Front page LA Times today regarding Ebikes

[PedalUma]

A good friend and fellow eBiker is from Germany. Fritz says having five political parties is better because they must compromise, that cuts out the polar extremes, keeping things more civil and centered. Up the middle. He also only rides throttle assist bikes with torque sensors. They get him out into nature. He has the boost when he wants it. And we can still be good friends even though I am not a throttle advocate.

 

[Rexlion]

I'll jump on this hand grenade. Firstly 'Tactical' means 'Premeditated'. That is what Tacticians do, plan an assault or assaults. These are military Tactical Weapons designed to hunt down and kill as many humans as posable in the shortest period of time, with minor modifications so they can slip thru some loopholes and enter public spaces. A farmer, rancher, or hunter wouldn't need that, ever. What is he going to do, kill a barn full of lambs in seconds flat? Parents in Uvalde could not identify their own children. The kids were blown apart. We have unalienable rights to things such as Life, Liberty, and Happiness in public. Those rights cannot be amended. They are not amendable amendments. Assault weapons are guns that have no legitimate function; their sole purpose is to efficiently take Lives, Liberties, and Happiness's in large numbers, quickly. I don't even want to be in crowds because of this threat. I don't know the count now, but this morning there were 52 mass murder shootings in the US for January, 2023. The rights and lives of those murdered were taken and the poor families and communities are in misery because of guns like these.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous, and I can explain why. With the barest amount of practice, a person could fire a hundred rounds in rapid succession with a pistol or rifle that holds a mere 5- or 6-round magazine. All they have to do is empty a mag, hit the release, pop in another mag, and resume firing. It can be done in less than 5 seconds. So all this stuff about a gun being an "assault gun" is really based on media hype. They started with firearms that look army-ish, added firearms that have higher-capacity mags, and now have gotten to where just about any gun-related incident they report on is characterized as an "assault gun" incident.

Let's remember that when the First Amendment was ratified, the people had personal recollection of defending themselves against an army from across the ocean. That remains a legitimate concern today. Foreign governments should always have a reason to "think twice" before giving the USA grief on our home soil. It is a deterrent.

We also have an individual right to self-defense in case of home invasions, robberies, and other criminal activities that might endanger us. The police can't be everywhere and their response times are not always what one might wish for; the first line of defense, and the obligation to be equipped for self defense, lies with the individual. You may think that 10, 15, or 30 rounds is ridiculously unnecessary; tell that to the police and you'll be laughed at! The cops know how hard it is to hit a target while under stress, and they train constantly. We citizens are likely to be far worse under the strain of a man coming at us with a hammer or a knife or pointing a gun at us, so why have "maybe barely enough but maybe not" when we can have "more than enough" instead? (I mean, does anyone really need more than one ebike?)

Strange, isn't it, how California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet had 4 shootings in 1 week? So how are all those laws working for you? And you think the rest of the country should follow California's example with more anti-gun laws?

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Let's remember that when the First Amendment was ratified, the people had personal recollection of defending themselves against an army from across the ocean. That remains a legitimate concern today. Foreign governments should always have a reason to "think twice" before giving the USA grief on our home soil. It is a deterrent.

Um, I think the First Amendment gives us the right to complain and pray, and has nothing to do with defending us from the British.

 

[mschwett]

No it isn't. The concept of the tyranny of the majority is I expect a new one to some. Fortunately this was not true of the statesmen who founded the USA.

Defining Democracy: Tyranny of the Majority - Renew Democracy Initiative

Defining Democracy: Tyranny of the Majority “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch.” —Benjamin Franklin Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Tyranny. From best to worst, this is the order in which regimes degrade, as described by Socrates in Plato’s...

rdi.org

i was wondering who was going to point this out. well, after i did

thank you for the reference. apparently they don’t teach civics any more?!?

