For those of you in countries that care about people and push pedestrian safety in vehicle design: take a close look at that front bumper if you haven’t.
that will be the bike
The limiter on an ebike also protects the 14 year old kid riding it from going too fast. If it didn’t have limits then it’d be an electric motorbike that would need licencing, insurance, roadworthiness etc.
OK but I’m not 14 nor are most of the people riding electric bikes. You can voluntarily put a limiter on it if your kid is riding it.
What does the 14yo have to do with licensing, insurance and roadworthiness?
It’s totally possible to put age restrictions on activities without requireing licensing, insurance or anything else. You don’t need a license or insurance to drink, for example.
But it’s also illegal to be drunk in public
I don’t know about you but I would very much like there to be restrictions on the size and speed of vehicles in bike lanes and I have personally witnessed a ton of assholes riding the good ol dui-cycles blasting 30mph on a multiuse path with pedestrians and normal cyclists. All that does is turn what are supposed to be safe paths into another area where you can injured my a motorized vehicle.
We already have requirements for motorized vehicles and the whole purpose of the max speed on the bikes is so that they aren’t considered mopeds which have had regulatory requirements for decades
But it’s also illegal to be drunk in public
If you live in a puritanic theocracy, then this is true.
We already have requirements for motorized vehicles and the whole purpose of the max speed on the bikes is so that they aren’t considered mopeds which have had regulatory requirements for decades
Look up why moped regulations (including speed limiters and speed limits) were introduced.
It was done because car lobbyists wanted to make sure that mopeds sucked bad enough that people would continue to buy cars instead of smaller, lower power vehicles.
Your argument might make sense if there wasn’t the higher power powered motorcycles without regulation…
Motorcycle- no max speed or horsepower and requires maximum amount of regulations
Moped - less horsepower and less regulations
Motorized bicycle - even lower hp/speed with minimal regulations
Companies keep trying to blur the lines between motorized bicycles and mopeds instead of giving Americans the usable commuter mopeds that exist in other countries like India.
usable commuter mopeds
You’re talking about 125cc bikes like Honda Airblade, Wave or Activa, that do 55mph stock?
Those are the exact things that blur the line between scooter and motorcycle. IMO the american equivalent would need to go a bit faster to be safe on highways.
Look up why moped regulations (including speed limiters and speed limits) were introduced.
It was done because car lobbyists wanted to make sure that mopeds sucked bad enough that people would continue to buy cars instead of smaller, lower power vehicles.
Do you have a source for this claim? I tried to look it up but just got the justification (to keep them under the motorcycle classification). I don’t really doubt you but verification would be nice.
Fuck cars, but also fuck idiots on unlicensed 40mph Temu deathtraps.
Want to go Bertie Big Bollocks fast, grow some leg muscles.
Tbf, an idiot in a 40mph temu deathtrap crashing against you would still do roughly half the damage of one of those trucks crashing against you at 10mph. But yeah, I hate them too.
To be fair that truck is unsafe at any speed.
Even sitting in the parking lot people bash their legs on the tow hitch.
bash their legs on the tow hitch
I doubt that very much, see as it’s practically at eye-level.
At the rate many pedestrians are locked into looking down at their phones, eye level obstructions are maybe more dangerous.
The height actually makes it worse cause they will often have a drop hitch to get low enough to meet the trailer, this tends to make it even less noticeable that there is a hitch at shin level.
Okay, maybe their arms
Well, it is a Dodge so it is likely broken down and needs an engine or transmission, or both.
The drunk driver will still find a way to get it going.
Got a big date with his cousin he doesn’t want to miss.
I can hear the ‘Hemi tick’ all the way from Australia.
unsafe at any speed
Found the Nader!
I’d say the speed limits on ebikes are primarily there for the safety of the operator, not others. Pretty much all cars nowadays have similar electronic limits.
They are there because ebikes often share space with pedestrians, and bycicle paths are much more likely to intersect
The people getting the limiter laws passed aren’t doing it for rider safety, they’re doing it because their constituent’s confirmation bias and motornormativity is causing them to phone or write in complaints that they would have never made over a near-death encounter with a pickup truck.
For instance my wrangler is limited to about 80 through the engineering of a low power engine and the wind resistance of a cardboard box.
Looooooool 👏
The electric bicycle doesn’t require a license to use. Supposedly you have been properly trained in the operation of a vehicle and are licensed to use it before getting behind the wheel. Supposedly. In reality the DMV hands licenses out like Halloween candy.
I hit 50 MPH on downhills on my regular human-powered bicycle. Don’t need a license or training for that either.
