Someday I am going to get a used adventure bike, and modify it to be a hybrid capable of electric only at low speeds / low acceleration, and charge that with solar panels.
Why not an electric bicycle?
Theyre astoundingly overpriced for what they are.
Why not public transportation?
Well obviously use that whenever possible, but I like the hybrid concept because if you run out of fuel, you can do electric running, or if power goes out, you can charge batteries or run important equipment via the gas motor going through a transformer into a battery yada yada.
That and it’ll be useful to be able to cruise around on said motorcycle when our modern american civilized society finally collapses into chaos.
I am all for urban redesign projects and locally sustainable diverse economies and all that, but i dont have faith enough of that will happen quickly enough to basically make it totally safe to just stay in one particular metro area.
EDIT: I suppose maximum utility apocalypse bike would also be capable of running on ethanol, and maybe even somehow whatever the proper name for the fuel refined from fast food restaurant grease is, forget the name. Ive heard it makes your vehicle smell like french fries though lol.
Ebikes aren’t actually overpriced. Unless you buy them from Specialized. All those components are actually just that expensive. I can tell you this for sure because I compared the cost of building my own electric bike and buying a prebuilt one and I ended up going prebuilt.
I agree with you from the perspective of actual parts costs.
I probably should have specified this a bit better, but when I say they are overpriced for what they are, this is more what I mean:
(disclaimer I do not have total comprehensive knowledge of the entire ebike market, please correct me if I am wrong)
Generally speaking I see ebikes going for something like $1k to $3k, and generally speaking you get a top speed of about 20 to 25 mph, and a fully electric unassisted drive of about 40 miles, unless you pay a good deal more for bigger batteries/more advanced drive train, basically.
Sure, this is neat amd useful for people who do not need to move long distances.
But I guess you could say I dont fall into that use case demographic.
And I can get a used motorbike with significantly greater speeds, range, and greater off road capabilities in that same price range.
That’s fair. I live in a city of 100k people with bike paths or lanes to ~70% of where I’d want to go. So my life is on an ebike. I truly believe they are an important part of the solution to the problems car dependence caused.
I can tell you for sure that my ebike is cheaper in 3 years than a motorcycle in 1 because I first, don’t pay for gas, second, do all my own repairs and maintenance (I can’t do this on a motorcycle - I learned about my bike after getting it), and third, no secret fees like registration, insurance, or licensing. I paid 2,000 upfront for my ebike and with the price of my bike and all of my owning costs combined it isn’t even hitting 3,000 altogether. I’ve been able to save MASSIVELY because of this. Ah, and I take it out in the winter time as well. There’s been a lot less snow this year for us but I still don’t see motorbikes out when I’m on my ebike.
So I will unironically shill for ebikes because I believe in them as car replacements, since I live that life.
Our ebike takes about the same amount of time as driving for most of our trips and nearly halves public transit time to some places we go. It was about 2k, and for that price it has been an actual steal. I think we put about 1.5k miles on it in the first year, and cost wise I think it’ll break even at about double that.
It doesn’t sound like ebikes are overpriced, it sounds like you don’t find value in what an ebike does. And that’s totally ok, especially if you’re advocating for making your community more healthy and doing your best to live that way too.
It is a real shame that ebikes weren’t subsidized like electric cars are, that would have changed the equation a lot for folks who are more on the fence and could have started a shift where more people want safer places to use their new bikes.
Edit: just read your reply to the other folks, you get it. I gotta wake up more before I start commenting
Ebikes are great for a lot of people, but my particular desired use case for a vehicle makes them less than ideal.
That being said I am the kind of person who would also just enjoy the challenge of actually hybridizing some kind of motorbike on both a conceptual amd mechanical level, as well as the skills I can learn from that, and probably a lot of people just want to buy something that more or less just works, which is of course entirely reasonable.
I’m sure this is unpopular this community but I feel like “fuck cars” folks are either living in a dream world where public transport can answer everyone’s transportation needs. If you live in a city with all the amenities you need where public transport is good and economically viable sure, “Fuck cars”, but if you don’t…
I’m not a farmer, my nearest grocery store is 8 miles away. It’s rural and the cost of living is extremely cheap. it also snows a ton and often drops to sub zero temps.
It doesn’t. But that’s okay, because nobody gives a shit about special snowflakes way off the tail end of the bell curve like you – solving the problem for the 80% of everybody else, for whom reasonable solutions do apply, is plenty good enough!
