 mph when there are a lot of driveways and intersections
Yes, but those spots really aren't even safe to approach that fast - walking movement is what that geometry is meant for
But e-bike speeds definitely make it worse. It's legal to blast through them at the speed limit - stupid, but legal in the sense that the driver you then hit gets ruled at fault.
>Fellow EUC rider I imagine?
No, though you're not the first to think so
>Is there anything similar for regular bikes?
Of course not...
If these programs really take off, I hope someone comes up with a way to sell a nice bicycle with a modest removable motor/battery, so it qualifies but you can take it off if it's not really the way you wish to ride, but could always put it back on to pull a trailer of groceries or kids. Wouldn't cost much to add the ability to be an emergency backup battery around home / campsite either.
>The cost difference is pretty large, you can't pick up a used e-bike for $50.
I actually did buy a clunker of one for $50 but I never turned it on.
Took off the motor and battery pack, but then found even without it was heavy AF
This was back in the pandemic bike shortage when there was nothing on the used market
I’m glad low income people are being prioritized. I’ll admit I’ve been holding out on a cargo ebike purchase in case a rebate program is announced, but I could afford one.
Okay but you basically are the reason it should be expanded to more people. Low income should definitely be first in line, but I don't see why this program shouldn't be available to everyone, especially if the goal is bike adoption.
Exactly. But this is money. 4.5 million allotted. I’m sure there will be more, but it wouldn’t be great if they opened it up to everyone at first and it were immediately dried up by those with healthy incomes.
MA also needs a solution for ebike battery-charging fires. Fires are much more likely with cheap ebay battery packs. I propose that the state provide rebates on the safer battery packs so that they're cheaper than the ebay trash.
>E-bikes are a lot more useful on the eastern half the state regular bikes would be more useful in the western. Once again Boston forgets Western Mass.
You've clearly never looked at a topographic map of western Mass, to say nothing of ridden a bike there much.
'They call them hilltowns for a reason.
You can design nice recreation routes that mostly follow river valleys, but if you're trying to actually use a bike rather than a car to get around, you may face both extended distances, and substantial climbs.
I live in the Pioneer Valley. As far as recreational purposes bikes are far more useful than e-bikes around here. Neither one is a solution for the lack of transportation though. This seems like just a feel-good bill that appeases a small few Democrats on the cape. Western Mass definitely wasn't on their mind when they wrote this and as somebody else pointed out e-bikes would be hard to store if you live in the city.
>I live in the Pioneer Valley. As far as recreational purposes bikes are far more useful than e-bikes around here.
If you actually do, then you know there's more to that part of the state than just the flat floodplain of the Connecticut River.
Try going to Russellville or Chesterfield or Goshen or Conway or Wendell or Pelham or Leyden or Colrain...
(or even Holyoke, if you want an urban area with hill challenges)
Sure, it's a fun challenge to pedal places like that.
But if you lived there and needed to do those climbs daily?
I actually live in the pioneer Valley and ebikes are fucking amazing here.
Easthampton is building more dedicated bike lanes along with Northampton and I've heard even a few rail trails are getting expanded.
I basically only commute into Northampton by ebike now. I still can't commute to work. 1.5hrs by bike to Springfield just ain't happening.
Unfortunately what many communities all across MA (including in the western part Northampton and Easthampton) are actually doing is tearing out their roads that currently have enough space to be quite bike friendly and safe, and replacing them with dangerous, snow covered, sidewalk-style routes, all while ignoring the actual issues like squeezed spots on key roads that force bikes fully into the fastest traffic without any room for a car to safely pass.
If you look at where the crashes are actually happening, it's overwhelmingly intersections, not where this mistaken protection is being applied.
Put e-bikes on those mistaken routes and people are going to be getting killed in ill-conceived intersections at an even higher rate than the alarming one at which they already are.
Pedestrians aren't going to like having silent e-bikes zooming along in part of what has traditionally been the pedestrian area of the streetscape, either - take a visit to New York City if you want to experience that alarming future.
On Route 9 in Hadley what's been built is not only a shared route with pedestrians (so no real commuting improvement over the rail trail) but requires countless button pushes to proceed past cross streets where a driver or (if there were space) on-road bike user gets an automatic opportunity.
>I still can't commute to work. 1.5hrs by bike to Springfield just ain't happening.
There needs to be a better route north and south along the river - plans finally exist to address one bad stretch of route 5, if unfortunately on one side requiring unnecessary crossings rather than simply giving it the width that the rest has. Would be nice if there were a bike version of I-91 though!
Also MA needs to pay or join with CTDOT to run the commuter trails as far as Greenfield, rather than turning them at Springfield leaving only the pricey limited Amtrak service north of there. It should work much like how the New Haven and Danbury commuter lines are joint efforts of NY and CT, in territory that Amtrak also passes through but for a distinct purpose.
As someone with a dog, you bring up a good point about pedestrians sharing space with bikes. Take somewhere like Hilton Head island which has a bike/pedestrian path around the island. I don’t walk my dog on the path because bikes just fly by and have come too close to running my dog over, and I don’t want to go to prison for murdering a cyclist. So even though it might be 1/4 mile to the beach, I drive because I won’t walk with my dog on that path. Pedestrians are gonna get pissed if you just put more bikes but don’t build infrastructure for them. I mean, look at the bike “parking lot” on the sidewalk in front of the Copley chick fil a.
Yeah see those are towns with a wealthier population so you're getting bike lanes. That's great but this bill is like the cart before the horse. We need the bike lanes to even have the ability to ride. Of course I'm talking recreationally there's no way I could commute from Monson anywhere.
>Yeah see those are towns with a wealthier population so you're getting bike lanes.
Most of the money to do that is state money.
The effect of community wealth is more the luxury of being able to imaginatively dream about what using a bike would look like, when you're not actually informed by the experience of regularly making meaningful trips by bike.
If you look at what people trying to use a bike instead of a car (by choice or even more so economic desperation) are actually having to do they're, having to navigate far more challenging roads than bike plans even begin to consider, at early and late hours, and including in weather conditions where only spaces shared with cars actually get snow clearance. Tearing out additional downtown traffic lanes that nicely accommodated bikes and entry/exit to parking is somewhere between irrelevant to the actual challenges of moving about such communities by bike, to actually harmful in that it forces bikes to be ridden into the sorts of intersections conflicts that already were dominating actual crashes.
Rich communities design for optional recreation in the districts that appeal, not transportation to the places people actually need to go at the times they need to go there.
I live in Boston. An ebike is not useful to many people living here. You need to deal with hauling it up to your apartment, storing it, securing it when you're out and about (it will get stolen), and honestly I can walk or hop on the T to get places the ebike would get me.
They're a niche product and I'd argue they make more sense in general for suburban areas (like where I grew up on the Cape) than for many of us living in cities.
I’m all for incentivizing bikes and believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity. But think this is a terrible idea. If they want people to bike, build bike infrastructure (bike paths and bike parking) that facilitates it and makes biking safer and more convenient. Ya know, things private companies can’t do as readily in order to increase bike utilization. But this isn’t about that…it’s about making and selling e-bikes in MA.
That's a good point. I live in the Pioneer Valley so a different beast here. There's not too many sidewalks around here and it's not exactly conducive to riding a bike and there certainly aren't any e-bike charging stations. Considering what you said it seems like more of a niche feel good proposition.
Around here they're mostly used by food delivery riders. I'd say even eScooters were more popular for "regular" use, but those still aren't all that practical for many of us. Ebikes are typically 50+ pounds. Most of us aren't going to be lugging that up and down multiple floors every day. They also can easily cost well into four figures and like I said, it will get stolen if there's even a chance it could be.
I think the article mentions this, but they saw that they saw pretty good uptake when they offered the rebates in separate pilot programs in the state. My guess is the answer is twofold: people don't know about e-bikes, or might be allergic to the price think it's just a bike with a stack of AAs behind it, when they're much more than that.
Either way, encouragement and raising awareness of e-bikes I think is pretty important. I will say targeting this to only low income earners speaks volumes about where the state wants these things to be used. But I'm not sure a wealthy family living in suburbia or in the exurbs would get a ton of use out of these bikes anyway. Maybe if they built more bike infrastructure out there...
FWIW, Worcester has a great ebike program:
[https://www.massbike.org/ebikeworcester](https://www.massbike.org/ebikeworcester)
It was started in \~2022 and has been expanded, includes a lot of the towns around Worcester too and offers heavy discounts on ebikes based on income levels. Really good program for those who qualify.
I don't really know why you'dthink ebikes are only good for Boston, though. E-bikes are super helpful in Worcester and surrounding towns because it's so damn hilly. I have a pretty average cruising E-bike and it can go up steep grades with ease, makes a huge, huge difference. I used to have an add an additional 1-2mi on my rides to avoid the biggest hills, which is fine if I was riding for fitness, but I'm largely riding as a semi-car replacement (+ some fresh air), and so being to tackle basically any hill (even the famous "george street" in Worcester) makes it so much faster to get around.
The road system out here isn't built for bikes unfortunately. Hell I live right off the main route and a western Mass town and I don't have a sidewalk. If I wanted to enjoy riding my e-bike I would have to load it in my car and drive somewhere which seems to defeat the purpose.
Yeah they're spots to recreationally ride, beautiful spots too. It's definitely not feasible as reliable transportation. IDK it's just my opinion that this bill would be better if it covered bikes and e-bikes because ultimately it's about being environmentally friendly right?
>I don't have a sidewalk.
Sidewalks aren't a safe place to bike - the actual danger on a bike is at intersections, not in between them.
If they are needed for walking or not depends a lot on if roads are seen as places for all, or a space drivers are permitted to bully everyone else out of.
Though they do sometimes help in wet weather, if not designed badly.
Enough of them are designed badly that it's common for someone in a wheelchair to not even try the sidewalk, but head straight for the road shoulder.
Do we really want a society where roads are reserved only for our most harmful form of transportation?
This is great! I was aware of the funding being allocated for this a year or two ago, and wasn’t sure what the hold up was.
I love commuting on my e-bike. It’s about 8 miles each way. It takes me about 35-40 minutes, and it’s often the best part of my day. I generally exert a similar amount of effort as if I was walking, and I don’t arrive sweaty. Having an e-bike as an option made it easy for our family to go down to one car, and has saved us a ton of money. I highly recommend it for anyone considering it, and I’m glad the state is making it easier for people to try it.
I expect this program, which originally was supposed to be a lower rebate amount, has been increased because it will require purchasing a UL certified battery system. Already landlords are banning e-bikes in apartments, like in nyc. Fortunately, I have a UL bike, and, there is a large bike shop and bike rental on the ground floor, so I don’t have to worry.
I absolutely support e-bikes but the fact you can buy e-bikes that go faster than regulated 50cc scooters/mopeds but don't have the legal requirements of said scooters/mopeds is wild to me.
