Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

NPR's 'Morning edition' reports on e-bikes

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

NPR's 'Morning edition' reports on e-bikes

Old 01-02-23, 07:43 AM
  #1  
Arthur Peabody
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 243 Post(s)
Liked 108 Times in 64 Posts
NPR's 'Morning edition' reports on e-bikes

Nothing anyone here doesn't know already, of interest if you want to know what the media are saying.

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/02/11465...duce-emissions
Arthur Peabody is offline  
Likes For Arthur Peabody:
Old 01-11-23, 02:09 PM
  #2  
rydabent
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,818

Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II

Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3238 Post(s)
Liked 1,013 Times in 608 Posts
With an e-bike you wont get to work all hot and sweaty. Your fellow workers will like that.
rydabent is offline  
Old 01-12-23, 02:06 AM
  #3  
kooby
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Wroclaw
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 11 Posts
As much as e-bikes might annoy me, I'd really rather be annoyed than choking on car exhaust riding through the city center every morning.
kooby is offline  
Likes For kooby:
Old 01-12-23, 04:46 AM
  #4  
work4bike
Senior Member
 
work4bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,865
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3575 Post(s)
Liked 934 Times in 706 Posts
The other day I watched an ebike rider come to a 4-way stop and to their credit, they actually stopped and allowed the other vehicle to go, but it was so funny to watch how that person was all-thumbs as she tried to adjust her pedals so she could get up on the seat and start rolling again.

It's no different than any other recreational bike rider I see out there when they have to stop and get going again, they're very awkward in getting back starting. Or the many other ways I observe recreational bike riders make very basic mistakes riding a bike. I can kind of remember when I was that inefficient on a bike.

And now were seeing many more people getting on an ebike with this same lack of skill, but with all that power. No use in worrying about this, just sit back and watch the mayhem.


work4bike is offline  
Likes For work4bike:
Old 11-20-23, 12:07 PM
  #5  
Bigurrito
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Until they run into you on the bikepath
Bigurrito is offline  
Old 11-20-23, 02:10 PM
  #6  
Bmach
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,074
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 433 Post(s)
Liked 261 Times in 160 Posts
Originally Posted by Bigurrito
Until they run into you on the bikepath
It would be the rider that runs into you, the ebike is controlled by the rider not itself. So let’s stop blaming the ebike and put the blame on the riders, just as if they were riding fast on a hi end carbon bike. No difference!
Bmach is offline  
Old 11-20-23, 02:54 PM
  #7  
Polaris OBark
ignominious poltroon
 
Polaris OBark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 3,611
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2030 Post(s)
Liked 3,058 Times in 1,605 Posts
Originally Posted by work4bike
they're very awkward in getting back starting.
I have the same problem on e-bikes, especially getting started on a hill. It is like trying to get started on a fully loaded touring bike. A throttle can help, but just getting on and off the thing makes me prefer to ride a non-e-bike.
Polaris OBark is offline  
Old 11-20-23, 03:12 PM
  #8  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,851

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,454 Times in 985 Posts
Originally Posted by work4bike
The other day I watched an ebike rider come to a 4-way stop and to their credit, they actually stopped and allowed the other vehicle to go, but it was so funny to watch how that person was all-thumbs as she tried to adjust her pedals so she could get up on the seat and start rolling again.

It's no different than any other recreational bike rider I see out there when they have to stop and get going again, they're very awkward in getting back starting. Or the many other ways I observe recreational bike riders make very basic mistakes riding a bike. I can kind of remember when I was that inefficient on a bike.
I can't remember ever being that clumsy on a bike, or having seen many people off of training wheels being that clumsy either. Perhaps you are imagining your superiority over all those lowly recreational riders that you encounter.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 11-20-23, 04:37 PM
  #9  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 111 Times in 72 Posts
Originally Posted by NPR
SKYLER MCKINLEY: It is incredibly expensive across America to live in cities right now. Folks increasingly are not living in urban centers. They are further flung, where they might have to drive a significant amount of time to get to, say, the grocery store. In that case, they're probably going to go with an internal combustion engine over an e-bike.
If this McKinley individual is going to speak publicly on an issue, they should probably be in possession of the basic facts.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...pulations.html

There is no urban to rural migration occurring in the United States. In fact, the density of urban areas is increasing significantly -- "Due to urban growth, urban areas have grown denser, changing from an average population density of 2,343 in 2010 to 2,553 in 2020." (ibid)