I’ve got a license to drive heavy-weight vehicles, I should be allowed to ride my ebike at 90km/h, pretty please?
Get a scooter or motorcycle then? You absolutely should be able to drive a high speed 2 wheeled vehicle if you have the training and one safe to travel that speed.
The arguments made for bicycles being speed limited make sense, because it’s not just about licensing requirements (what precious few there are…) but also mechanical limits on safe operation and a need to find a balance between individual freedom and public safety.
This is also the reason why, in Europe at least, all trucks have a 90 km/h governor by law, even though truck drivers are licensed to a higher standard than car drivers.
Cars being excluded from the conversations we are having about trucks and bicycles and motorcycles is nothing but pure hypocrisy. But then again, when has hypocrisy ever stopped a politician?
We’re mostly trained to drive at 60kmph and not 150kmph, yet there’s no limiter at 90kmph.
But yes i agree, these rule are to protect the rider, not others, just like the mandatory helmet rule on moped and motorcycle.
Arguably regular bicycles should require a license to use, especially if they’re ridden on roads (and I’m an avid cyclist saying this). Something I’ve seen a lot in recent years is people (full-grown adults who should know better as well as children) riding on the wrong side of the road, against traffic. It’s just beyond insane how dumb this is - not to mention completely illegal.
I few weeks ago I was riding home and came face-to-face with a woman on a bike towing her two little children, riding on the wrong side of the road around a completely blind turn. I was barely able to avoid hitting her, and I was on a bike. A car going a normal 25 mph around that turn likely would have crashed into her. I stopped and tried to talk to her about what she was doing, but she gave me that bland cow look that people adopt when they decide not to listen to criticism and rode on down the wrong side of the street.
The wrong side thing I’d say is probably because many bikes (even ebikes!) don’t come with a mirror. So the rider lacks awareness if they aren’t doing regular head-turns.
Similar lacking bell, which can be used to announce your presence to other people who might be around the corner (when you wouldn’t want to use a loud horn).
The wrong side thing I’d say is probably because many bikes (even ebikes!) don’t come with a mirror.
So … you think the absence of a safety device (mirror or bell) turns riding on the wrong side of the road against traffic, around a completely blind corner with no shoulder, with two little children in tow, into a good idea? I don’t understand what would make someone think that.
My point is just that there is some reasoning behind it, even if it isn’t preferred. As I said in another comment, plus the caveat:
This logic also assumes you’re getting over as much as you can (even totally off the road if it isn’t a ditch) whenever you see oncoming traffic though. Either way, not preferred.
I mention safety devices because obviously I think people should have them. There should be free/cheap options (or already on the bike when bought). A mirror should fix the desire to be going the wrong way, but even a bell used (her or you) could’ve improved the situation either way.
even a bell used (her or you) could’ve improved the situation
A bell would have been useless had it been a car instead of me on my bike.
This logic also assumes you’re getting over as much as you can (even totally off the road if it isn’t a ditch) whenever you see oncoming traffic
Hence why this isn’t “logic” at all. There are many situations in which a cyclist riding against traffic has nowhere to go - like almost every road and street in my district, which have no shoulders and often high curbs and dense vegetation. Riding against traffic also happens to be illegal, as bikes are required to obey the same traffic laws as motorized vehicles. Not all laws reflect common sense, but these sure as hell do.
I’d guess it’s more likely because they don’t want to have to cross the street (twice!) because their destination is on the same side of the street. They judge (maybe correctly) that it’s safer to ride the wrong way for a short distance than to cross four lanes twice.
Maybe, but that’s circumstantial.
What I said is just… fear of getting ran over because by the time you notice* the sound of the motor of an extremely heavy and fast vehicle approaching you it’s probably right behind you. This logic also assumes you’re getting over as much as you can (even totally off the road if it isn’t a ditch) whenever you see oncoming traffic though. Either way, not preferred.
This was my own logic (not that I actually rode very much like that) until I got myself a mirror.
* also knowing that it’s approaching you, not going some other direction
Seems to me that building distinct infrastructure for non-motor vehicles is much better solution than growing out the bureaucratic machinery that would be required to license every damn bicycle, and that any time we get the misplaced urge to self-harm by suggesting that this joy of a transportation mode be made to comply with the same licensing requirements as 2+ ton combustion machine we instead redirect that energy into something positive like infrastructure advocacy.