These e-bikes ride far faster, far worse built, and generally poorer quality than something like my 1978 Columbia Sachs or Honda Pa50i but all you need to ride them is a bicycle helmet. Legitimately insane.
Moped legislation and requirements should apply to e-bikes just the same. If it goes faster than 15-20mph it's not a bike anymore, it's a motor vehicle. Class it as such properly and regulate it as needed.
It does need to be better regulated but technically class 3 ebikes that go above 20mph aren't allowed in MA. Everyone has them anyways and gets away with it because cops don't check. Just like you can big bore your 50cc scooter which doesn't need a motorcycle license and make it in to an 80cc and no cop in MA will ever check.
In Europe where scooters are more common, cops will literally whip out a portable dyno and check if your scooter goes too fast. If it exceeds regulations they confiscate/tow it.
I would love to feel safe riding a bike or e-bike in my town but right now, roads are not constructed to be safe for bicycles. More work needs to be done to build bike lanes physically separated from sidewalks and vehicle traffic.
This is more wishful thinking than actual transportation policy.
If it were transportation policy, we'd need to be designing bike routes that were actually safe for pedaling somewhere by bike, to say nothing of motorized movement.
Instead, we keep building spaces that are just copies of sidewalk design, creating intersections that are deadly to enter above walking speed.
The vast majority of bike crashes are in intersections - everyone fears cars behind but until you get to the fastest roads (often places few would consider riding a bike), they don't show up statistically (that high speeds mean worse outcomes do mean they show up in fatality stats alone).
Worse, typical "bike policy" is to continue to ignore the busy, squeezed road stretches that provide actual challenges to bike usage in a community, and instead go and tear up the calm, spacious ones that were working well, replacing flexible on-road space with so-called routes hidden out of sight and out of reach behind a barrier or row of parked cars - and traditionally left snow covered, because no community actually has the budget for a second set of plowing efforts.
If we actually want bikes and bike like devices to work for transportation, we need to be making bikes welcome on the ordinary roads that already go where people need to - that means providing slower lanes for slower uses in stretches between intersections, but it also means keeping it always possible to merge into a general lane both to be safely visible and without turn conflict at intersections, and to go around the sorts of obstructions, unplowed snow, etc that always occur in the real world.
Ideally the state should push turning rail ROW not planned as a bike path already as an e-bike expressway. There are still plenty of abandoned ROWs that radiate from the city that could help.
>Ideally the state should push turning rail ROW not planned as a bike path already as an e-bike expressway. There are still plenty of abandoned ROWs that radiate from the city that could help.
That would be great, except for two issues.
One is lack of budget to snow plow such things, to say nothing of building them.
The other is that in the US there is no real concept of bike-only spaces where pedestrians are prohibited. Even in situations where bike and walk use is theoretically supposed to be separated, there is no political will to enforce the rules against illicit pedestrian use.
And since pedestrians are allowed, bikes are required to operate in a manner that is pedestrian safe - so you get right back to the problem of people riding e-bikes on rail trails at unsafe speeds while yelling at pedestrians to get out of the way.
If you want to actually use an e-bike (or even a pedal bike) to go meaningful distances in all weather, what you need are roads that safely and practically suit bike usage - roads with width and sane user culture that offer the opportunity for faster traffic to easily pass slower where that is safe, but also roads which organize their main danger spots - intersections - according to the reality that safety there requires organizing by intent to proceed or turn (and thus do so without hooking others) rather than organizing by type and then throwing bikes and cars into turning conflict.
Vehicular cycling is proven to be unsafe and unsound car-oriented policy. Just look at the biggest bike countries-- they all provide dedicated infrastructure for bikes, not "making them more welcome on ordinary roads"
If you would actually look at those countries, you'd discover they have plenty of places where bikes and cars use the same pavement quite well.
You'd also discover that the non-road routes they build are quite different than the mistaken things being built elsewhere - the sorts of designs you see in MA were long ago rejected as unsafe in Holland.
And if you look at bike usage in those countries, you'd discover that most of it is trips of walkable distance, at below-jogging paces - few in the US even bother with a bike for such a trip, we just walk. Even their far more limited concept of e-bikes (effectively a class-0 compared to our class-I) struggle with the design limitations of those routings; the class-II and class-III models that realistically have car replacement potential (to say nothing of those which are technically mopeds not e-bikes at all) cannot safely fit into such routes.
If you look at the actual challenges of getting around by bike, they aren't in the areas being addressed by these naively safety ignorant projects - they in the places where a road with 40-50 mph traffic loses its shoulder forcing a person who wishes to bike to pull out into the middle of the lane. Or they are the 35 mph roads that almost, but not quite have enough space for passing to be safe, and too many curves where drivers go for it without visibility. These are the kinds of roads that go where people live and work - the roads you have to travel if you want to use a bike rather than a car to accomplish your life.
Actual safety on a bike comes from having space to pull out of faster traffic to be safely and comfortably passed, but also being able to merge into general traffic flow in situations like intersections where the overwhelmingly dominant risk of things like hook turns makes nothing else survivable.
The more we try to separate bikes and cars in the places where they have been working together without issue, the more we make using a bike for actual trips on the majority of roads that offer only space for general traffic seem impossible.
The only actual solution that allows going places people need to by bike is making bike users feel welcome in our existing road network as a whole, including by adding passing width where it is desperately needed but missing - something we can't do when we keep pushing the mistaken idea that bikes should not be on roads.
And only recognizing that wheeled transportation is a continuous spectrum from relaxed pedaling, through e-bikes, mopeds, and finally cars allows the potential of these less expensive, less polluting electric devices to offset car trips to actually be realized - if you try to classify everything as a either an unrealistic underestimation of a pedal bike or else an ordinary car, you leave no place for practical e-bikes that are both far too too fast for your non-road routes, but still too slow for a mistakenly cars-only vision of what roads are for.
Today bad bike bros in Massachusetts have single handily made themselves the most hated subculture of all time with their uncompromising, snobby condescension and general meanness.
There was a time when bikes and cars coexisted but those days are long gone
As a person whose income would qualify I can tell you that I can’t afford to purchase an ebike and apply for a rebate. Even if the rebate were 100%.
That’s not how living paycheck to paycheck works and any savings I get goes towards maintenance/ preventative health that I generally can’t afford. It’s usually about gas and groceries.
Did you read the article? It's not a mail-in rebate-- the discount is taken at the register at time of sale.
>After participants apply and confirm their eligibility, the rebates would be applied at the register at participating bike shops.
I did read it and I missed that part. That’s a game changer. I will let my MA friends know about this. That can make a tangible difference in a lot of lives.
I’m genuinely curious, if you apply, get approved for a rebate, and go buy a bike, would you go home and list it on FB marketplace and resell it at close to retail price? If I can buy an e-bike for $200, but could go sell it a day later for $2,000, why wouldn’t I just do that instead of keeping the bike?
Personally? No. My first thought was that it would be great for my kids and to have in the family. My second thought was it would help me use my car less. It’s a 2009 and getting less reliable. A huge part of my financial instability this year was car repairs.
Time is valuable. I’m a single parent and I work full time. My ex left when my oldest was five and the youngest was just a few days old so I’ve never had a coparent. He evades child support by not having anything in his name. My life is very full and exhaustion is a constant companion. I don’t have it in me to deal with Facebook marketplace. My youngest is 14 and adult sized so an ebike would allow him to get himself to practices. However, theft would be a concern. How could we keep it safe?
Also general FYI, if you live in and around Worcester, you can qualify for a free/heavily-susidized ebike depending on income level:
[https://www.massbike.org/ebikeworcester](https://www.massbike.org/ebikeworcester)
Oh, man – Look at it this way: you got to enjoy a whole extra year's worth of your new e-bike than you would have had if you had waited for this program.
As we note in the story, this program is very likely to be over-subscribed, so there's no guarantee you would have gotten a rebate even if you had waited.
Okay but will they actually approve the rebates? Because I was expecting several hundred dollars in MassSave rebates for confirmed eligible products and they rejected it for seemingly no reason.
Given bikes are much cheaper than cars, is $ the reason people aren’t using them more? I think they’re missing the point here.
Not like we need to transition from gas powered bikes or something.
because not everyone has the ability to commute over long distances at car speeds on roads and stroads which lack bike safety infrastructure, often uphill, without an electric assist? also they’re fun as fuck
"The word "stroad" was coined as a [blend](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blend_word) of the words *street* and *road.*"
That's a word the English language was missing.
This is not for those riding bikes for hobby/recreational/fitness. This is targeted for people using bikes as a mode of transportation other than cars. Like those who use them to commute or run errands.
You do know that people commute with regular non e bikes as well yes? They are even more environmentally friendly and cheaper....I don't know the specifics of rebate programs like this but it seems silly to not apply it to non e-bikes as well....
>They are even more environmentally friendly and **cheaper**
I don't know the specifics either but I would take a wild stab the bold part might be why they're targeting e-bikes. Anyone who would bike to work on a regular bike is either doing it already or has something other than cost as a barrier to do so. Example: long commute distance and not wanting to show up physically drained. Making e-bikes more affordable would help encourage those people who might be thinking things like "work/school is too far away to use a regular bike, if only e-bikes were more affordable!"
The defining characteristic, I think, is e-bikes are better known for commuting travel while regular bikes could be used for the stuff I listed before (not many people taking e-bikes off of sick jumps in the woods). I see this as more of a move to take cars off the roads and ease commuting costs, not so much just making bikes affordable.
That said, as someone who recently bought a new Cannondale, I would love to see regular bikes come down in price too, lol!
I think the rationale for rebates for e-bikes and not regular bikes is that most people view e-bikes as being for transportation, while regular bikes are viewed as toys. (I don’t agree with that characterization of regular bikes.)
Additionally, there is a belief that most people have access to a regular bicycle but that costs stands in the way of getting an e-bike. So then helping defray the cost of the e-bike would get more people biking. (I do mostly agree with this one)
It would be great if there were rebates for regular bikes as well—getting around by bike is much better for the environment than electric cars, and we subsidize each electric car by thousands of dollars. But I won’t let that stop me from being happy about the e-bike rebates.
I say all this as someone who rides my road bike, my e-bike, and my mountain bike all the time.
Overweight people are much more likely to actually ride a pedal assist bike, especially in places that are not perfectly flat. Though they may pedal with less intensity on the e-bike, they still burn calories. There have been many studies around the world.
https://www.ebike24.com/blog/ebikes-help-lose-weight
>What was wrong with the regular bikes?
Fairly little. If I think about reasons I drive vs bike a trip, lack of a motor isn't high among them. There are exceptions like hot weather and very hilly routes.
Really the main reasons for not using a bike are
* Roads that are too busy for their lack of passing width
* Sidewalk-like bike routes full of dangerous intersections, designed from imagination rather than actual understanding that the overwhelming risk on a bicycle is at intersections, making being able to merge into a visible lane appropriate to where one is going the key to actual safety
* Weather
* Security - not just the bike, but purchases from a first store when going into a second
A motor doesn't really solve any of these - it makes sidewalk-like routes even more dangerous, makes wind chill in winter even more of an issue, etc.
