OLYMPIA – The Washington State Department of Transportation is relaunching the state’s WE-Bike e-bike rebate program on March 30 to help even more travelers get rolling with active transportation.
E-bike motors are far from useless. They flatten hills (especially for heavy cargo bikes), help prevent you from showing up to work sweaty when commuting, make it easier to not pick the car on those days when you’re feeling lazy, speed up utility cycling trips, etc.
I take my kids to school every day on a cargo e-bike. Having tried it with my ‘acoustic’ bike and a trailer back when they were smaller, I can state for absolute fact that if my bike didn’t have a motor in it, they’d be getting driven in a car instead.
Also, just a friendly reminder: you’re entitled to your opinion, but misinformation is considered uncivil and therefore a violation of Rule 1. You can say that you don’t like e-bikes, or that you consider them “cheating” or whatever, but the notion that the motor is too small to make a difference is a false statement of fact.
I don’t think you understood the point I was trying to make. I didn’t say ebikes are useless or that I don’t like them. I don’t like that this only applies to ebikes and not regular bikes, then suggest adding a comically useless motor to a regular bike so it’s technically an ebike to get a massive discount on the price of the bike.
Ah, yeah, I read your initial comment as claiming that existing e-bikes actually being sold have uselessly-small motors, not hypothetically suggesting it as a way to game the subsidy.
I’m not sure such a scheme would work because even a comically under-spec’d system would add enough cost to mostly cancel out the subsidy.
I’m sympathetic to the rhetorical point that ‘acoustic’ bikes are worth subsidizing too, just as a matter of good public policy. But to be fair, it’s not necessary like it is for e-bikes because there are enough of those available used that you can afford one no matter how poor you are. For example, my ‘daily driver’ ‘acoustic’ bike, which I don’t use as much now that I have the cargo e-bike but nevertheless has served me faithfully for well over a decade at this point, I got for free from a co-op back when I was a poor college student.
I suppose if it gets more bikes on the road overall its an improvement. Here we have a cycle to work scheme but its mostly for execs to get big tax cuts on expensive bikes while regular workers get much smaller discounts. Also wish we had more classifications of ebike too, there is only 1 and it must be limited to 15mph 250w pedal assist. Next step up is comparable to a 50cc scooter and is a licensed/insured/registered vehicle.
E-bike motors are far from useless. They flatten hills (especially for heavy cargo bikes), help prevent you from showing up to work sweaty when commuting, make it easier to not pick the car on those days when you’re feeling lazy, speed up utility cycling trips, etc.
I take my kids to school every day on a cargo e-bike. Having tried it with my ‘acoustic’ bike and a trailer back when they were smaller, I can state for absolute fact that if my bike didn’t have a motor in it, they’d be getting driven in a car instead.
Also, just a friendly reminder: you’re entitled to your opinion, but misinformation is considered uncivil and therefore a violation of Rule 1. You can say that you don’t like e-bikes, or that you consider them “cheating” or whatever, but the notion that the motor is too small to make a difference is a false statement of fact.
I don’t think you understood the point I was trying to make. I didn’t say ebikes are useless or that I don’t like them. I don’t like that this only applies to ebikes and not regular bikes, then suggest adding a comically useless motor to a regular bike so it’s technically an ebike to get a massive discount on the price of the bike.
Ah, yeah, I read your initial comment as claiming that existing e-bikes actually being sold have uselessly-small motors, not hypothetically suggesting it as a way to game the subsidy.
I’m not sure such a scheme would work because even a comically under-spec’d system would add enough cost to mostly cancel out the subsidy.
I’m sympathetic to the rhetorical point that ‘acoustic’ bikes are worth subsidizing too, just as a matter of good public policy. But to be fair, it’s not necessary like it is for e-bikes because there are enough of those available used that you can afford one no matter how poor you are. For example, my ‘daily driver’ ‘acoustic’ bike, which I don’t use as much now that I have the cargo e-bike but nevertheless has served me faithfully for well over a decade at this point, I got for free from a co-op back when I was a poor college student.
I suppose if it gets more bikes on the road overall its an improvement. Here we have a cycle to work scheme but its mostly for execs to get big tax cuts on expensive bikes while regular workers get much smaller discounts. Also wish we had more classifications of ebike too, there is only 1 and it must be limited to 15mph 250w pedal assist. Next step up is comparable to a 50cc scooter and is a licensed/insured/registered vehicle.