Demanding that any solution be perfect enough to solve it for literally everyone including you is just bad-faith reactionary bullshit.
Bad example that you provided. I do not lease or make payments on my car. I may be on the end of the been curve but you save assume every person ever pays what’s in the articles headlines.
Using the calculator literally provided in the article you are citing my monthly cost for my car is $120. A lot less than the $1000/month they say as an average.
I’m also saving way more than that per month in rent by living where I do outside of a town or city.
Not a bait. I guess I belong to a small group of people who decide to make life-changing commitments in order to minimize their impact on the environment.
You assume your proposal is an “easy” solution. The main reason I live here in the first place is because the surrounding cities, that do have amenities and public transport, are much more expensive to live in. Is not that the town I live in is large in area, it’s quite walkable, it simply doesn’t have much.
It also reminds me of a guy I used to know who said he didn’t need a watch. Claiming he didn’t need to know the time that often. But what did he do? He asked everyone around him what the time was instead. Quite often. Oh and he was usually late to class.
Why am I telling you about him? Because it is the same sentiment as “I don’t need a car, if I want to see my friends (and relatives) I simply ask them to travel to me.”
You are clearly pointing one if the real solutions to individual motorized transportation, which is shared motorized transportation. In my area, people constantly borrow vehicles, equipments, tools and so on.
If you only have the option to drive and it looks like it will never change where you live, then yes, driving electric is better than driving an ICE car. You’re not the problem for needing to live your life with the limited options you have access to. However, that does not mean the intrinsic problems with cars disappear the instant they become electric, and this meme is mainly meant to respond to the techbro people who think just because electric cars exist now it makes transit obsolete or it solves literally everything wrong with cars in general, and use that to actively resist public transportation or attempt to turn public opinion against it. I should have added additional context to make that clearer.
Well I do drive electric now but I could not get by without a car. Honestly I would love it if public transport were viable for everyone. In London and Zurich I have experienced public transport that worked. Where I live a 1 hour car journey can mean a 3 or 4 hour trip by public transport and only if you are travelling at the right time of day. Unfortunately I don’t necessarily get to choose when I make some of those trips because it is part of my job. Unfortunately here, public transport is slow, expensive and unreliable here.
I know electric cars don’t solve everything, and maybe this meme is not exactly what I’m responding to, but for a lot of people, public transport is just not a viable alternative.
Like I said I know it’s not going to be a popular sentiment here.
I live in Vancouver and our transit agency is seriously considering ripping the trolleybus lines out. Just like how they ripped the streetcars out before the trolleybuses came and then shamelessly told us that it’s too expensive to reinstall the tracks so we’re just never getting it back. In both cases it was because “it’s getting too expensive to maintain” after they deferred maintenance for ages so everything is falling apart and the small problems got compounded into showstoppers from neglect.
It’s also (western) safety standards. Even small cars are larger; compare an 80s Corolla to a 90s to a 2010s. Compare bmw 3-series across the same time span. To make cars safer for occupants, you need more metal and more space. So they got larger.
There are stil legitimate reasons for those size vehicles to be on the road so I think it’s still good to have safety for all sizes, but I see what you mean about spiraling out of control easily.
Another interesting contributing factor are safety regulations and their knock-on effects, which weren’t immediately obvious when they were implemented.
For instance, in an effort to reduce pedestrian fatalities from frontal collisions, vehicles in the US were mandated to have at least three inches of crumple space between the hood of the car and the engine block. The thinking being that more crumple depth would help prevent fatalities and serious injuries that occurred when a pedestrian hit the hood of the vehicle, which would deflect, allowing those soft human bits to continue right into the (not soft at all) engine block.
Well increasing the height of the hood of the vehicle meant that they had to raise the A-pillar, which raised the height of the window opening on the doors, since the bottom of the side windows generally lines up with the hood on passenger vehicles. This meant that the side body panels of the vehicle just generally increased in size, and in an effort to maintain a proportional look, the wheels also had to increase in size otherwise they would look weirdly small. And to maintain a comparable amount of visibility out the windshield and side windows, the roof of the vehicle had to be raised to compensate for the new position of the window sill in the doors.
So something that was intended to just add an inch or two of height to the hoods of existing passenger vehicles to satisfy a safety need, ended scaling up the entire vehicle.