 

[mschwett]

…people had personal recollection of defending themselves against an army from across the ocean. That remains a legitimate concern today. Foreign governments should always have a reason to "think twice" before giving the USA grief on our home soil. It is a deterrent.

are you serious? the actual deterrent is the world’s largest navy, the world’s first and second and maybe third largest air forces (depending on how you count the planes of the various branches), a whole lot of nuclear missiles, and the logistical impossibility of moving an entire f’n modern army across thousands of miles of oceans against the aforementioned navies and air forces. anyone who thinks that a bunch of untrained civilians with pistols are a significant factor in the united states avoiding imminent invasion is seriously delusional.

there is no “legitimate concern” of invasion from the seas against today’s america. and the actual legitimate security concerns are so far removed from civilians with handguns that i can’t even make an analogy.

 

[Nomad]

being an Extremist on either side of the whole gun thing is a very dangerous thing! My thought is lets get back to talking about Ebikes.

 

[srolle]

I took the inclusion of a throttle on a given ebike as a way to solve the situation where a rider has stopped in a high gear but still needs to get going despite the extra weight of the vehicle. IGH is another solution to this problem. Do people really ride around on throttle only?

 

[m@Robertson]

Do people really ride around on throttle only?

Sure its a thing for a LOT of people. Especially the ones who gear their riding to urban mobility and transportation, and have no roots whatsoever in cycling. They are in effect a new class of rider uninterested in exercise, who would otherwise be driving a car or an ICE moped or small scooter to get where they are going (vs. a recreational ride where the journey is the goal).

Interestingly, the tourists in the Monterey Bay area who rent the Rad step thrus and mini-bike style ebikes like have been pictured earlier here are all pretty much throttle-only and riding so they can get around and see the sights. They tend to be riding slowly as a result since they are sightseeing. the complete opposite of the characterizations here.

The same types of bike riders on the main paths in the Fresno area are the opposite. They are riding these same style of bikes and they ride to go places, so they are at the 20 mph limit often as not. The riders in that same town who are going thru the parks (Woodward Park in particular), tend to be slower. One couple I see all the time that drive me nuts roll on the sidewalk, although they are both going slowly. Riding on the sidewalk in a bicycle is expressly against the law here. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. But some people are just plain chicken when it comes to riding on streets (they also go on the wrong side of the road facing traffic which makes it even worse).

 

[mschwett]

Sure its a thing for a LOT of people. Especially the ones who gear their riding to urban mobility and transportation, and have no roots whatsoever in cycling. They are in effect a new class of rider uninterested in exercise, who would otherwise be driving a car or an ICE moped or small scooter to get where they are going (vs. a recreational ride where the journey is the goal).

Interestingly, the tourists in the Monterey Bay area who rent the Rad step thrus and mini-bike style ebikes like have been pictured earlier here are all pretty much throttle-only and riding so they can get around and see the sights. They tend to be riding slowly as a result since they are sightseeing. the co0mplete opposite of the characterizations here.

The same types of bike riders on the main paths in the Fresno area are the opposite. They are riding these same style of bikes and they ride to go places, so they are at the 20 mph limit often as not. The riders in that same town who are going thru the parks (Woodward Park in particular), tend to be slower. One couple I see all the time that drive me nuts roll on the sidewalk, although they are both going slowly. Riding on the sidewalk in a bicycle is expressly against the law here. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. But some people are just plain chicken when it comes to riding on streets (they also go on the wrong side of the road facing traffic which makes it even worse).

tourists on eBikes here are a bit wobbly and slow, but generally follow the rules. other than doing dumb things like stopping in the middle of a crowded bike lane on the bridge to take a picture, or riding 4 abreast past crissy field. wouldn’t matter if they were on an e-bike or regular bike, and i don’t think anyone rents bikes with throttles.

in the city proper, which has a very high density of cyclists for an american city, the problems (which are fairly rare) are created by speed differential in bike lanes, particularly going uphill. you have 5 traditional cyclists going up a steep hill at around 10mph, with 20-25mph traffic in the vehicle lane. some clown on a high powered bike or scooter decides he wants to go 20mph up the hill, but in the bike lane. totally unsafe and yes, you could argue “it’s the rider, not the vehicle” but the temptation is hard to resist. the 750w limit (if it were a peak limit, lol) prevents this situation. a lower limit would be even better. larger or faster vehicles can be in the vehicle lane, where speed limits are uniformly 25mph. a more thoughtful set of classes and local controls on which go where would address unique situations like this.

