Canyon aims to convert motorists with 'cycling SUV' and cargo bikes

Keesvant wrote:

Fact is you don't need an electric bike.. A normal bike is much more sustainable.. Only the old, sick, and disabeled should use electric bikes.

My wife isn't (that!) old, neither is she sick or disabled. She works as a teacher of a practical subject, resistant materials (DT in old money), which requires her to be on her feet a minimum eight hours a day; she gets to school at 7AM and leaves around 6PM. The exhausting nature of her job and the long hours, coupled with the fact that most days she'll be transporting heavy loads of books and materials, means that even though she loves cycling (and has two unpowered bikes) the 30km roundtrip commute is beyond her range without her ebike. If she didn't have the ebike, she'd have kept her petrol car and be using that. Which is preferable?

Well, yes...  Only - who's "you"?  Or - reading your 3rd line - who gets to pick who's old, disabled etc.?  I think we just created another issue, bit like the "mobility cars" in NL are not just for the disabled...

If I ruled the world etc. However (in the West) we're currently already drowning in "necessities" our ancestors didn't even know about and our parents called "luxuries".  And (some of us) think it might be a good idea to wean ourselves and our societies off some of the highest impact ones e.g. private cars - especially those with internal combustion engines.

Making addicts go "cold turkey" by removing their drugs (or for a more charitable analogy removing all the emperor's finery) without offering anything to soften the change may not work so well.  And the companies which sell motorised vehicles - and their workers - are going to fight you too...

So could you accept the idea of some eBikes for "those who don't need them" as a halfway house?  Harm reduction for folks who'd otherwise be driving most of their short journeys?  Or do you think that's just switching from one drug (resource-intensive waste-generating toy) to another?

"Normal bikes better for health and environment..not to mention much cheaper to buy and maintain or recycle.."

Doubtful given most are manufactured in the far East and then shipped thousands of miles, as are most components.

I don't think attitude like yours helps win people over to cycling, the idea that riding an e bike doesn't make you a cyclist etc.

I commute by train and bike. I'm in my forties, overweight and mediocre fitness, but capable of cycling reasonable distance. The reality though is that after a crap day at work sometimes the last thing you want is to cycle any distance. I cycle 6 miles to a station where it's a lot cheaper, but had occasion where I've left the bike and got a train closer to home as I was shattered. I ended up buying a Brompton that was easier to take and gives flexibility, but was also considering an e bike.

I wonder if the chief executive was not thinking about the UK but somewhere already more cycle-friendly?

Point (1) matching the speed is an interesting point.  One reason most people don't cycle currently is that it's not pleasant cycling with cars.  Speed differential is a part of that.  However having observed my own reactions and those of others I think it's not just that.  People don't like being close to big hard noisy moving machines.  They feel vulnerable - especially while balancing on a bike.  Multiply that if they've got kids on board or are supervising them.

In the UK we have a lot of motor vehicle traffic.  High traffic volumes are definitely unwelcome to most people when cycling.

So I think the first point (or maybe point "0") is "there need to be places where people feel it's safe and convenient to cycle" first.  More than that - there needs to be a network of safe and convenient (e.g. direct, good quality) routes and there needs to be suitable places to safely park bikes at destinations.

I agree that theft will be an increasing issue.  Not sure this can be fixed simply by serialisation.  My last bike was serialised (and indeed double-locked, in a secure location, and was cheaper than an e-Bike) but that was nicked and I've no doubt was easy to sell.

Not sure about trackers - this is starting to sound really expensive and a lot of technology.  Having said that the cost of that is coming down and we're happy having such features on most of our other devices.

Also - "switch over"?  Even in the number 1 country for cycling (by a country mile) cycling is only used for more trips than cars in a few places.  For the UK "achieving mass cycling" is more likely to look like moving from the 1-3% of trips we see currently to something closer to 10% - which would be a major change.

Even if there were such a network in the UK for many people it would be very difficult to simply "switch over" e.g. replace car with cycle.  That's not because "it's impossible" or "it makes life difficult / effortful / unpleasant" but because a cycle is not a car.  So changing may involve lots of small adjustments and changes.  However - keeping that car initially but replacing some journeys by bike is definitely achievable.

chrisonatrike wrote:

One reason most people don't cycle currently is that it's not pleasant cycling with cars.  Speed differential is a part of that.  However having observed my own reactions and those of others I think it's not just that.  People don't like being close to big hard noisy moving machines. 