Competent news organizations would've included an editorial note remarking that McKinley's comment has zero basis in fact, but apparently that group does not include NPR.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-21-23, 10:06 AM
  #10  
jon c. 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,742
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1533 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 938 Times in 525 Posts
True but from your own source we see that the percentage of urban residents dropped slightly and the definition of "urban" was expanded to include more area. You can be classified as urban but still be a great distance from a center city workplace.
jon c. is offline  
Old 11-21-23, 10:14 AM
  #11  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 111 Times in 72 Posts
Originally Posted by jon c.
True but from your own source we see that the percentage of urban residents dropped slightly...
The article specifically observes why this interpretation is wrong, to preempt exactly your mistake.

"This small decline was largely the result of changes to the criteria for defining urban areas implemented by the Census Bureau, including raising the minimum population threshold for qualification from 2,500 to 5,000. The rural population — the population in any areas outside of those classified as urban — increased as a percentage of the national population from 19.3% in 2010 to 20.0% in 2020.This is not a sign of substantial urban to rural migration – these shifts in proportions are largely the result of changes to the criteria." (Ibid)
TC1 is offline  
Likes For TC1:
Old 11-21-23, 11:20 AM
  #12  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,418

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3577 Post(s)
Liked 6,520 Times in 2,634 Posts
More recent data:

Is rural America growing again? Recent data suggests 'yes'

https://carolinapublicpress.org/5898...urban%20areas.

While metropolitan areas showed no change in net migration, rural places overall experienced a net migration change of 0.43% between April 2020 and July 2021, Johnson reported.

Johnson writes that it’s too soon to tell whether these population trends will continue as the pandemic evolves. But if they keep up, we can expect rural America to grow by 1.3% by 2030, a 23% higher rate than the projected urban rate.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 11-21-23, 11:30 AM
  #13  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 111 Times in 72 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
rural places overall experienced a net migration change of 0.43% between April 2020 and July 2021, Johnson reported.
Extrapolating from the absolute height of an unprecedented Pandemic lockdown is among the worst examples of junk science ever published.
TC1 is offline  
Likes For TC1:
Old 11-21-23, 11:38 AM
  #14  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,418

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3577 Post(s)
Liked 6,520 Times in 2,634 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
Extrapolating from the absolute height of an unprecedented Pandemic lockdown is among the worst examples of junk science ever published.
That data was observed, not extrapolated.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 11-21-23, 11:58 AM
  #15  
rumrunn6
Senior Member
 
rumrunn6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 25 miles northwest of Boston
Posts: 29,407

Bikes: Bottecchia Sprint, GT Timberline 29r, Marin Muirwoods 29er, Trek FX Alpha 7.0

Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5182 Post(s)
Liked 3,489 Times in 2,290 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
If this McKinley individual is going to speak publicly on an issue, they should probably be in possession of the basic facts.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...pulations.html

There is no urban to rural migration occurring in the United States. In fact, the density of urban areas is increasing significantly -- "Due to urban growth, urban areas have grown denser, changing from an average population density of 2,343 in 2010 to 2,553 in 2020." (ibid)

Competent news organizations would've included an editorial note remarking that McKinley's comment has zero basis in fact, but apparently that group does not include NPR.
2020 census can't be trusted, & we all know why
rumrunn6 is offline  
Old 11-21-23, 12:10 PM
  #16  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 111 Times in 72 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
That data was observed, not extrapolated.
I didn't expect to have to explain this, but "But if they keep up, we can expect rural America to grow by 1.3% by 2030, a 23% higher rate than the projected urban rate. " is an extrapolation. If you check, you will find that exact sentence in your comment.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-21-23, 12:25 PM
  #17  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 111 Times in 72 Posts
Originally Posted by rumrunn6
2020 census can't be trusted, & we all know why
Presumably you are obliquely referring to the Trump administration interference(*).

Do you have an explanation for why the Trump administration -- whose support is almost entirely rural -- would attempt to hide evidence of an urban to rural migration? Of course we do not, because that's the exact opposite of what they would do.

All that said, the Census Bureau found the 2020 data "fit to use" despite that agency's Director being one of the loudest alarm-sounders about the interference, so they are good enough for bikeforums.