 

[PedalUma]

I took the inclusion of a throttle on a given ebike as a way to solve the situation where a rider has stopped in a high gear but still needs to get going despite the extra weight of the vehicle. IGH is another solution to this problem. Do people really ride around on throttle only?

I have a friend with bad arthritis who also needs two hips replaced. Understandably he rides mostly with a throttle. I saw an out of shape person today smoking while using a throttle. I agree about high density and overall mix with a large speed differential being a problem. And that what is between the ears is a large or the largest single factor in safety. How do you regulate fools? We saw this with Covid too.

 

[tomjasz]

an out of shape person today smoking while using a throttle.

sorry but nunyer.

 

[pmcdonald]

Love it! The first rule of EBR: every thread will eventually devolve into a debate about throttles. This one didn't disappoint.

 

[PedalUma]

The guy with bad arthritis today tried one of my new bikes stet up to increase power delivery more with increased cadence than with increased pedal pressure, and he loved it. This goes against most major manufactures. It feels so good to spin fast lightly and go. This looks natural to observant others & feel natural for the rider. Shifting is the key. It is like a classic Italian sports car. Revs before shifting up, coast for a second and down sift before slowing. It is so smooth and nice for the initiated. Jimi asked, Are You Experienced? With his electric guitar. Riding this bike is like that. It is super expressive, immediate, with feel. My City Gov. is testing it Friday as a fleet prototype.

 

[Nomad]

Sure its a thing for a LOT of people. Especially the ones who gear their riding to urban mobility and transportation, and have no roots whatsoever in cycling. They are in effect a new class of rider uninterested in exercise, who would otherwise be driving a car or an ICE moped or small scooter to get where they are going (vs. a recreational ride where the journey is the goal).

Interestingly, the tourists in the Monterey Bay area who rent the Rad step thrus and mini-bike style ebikes like have been pictured earlier here are all pretty much throttle-only and riding so they can get around and see the sights. They tend to be riding slowly as a result since they are sightseeing. the complete opposite of the characterizations here.

The same types of bike riders on the main paths in the Fresno area are the opposite. They are riding these same style of bikes and they ride to go places, so they are at the 20 mph limit often as not. The riders in that same town who are going thru the parks (Woodward Park in particular), tend to be slower. One couple I see all the time that drive me nuts roll on the sidewalk, although they are both going slowly. Riding on the sidewalk in a bicycle is expressly against the law here. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. But some people are just plain chicken when it comes to riding on streets (they also go on the wrong side of the road facing traffic which makes it even worse).

part of the whole sidewalk thing and going the wrong way is because the police don't stop them. To give them warning not a ticket but, educate them regarding it. Then after doing this a few times if it doesn't work then take the necessary steps. It's not an ebike thing it's a cycling thing. Sound it out s i d e w a l k

 

[Rexlion]

Um, I think the First Amendment gives us the right to complain and pray, and has nothing to do with defending us from the British.

Brain fart. My bad. Never said I could count to two, did I?

 

[Rexlion]

are you serious? the actual deterrent is the world’s largest navy, the world’s first and second and maybe third largest air forces (depending on how you count the planes of the various branches), a whole lot of nuclear missiles, and the logistical impossibility of moving an entire f’n modern army across thousands of miles of oceans against the aforementioned navies and air forces. anyone who thinks that a bunch of untrained civilians with pistols are a significant factor in the united states avoiding imminent invasion is seriously delusional.

there is no “legitimate concern” of invasion from the seas against today’s america. and the actual legitimate security concerns are so far removed from civilians with handguns that i can’t even make an analogy.

I can understand why some people think that way. But try to realize that if the citizens have no weapons, some other nation could contemplate using a couple of well-placed nukes and an ultimatum, rationalizing that our leaders should capitulate; then they can come in with conventional ground forces and run the place with soldiers on every corner. But if everyone has a couple of firearms, they know the citizens will fight tooth and nail and they will struggle to take the cities and countryside inch by inch. No soldier would be safe outside of an armored vehicle. They won't simply decimate the whole country with bombs or whatever, because they want the prize: the natural resources, the farmland, the buildings, the infrastructure. Not saying it would be easy or that we could necessarily win in that scenario, but we would make them pay dearly. That's the deterrent.

edit: Sorry, I just took comments as I read 'em, and didn't read through to the end first. Everyone's moved on. Ehhh.