I mean, it’s not really an either/or thing. Even good bicycle infrastructure requires cyclists to be knowledgeable in how to use it. For example, I’m religious about saying “on your left” when passing other cyclists or pedestrians on our local bicycle path. I probably say it 20-30 times a ride. But in twenty years of regular riding, almost every day, I don’t think I’ve heard it said to me by a passing cyclist even 10 times total - they just never do it. I don’t think it’s because they just want to be dicks, I think they genuinely have no idea they should be doing it, same reason they never use hand signals - because there’s no requirement for them to learn this. Knowing what to do on a public road is even more important.
Actually, it’s not an either/or thing - it’s neither/nor in the United States.
Yeah it’s nice that you’re so considerate and it’s definitely not unappreciated, but you’re certainly in a small minority of cyclists in wanting those behaviors to be the norm. I’m confident that most cyclists consider those to generally be car behaviors and unless you’re in close quarters with another cyclist or around cars, they’re never really required and absolutely not expected. There is no world in which I’m going to want or expect other cyclists to be making hand signals meant to get the attention of drivers every time they need to make a turn, and so long as I’m not in a very tight spot on the path I’d rather that other cyclists pass me without having to make a ritual of it. Yours is definitely not an axe that most of us want to grind. Just so you’re aware.
I’m for options. Where I live there is no option. You must drive. The busses come once and hour and go nowhere useful itnseems. There are few sidewalks and fewer bike lanes. Even if you wanted to ride a bike there’s strides everywhere making it dangerous AF.
I want the option to drive, or walk, or ride a bike, or take a bus.
Ebikes typically have a speed limiter. That brodozer doesn’t because they modded it.
However, some go fuck-all by rolling their own ebikes for higher speeds to get around license restrictions normally needed for a motorcycle.
Which one of these vehicles expects to be operated in pedestrian spaces?
I don’t know why this is so hard. Cars should also have speed limiters, and the reason they don’t is bullshit tradition. As we invent the next paradigm in personal transportation we shouldn’t be making the same mistakes. I really can’t imagine how anyone could disagree with this unless they are acting in bad faith.
The existence of ebikes doesn’t depreciate the existence of motorcycles or mopeds. If you want a motorcycle or moped then get one, but don’t pretend it’s ok to ride it on bike paths.
Cars operate in pedestrian spaces all the time.
You make it sound like cars are driving over the sidewalk at the same propensity and speed that they are driving on the road.
Never seen a crosswalk?
Yes, this is precisely what I mean by “bad faith.” Even in the most terminally car brain culture there is effort made to separate pedestrian and automobile traffic, even if that means time interleaving on the same roadway. Very few places in the developed world allow pedestrians and automobiles to share the same roadway at the same time the way bicycles and pedestrians can.
The simple and (I thought) self evident premise here is that cyclists and pedestrians can coexist in ways pedestrians and motor vehicles cannot. Blurring the line between a bicycle and a moped serves nobody besides those who seek to perpetuate the exact same legacy ideas which currently force pedestrians and motor vehicles into needless, dangerous conflict.
It’s bad faith to claim that city streets are exclusively for cars. City streets have always been mixed use spaces historically.
Cars are so dangerous they annexed the mixed use spaces they run in. Cars are a threat to everything around them. Bikes are forced into conflict with pedestrians as much as they are because of the amount space that has been seized by cars.
Roads need to be rebuilt to eliminate or control cars to make them safe to those around them. Cars are the most dangerous thing on the roads, and should be treated as the threat that they are.
Even in the most terminally car brain culture there is effort made to separate pedestrian and automobile traffic
What’s a “crosswalk” then?
time interleaving on the same roadway.
That’s what a crosswalk is.
Furthermore, for all modes of transport (even boats), crossing situations are where most crashes occur; overtaking crashes are relatively rare. The reason for not mixing vehicle and pedestrian traffic moving in the same direction (and the reason for creating sidewalks in the first place) is for speed and convenience of drivers, at the cost of pedestrian safety. Even in places where people walk in the street, crossings are where they most often get killed.
I’m upset because the government put a bunch of roads in between my house and the other places I like to go, so I have to be around cars in order to get places. I don’t think that’s fair.
Again, nothing is preventing you from having a moped, or riding a bicycle on the street. However, there are many other places in the world where there are trails and other infrastructure meant to be shared with pedestrians, which is why it is important that the distinction between bicycle and moped/motorcycle be understood.
I can’t speak for elsewhere but in much of Canada the situation is opposite what you’re suggesting. Bicycles are legally considered vehicles and are expected to use the road with other traffic if no bicycle lanes or designated paths are available. It is illegal for them to share the sidewalk with pedestrians.
This is, however, very rarely enforced.