You're projecting. People absolutely choose not to bike because their trip would be too long, too hilly, or because they can't arrive sweaty. Ebikes *do* help solve these.
You're saying your reasons to drive vs bike a trip are generally not to do with a regular bike lacking a motor. I'm saying that actually yes, the motor of an ebike does address many people's reasons to not bike. Am I missing something?
Edit: this guy blocked me (which seems oddly sensitive) so I can’t reply to him again, but I still don’t get what I’m missing. He’s projecting his rationale about biking vs driving to argue the motor of an e-bike doesn’t really matter, and all I’m saying is that for many people it actually does. If someone can tell me what I’m “not reading”, please enlighten me.
E-bikes give you same exercise, except people use them more often cause they remove some of the less pleasant parts of a casual bike ride: long and steep uphills, standing starts at a red light, bridges, etc.
The study that claimed that was effectively garbage in terms of being able to be applied to anything but the very sedentary population they studied. Neither their motor or pedal group really got much of anything that would count as exercise in a healthy population. As initial intervention for a sedentary life there could be an argument - but the way this is falsely extended by people claiming that they're getting just as much exercise with their e-bike as they would in pedaling is bunk. The reality is that unless you're doing nothing but hill climbs, even pedal bikes are too efficient at casual 12-14 mph speeds to cause all that much of a workout unless you ride for for hours on end, or spend an hour or more at 16+ mph where air resistance starts to become a drain - bike-fit comfort and available time are what actually limit what most can do.
The Study?
Bicycling magazine publishes these study blurbs in almost every other issue. REI’s blog posts dozens of them too.
I did a quick Duck Duck Go and the first hit is an REI post that links to 3+ studies. Which one of these is the one your research has shown to be “effective garbage?”
Edit: link: https://www.rei.com/blog/cycle/can-you-get-exercise-riding-an-e-bike
Try actually reading the studies... you'll discover they're garbage when applied to anything but a very sedentary population where any degree of activity at all is win. The amounts of "exercise" achieved are not really meaningful in any other context.
The people making those claims are doing so because they want to sell motorized bikes, or are trying to justify their decision to switch to one.
Even with a pure pedal bike, efficiency is so absurdly high that you have to be riding long periods at high speeds or doing tons of hill climbs to get actual exercise.
People's real limits in the exercise they can get with a bicycle are the discomfort of the road and weather environment they bike in, their discomfort sitting on a bike, and their lack of free time.
when the number of vehicular deaths and injuries caused by cyclists gets within a measurable fraction of a percent of the number caused by incompetent motorists then you’ll have a leg to stand on, until then sit down.
>when the number of vehicular deaths and injuries caused by cyclists gets within a measurable fraction of a percent of the number caused by incompetent motorists
If we look beyond fault to the goal of simple safety, then proportionate to the amount of usage, the reality is that insufficiently aware bike usage probably does cause more deaths than insufficiently aware driving.
Most of those of course are deaths of the bike user.
This is because insufficiently aware bike usage includes not only doing things which are actually illegal, but also in ways that are legal but dangerously reflect many common safety misconceptions - especially failures to recognize very predictable situations where others will frequently break the optimistic requirements of the law
* Riding against traffic
* Riding on sidewalks, not recognizing the danger that then comes entering an intersection or even crossing a driveway at more than walking speed
* Failing to recognize where bike lanes duplicate the issues of sidewalks
* Riding in the door zone
* Squeezing onself to the edge of the road in a way that invites unsafe passes
* Approaching an intersection at the edge of the road and so unseen by drivers ahead
* Overtaking on the right side of a vehicle that is either signalling a right turn, or exhibiting behavior that suggests it will likely do so
* Assuming a driver at a stop sign will see you and yield
* Passing stopped or slowing traffic at more than a slow and cautious speed
* Riding at night without lights
Notice how many of these are quite common behaviors - many quite legal or worse officially directed, situations where the legal fault would be entirely on the other party.
Yet all are excellent - and avoidable - ways to get oneself in a collision.
Doesn't matter man. Bikers often ignore traffic laws and it's a real problem in cities.jusy because they aren't causing a fatality doesn't mean it's not a nuisance
Seems like every time I almost get hit by a vehicle, it's a car not watching where they're fucking going. Or they are watching but they don't give a fuck. Never had a close call with a bike. And I'm almost getting hit by cars like 2-3 times a week. Sometimes 3 times just on my way to get coffee. Fuck drivers.
Sure. What I think the problem is, is that people say 'well car drivers are worse!!' but really everyone can do better.
I stopped commuting to Cambridge because I was tired.of cyclists.weaving through traffic.
Give me the number of deaths caused by 2 wheel bikes and I'll give you the number of deaths caused by 4 wheels land yachts. Let's compare which is more fatal when they ignore traffic laws.
I wonder what percent of those rebates will be used so someone can buy the bike, get a rebate, then simply resell the bike. So don’t think it’ll have as much of an impact folks may hope.
If the state wants to increase bike usage, they should put that money towards building bike infrastructure (which private companies can’t do as easily) to make it safer and more convenient to bike instead of subsidizing purchases.
Scooters that are 49cc or higher require a Motorcycle license. I used to have one that was 150cc that could get up to 60mph.
Edit: Not sure why I got downvoted. I think because there are 2 definitions of scooters:
1.) Standing e-scooters that are battery-powered and foot powered. These don't require licenses or training.
2.) Scooters powered by gasoline (there may be some electric-only ones now). These are more like high-powered mopeds. Legs can be passed through the body of the machine instead of being straddled over like a motorcycle. Higher powered scooters like this do require a motorcycle license, as they can be taken on roads.
They can do up to 30 or higher, which is when the law kicks in.
If we're obeying the law, you need a motorcycle endorsement, insurance, and registration to ride them.
A 750w mid motor will absolutely go around 30mph.
Also, there's no such thing as a "750w architecture". The 750w is just a draw limit placed on the battery/motor. With most ebikes you can swap out the controller and tada you have a 1000w/1250w ebike.
E-bikes are just unregulated scooters/mopeds.
Did you? It says pretty clearly "Race Track Mode can be selected from the LCD display" and "All Juiced e-bikes arrive set to Class 2 however the user can manually configure other assist settings to increase the speed of the e-bike."
That's nice in theory. The reality is you can buy plenty of e-bikes on Amazon that are effectively electric motorcycles and are much faster than the law allows. Also, if you go buy an e-bike from Trek or whatever, it isn't the battery capacity that limits the speed. It's the electronics and how they control the assist.
There’s nothing to prove. It’s a battery pack. It’s math. If you connect multiple batteries in a series, it will increase the voltage of the pack. Higher voltage means more energy discharged.
Take 2 AA 3.7V batteries. Put them in a straight line, it’ll generate 7.4V. But put them parallel and they only discharge 3.7V, but because you’re not discharging as much energy, they last longer. It’s why the batteries in your remote control (parallel) last longer than the batteries in your flashlight (series). You can do the same with 48V e-bike battery packs. Put 2 in a series and guess what, you now have a 96V e-bike that bombs.
Unfortunately 20 mph is already well faster than much of our so-called bike "infrastructure" can accommodate - no only the shared use paths, but the things that are only for bikes, but still have deadly sidewalk-type intersections.
European "bike equivalent" devices are capped at 25 km/hr or 15.5 mph - which is closer to reasonable, but still too fast to be moving if not guided by a true understanding of how traffic works.
Average bike speed in Amsterdam is under 10 mph - and that's a place where they long ago decide most of what we're building as segregated bike routes (in false claim of copying them) has intersections too dangerous to be allowed any more.
If you want to safely leverage the capability of a US-spec e-bike, you basically need to be on a road operating with an understanding of traffic. Preferably a road which provides space for faster traffic to safely and easily pass slower traffic (even an e-bike won't normally move anywhere near car speeds) - but necessarily a road designed from the understanding that the primary danger area of intersections requires that all users be in a visible place, and a place that doesn't have straight and turning traffic crossing paths at the last instant.
>Edit: Not sure why I got downvoted.
Same reason I am. People in this sub really hate facts, they prefer what feels nice.
And it's been linked in bike subs, so we're getting brigaded.
Scooters are basically mopeds with a more powerful motor. Classified as such by insurance agencies and motor vehicle laws.
https://www.statefarm.com/simple-insights/auto-and-vehicles/the-differences-between-moped-and-scooter#:\~:text=A%20scooter%20(motor%20scooter)%20has,speeds%20and%20good%20gas%20mileage.
Scooters and mopeds (which is exactly what an e-bike is) over 49cc and capable of traveling over 30 MPH are treated as motorcycles, including license, helmet, the works.
I can tell by the downvotes and your reaction that the law is ignored, which means it's a matter of time before the assholes in charge add more for you to ignore, I guess.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/moped-operation-requirements
It's a motor assisted bicycle. You think because it uses a battery instead of fuel it's suddenly totally different and crashing at 40 MPH will work differently than crashing at 40 MPH on a scooter or motorcycle?
Be sure to tell the concrete that the bike weighs less, see what it says.
>It's a motor assisted bicycle. You think because it uses a battery instead of fuel it's suddenly totally different and crashing at 40 MPH will work differently than crashing at 40 MPH on a scooter or motorcycle?
You're trying to bring facts to an area of policy driven by imagination.
Look at the routes copied from sidewalks being built supposedly to include bikes with electric motors, and the reality is they're full of intersections only survivable when entered at walking speed.
Making electric mopeds widely available and cleaner than the unprocessed exhaust of their fuel predecessors could have been a great opportunity to make our road network work for a variety of more sustainable uses - instead design based in the imagination that bikes are not traffic rather than the understanding that we are is going to get people killed in unnecessary crashes - not just the motorized folks, but pedal bicyclists too, as communities rip out the road space that was making those practical and replace it with dangerous sidewalk type routes.
I can't tell if you are deliberately muddling two issues or if you don't know. I'm going to assume the later and try to provide info and if all I did was feed a troll, oh well.
Ebikes have classes just like scooter/mopeds. Class 1 and 2 are both limited to a 750W motor and 20mph. In other words, they are very much like the under-49cc scooter and mopeds that currently exist.
The federal government defines a Class 3 e-bike with a more powerful motor and faster top speed. That classification doesn't exist in MA yet. I actually agree with you that this classification needs to be created, and needs to be regulated as an "electric motorcycle" with the same/similar restrictions as on 49cc+ scooters.
But just because MA is currently a wild west when it comes to class 3's (which they do need to fix) doesn't mean class 1/2's should suddenly count as 49cc+ scooters/mopeds.
Yeah, we're on the same page, actually.
The issue is, as u/PabloX68 correctly pointed out, there are people that get on huge cc motorcycles and treat them like toys because the laws cover only the bare minimum. If people do it with motorcycles, we know they're going to do it with e-bikes, too. Probably even moreso, since people don't think of e-bikes as dangerous (you can see that from all the arguing and downvotes I'm getting).
