Are they? i ride regularly and have only ever seen two e-bikes pass me, 99% of riders i encounter ride standard mtb's. I don't think they will replace them, merely offer an alternative form of enjoyment.
On balance, I still am not a fan of e-bikes (previously known as ‘I just don’t get E bikes’)
- Thread starter 2manyoranges
- Start date
Are they? i ride regularly and have only ever seen two e-bikes pass me, 99% of riders i encounter ride standard mtb's. I don't think they will replace them, merely offer an alternative form of enjoyment.
I think this is a dangerous line to take. I have been involved in several access campaigns regarding other user groups wanting to limit the legal rights of way to their own usage. Lets be right, all trails are caused by errosion, or worse still these days, shovels and machinery. By the way, every case was lost, along with the access rights.
I agree, I don't think they will replace them. But there are loads of eMTBs and commuter ebikes around here in very hilly North Wales. I reckon it's about 2/3 of the bikes I see now - the major change came during lockdown. Admittedly, most of the eMTBs are being ridden by middle aged and older people on fire road type paths or normal roads. They aren't shredding the gnar on the local trails. And I strongly suspect they are new/returning riders who would not consider riding around here on a normal bike.
The biggest issue I see with cycling for most new/returning cyclists is fitness. Few want to cycle miles into the driving wind/rain/up a steep hill for the fun of it. My local facebook is full of conventional bikes where someone has tried it 3-4 times and decided the hobby isn't for them - and if we are honest, it's fitness which is probably the barrier. Especially around here. An ebike enables the fitness transition to be managed and still have fun.
Last edited:
I can see them making more sense in hillier terrain, though the Peak District is not without the odd hill.
2manyoranges
Old School Grand Master
- Feedback
- View
Actually it’s got some very odd hills….
I like them
…and we discovered the merits of the Howgill Fells - this side of the M6 whereas the Lakes of course are on the far side.
Excellent place. And we bumped into the Hope boys carrying up whilst we were on a ‘non bike’ hike. Lovely people. Nice chat with them for 30 mins. ‘We make things for ourselves and then people buy them….’ …they said. Nice.
- Feedback
- View
I said, most likely not the 'legal' ebikes doing the damage, but derestricted and technically motorbike bicycles. I wouldn't have thought a 200W/250W assisted cycle had enough umph to rip up more than a slipping manual cyclist does (could be wrong, but I see them get pushed up hills still).
The ripples are under braking? I though weights were similar given some bike people ride.
It is similar to crosses going up and down the routes, both are illegal if they are current rights of way for cycles (bridleways and cycle lanes).
Or do you want anyone to go down anything?
Nothing here is altering the current restrictions to legal rights of way.
CassidyAce
Senior Retro Guru
For the purposes of discussion, I think we could divide our environmental impacts into three categories (or 'ideal types'):
1) Unavoidable consequences of our existence: we need to eat, breathe, etc., and inevitably these things have environmental consequences. We can't do much to change these.
2) Surplus impacts that are consequences of the societies we live in, e.g. it's not a fact of human existence that people need cars but it's a product of our societies that we often need cars to get to work, to transport children to school, etc. Human needs can be met in various ways but the ways they're met in modern societies are often especially damaging. Individuals' options are set by their social environment; there's not much that isolated individuals can do to change them: it requires social change.
3) Gratuitous impacts, e.g. people buying e-bikes just because they're lazy, flights abroad just for sight-seeing, etc. Individuals can certainly change those behaviours on their own.
In practice, all three might be blended in one action, e.g. my family needs to eat (unavoidable); because I'm in a modern society I drive to the supermarket (socially constructed impact); and if I'm a selfish, wealthy, and environmentally irresponsible individual, I might drive there in my Ferrari (gratuitous) instead of something more fuel-efficient. But distinguishing between them at least highlights what individuals can change, what requires social change, and what we can't really change.
I think that the focus of your complaint regarding e-bikes is really centred on their gratuitous use and that's relatively uncontroversial. Where possible, using an e-bike instead of a car is also relatively uncontroversial, if it's a more environmentally friendly way to cope with the demands modern societies have placed on us. Why the bike industry is promoting e-bikes no doubt has much to do with modern capitalism, and that's a much larger debate, but I think it's fair to say that changing the conditions under which they operate is beyond the scope of a single company and probably a single industry. Again, it requires social change to break the discrepancy between what's in individuals' immediate interests and what's in humanity's longer term interests. I wouldn't hold your breath while waiting for change.
Not really what we were on about but yes, i could see that being a problem. Though again, not really an issue around the area's i ride as there are none.
I suspect there's plenty who would put some of @CassidyAce 's category 2 into 3 (and probably vice versa). A green holier-than-thou colleague of mine defended her family's flights abroad as essential for her child's education.
I've never had a car, and personally don't care if someone drives a Ferrari on occasion. Likely, they get a lot of pleasure out of it and it might displace a more carbon intensive activity. Probably what we could all do with is some form of personal carbon budget - to be spent how individuals wish, whether it be a sports car, some really nice chow imported on a coal powered steam ship, an ebike, flights overseas, or the old favourite of finger wagging puritans everywhere - a flat screen TV and sky subscription.
I've never had a car, and personally don't care if someone drives a Ferrari on occasion. Likely, they get a lot of pleasure out of it and it might displace a more carbon intensive activity. Probably what we could all do with is some form of personal carbon budget - to be spent how individuals wish, whether it be a sports car, some really nice chow imported on a coal powered steam ship, an ebike, flights overseas, or the old favourite of finger wagging puritans everywhere - a flat screen TV and sky subscription.
Didn't they have, or trial something along those lines in Australia?