Definitely this: I bought my best road bike from a semipro mountain biker, much younger and fitter than I who could do what seemed to me incredibly dangerous things on the trails. He bought a road bike with the idea of getting into racing, after a few months and just 500 miles (well that's what he told me, the condition of the bike certainly seemed to fit with that) he put it up for sale, telling me "anyone who rides in traffic must be out of their minds."

I disagree with point 1.
I think the difference in riding abilty required when riding at 20mph in place of 15mph is significant. I appreciate that you could just find a good hill and do those kinds of speeds down it but that isn't everywhere.
Also, as soon as it goes up to 20mph, I'm sure people will then call for the limit to go up to 30mph to match the speeds on other roads.
Lastly, I assume raising the limit would also mean off-road e-bikes could 20mph which would be quite anti-social. ​

I'd second that. The purpose of ebikes is not to go faster than typical cyclists, however nice that might be in traffic, but to make the same speed as typical cyclists easier to achieve.

You can already buy electric bikes that have higher performance. Quite rightly, since they are no longer equivalent in speed to normal bikes, they attract a different legislation.

I'd third it.  Firstly its a minority requirement, not born out by the Dutch experience.  Secondly 20mph is stretching the limit of both ordinary user reactions and the quality of brakes available.  Even when I'm out on a fast run I'm rarely averaging more than 18.  And thats going for it.

I believe there is a small but significant market already in speed pedelecs there.  In the Dutch case I think the door was already open because of their moped classes.

There are definitely mixed opinions on these - positive from some who want to be "green" but keep their longer commutes and probably a few of the normal cyclists who generally hate the smoky noisy mopeds.

On the other hand I think there are some issues with the additional kinetic energy, the ability of people to handle these, other users not "expecting" them, design speeds on parts of the cycle network (and which parts are permitted to faster vehicles).  Compounding this is the difficulties of policing (or anyone distinguishing) different things which really do "all look the same" or can be switched electronically between categories.

The problem though is that if assisted bike speeds at 15.5mph and the rest of the traffic is going at the 20mph limit in most urban areas it massively increases the number of close passes - which in turn drives the perception of risk.

Enabling eBike riders to go at the same speed as the traffic reduces the need for MGIF type overtakes.

open_roads wrote:

The problem though is that if assisted bike speeds at 15.5mph and the rest of the traffic is going at the 20mph limit in most urban areas it massively increases the number of close passes - which in turn drives the perception of risk.

Enabling eBike riders to go at the same speed as the traffic reduces the need for MGIF type overtakes.

Yeah, well that never happens, so it's a bit of a moot point.

open_roads wrote:

The problem though is that if assisted bike speeds at 15.5mph and the rest of the traffic is going at the 20mph limit in most urban areas it massively increases the number of close passes - which in turn drives the perception of risk.

Enabling eBike riders to go at the same speed as the traffic reduces the need for MGIF type overtakes.

It might reduce the need, doubtful it would reduce the number. Many drivers seem to have an ingrained assumption that a cyclist on the flat will be riding below the speed limit and therefore it will be legal to overtake them, this possibly is a hangover from the days of blanket 30 mph limits rather than 20s when it was more of a reasonable deduction. I've often found close-passing drivers genuinely surprised when I've challenged them and pointed out that not only were they close passing but they were overtaking someone riding at the speed limit and therefore breaking it themselves. The default reaction to seeing a cyclist with open road ahead of them seems to be to overtake and I don't think that's going to change just because ebikers are going 4.5 mph faster.

I actually agree with that but the underlying issue is that of failure to enforce the law / lack of policing.

If the police actually did their jobs (many forces are now at record levels of officers e.g. the Met), they would dramatically change the behaviour of motorists and make it safer for vulnerable road users.

If we had safer roads and 20mph eBikes we would likely see the kind of modal shift that everyone has predicted for the last decade or more.

I don't know, I still get close passed at 20mph. I agree with safer roads though.