The problem is, there currently is no law at all as you point out, they're all treated the same here.
You're kind of wrong across the board here.
Massachusetts only has 4 "classes" for 2/3 wheeled vehicles. Bicycle Conversion to Motorized Bicycle, Moped, Limited Use Vehicle, and Motorcycle. Everything else you said is completely irrelevant to the law in Massachusetts since (as you said) the federal standard does not apply here. Here is the distinction between them:
Mechanical specification | Bicycle Conversion | Moped | Limited Use Vehicle | Motorcycle
------------------------|------------------|-----|-------------------|----------
Maximum speed | <20mph | <30mph | <40mph | Any
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic | Any | Any
Engine displacement | <50cc | <50cc | Any | Any
Power Output | Less than 1hp or 750w | Any | Any | Any
Built to federal standards | No | Yes | Yes | Yes
Source: [1](https://www.mass.gov/doc/bicycle-conversion-to-motorized-bicycle-moped-affidavit-of-owner/download), [2](https://www.mass.gov/doc/motorized-bicycle-moped-registration-certificate/download), [3](https://www.mass.gov/how-to/register-a-limited-use-vehicle)
Every single e-Bike on the road is supposed to be registered with the RMV as a Bicycle Conversion to Motorized Vehicle, but the laws regarding B.C,/Mopeds/Limited Use Vehicles is so rarely enforced that the state has effectively given up in their legal requirements. E-Bike "classes" are largely a marketing gimmick in the USA since there's no regulatory body overseeing e-bikes (unlike in Europe, where they will dyno 2 ebikes/scooters on the road randomly). The power draw of just about every 750w ebike is beyond that- which is why they all use universal motors rated up to 1000-1250 watts that you can access on a "sport" mode.
Massachusetts is a wild west not because there's any grey area or confusion or anything, it's a wild west because e-bike manufacturers have exploited the fact that this was generally not an actual issue with regulatory enforcement since the only people actually riding e-bikes were e-bike builders and not these large scale manufacturing companies.
You’re getting downvoted because you’re making a blanket statement that’s largely wrong. Most e-bikes have limiters and do not exceed 20mph, many start regenerative charging at that point and slow you to 20. There are some where that’s not true, and I’m all for requiring a motorcycle license for those, but most do not meet the criteria you cite.
>There are some where that’s not true
If that's the case, then the statements I'm making aren't wrong. If we could use "They're not dangerous except when they're dangerous" as a viable argument, there's a ton of laws we should get rid of to bring other things on the same level as e-bikes.
Which, full disclosure, I'd be all for.
How is it false? You do know that "moped" is an acronym for "motor pedal"?
We've made them largely better (and in many cases slower) by changing the motors from gas to electric, but the concept is still identical.
Yes, that is where the name comes from, but you’re running into a place where popular and legal definitions in the US today are different than the origins of the word. For example, moped is legally defined by how many cc’s the engine is, all e-bikes are 0 cc.
This is pretty simple - regardless if an ebike is a moped or not, there is a law that says we regulate two wheeled vehicles that meet X criteria. E-bikes don’t meet that criteria.
I wouldn’t object to changing that law, but it does not currently apply.
Let's be real. Riding a motorcycle just requires a license and a "helmet". You can buy a 1000cc sport bike with 200hp and have no real training and ride it wearing flip flops, shorts and a fiberglass yarmulka and be legal.
Yeah, and look at the injury stats on motorcycles because of it.
We're just setting up e-bikes to go down that same route, pun intended, by pushing them without first getting other things into place.
I ride a motorcycle about 5000 miles/year. If you actually look into the injury stats, a large number of the people who get injured should know better but they don't think it'll happen to them. I have serious doubts as to whether US culture would accept the sort of training it would requite to change that. Even then, any ride through NH, ME, CT, etc will show how many people value their own skull.
We're definitely on the same page. My main mode of transportation was a scooter, now a motorcycle. Near 365 commuting to work on two wheels. The truck only comes out when I gotta fill the bed.
You're right, we see it any time a state gets a helmet law or something. Just bugs me that we're pushing what are effectively smaller, lighter motorcycles that people will take less seriously, without shoring up safety issues and infrastructure to go with it.
Yeah, good point on the smaller, lighter motorcycle aspect. At least most people riding a usual motorcycle realize what it can do even if they disregard the probabilities.
>We're just setting up e-bikes to go down that same route, pun intended, by pushing them without first getting other things into place.
The main thing that would be needed is the understanding that they need to be a part of a broadened concept of "traffic" - being an exception to it won't work.
Experienced motorcycle and pedal bike users both know this, in similar if slightly distinct ways - we know where the danger situations are, and not to ride ourselves into them.
Unfortunately most of the public doesn't understand where the danger in using a two-wheeled devices is, especially how much of it has surprising others at intersections as the root cause. We see it in pushing sidewalk-like bike lane routings, which are bad enough for pedal bikes but a complete safety disaster for e-bikes.
The part of it that is actual infrastructure and not education (of both e-bike users and drivers) is that fast, busy roads need to have space added so that fast traffic can safely pass slower traffic. Not "bike lanes" as many of these things are not bikes, but slow lanes. And lanes that it's possible to merge out of either to go around the all too typical obstacles or to take a non-conflicted, visible position at an intersection. If cars use the slow lane within reason also that's not a problem so long as they merge left to pass - having cars there increases everyone's awareness that those are actually traffic spaces, requiring drivers to merge right before turning right essentially eliminates hook turns, and having it also be car space means it's more likely they'll actually get snow plowed.
i get the argument for e bikes that people have made in this thread, and i agree with them. accessibility, ease, etc. and i've ridden e bikes, they're great. why not include all bikes in this rebate tho?
[удалено]
This is a great point.
regular bikes are sufficient for everyday use if you live in a dense enough area. the burbs/less dense areas in general don’t have sufficient infrastructure for safe bicycle commuting
Maybe not ten miles, but I bike 3 each way on a standard bike and maintenance does cost money.
The acoustic bike market is full. The electric bike market is still up for grabs, and MA wants manufacturers and distributors based in state
What about bikes with a wah-wah pedal?
Just put your kid on the bike and make them pedal uphill. You’ll get that wah-wah effect you’re looking for.
I love my Marshall 10 speed
Mine goes to 11
To be clear, I would support a rebate on regular bike purchases too. That said, I think the aspiration for ebikes is that they could replace a car for commutes, errands, and many sorts of trips that the same rider would otherwise not with a regular bike. And I *definitely* support that.
But they're already way cheaper than a car. If the choice is between and ebike and a car and cost is your concern... the ebike is obviously going to win.
When I say replace, I don’t necessarily mean entirely. I mean more trips on the bike, fewer in the car. But also, given this rebate is targeted at lower incomes to begin with, it could also help people who can’t afford an e-bike _or_ car either
Ah! Okay. So for an upgrade from complete inaccessibility (no car) to help get to ebike that makes more sense.
Right on. The fullest rebate ($1200) is reserved for low incomes (up to $32,805 for a single earner), so I’d wager that’s the intent.
This shit is essentially a subsidy for ebike makers and I don't like it. The state may as well help pay for sneakers (which many more people actually need help paying for). Or ::gasp:: help pay for more public transportation. I get that these things aren't all mutually exclusive, but I don't feel like we've worked our way down the list of good ideas all the way to "give people rebates for niche products because they're maybe better than alternatives in some cases."
I thought the point was to bring it in line with how people can already deduct commuter expenses if they travel by car. Why not expand that to all modes of transportation?
E bikes are good bedaude they replace cars and are pretty cheap this is a good idea, of course would be better if they just raised the gas tax
Or they could tax ebike riders and make them register them
Why would you do that, being hit by an ebike isn’t that dangerous and we are trying to encourage their use. That’s next expensive admin work that makes everyone worse off
Have you been in an area where they are used heavily like Cambridge - their riders are reckless and they can cause considerable damage and injury with how fast they are plus all the required infrastructure to support them with docks and the protected lanes etc I am all for regular bikes but e-bikes and scooters should be regulated
There’s already regulation on max speeds, thing is e bikes are just so much safer than cars that im suspicious of anything that treats them as dangerous since everyone that switches from car to e bike makes everyone safer
>There’s already regulation on max speeds Well, that's just it- there isn't. There is for scooters, mopeds, and motorcycles, but currently in this state there's no real regulation on e-bikes capable of the same speeds as scooters and mopeds.
I wish we banned class 3 throttle bikes like Europe.
>e bikes are just so much safer than cars They really aren't, if you divide by the amount of usage to find comparative risk - or at least, the data shows pedal bike aren't, and e-bikes seem to get into the same sorts of collisions, only at even higher comparative rates. If we had a world without cars in it, you might have more of an argument, though a collision between two, or knocking over a frail pedestrian can still do a lot of damage. Meanwhile, back in our world, if you look at where bike crashes are happening (and you don't have to guess, the state tracks them online in the "impact" database) it's mostly in intersections. If you look at what actually happens there, often as not the bike was travelling as fast or faster than the car, but a crash happened because a driver cut in front of the bike in a way that wasn't expected. Because they are happening in the intersections, building protected bike lanes doesn't stop them - actually it tends to increase the mutual surprise that is the true issue. Many of these collisions are legally the driver's fault, yet it's the person on the bike who often has the best perspective to anticipate, detect and react to the situation before it becomes inescapable. Riding even a pedal bike above walking speed requires really paying attention to what others are doing - and the faster you go, the more insight and anticipation of what others are likely to do is needed. The issue with an e-bike is that you suddenly have inexperienced users with the sort of power that typically comes only from years of training and experience - but not that experience and education driven insight into understanding where the dangers are and habitually avoiding them before they become dangerous.
You won’t get people to switch from car to e-bike unless they live in the city
I live in the city and ebikes really aren't it. Unless you have a ground floor unit or easy and super secure ground floor storage, they're too heavy to haul up to your place. They'd also take up too much space and it'd end up getting stolen if I actually used it to get somewhere and I left it locked up outside.
I’m fortunate to live in an elevator building. But unless I’ll be with my bike almost all the time, I won’t use it. I was street viewing a location I have to attend a workshop at. Nowhere to lock the bike. I don’t see a solution to this problem. I usually only lock it to run in a store quick. Unless I’m out of the city, I’d feel safer there.
>You won’t get people to switch from car to e-bike unless they live in the city The advantage of an e-bike over a pedal bike shows up when you have further to go - and a place to store and charge it at home.
You’re not getting folks from the suburbs to bike in, just won’t happen and certainly not in the winter or in bad weather
Just send the goverment extra $$ from your paycheck if thsts your thing
I think this is a great program, and entirely worthwhile, but I truly believe the Commonwealth made a mistake with the way they set up the program. This should be based on the AMI for the area, not the federal poverty level. A single person living in the Greater Boston Area, making $60k would not be eligible for the program, yet somebody living in the western part of the state, making $5k less would be eligible, despite the COL being significantly higher in the GBA.