Originally Posted by https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/director/2021/07/redistricting-data.html
Every way we’ve analyzed the 2020 Census — through our extensive reviews during data processing, by comparing the numbers to population benchmarks, and looking at the operations — the census data are high quality and are fit to use for redistricting. In fact, the quality of the 2020 Census data is quite remarkable amid all the challenges we faced last year.
* https://www.npr.org/2022/03/10/10837...t-data-quality among many other sources
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-21-23, 12:29 PM
  #18  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,418

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3577 Post(s)
Liked 6,520 Times in 2,634 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
I didn't expect to have to explain this, but "But if they keep up, we can expect rural America to grow by 1.3% by 2030, a 23% higher rate than the projected urban rate. " is an extrapolation. If you check, you will find that exact sentence in your comment.
This is observed data; it is not an extrapolation:
While metropolitan areas showed no change in net migration, rural places overall experienced a net migration change of 0.43% between April 2020 and July 2021, Johnson reported.
tomato coupe is offline  
Likes For tomato coupe:
Old 11-21-23, 12:59 PM
  #19  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 111 Times in 72 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
This is observed data; it is not an extrapolation:
First off, you are rather hilariously failing to understand the point. Search your memory banks and see if you can think of what unusual events were occurring in the world starting the exact same month selected for this data window -- April 2020.

Second, read Mr Johnson's actual research.

Originally Posted by RUSO.12473
Net migration and natural increase were calculated using the Census Bureau's intercensal estimates for 2000-2010, postcensal estimates for 2010-2020 released in 2021, and population estimates for 4/2020 to 7/2020 released in March 2022. To obtain net migration, natural increase was substracted from the population change for the periods 4/2010-7/200, 7/2004-7/2007,7/2007-4/2010,4/2010-4/2020, 4/2020-7/2021, as well as for the sub-periods 4/2010-7/2015 and 7/2015-4/2020.
(snip)
For each state, provisional data from the National Center for Health Statistics(2022) were used to calculate what percentage of the births and deaths in the state from the final year of the estimates (7/1/19 to 6/30/20) occurred between 7/1/19 and 4/1/20. The state percentage was then applied to each county in the state to estimate births and deaths from 7/1/19 to 4/1/20.
(snip)
The estimation algorithms used a combination of birth and death data from the National Center for Health Statistics, data from the American Community Survey, and administrative records data to estimate current demographic trends. The algorithms used the best data available at the time the estimates were released but are subject to revision in future annual estimates as more complete data become available. They should be indicative of current trends but should be interpreted with caution.
(emphasis mine)

Unsurprisingly, Mr Johnson did not undertake to observe the populations of 3,140 US counties by himself. He extrapolated trends from existing estimates, contributed his own estimates, and selected the only 15-month window in over 20 years of data that exhibited the trend he was searching for -- while ignoring the unprecedented global environment that caused about 77,000 Americans to decamp from urban areas to rural ones.

That's junk science, and just about as bad as it gets.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-21-23, 01:11 PM
  #20  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,418

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3577 Post(s)
Liked 6,520 Times in 2,634 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
First off, you are rather hilariously failing to understand the point. Search your memory banks and see if you can think of what unusual events were occurring in the world starting the exact same month selected for this data window -- April 2020.
Sure, it's right there in the first sentence. But, regardless of the cause and previous trends, it still happened.
Recent research suggests that the turbulent economic, social, and epidemio- logical conditions of recent years altered traditional demographic trends in non-metropolitan America. Between 2010 and 2020, nonmetropolitan (rural) America lost population for the first time in history because more people left rural areas than moved to them and because the excess of births over deaths dwindled. Yet, the latest Census Bureau population estimates document renewed population gains in nonmetropolitan America between April 2020 and July 2021. In fact, the rural population gain exceeded that in metropolitan areas, something that is rare in American history (Figure 1)
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 11-21-23, 01:37 PM
  #21  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 111 Times in 72 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
But, regardless of the cause and previous trends, it still happened.
First off, the error bars on this study exceed the magnitude of the result, so -- at best -- it might've happened. If it did, it wasn't statistically significant -- certainly not sufficient to support the original claim about this being a factor in national transportation trends.

Secondly, no, not "regardless of cause and previous trends". We know exactly what the cause was, and we know that cause no longer exists. And we know that there hasn't been an urban to rural migration in the United States -- ever. In other words, there is absolutely no reason why anyone with intellectual honesty would attempt to extrapolate from this time period for the next decade or two.

Put simply, as I originally said, there is no urban to rural migration occurring in the United States. In fact, that's never happened.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-22-23, 05:10 PM
  #22  
Dragonfly536
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2023
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thank you
Dragonfly536 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.