 

[pmcdonald]

I can understand why some people think that way. But try to realize that if the citizens have no weapons, some other nation could contemplate using a couple of well-placed nukes and an ultimatum, rationalizing that our leaders should capitulate; then they can come in with conventional ground forces and run the place with soldiers on every corner. But if everyone has a couple of firearms, they know the citizens will fight tooth and nail and they will struggle to take the cities and countryside inch by inch. No soldier would be safe outside of an armored vehicle. They won't simply decimate the whole country with bombs or whatever, because they want the prize: the natural resources, the farmland, the buildings, the infrastructure. Not saying it would be easy or that we could necessarily win in that scenario, but we would make them pay dearly. That's the deterrent.

edit: Sorry, I just took comments as I read 'em, and didn't read through to the end first. Everyone's moved on. Ehhh.

I too enjoyed the fictional movie Red Dawn. It was such a great time capsule of Reagan-era Cold War paranoia. Though on the topic I guess the ultimate failure by Russia and the US to subdue a heavily armed subset of the Afghanistan population speaks to your point.

 

[tomjasz]

I can understand why some people think that way. But try to realize that if the citizens have no weapons, some other nation could contemplate using a couple of well-placed nukes and an ultimatum, rationalizing that our leaders should capitulate; then they can come in with conventional ground forces and run the place with soldiers on every corner. But if everyone has a couple of firearms, they know the citizens will fight tooth and nail and they will struggle to take the cities and countryside inch by inch. No soldier would be safe outside of an armored vehicle. They won't simply decimate the whole country with bombs or whatever, because they want the prize: the natural resources, the farmland, the buildings, the infrastructure. Not saying it would be easy or that we could necessarily win in that scenario, but we would make them pay dearly. That's the deterrent.

edit: Sorry, I just took comments as I read 'em, and didn't read through to the end first. Everyone's moved on. Ehhh.

Guns kept those North Vietnamese sampans off our beaches and the entire coast safe from those invaders..

 

[Mr. Coffee]

I can understand why some people think that way. But try to realize that if the citizens have no weapons, some other nation could contemplate using a couple of well-placed nukes and an ultimatum, rationalizing that our leaders should capitulate; then they can come in with conventional ground forces and run the place with soldiers on every corner. But if everyone has a couple of firearms, they know the citizens will fight tooth and nail and they will struggle to take the cities and countryside inch by inch. No soldier would be safe outside of an armored vehicle. They won't simply decimate the whole country with bombs or whatever, because they want the prize: the natural resources, the farmland, the buildings, the infrastructure. Not saying it would be easy or that we could necessarily win in that scenario, but we would make them pay dearly. That's the deterrent.

edit: Sorry, I just took comments as I read 'em, and didn't read through to the end first. Everyone's moved on. Ehhh.

In such a scenario would personal firearms be the weapons of choice? I kind of doubt it. More likely there would be some mixture of IEDs and commercial drones converted to loitering munitions.

Also there is a huge scale problem. To occupy a country as large as the United States, even assuming very little resistance, would require an army of about 30 million. I note that no army currently in existence, even if we interpret propaganda and reserve numbers generously, even approaches that number. There are too many streets and not enough tanks in the whole world to pull that off.

Smart thing to do if invading the United States is figure out how to nuke us back to the stone age without us figuring out who did it. Wait 30 years for the radiation to wear off and then invade and you are likely only dealing with a few million survivors. That would be easier (and probably take less time) than an invasion with most of the population and infrastructure intact. I'd argue that figuring out how to nuke the USA without anyone figuring out who did it would be easier than that invasion.

 

[srolle]

Lmao from the OP's article.
Average Californian throttle enjoyer.
It's exactly as my mind pictured it. Amazing.