I'd add a fouth change, which is to ban overtaking on 20mph streets and make it a specific offence that will be enforced.

Close passes are difficult to enforce due the vagueness of the offence and evidence required to prove careless driving.

Yes to safer roads, more 20mph (or lower) speed limits in urban (residential) areas.  However I just don't think nominally slower cars plus eBikes is enough.  Fundamentally it's a question of space allocation.  Allowing people the choice to go faster on bikes won't make a difference to that.  People can already do 15.5mph on eBikes (and there is little policing of illegal electric motorbikes).  Yet they don't.  Do you think it's just cost holding folks back?  But they already buy cars which are far more expensive... often more than one.

I think it's a reasonable question and worth thinking about (if interested Robert Weetman has several comparisons between UK and two other countries - recommended [1] [2]).  In NL - where lots of people cycle - or indeed in other places with high cycling modal share - much of the space is still shared with motor vehicles.  Yet not even the majority of people ride eBikes there, not all motor vehicle speeds are really slow.  Yet it doesn't seem to be the issue it seems to be in the UK?

I think the following synergies (or observations of those places) may help:
a) Fewer motor vehicles
b) ...going much slower than is common in the UK when around people cycling.  That's not just sticking to a 20mph speed limit!  Note in Europe signs are normally in km but you still see 20 or even 10 on them.
c) Cycling needs to be direct - so for "main roads" - where there is more traffic / need for higher speeds separate cycle infra is needed.  Plus use of things like modal filtering to let cyclists make more direct journeys than motor vehicles.
d) The above also requires replacing some car journeys - e.g. with cycling!
e) There are many more people cycling so that the average driver either often cycles themselves or has several friends and relations who do.
f) ... which means drivers - and politicians, police, judges, planners ... - are more likely to both empathise and understand the requirements for others cycling.  That incentivises more careful driving / acceptance of the points above.

In the UK there's a vicious circle currently.  Where no-one cycles because it doesn't feel safe, pleasant or convenient.  So no-one's motivated to do much for cycling or to make any changes affecting those driving.

Hmm... reading again I think "police it better" is not the solution.  (Better policing is certainly needed in the UK now but I doubt that any sensible multiplication of the number of traffic cops or improvements in sentencing would "fix it" to make more people cycle).

Also - it's entirely possible for "normal people" to up their speed when cycling considerably - with no need for a new licence and still for less than the cost of a car.  (In flatter places - but you can electrify for hills.) Yet people buy the car (and the second car).

Putting the two ideas together (police, speed diff with faster bikes and slower cars) would likely do something.  I don't think enough to change the UK though.  People just don't like sharing with lots of cars!  Even with lower speed differences.  Here are some of the nuances of how / why this works in NL even though in theory the majority of road space is "shared" between cars an bikes. [1] [2]

Don't get me wrong - I find your idea interesting.  I think history / "natural experiments" in other countries (e.g. here) say this isn't how things will change though.  Or possibly the UK will just go the "WFH, public transport and motor scooters on pavements" route and not "cycling".

I don't think it would stop MGIF. One of the problems/causes of MGIF is many have this idea of some kind of a pecking order.

I remember my dad used to commute by motorbike. It was fairly local so at one stage just bought a 125, people could see it was a small bike and he would get people pull out on him more and attempt stupid overtakes. After that he never bought anything smaller than a 250. It's likely why a lot of 125 now have oversized rear wheels, to mask the fact it isn't that powerful.

I also had the same with my first car, a D reg fiat Panda. If you have a car like that you'll get more stupid overtakes etc, usually from Bavarians.

You can already get faster e-bikes - they have the legal status of mopeds, which seems pretty reasonable to me. I don't find myself wishing I could go faster on my e-Bike, I just apporeciate the pedal-cycle amenities I can take advantage of, like the path along the river - no way should there be anyone doing 20mph along there.

E-bikes are still pedal bicycles; the whole idea of electric motor assist is to help climb hills, not ride at the speed limit; for most people, bicycles are unsafe at those speeds, which is why governments regulate restrictions. If you want to ride a 2 wheeled vehicle at those speeds, you need to buy a motorcycle or be fit enough to ride a non-motorised bicycle at that speed.