Here’s a lot of places where pedestrians and cyclists share the same walkways, maybe it’s the same where the other commenter is from? It can definitely be a problem of infrastructure; even ones biking without electricity often go waaayyy too fast for it to be safe at all.
I walk with my dog a lot and almost every day there’s a situation where some crazy cyclists flies past us like 30km/h and doesn’t even ring the bell. If I had a more reactive dog it would be a nightmare, a lot of of dogs are triggered to chase if something “runs” past like that, even if they’re super friendly and wouldn’t actually do anything if they caught the “prey”. I don’t understand how the cyclists don’t care for their own safety even if they clearly don’t care about others; if a bigger dog lunges at them (which is almost impossible to prevent with zero warning time, even if they dog was held by the collar) they’re the ones that could fly to the asphalt from high and hard. I’m surprised more small children aren’t hit by bikes as well, since the cyclists don’t seem to slow down for them either.
And yes cars are often a problem as well and the crosswalks can be horribly unsafe because of idiots driving, but at least here the cyclists too are causing constant danger to pedestrians - because of the bad desing. Even without ebikes bike lanes are a must just as roads for cars are
Mixing pedestrians, bicycles, and motorbikes on the same path is fine though, motorbikes can go around pedestrians in a way cars can’t.
Furthermore, in contrast to a car, I see people in bycicles and even ebikes far less willing to brake for any obstacles or civilians in their path. This is because they are less adept at accelerating and braking, so they want to conserve momentum above all else. They also have less visibility at a glance given how bad or completely absent most bicycle mirrors are, and maintaining stability, having to operate the pedals, and having to turn your head and body far more often while being in a far more uncomfortable position makes for a far more stressed operator.
I’ve always considered it absurd that scooters can’t have seats in a lot of countries, this is the one thing bicycles and ebikes get right and it allows for a safer ride with the possibility to rest from the stress of it. Being able to walk and use the road shouldn’t be a vehicle training issue, it should be road education training issue. Speed, that is one that varies significantly, like Germany’s autobahn shows. Cars can receive traffic tickets and revoking licenses. On an ebike, there isn’t a license to revoke, and 25km/h is already considerably dangerous to bystanders, specially coming from a vehicle that far from being designed and tested for collisions is a mesh of protruding elements instead that also has the absence of an insurance provider for when accidents do happen
This is fuck cars, don’t expect common sense to predominate, people here hate cars as if they were in a religion dedicated to it. I wonder how many just live in a bubble of privilege where the countries are wealthy enough to have the carless transit infrastructure and their lifestyles are sedentary enough and localized in a sufficiently centralized urban hub where they can actually hold those beliefs.
But don’t you understand? I need to be able to go 130 mph at a moments notice! Just think of all the times I could need that!
I actually think the point of this lifted truck is to kill pedestrians; a lot of people LARP running people over and getting away with no consequences.
They also usually own firearms.
So should you (and know firearms safety)
They also usually own firearms.
So should you (and know firearms safety)
This guy gets it.
About as accurate as video games causing violence. The stuff you all make up is wild.
… pickups or SUVs accounted for 89% of the “kills.” Cars accounted for the other 11%.
I’m talking about the lies and propaganda and the insane attacks on people 🤣🤣🤣
deleted by creator
Plus one of them doesn’t blow exhaust into the face of the rider on the other one. I know I’d take the one that doesn’t have exhaust.
Both? Almost all cars have speed limiters because the tires they ship with arent rated for higher speeds.
A truck like that probably only can do 100mph maybe 120mph. A governor wouldn’t kick in until like 150mph. Most of the cars I have seen where it matters have a “track mode” to turn it off anyway.
The speed limit seems to be 105 according to google. Speed limiter removed looks like about 120? It may be a a brick, but 300 HP is still 300HP. As long as it’s got reasonable gearing it should easily exceed 100mph. With half the power (and cylinders) my Outback can do faster than that, and it ain’t exactly aerodynamic.
The truck in the picture also weighs at least twice what your Outback probably weighs. A quick search tells me that in testing a 260hp ‘24 Outback topped out at 124mph. Yours is likely around the same, but that is going to depend on what engine configuration and year yours has as well as the mileage, etc.
Weight has relatively little impact on top speed, it’s mostly just time to get to top speed. Aerodynamics are far more important. My Outback makes 175 HP and is speed limited to 120, and it will do 119.9mph.
Weight matters more than you would think for top speed on what I am assuming is a diesel. My main original point though was that there is no way that truck is able to hit its limit.
The truck doesn’t have a motor at all. It’s got an engine.
death machine to compensate for no life
How many trucks per year kill while going above 80?