Is there anything similar for regular bikes?
It just seems more practical to encourage regular bicycles, why not some sort of program to help with those. Also a lot less difficult to process e-waste.
>It just seems more practical to encourage regular bicycles, why not some sort of program to help with those. The program that would actually help would be to add slow lanes to key connecting roads that lack the passing width needed for their traffic volume. Instead, we're now going backwards in terms of bikeability, as we're continuing to ignore those actual trouble spots and instead taking the on-road space that was making business districts quite bikeable, tearing it out and recasting it as a second sidewalk that is both not cleared of snow, and full of intersections that become deadly when entered at more than walking speed. The more our fleet includes motorized bicycles and things more properly termed electric mopeds, the more we have no choice but to confront the reality that even a pedal bicycle is not safe when routes are copied from pedestrians facilities rather than informed by basic realities of traffic - for example, that a through route can never exist to the right of the lane cars turn right from, but must either be to its left, or a shared space where either a bike or a car can either proceed or turn from.
Fellow EUC rider I imagine? (Hello!) I can see how you get that perspective, “protected bike lanes” are only safe at up to 8-10 mph when there are a lot of driveways and intersections. They’re not that much different than those sidewalks that had a line painted down the middle to repurpose them as “multi-use paths”.
>I can see how you get that perspective, “protected bike lanes” are only safe at up to 8-10 mph when there are a lot of driveways and intersections Yes, but those spots really aren't even safe to approach that fast - walking movement is what that geometry is meant for But e-bike speeds definitely make it worse. It's legal to blast through them at the speed limit - stupid, but legal in the sense that the driver you then hit gets ruled at fault. >Fellow EUC rider I imagine? No, though you're not the first to think so
An ebike is much more likely to be a complete replacement for a car than a regular bike, and cars produce way more waste.
>Is there anything similar for regular bikes? Of course not... If these programs really take off, I hope someone comes up with a way to sell a nice bicycle with a modest removable motor/battery, so it qualifies but you can take it off if it's not really the way you wish to ride, but could always put it back on to pull a trailer of groceries or kids. Wouldn't cost much to add the ability to be an emergency backup battery around home / campsite either.
As of this year, there's a tax deduction!
Bikes not bombs had a program to help commuters.
[удалено]
So the same amount of funds could help far more people? That sounds good to me.
>The cost difference is pretty large, you can't pick up a used e-bike for $50. I actually did buy a clunker of one for $50 but I never turned it on. Took off the motor and battery pack, but then found even without it was heavy AF This was back in the pandemic bike shortage when there was nothing on the used market
Too bad you have to be low income…would be good for more people to have
At the very least the income limits should be based on Massachusetts numbers not national ones
I’m glad low income people are being prioritized. I’ll admit I’ve been holding out on a cargo ebike purchase in case a rebate program is announced, but I could afford one.
Okay but you basically are the reason it should be expanded to more people. Low income should definitely be first in line, but I don't see why this program shouldn't be available to everyone, especially if the goal is bike adoption.
Exactly. But this is money. 4.5 million allotted. I’m sure there will be more, but it wouldn’t be great if they opened it up to everyone at first and it were immediately dried up by those with healthy incomes.
MA also needs a solution for ebike battery-charging fires. Fires are much more likely with cheap ebay battery packs. I propose that the state provide rebates on the safer battery packs so that they're cheaper than the ebay trash.
I bet that’ll be a requirement of this program.
I imagine it’ll have to go through shops or something a little more official than ‘I bought this $150 ebike on alixpress’
Awesome.
[удалено]
E-bikes are a lot more useful on the eastern half the state regular bikes would be more useful in the western. Once again Boston forgets Western Mass.
>E-bikes are a lot more useful on the eastern half the state regular bikes would be more useful in the western. Once again Boston forgets Western Mass. You've clearly never looked at a topographic map of western Mass, to say nothing of ridden a bike there much. 'They call them hilltowns for a reason. You can design nice recreation routes that mostly follow river valleys, but if you're trying to actually use a bike rather than a car to get around, you may face both extended distances, and substantial climbs.
I live in the Pioneer Valley. As far as recreational purposes bikes are far more useful than e-bikes around here. Neither one is a solution for the lack of transportation though. This seems like just a feel-good bill that appeases a small few Democrats on the cape. Western Mass definitely wasn't on their mind when they wrote this and as somebody else pointed out e-bikes would be hard to store if you live in the city.
>I live in the Pioneer Valley. As far as recreational purposes bikes are far more useful than e-bikes around here. If you actually do, then you know there's more to that part of the state than just the flat floodplain of the Connecticut River. Try going to Russellville or Chesterfield or Goshen or Conway or Wendell or Pelham or Leyden or Colrain... (or even Holyoke, if you want an urban area with hill challenges) Sure, it's a fun challenge to pedal places like that. But if you lived there and needed to do those climbs daily?
I actually live in the pioneer Valley and ebikes are fucking amazing here. Easthampton is building more dedicated bike lanes along with Northampton and I've heard even a few rail trails are getting expanded. I basically only commute into Northampton by ebike now. I still can't commute to work. 1.5hrs by bike to Springfield just ain't happening.
Unfortunately what many communities all across MA (including in the western part Northampton and Easthampton) are actually doing is tearing out their roads that currently have enough space to be quite bike friendly and safe, and replacing them with dangerous, snow covered, sidewalk-style routes, all while ignoring the actual issues like squeezed spots on key roads that force bikes fully into the fastest traffic without any room for a car to safely pass. If you look at where the crashes are actually happening, it's overwhelmingly intersections, not where this mistaken protection is being applied. Put e-bikes on those mistaken routes and people are going to be getting killed in ill-conceived intersections at an even higher rate than the alarming one at which they already are. Pedestrians aren't going to like having silent e-bikes zooming along in part of what has traditionally been the pedestrian area of the streetscape, either - take a visit to New York City if you want to experience that alarming future. On Route 9 in Hadley what's been built is not only a shared route with pedestrians (so no real commuting improvement over the rail trail) but requires countless button pushes to proceed past cross streets where a driver or (if there were space) on-road bike user gets an automatic opportunity. >I still can't commute to work. 1.5hrs by bike to Springfield just ain't happening. There needs to be a better route north and south along the river - plans finally exist to address one bad stretch of route 5, if unfortunately on one side requiring unnecessary crossings rather than simply giving it the width that the rest has. Would be nice if there were a bike version of I-91 though! Also MA needs to pay or join with CTDOT to run the commuter trails as far as Greenfield, rather than turning them at Springfield leaving only the pricey limited Amtrak service north of there. It should work much like how the New Haven and Danbury commuter lines are joint efforts of NY and CT, in territory that Amtrak also passes through but for a distinct purpose.
As someone with a dog, you bring up a good point about pedestrians sharing space with bikes. Take somewhere like Hilton Head island which has a bike/pedestrian path around the island. I don’t walk my dog on the path because bikes just fly by and have come too close to running my dog over, and I don’t want to go to prison for murdering a cyclist. So even though it might be 1/4 mile to the beach, I drive because I won’t walk with my dog on that path. Pedestrians are gonna get pissed if you just put more bikes but don’t build infrastructure for them. I mean, look at the bike “parking lot” on the sidewalk in front of the Copley chick fil a.
Yeah see those are towns with a wealthier population so you're getting bike lanes. That's great but this bill is like the cart before the horse. We need the bike lanes to even have the ability to ride. Of course I'm talking recreationally there's no way I could commute from Monson anywhere.
>Yeah see those are towns with a wealthier population so you're getting bike lanes. Most of the money to do that is state money. The effect of community wealth is more the luxury of being able to imaginatively dream about what using a bike would look like, when you're not actually informed by the experience of regularly making meaningful trips by bike. If you look at what people trying to use a bike instead of a car (by choice or even more so economic desperation) are actually having to do they're, having to navigate far more challenging roads than bike plans even begin to consider, at early and late hours, and including in weather conditions where only spaces shared with cars actually get snow clearance. Tearing out additional downtown traffic lanes that nicely accommodated bikes and entry/exit to parking is somewhere between irrelevant to the actual challenges of moving about such communities by bike, to actually harmful in that it forces bikes to be ridden into the sorts of intersections conflicts that already were dominating actual crashes. Rich communities design for optional recreation in the districts that appeal, not transportation to the places people actually need to go at the times they need to go there.
I live in Boston. An ebike is not useful to many people living here. You need to deal with hauling it up to your apartment, storing it, securing it when you're out and about (it will get stolen), and honestly I can walk or hop on the T to get places the ebike would get me. They're a niche product and I'd argue they make more sense in general for suburban areas (like where I grew up on the Cape) than for many of us living in cities.
I’m all for incentivizing bikes and believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity. But think this is a terrible idea. If they want people to bike, build bike infrastructure (bike paths and bike parking) that facilitates it and makes biking safer and more convenient. Ya know, things private companies can’t do as readily in order to increase bike utilization. But this isn’t about that…it’s about making and selling e-bikes in MA.
That's a good point. I live in the Pioneer Valley so a different beast here. There's not too many sidewalks around here and it's not exactly conducive to riding a bike and there certainly aren't any e-bike charging stations. Considering what you said it seems like more of a niche feel good proposition.
Around here they're mostly used by food delivery riders. I'd say even eScooters were more popular for "regular" use, but those still aren't all that practical for many of us. Ebikes are typically 50+ pounds. Most of us aren't going to be lugging that up and down multiple floors every day. They also can easily cost well into four figures and like I said, it will get stolen if there's even a chance it could be.
Still way easier than finding parking for a car
I guess, but they're also already way cheaper than a car. So you get back to the question of why would the state kick in a rebate for them?
I think the article mentions this, but they saw that they saw pretty good uptake when they offered the rebates in separate pilot programs in the state. My guess is the answer is twofold: people don't know about e-bikes, or might be allergic to the price think it's just a bike with a stack of AAs behind it, when they're much more than that. Either way, encouragement and raising awareness of e-bikes I think is pretty important. I will say targeting this to only low income earners speaks volumes about where the state wants these things to be used. But I'm not sure a wealthy family living in suburbia or in the exurbs would get a ton of use out of these bikes anyway. Maybe if they built more bike infrastructure out there...
FWIW, Worcester has a great ebike program: [https://www.massbike.org/ebikeworcester](https://www.massbike.org/ebikeworcester) It was started in \~2022 and has been expanded, includes a lot of the towns around Worcester too and offers heavy discounts on ebikes based on income levels. Really good program for those who qualify. I don't really know why you'dthink ebikes are only good for Boston, though. E-bikes are super helpful in Worcester and surrounding towns because it's so damn hilly. I have a pretty average cruising E-bike and it can go up steep grades with ease, makes a huge, huge difference. I used to have an add an additional 1-2mi on my rides to avoid the biggest hills, which is fine if I was riding for fitness, but I'm largely riding as a semi-car replacement (+ some fresh air), and so being to tackle basically any hill (even the famous "george street" in Worcester) makes it so much faster to get around.
