- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://fedia.io/m/[email protected]/t/2946252
California’s ambitious statewide electric bicycle incentive program is officially dead – and it didn’t even get a funeral. After years…
You must log in or register to comment.
People think california is a liberal state without realizing that means car brains and fascism.
Exactly , California is as car centric as any place in America
Liberalism is a rightist ideology. It’s a means to fascist and feudalist ends, but with extra steps to obscure their goals.
No.
So with the remaining $17m that would be 17,000 e-bike. Say that’s about 1/3 the cost of an e-bike (it’s more like 1/2 but some can get very expensive). For the same level of subsidy you only get 680 cars (average $50k, 1/2 subsidy). Unless it’s still a $1k subsidy in which case what’s the point, who will that persuade who wasn’t already going to buy one? So incredibly wasteful
Good.
E-bikes are too fast, heavy, ridden by idiots in close proximity to pedestrians, and are just as bad as E-scooters at disregarding traffic rules. Riders are way under-equipped to handle a crash at E-bike speeds. These riders are always on pedestrian rights of way even where there are plenty of signs stating electric scooters and bikes are not allowed.
I’m all for alternative transportation that reduces cars on the road, but fuck these things.
E-bikes arent the problem my dude, car culture is
I’m assuming you don’t live in a hilly area. As someone who rides for recreation around areas with steeper inclines, my ebike has been a gateway to outdoor activity I would have otherwise avoided. Now I’m not zooming on trails inconsiderately, and that is a problem, but from a technology standpoint they’re kind of the best of both worlds when used responsibly.
You’re basically saying that because you say you behave right e-bikes are fine. I’m sure there are responsible car owners that have exactly the same excuse.
It sounds like we’ve had drastically different experiences.
I’m saying they are better than fine, and a great technology for mobility as an alternative to cars for single riders, and if paired with other methods of transport (busses, light rail) they’re a fantastic last mile solution.
I’ve personally nearly been run over by bike riders going way too fast on the streets of Amsterdam, I doubt the extra 20lbs of a battery would have made a difference in the danger there. Lack of education, personal responsibility, and enforcement doesn’t equate to a wonderful technology being discouraged for those who would most be positively impacted, and I personally think they’re a fantastic way to encourage a decline in the number of cars in the road in urban environments.
Your points aren’t invalid, and I agree a self centered asshole zooming around at 25mph is an issue in a crowded sidewalk, but I think that speaks more of our current post-covid society of selfishness than the technology itself.
Responsibility is the issue. How many asshats ride around where they shouldn’t be sullieing the use of them for everyone
I don’t disagree with you, but that’s the same for almost anything if consideration for others is thrown out the window.
Taking the fight straight into @fuckcars takes balls I’ll give you that
You can’t build a non absolute junk e bike for 1k with the tarrifs. You likely couldn’t really do it even with just inflation. There was a specific window that this was maybe possible and nobody built the industry partners with contracts to actually exploit it, just figured offering the money would get it to happen. Welp.
Demand side policy alone is always just either a failure or creates perverse incentives. See similar outcomes for tax breaks to encourage say solar panel installation to create green new jobs. Great, you’re paying for installers and still have no domestic production industry
Demand side policy alone is always just either a failure or creates perverse incentives.
You should check out the entire car-dependent dystopia sometime. Cars are totally subsidized and literally destroying the planet while people complain about coupons for bikes.
You won’t find me arguing against that. That’s a case of supply side incentives against the wrong thing. That was kind of my point. We’re doing dumb liberal things like rebates for what’s good and actual industrial policy for what destroys us.
You also can’t reliably buy a car that isn’t on its way for less than $15-20k(Canadian) used and new cars are expensive these days. They’re normalized but that doesn’t mean that North Americans aren’t essentially forced to spend tens pf thousands of dollars on cars on a somewhat regular basis.
So many double negatives, I have no idea what you’re saying
They’re just complaining incoherently and counter-productively about coupons for bikes. The obfuscatory terminology (eg. demand side policy, perverse incentives) indicates a lib brainwashed by economic pseudo-science. There’s nothing “perverse” about riding bikes and saving the planet. It’s just nonsense econ jargon developed precisely to serve capital/cars. Note the extreme lack of any better idea.
Bonus boomer points for hating on solar panels.
Lib. Right. Me arguing that direct industry incentives ala China and India to actually solve your problems from a supply side instead of demand side incentives that just enrich middlemen while solving Jack Shit is totally a neolib position, not a materialist heterodox one.
So many double negatives
I mean there’s one and I thought it pretty straightforward but alright.
