Shanghaiist asks, Why in the world would Chinese cities ban electric bikes? We all know that China is far more friendly to cars than bikes these days. The good thing is most motorists (most of whom barely have any driving skills, by the way, but that’s a rant for another day) are aware of cyclists. China may be a city Chinese cities may be known for bicycles, but it is staggering how few of these cyclists actually know how to go in a straight line, follow traffic rules, watch where they’re going, take care to pay attention to their surroundings, and be sensible road users in general.
Those on (silent) electric bikes are exactly the same, they just do it without pedalling and go much faster. There is nothing worse than someone who is out of control on a push bike — except for someone who is out of control on an electric one. Electric bikes are dangerous between the legs of these people. Therefore, they should be banned.
It is a huge infrastructure / urban planning problem. The far looking people in the US are trying to rebuild cities so that cars are not needed so much.
In the last 20 years the SF Bay Area has been really regretting that GM back room lobbying led to them ripping out the light rail system that was in place.
With China doubling its oil imports every three years, oil prices are only going up.
Comment by Terry — 18 November 2005 @ 5:39 am
Well, GM wasn’t the only culprit. IIRC Firestone Tire had an even larger hand in it.
That said, very few suburban cities are tolerating even discussion of Mass Transit-useable development (absolutely needs high population density to function). Last time I heard of a develpoer trying to get a 100 unit developed, the Village of Schaumburg (fast growth in Chicago suburbs) wanted it surrounded by an 80 acre park. If the overall density isn’t high enough, it doesn’t ever pay to have frequent bus service and hourly or worse, bi-hourly, doesn’t begin to “cut it”.
Comment by Jhn1 — 20 November 2005 @ 11:29 am
Actually, every automobile and tire manufacturer in the US conspired to do away with light rail by nefariously producing a transportation system which actually gets people wherever they want to go, thereby rendering inflexible capital-intensive rail systems obsolete and unprofitable.
Comment by triticale — 20 November 2005 @ 9:40 pm
Hell, down here in Alabamy, we ride ‘lectric pogo sticks! I got one that will run about 90 on the hop, but she’s hard to keep ‘tween the ditch banks at that speed.
Comment by Soak Hinson — 20 November 2005 @ 11:03 pm
What local government in their right mind wants the expenses and headaches of more dense residential zoning?
Except cities that have high residential property taxes, and they already have mass transit?
Much easier to tax service industries that require far fewer services.
Comment by Otis Wildflower — 22 November 2005 @ 1:48 am
China may be a city? Talk about a buried lede!
Comment by Stickler — 1 December 2005 @ 9:20 am
Oops. Corrected.
Comment by Andrea — 1 December 2005 @ 11:22 am