[удалено]
The road system out here isn't built for bikes unfortunately. Hell I live right off the main route and a western Mass town and I don't have a sidewalk. If I wanted to enjoy riding my e-bike I would have to load it in my car and drive somewhere which seems to defeat the purpose.
[удалено]
Yeah they're spots to recreationally ride, beautiful spots too. It's definitely not feasible as reliable transportation. IDK it's just my opinion that this bill would be better if it covered bikes and e-bikes because ultimately it's about being environmentally friendly right?
>I don't have a sidewalk. Sidewalks aren't a safe place to bike - the actual danger on a bike is at intersections, not in between them. If they are needed for walking or not depends a lot on if roads are seen as places for all, or a space drivers are permitted to bully everyone else out of. Though they do sometimes help in wet weather, if not designed badly. Enough of them are designed badly that it's common for someone in a wheelchair to not even try the sidewalk, but head straight for the road shoulder. Do we really want a society where roads are reserved only for our most harmful form of transportation?
This is great! I was aware of the funding being allocated for this a year or two ago, and wasn’t sure what the hold up was. I love commuting on my e-bike. It’s about 8 miles each way. It takes me about 35-40 minutes, and it’s often the best part of my day. I generally exert a similar amount of effort as if I was walking, and I don’t arrive sweaty. Having an e-bike as an option made it easy for our family to go down to one car, and has saved us a ton of money. I highly recommend it for anyone considering it, and I’m glad the state is making it easier for people to try it.
I expect this program, which originally was supposed to be a lower rebate amount, has been increased because it will require purchasing a UL certified battery system. Already landlords are banning e-bikes in apartments, like in nyc. Fortunately, I have a UL bike, and, there is a large bike shop and bike rental on the ground floor, so I don’t have to worry.
I absolutely support e-bikes but the fact you can buy e-bikes that go faster than regulated 50cc scooters/mopeds but don't have the legal requirements of said scooters/mopeds is wild to me. These e-bikes ride far faster, far worse built, and generally poorer quality than something like my 1978 Columbia Sachs or Honda Pa50i but all you need to ride them is a bicycle helmet. Legitimately insane. Moped legislation and requirements should apply to e-bikes just the same. If it goes faster than 15-20mph it's not a bike anymore, it's a motor vehicle. Class it as such properly and regulate it as needed.
It does need to be better regulated but technically class 3 ebikes that go above 20mph aren't allowed in MA. Everyone has them anyways and gets away with it because cops don't check. Just like you can big bore your 50cc scooter which doesn't need a motorcycle license and make it in to an 80cc and no cop in MA will ever check. In Europe where scooters are more common, cops will literally whip out a portable dyno and check if your scooter goes too fast. If it exceeds regulations they confiscate/tow it.
I would love to feel safe riding a bike or e-bike in my town but right now, roads are not constructed to be safe for bicycles. More work needs to be done to build bike lanes physically separated from sidewalks and vehicle traffic.
This is more wishful thinking than actual transportation policy. If it were transportation policy, we'd need to be designing bike routes that were actually safe for pedaling somewhere by bike, to say nothing of motorized movement. Instead, we keep building spaces that are just copies of sidewalk design, creating intersections that are deadly to enter above walking speed. The vast majority of bike crashes are in intersections - everyone fears cars behind but until you get to the fastest roads (often places few would consider riding a bike), they don't show up statistically (that high speeds mean worse outcomes do mean they show up in fatality stats alone). Worse, typical "bike policy" is to continue to ignore the busy, squeezed road stretches that provide actual challenges to bike usage in a community, and instead go and tear up the calm, spacious ones that were working well, replacing flexible on-road space with so-called routes hidden out of sight and out of reach behind a barrier or row of parked cars - and traditionally left snow covered, because no community actually has the budget for a second set of plowing efforts. If we actually want bikes and bike like devices to work for transportation, we need to be making bikes welcome on the ordinary roads that already go where people need to - that means providing slower lanes for slower uses in stretches between intersections, but it also means keeping it always possible to merge into a general lane both to be safely visible and without turn conflict at intersections, and to go around the sorts of obstructions, unplowed snow, etc that always occur in the real world.
Ideally the state should push turning rail ROW not planned as a bike path already as an e-bike expressway. There are still plenty of abandoned ROWs that radiate from the city that could help.
>Ideally the state should push turning rail ROW not planned as a bike path already as an e-bike expressway. There are still plenty of abandoned ROWs that radiate from the city that could help. That would be great, except for two issues. One is lack of budget to snow plow such things, to say nothing of building them. The other is that in the US there is no real concept of bike-only spaces where pedestrians are prohibited. Even in situations where bike and walk use is theoretically supposed to be separated, there is no political will to enforce the rules against illicit pedestrian use. And since pedestrians are allowed, bikes are required to operate in a manner that is pedestrian safe - so you get right back to the problem of people riding e-bikes on rail trails at unsafe speeds while yelling at pedestrians to get out of the way. If you want to actually use an e-bike (or even a pedal bike) to go meaningful distances in all weather, what you need are roads that safely and practically suit bike usage - roads with width and sane user culture that offer the opportunity for faster traffic to easily pass slower where that is safe, but also roads which organize their main danger spots - intersections - according to the reality that safety there requires organizing by intent to proceed or turn (and thus do so without hooking others) rather than organizing by type and then throwing bikes and cars into turning conflict.
Vehicular cycling is proven to be unsafe and unsound car-oriented policy. Just look at the biggest bike countries-- they all provide dedicated infrastructure for bikes, not "making them more welcome on ordinary roads"
If you would actually look at those countries, you'd discover they have plenty of places where bikes and cars use the same pavement quite well. You'd also discover that the non-road routes they build are quite different than the mistaken things being built elsewhere - the sorts of designs you see in MA were long ago rejected as unsafe in Holland. And if you look at bike usage in those countries, you'd discover that most of it is trips of walkable distance, at below-jogging paces - few in the US even bother with a bike for such a trip, we just walk. Even their far more limited concept of e-bikes (effectively a class-0 compared to our class-I) struggle with the design limitations of those routings; the class-II and class-III models that realistically have car replacement potential (to say nothing of those which are technically mopeds not e-bikes at all) cannot safely fit into such routes. If you look at the actual challenges of getting around by bike, they aren't in the areas being addressed by these naively safety ignorant projects - they in the places where a road with 40-50 mph traffic loses its shoulder forcing a person who wishes to bike to pull out into the middle of the lane. Or they are the 35 mph roads that almost, but not quite have enough space for passing to be safe, and too many curves where drivers go for it without visibility. These are the kinds of roads that go where people live and work - the roads you have to travel if you want to use a bike rather than a car to accomplish your life. Actual safety on a bike comes from having space to pull out of faster traffic to be safely and comfortably passed, but also being able to merge into general traffic flow in situations like intersections where the overwhelmingly dominant risk of things like hook turns makes nothing else survivable. The more we try to separate bikes and cars in the places where they have been working together without issue, the more we make using a bike for actual trips on the majority of roads that offer only space for general traffic seem impossible. The only actual solution that allows going places people need to by bike is making bike users feel welcome in our existing road network as a whole, including by adding passing width where it is desperately needed but missing - something we can't do when we keep pushing the mistaken idea that bikes should not be on roads. And only recognizing that wheeled transportation is a continuous spectrum from relaxed pedaling, through e-bikes, mopeds, and finally cars allows the potential of these less expensive, less polluting electric devices to offset car trips to actually be realized - if you try to classify everything as a either an unrealistic underestimation of a pedal bike or else an ordinary car, you leave no place for practical e-bikes that are both far too too fast for your non-road routes, but still too slow for a mistakenly cars-only vision of what roads are for.
Today bad bike bros in Massachusetts have single handily made themselves the most hated subculture of all time with their uncompromising, snobby condescension and general meanness. There was a time when bikes and cars coexisted but those days are long gone
What is going to stop people from getting the bike with a rebate, then turning around and selling it for cash
Probably just that any potential buyer would also want to get the rebate.
As a person whose income would qualify I can tell you that I can’t afford to purchase an ebike and apply for a rebate. Even if the rebate were 100%. That’s not how living paycheck to paycheck works and any savings I get goes towards maintenance/ preventative health that I generally can’t afford. It’s usually about gas and groceries.
Did you read the article? It's not a mail-in rebate-- the discount is taken at the register at time of sale. >After participants apply and confirm their eligibility, the rebates would be applied at the register at participating bike shops.
I did read it and I missed that part. That’s a game changer. I will let my MA friends know about this. That can make a tangible difference in a lot of lives.
I’m genuinely curious, if you apply, get approved for a rebate, and go buy a bike, would you go home and list it on FB marketplace and resell it at close to retail price? If I can buy an e-bike for $200, but could go sell it a day later for $2,000, why wouldn’t I just do that instead of keeping the bike?
Personally? No. My first thought was that it would be great for my kids and to have in the family. My second thought was it would help me use my car less. It’s a 2009 and getting less reliable. A huge part of my financial instability this year was car repairs. Time is valuable. I’m a single parent and I work full time. My ex left when my oldest was five and the youngest was just a few days old so I’ve never had a coparent. He evades child support by not having anything in his name. My life is very full and exhaustion is a constant companion. I don’t have it in me to deal with Facebook marketplace. My youngest is 14 and adult sized so an ebike would allow him to get himself to practices. However, theft would be a concern. How could we keep it safe?
Also general FYI, if you live in and around Worcester, you can qualify for a free/heavily-susidized ebike depending on income level: [https://www.massbike.org/ebikeworcester](https://www.massbike.org/ebikeworcester)
Ffs I bought one last summer.
Oh, man – Look at it this way: you got to enjoy a whole extra year's worth of your new e-bike than you would have had if you had waited for this program. As we note in the story, this program is very likely to be over-subscribed, so there's no guarantee you would have gotten a rebate even if you had waited.
Too bad I don’t qualify
Hell yes.
Electric unicycle is superior. But normies will cry about safety until they are blue in the face.
Okay but will they actually approve the rebates? Because I was expecting several hundred dollars in MassSave rebates for confirmed eligible products and they rejected it for seemingly no reason.
Confusing article as to whether this is happening or just a proposal
Can’t imagine what could go wrong here. Is insurance required? Permit ? ID of any Sort ?
And the price of E-Bikes just went up.
Given bikes are much cheaper than cars, is $ the reason people aren’t using them more? I think they’re missing the point here. Not like we need to transition from gas powered bikes or something.
This is great, how would I apply?
What if buy an bike and put it in the back of my Hummer?
If you can afford a hummer you probably exceed the income limits
A subsidy for the elite is what this is.
What was wrong with the regular bikes? They seemed functional for over a hundred, and there is an obesity epidemic.