Public transit would be great if you didn’t have to ride with other people. That’s my real problem with it in America at least; there are always loud and gross people aboard. My town has phenomenal bud infrastructure, but people drive because it’s faster, and because you don’t have to be around undesirable people.
Maybe public transportation where each person or group could ride in their own automated pod, which would be publicly owned. That way you could still go skiing/hiking/etc, since mass transportation to those places is very difficult due to low volume.
or you could bring in headphones to public transport like the rest of us
also lmao “public transportation where each person or group could ride in their own automated pod”, you’re either advocating for taxis or straight up segregation
Emission standards are based on size and weight. Bigger vehicles have less strict emission standards so rather than giving a fuck about the environment car manufacturers found a loophole by just making everything bigger.
Something people overlook when the word “loophole” is used in federal regulation. Mot of the time those loopholes are intentionally put there so that the industry that is the target of regulation doesn’t have to do anything. And since congressmen don’t actually write regulation, understand what they are regulating, nor give a fuck about anything besides getting paid, they all vote for legislation that has those “loopholes,” and can shrug their shoulders when the “intent” of the regulation is ignored.
I mean when it burns it burns, it’s a total either way, it just blocks traffic longer than a normal car, with the upside of not leaking burnable liquids that can do damage in larger areas.
Car fires from ICE's are magnitudes more common and cause more damage every year because of this. If you spent half a second to search this you'd find that reports indicate that per 100,000 vehicles sold in their respective powertrains in their lifetime, 25 electric cars catch fire, and 1,530 gas vehicles catch fire. While searching this, something that caught me off guard and surprised me was that hybrids are even higher, 3,475! The more you know.
My favorite part about this sub is how everyone acts like the entire world is able to just stop having a car and be able to carry on normally about their lives as if cars haven’t been forced into nearly all infrastructure plans globally since this inception. Like it’s every citizens personal choice that nobody built a functioning transit system in the many decades before they were born, or that the place they can afford to live is too far from the place that pays the wages they need to live is too far to bike or bus to.
Like, push for fewer cars and less car centric design, but also stop being a fucking cunty dick about it.
Oh I’d love to hear your explanation for why it’s irrelevant, and what crucial oversight I’ve made that you’ve managed to in your extensive 16 hours on Lemmy.
Ur comment is irrelevant to this post, as this post is merely talking about the inefficiencies of electric cars. It has not even mentioned the humans driving these cars. Had that been the case, your comment would’ve been relevant.
This post is an attempt to dispel the myth that electric cars are somehow better than ICE cars. Do you see why your comment is dumb?
Your reading comprehension and understanding of English vocabulary is about on par with your lemmy account age.
Til things like “urban sprawl” are inefficiencies inherent to electric cars, and the lengthy list of these inefficiencies are definitely not drawn parallel to ICE in order to suggest that people should instead drive neither as the underlying theme of the post, particularly given the theme of the sub, which I am able to observe because I’ve been here longer than 16 hours.
Your reading comprehension and understanding of English vocabulary is about on par with your lemmy account age.
Are you really trying to discredit someone else’s argument by using their “lemmy age”? Like… are you trying very hard to be this guy?
Now I’ll still assume that your argument is in good faith and respond accordingly. So let’s recap.
The post listed the inefficiencies of electric cars besides ICE cars. The underlying message was that electric cars only solve a very very small problem that ICE cars have, but still possess most of the issues of ICE cars. Hence, we need a much better alternative (trains, wink wink).
To this, you replied saying that this community unfairly criticized car owners. According to you, the infrastructure is the biggest one to blame rather than car owners. Which I would only partially agree (as most car owners still support car centric infrastructure). Of course, if there’s not train in your city, you can’t ride one! But you definitely can lobby for one. Your implicit biases against this community due to those one or two crazy posts skewed your perception in weird ways.
This post is most definitely directed at the tech bros (or the Tesla fanboys), according to whom the solution for GHG emissions from the transportation sector is electric cars. I hope that you agree that this is a dumb argument. This post merely makes fun of this argument. This community is not a monolith, you know… It is thus very important to take the context of every post within itself.
You could’ve argued against/for this idea. Instead, you put up something weird and irrelevant like “this community is dumb for blaming car owners”. You might be right, but it just diverts away from the topic of discussion. Why not create your own post explaining your position? It’s like going to a post saying “We need to increase the minimum wage” on a lefty community and commenting “but the lefties are commies”. This MIGHT be true, but it is not at all relevant to the discussion itself, is it?
fuck_cars
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.