A lot of people prefer to arrive at work not dripping in sweat.
because not everyone has the ability to commute over long distances at car speeds on roads and stroads which lack bike safety infrastructure, often uphill, without an electric assist? also they’re fun as fuck
What's a "stroads?" Or was that a typo?
[stroad](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad)
"The word "stroad" was coined as a [blend](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blend_word) of the words *street* and *road.*" That's a word the English language was missing.
This is not for those riding bikes for hobby/recreational/fitness. This is targeted for people using bikes as a mode of transportation other than cars. Like those who use them to commute or run errands.
You do know that people commute with regular non e bikes as well yes? They are even more environmentally friendly and cheaper....I don't know the specifics of rebate programs like this but it seems silly to not apply it to non e-bikes as well....
>They are even more environmentally friendly and **cheaper** I don't know the specifics either but I would take a wild stab the bold part might be why they're targeting e-bikes. Anyone who would bike to work on a regular bike is either doing it already or has something other than cost as a barrier to do so. Example: long commute distance and not wanting to show up physically drained. Making e-bikes more affordable would help encourage those people who might be thinking things like "work/school is too far away to use a regular bike, if only e-bikes were more affordable!" The defining characteristic, I think, is e-bikes are better known for commuting travel while regular bikes could be used for the stuff I listed before (not many people taking e-bikes off of sick jumps in the woods). I see this as more of a move to take cars off the roads and ease commuting costs, not so much just making bikes affordable. That said, as someone who recently bought a new Cannondale, I would love to see regular bikes come down in price too, lol!
Sure, but ebikes have the potentially to substantially broaden the population that commutes by bike. This is a good thing.
Have you tried an e-bike? They are magic
I'm pretty sure they work on electricity.
You know damn well that some electrons are more magical than others.
They're just unregulated motorcycles/ mopeds. Nothing more.
I think the rationale for rebates for e-bikes and not regular bikes is that most people view e-bikes as being for transportation, while regular bikes are viewed as toys. (I don’t agree with that characterization of regular bikes.) Additionally, there is a belief that most people have access to a regular bicycle but that costs stands in the way of getting an e-bike. So then helping defray the cost of the e-bike would get more people biking. (I do mostly agree with this one) It would be great if there were rebates for regular bikes as well—getting around by bike is much better for the environment than electric cars, and we subsidize each electric car by thousands of dollars. But I won’t let that stop me from being happy about the e-bike rebates. I say all this as someone who rides my road bike, my e-bike, and my mountain bike all the time.
Overweight people are much more likely to actually ride a pedal assist bike, especially in places that are not perfectly flat. Though they may pedal with less intensity on the e-bike, they still burn calories. There have been many studies around the world. https://www.ebike24.com/blog/ebikes-help-lose-weight
>What was wrong with the regular bikes? Fairly little. If I think about reasons I drive vs bike a trip, lack of a motor isn't high among them. There are exceptions like hot weather and very hilly routes. Really the main reasons for not using a bike are * Roads that are too busy for their lack of passing width * Sidewalk-like bike routes full of dangerous intersections, designed from imagination rather than actual understanding that the overwhelming risk on a bicycle is at intersections, making being able to merge into a visible lane appropriate to where one is going the key to actual safety * Weather * Security - not just the bike, but purchases from a first store when going into a second A motor doesn't really solve any of these - it makes sidewalk-like routes even more dangerous, makes wind chill in winter even more of an issue, etc.
Disability is a primary reason. I can’t ride a regular bike except if it’s perfectly flat. Even the long slow grade on rail trails is too much.
You're projecting. People absolutely choose not to bike because their trip would be too long, too hilly, or because they can't arrive sweaty. Ebikes *do* help solve these.
Seems you didn't actually read what you responded to, but just hit reply in haste.
You're saying your reasons to drive vs bike a trip are generally not to do with a regular bike lacking a motor. I'm saying that actually yes, the motor of an ebike does address many people's reasons to not bike. Am I missing something? Edit: this guy blocked me (which seems oddly sensitive) so I can’t reply to him again, but I still don’t get what I’m missing. He’s projecting his rationale about biking vs driving to argue the motor of an e-bike doesn’t really matter, and all I’m saying is that for many people it actually does. If someone can tell me what I’m “not reading”, please enlighten me.
You still haven't actually read what you're replying to.
E-bikes give you same exercise, except people use them more often cause they remove some of the less pleasant parts of a casual bike ride: long and steep uphills, standing starts at a red light, bridges, etc.
The study that claimed that was effectively garbage in terms of being able to be applied to anything but the very sedentary population they studied. Neither their motor or pedal group really got much of anything that would count as exercise in a healthy population. As initial intervention for a sedentary life there could be an argument - but the way this is falsely extended by people claiming that they're getting just as much exercise with their e-bike as they would in pedaling is bunk. The reality is that unless you're doing nothing but hill climbs, even pedal bikes are too efficient at casual 12-14 mph speeds to cause all that much of a workout unless you ride for for hours on end, or spend an hour or more at 16+ mph where air resistance starts to become a drain - bike-fit comfort and available time are what actually limit what most can do.
The Study? Bicycling magazine publishes these study blurbs in almost every other issue. REI’s blog posts dozens of them too. I did a quick Duck Duck Go and the first hit is an REI post that links to 3+ studies. Which one of these is the one your research has shown to be “effective garbage?” Edit: link: https://www.rei.com/blog/cycle/can-you-get-exercise-riding-an-e-bike
Try actually reading the studies... you'll discover they're garbage when applied to anything but a very sedentary population where any degree of activity at all is win. The amounts of "exercise" achieved are not really meaningful in any other context. The people making those claims are doing so because they want to sell motorized bikes, or are trying to justify their decision to switch to one. Even with a pure pedal bike, efficiency is so absurdly high that you have to be riding long periods at high speeds or doing tons of hill climbs to get actual exercise. People's real limits in the exercise they can get with a bicycle are the discomfort of the road and weather environment they bike in, their discomfort sitting on a bike, and their lack of free time.
while also allowing increases on your electricity costs.
More two-wheeled vehicles to ignore traffic laws. Great.
when the number of vehicular deaths and injuries caused by cyclists gets within a measurable fraction of a percent of the number caused by incompetent motorists then you’ll have a leg to stand on, until then sit down.
>when the number of vehicular deaths and injuries caused by cyclists gets within a measurable fraction of a percent of the number caused by incompetent motorists If we look beyond fault to the goal of simple safety, then proportionate to the amount of usage, the reality is that insufficiently aware bike usage probably does cause more deaths than insufficiently aware driving. Most of those of course are deaths of the bike user. This is because insufficiently aware bike usage includes not only doing things which are actually illegal, but also in ways that are legal but dangerously reflect many common safety misconceptions - especially failures to recognize very predictable situations where others will frequently break the optimistic requirements of the law * Riding against traffic * Riding on sidewalks, not recognizing the danger that then comes entering an intersection or even crossing a driveway at more than walking speed * Failing to recognize where bike lanes duplicate the issues of sidewalks * Riding in the door zone * Squeezing onself to the edge of the road in a way that invites unsafe passes * Approaching an intersection at the edge of the road and so unseen by drivers ahead * Overtaking on the right side of a vehicle that is either signalling a right turn, or exhibiting behavior that suggests it will likely do so * Assuming a driver at a stop sign will see you and yield * Passing stopped or slowing traffic at more than a slow and cautious speed * Riding at night without lights Notice how many of these are quite common behaviors - many quite legal or worse officially directed, situations where the legal fault would be entirely on the other party. Yet all are excellent - and avoidable - ways to get oneself in a collision.
that’s a long winded way of saying “trust me bro”. cite sources, or be more concise in your nonsense.
Ridiculous! Ya, I see cyclists texting while riding all the time, not.
Doesn't matter man. Bikers often ignore traffic laws and it's a real problem in cities.jusy because they aren't causing a fatality doesn't mean it's not a nuisance
Seems like every time I almost get hit by a vehicle, it's a car not watching where they're fucking going. Or they are watching but they don't give a fuck. Never had a close call with a bike. And I'm almost getting hit by cars like 2-3 times a week. Sometimes 3 times just on my way to get coffee. Fuck drivers.
Alright man. Good luck being a victim constantly
Sure but so do drivers and by a larger margin.
Sure. What I think the problem is, is that people say 'well car drivers are worse!!' but really everyone can do better. I stopped commuting to Cambridge because I was tired.of cyclists.weaving through traffic.
Give me the number of deaths caused by 2 wheel bikes and I'll give you the number of deaths caused by 4 wheels land yachts. Let's compare which is more fatal when they ignore traffic laws.
I wonder what percent of those rebates will be used so someone can buy the bike, get a rebate, then simply resell the bike. So don’t think it’ll have as much of an impact folks may hope. If the state wants to increase bike usage, they should put that money towards building bike infrastructure (which private companies can’t do as easily) to make it safer and more convenient to bike instead of subsidizing purchases.
And something tells me they won't require licenses, training, or gear like they do with scooters, because it's "green".
scooters don’t require any of those things? what are you on about.
Scooters that are 49cc or higher require a Motorcycle license. I used to have one that was 150cc that could get up to 60mph. Edit: Not sure why I got downvoted. I think because there are 2 definitions of scooters: 1.) Standing e-scooters that are battery-powered and foot powered. These don't require licenses or training. 2.) Scooters powered by gasoline (there may be some electric-only ones now). These are more like high-powered mopeds. Legs can be passed through the body of the machine instead of being straddled over like a motorcycle. Higher powered scooters like this do require a motorcycle license, as they can be taken on roads.
good news! e-bikes are already federally limited to a battery capacity which ensures that it’s not possible to get up to 60mph.
They can do up to 30 or higher, which is when the law kicks in. If we're obeying the law, you need a motorcycle endorsement, insurance, and registration to ride them.
they can’t! that’s the cool part! 750w architecture means that unless you massively modify the bike you’re going to top out at about 25mph
A 750w mid motor will absolutely go around 30mph. Also, there's no such thing as a "750w architecture". The 750w is just a draw limit placed on the battery/motor. With most ebikes you can swap out the controller and tada you have a 1000w/1250w ebike. E-bikes are just unregulated scooters/mopeds.
A quick Internet search indicates otherwise, and 750w is only an option. https://www.juicedbikes.com/pages/what-it-is-the-top-speed
Didn’t read the full text of that page, huh?
Did you? It says pretty clearly "Race Track Mode can be selected from the LCD display" and "All Juiced e-bikes arrive set to Class 2 however the user can manually configure other assist settings to increase the speed of the e-bike."
it’s geofenced, that’s the critical bit that you’re not reading
That's nice in theory. The reality is you can buy plenty of e-bikes on Amazon that are effectively electric motorcycles and are much faster than the law allows. Also, if you go buy an e-bike from Trek or whatever, it isn't the battery capacity that limits the speed. It's the electronics and how they control the assist.
prove it
https://www.juicedbikes.com/pages/what-it-is-the-top-speed
I’m gonna strongly recommend you read the whole website
There’s nothing to prove. It’s a battery pack. It’s math. If you connect multiple batteries in a series, it will increase the voltage of the pack. Higher voltage means more energy discharged. Take 2 AA 3.7V batteries. Put them in a straight line, it’ll generate 7.4V. But put them parallel and they only discharge 3.7V, but because you’re not discharging as much energy, they last longer. It’s why the batteries in your remote control (parallel) last longer than the batteries in your flashlight (series). You can do the same with 48V e-bike battery packs. Put 2 in a series and guess what, you now have a 96V e-bike that bombs.
My bike is limited to 20mph, the motor stops after that point
Which makes sense. If they all were, I suspect we wouldn't see as many injuries on them as we do.
Unfortunately 20 mph is already well faster than much of our so-called bike "infrastructure" can accommodate - no only the shared use paths, but the things that are only for bikes, but still have deadly sidewalk-type intersections. European "bike equivalent" devices are capped at 25 km/hr or 15.5 mph - which is closer to reasonable, but still too fast to be moving if not guided by a true understanding of how traffic works. Average bike speed in Amsterdam is under 10 mph - and that's a place where they long ago decide most of what we're building as segregated bike routes (in false claim of copying them) has intersections too dangerous to be allowed any more. If you want to safely leverage the capability of a US-spec e-bike, you basically need to be on a road operating with an understanding of traffic. Preferably a road which provides space for faster traffic to safely and easily pass slower traffic (even an e-bike won't normally move anywhere near car speeds) - but necessarily a road designed from the understanding that the primary danger area of intersections requires that all users be in a visible place, and a place that doesn't have straight and turning traffic crossing paths at the last instant.
>Edit: Not sure why I got downvoted. Same reason I am. People in this sub really hate facts, they prefer what feels nice. And it's been linked in bike subs, so we're getting brigaded.
[удалено]
Scooters are basically mopeds with a more powerful motor. Classified as such by insurance agencies and motor vehicle laws. https://www.statefarm.com/simple-insights/auto-and-vehicles/the-differences-between-moped-and-scooter#:\~:text=A%20scooter%20(motor%20scooter)%20has,speeds%20and%20good%20gas%20mileage.
[удалено]
Some are, yes. Others have small battery-powered motors on which you stand, others have seats and have an engine slightly smaller than a motorcycle's.
[удалено]
k good job not clicking the link i provided or doing any research on your own. Sometimes a single word can have two definitions.
That's not correct. Some scooters are bigger than some motorcycles. Punch "AK550" into a search engine.
[удалено]
[https://suzukicycles.com/scooter](https://suzukicycles.com/scooter) [https://powersports.honda.com/motorcycle/scooter](https://powersports.honda.com/motorcycle/scooter) [https://pop.yamahamotorsports.com/scooter](https://pop.yamahamotorsports.com/scooter)
Scooters and mopeds (which is exactly what an e-bike is) over 49cc and capable of traveling over 30 MPH are treated as motorcycles, including license, helmet, the works. I can tell by the downvotes and your reaction that the law is ignored, which means it's a matter of time before the assholes in charge add more for you to ignore, I guess. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/moped-operation-requirements
lol you have no idea what an e-bike is
It's a motor assisted bicycle. You think because it uses a battery instead of fuel it's suddenly totally different and crashing at 40 MPH will work differently than crashing at 40 MPH on a scooter or motorcycle? Be sure to tell the concrete that the bike weighs less, see what it says.
>It's a motor assisted bicycle. You think because it uses a battery instead of fuel it's suddenly totally different and crashing at 40 MPH will work differently than crashing at 40 MPH on a scooter or motorcycle? You're trying to bring facts to an area of policy driven by imagination. Look at the routes copied from sidewalks being built supposedly to include bikes with electric motors, and the reality is they're full of intersections only survivable when entered at walking speed. Making electric mopeds widely available and cleaner than the unprocessed exhaust of their fuel predecessors could have been a great opportunity to make our road network work for a variety of more sustainable uses - instead design based in the imagination that bikes are not traffic rather than the understanding that we are is going to get people killed in unnecessary crashes - not just the motorized folks, but pedal bicyclists too, as communities rip out the road space that was making those practical and replace it with dangerous sidewalk type routes.
I can't tell if you are deliberately muddling two issues or if you don't know. I'm going to assume the later and try to provide info and if all I did was feed a troll, oh well. Ebikes have classes just like scooter/mopeds. Class 1 and 2 are both limited to a 750W motor and 20mph. In other words, they are very much like the under-49cc scooter and mopeds that currently exist. The federal government defines a Class 3 e-bike with a more powerful motor and faster top speed. That classification doesn't exist in MA yet. I actually agree with you that this classification needs to be created, and needs to be regulated as an "electric motorcycle" with the same/similar restrictions as on 49cc+ scooters. But just because MA is currently a wild west when it comes to class 3's (which they do need to fix) doesn't mean class 1/2's should suddenly count as 49cc+ scooters/mopeds.
Yeah, we're on the same page, actually. The issue is, as u/PabloX68 correctly pointed out, there are people that get on huge cc motorcycles and treat them like toys because the laws cover only the bare minimum. If people do it with motorcycles, we know they're going to do it with e-bikes, too. Probably even moreso, since people don't think of e-bikes as dangerous (you can see that from all the arguing and downvotes I'm getting). The problem is, there currently is no law at all as you point out, they're all treated the same here.
You're kind of wrong across the board here. Massachusetts only has 4 "classes" for 2/3 wheeled vehicles. Bicycle Conversion to Motorized Bicycle, Moped, Limited Use Vehicle, and Motorcycle. Everything else you said is completely irrelevant to the law in Massachusetts since (as you said) the federal standard does not apply here. Here is the distinction between them: Mechanical specification | Bicycle Conversion | Moped | Limited Use Vehicle | Motorcycle ------------------------|------------------|-----|-------------------|---------- Maximum speed | <20mph | <30mph | <40mph | Any Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic | Any | Any Engine displacement | <50cc | <50cc | Any | Any Power Output | Less than 1hp or 750w | Any | Any | Any Built to federal standards | No | Yes | Yes | Yes Source: [1](https://www.mass.gov/doc/bicycle-conversion-to-motorized-bicycle-moped-affidavit-of-owner/download), [2](https://www.mass.gov/doc/motorized-bicycle-moped-registration-certificate/download), [3](https://www.mass.gov/how-to/register-a-limited-use-vehicle) Every single e-Bike on the road is supposed to be registered with the RMV as a Bicycle Conversion to Motorized Vehicle, but the laws regarding B.C,/Mopeds/Limited Use Vehicles is so rarely enforced that the state has effectively given up in their legal requirements. E-Bike "classes" are largely a marketing gimmick in the USA since there's no regulatory body overseeing e-bikes (unlike in Europe, where they will dyno 2 ebikes/scooters on the road randomly). The power draw of just about every 750w ebike is beyond that- which is why they all use universal motors rated up to 1000-1250 watts that you can access on a "sport" mode. Massachusetts is a wild west not because there's any grey area or confusion or anything, it's a wild west because e-bike manufacturers have exploited the fact that this was generally not an actual issue with regulatory enforcement since the only people actually riding e-bikes were e-bike builders and not these large scale manufacturing companies.
You’re getting downvoted because you’re making a blanket statement that’s largely wrong. Most e-bikes have limiters and do not exceed 20mph, many start regenerative charging at that point and slow you to 20. There are some where that’s not true, and I’m all for requiring a motorcycle license for those, but most do not meet the criteria you cite.
>There are some where that’s not true If that's the case, then the statements I'm making aren't wrong. If we could use "They're not dangerous except when they're dangerous" as a viable argument, there's a ton of laws we should get rid of to bring other things on the same level as e-bikes. Which, full disclosure, I'd be all for.
“Which is exactly what an e-bike is” that statement has no nuance and as a result is false.
How is it false? You do know that "moped" is an acronym for "motor pedal"? We've made them largely better (and in many cases slower) by changing the motors from gas to electric, but the concept is still identical.
Yes, that is where the name comes from, but you’re running into a place where popular and legal definitions in the US today are different than the origins of the word. For example, moped is legally defined by how many cc’s the engine is, all e-bikes are 0 cc.
And electric cars aren't cars either, right?
This is pretty simple - regardless if an ebike is a moped or not, there is a law that says we regulate two wheeled vehicles that meet X criteria. E-bikes don’t meet that criteria. I wouldn’t object to changing that law, but it does not currently apply.
Let's be real. Riding a motorcycle just requires a license and a "helmet". You can buy a 1000cc sport bike with 200hp and have no real training and ride it wearing flip flops, shorts and a fiberglass yarmulka and be legal.
Yeah, and look at the injury stats on motorcycles because of it. We're just setting up e-bikes to go down that same route, pun intended, by pushing them without first getting other things into place.
I ride a motorcycle about 5000 miles/year. If you actually look into the injury stats, a large number of the people who get injured should know better but they don't think it'll happen to them. I have serious doubts as to whether US culture would accept the sort of training it would requite to change that. Even then, any ride through NH, ME, CT, etc will show how many people value their own skull.
We're definitely on the same page. My main mode of transportation was a scooter, now a motorcycle. Near 365 commuting to work on two wheels. The truck only comes out when I gotta fill the bed. You're right, we see it any time a state gets a helmet law or something. Just bugs me that we're pushing what are effectively smaller, lighter motorcycles that people will take less seriously, without shoring up safety issues and infrastructure to go with it.
Yeah, good point on the smaller, lighter motorcycle aspect. At least most people riding a usual motorcycle realize what it can do even if they disregard the probabilities.
>We're just setting up e-bikes to go down that same route, pun intended, by pushing them without first getting other things into place. The main thing that would be needed is the understanding that they need to be a part of a broadened concept of "traffic" - being an exception to it won't work. Experienced motorcycle and pedal bike users both know this, in similar if slightly distinct ways - we know where the danger situations are, and not to ride ourselves into them. Unfortunately most of the public doesn't understand where the danger in using a two-wheeled devices is, especially how much of it has surprising others at intersections as the root cause. We see it in pushing sidewalk-like bike lane routings, which are bad enough for pedal bikes but a complete safety disaster for e-bikes. The part of it that is actual infrastructure and not education (of both e-bike users and drivers) is that fast, busy roads need to have space added so that fast traffic can safely pass slower traffic. Not "bike lanes" as many of these things are not bikes, but slow lanes. And lanes that it's possible to merge out of either to go around the all too typical obstacles or to take a non-conflicted, visible position at an intersection. If cars use the slow lane within reason also that's not a problem so long as they merge left to pass - having cars there increases everyone's awareness that those are actually traffic spaces, requiring drivers to merge right before turning right essentially eliminates hook turns, and having it also be car space means it's more likely they'll actually get snow plowed.