environment

The problem with e-bikes

Friday, November 9th, 2012

There is a lot of confusion over e-bike and electric scooter. Many people mistakenly equate the two and think that electric scooters should be allowed in bike lanes and on bike baths. That is not only erroneous it is a terrible idea. It might have something to do with the whole “bi-cycle” meaning two wheels. But by that logic, glue a couple of pedals onto a crotch-rocket and bam you get another lane!

First the difference. An e-bike is a pedal assisted bike and they have been around for ages. They are used by people who have difficulty with hills or have weak staminas and use batteries to help propel the bike. They’re bikes because they are primarily powered by someone’s feet on pedals. They have limited speed and are essentially motors attached to bicycle frames.

Electric scooters on the other-hand are motorized vehicles that have pedals on them to meet some government requirement. They look like scooters, are on scooter frames, they just have electric engines instead of gas ones. Look at this picture of an electric scooter. Notice how this woman’s feet are on a platform, not on the pedals? That’s because the pedals are behind her centre of gravity and on the sides of a wide seat; in essence they’re useless.

Now I understand the desire to be in bike lanes. People don’t like to ride around cars I don’t like it either when I am cycling. But electric scooters should be treated like scooters. They should require a license and insurance. They should not be allowed in on bike paths, or bike lanes.

Here is my reasoning, even though e-Scooters have inhibitors which prevent them from travelling faster than 32km an hour and the average speed in a bike lane is around 25km/hr, (so not a huge difference) their momentum is a huge issue, and I will go in to detail in a bit. On bike paths like the Martin Goodman trail the speed is even slower (20km/hr) and a cyclist doing 25 is a lot closer to the speed limit than a scooter doing 32. You might say that police should just ticket speeders but the reality is they don’t and many of these people are not experienced riders. Martin Goodman trail is multi use, meaning there are people walking, roller-blading, skateboarding and cycling on it. It is not the place to have someone moving the same speed as cars in a school zone in close proximity to people.

Back to momentum. There is also the weight of the bike to consider. An e-scooter is 80kg and the average bike is around 9kg. As a result the amount of force behind each in the event of an accident is considerably different.

Momentum is calculated as mass times velocity (p=m*v). Assuming we have a rider of 80kg (I am being generous here since most e-scooter riders are larger than regular cyclists) we end up with 160kg for the scooter and 89 kg for the cyclist; I will even round up to 90 for easy math. As for the speed we will change it to meters per second:
32 km/hr = 8.89 m/s
25 km/hr = 6.99 m/s

When we run the math we can see that the scooter will carry over twice as much momentum as a cyclist. It is just a matter of time before someone is killed by an electric scooter.

Scooter
160 * 8.89 = 1422.4

Cyclist
90 * 6.99 = 629.1

If you are using an ebike or an e-scooter for environmental reasons I applaud your efforts; if you ride a pedal bike even more so, but you should be in the appropriate lane. The government should be clear about the rules, and remove any wishy-washy “should have pedals” loopholes. Everyone should know where they should be and stuff like this probably won’t happen as often.

Share
cycling environment government
No Comments »

Cycling for everyone

Wednesday, September 28th, 2011

Cycling For Everyone from Dutch Cycling Embassy on Vimeo.

Share
cycling environment
1 Comment »

How the earthquakes in Tokyo helped the environment

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

On March 11th the 9.0 earthquake off the coast of Sendai sent a tsunami which destroyed much of the coast and killed thousands of people.  In Tokyo, the largest city in Japan and home to over 12 million people, the earthquake had a slightly different effect.  It forced people to reconsider how they moved around the city.

I had the good fortune to visit Tokyo at the beginning of April and I noticed the prevalence of bicycles.  Japan has always been fairly environmentally conscious; with it’s strict recycling rules and massive public transit systems Tokyo is comparatively green when compared to North American cities.  However this seemed like something more.

It turns out that bicycle sales in Japan have hit record numbers.  The presidentof Asahi Co., a major bicycle retailer in Tokyo saw sales triple.  Susumu Shimoda recalls, “I was in Tokyo when the earthquake hit, and everything stopped.  Trains stopped, buses were in chaos and cars were jammed. Within that, you could see bicycles swimming through.”

Apparently, demand for bikes was so high the night of the quake, some bike stores stayed open until 4 a.m. to meet the needs of customers.  One of Zuimei’s friends told me at the bar he walked 6 hours to get home following the quake.  A bicycle would have cut that down to just two.  While I was in Tokyo,  one of the aftershocks registered 7.1 on the Richter scale and people immediately began leaving the city; not wanting to get stuck again if the trains shut down.

Both gear-maker Shimano and Giant bikes have seen significant lift in sales as bike demands still continue. However, feelings are understandably mixed among manufacturers who are torn between the increase in sales and the damage to their country.

While it is easy to get lost in the tragedy of such a huge natural disaster it is comforting to see some good came out of it.  With an increase in cycling there should be a corresponding decrease in pollution, an increase in physical health and well-being and hopefully a continued renaissance of cycling culture in Japan.

Share
cycling environment
No Comments »

Toronto bag policy needs to be revamped

Friday, December 3rd, 2010

Toronto needs to revamp it’s plastic bag policy. Right now the city charges $0.05 per plastic bag.  The money is charged by the vendors (grocery stores) and presumably goes into the city’s coffers.  The city however set the price too low.  Five cents is not an inconvenience, it’s not even noticeable.  I recently bough a trunk load of groceries worth $140.00 and used 5 bags.  Do you really think I noticed the $0.25?

In China, the bag fee had a different impact.  In China it reduced plastic bag consumption by 50% despite enforcement being lax because…well, it’s China.  But the government is crafty and there is a subtle difference in the way it works.  In China, “Store owners could set their own price for the bags—as long as it wasn’t lower than the cost of the bag—and keep the profits themselves.” As you can imagine store owners are all too happy to participate.   This reduction resulted in a savings of 40 billion plastic bags.  Plastic bags which consume a monstrous amount of energy.  Made from oil they never decay and if burned emit toxic gases.  The Guardian reported that China has saved a whopping 1.6 million tonnes of oil.

Here in Toronto, I had a checkout girl at Sobey’s inform me that Toronto’s plastic bag fee was “gay”.  As you can imagine I was not pleased. But I did have to agree that it was ineffectual, which is what I assume she meant to say.  This might have something to do with the vast differences in income.  The average income in China in 2006 was $6,567.  You can imagine that a nickel is worth a lot more there than here.

What is also funny is the outrage and indignation people felt when Toronto City council first introduced the fee. Yoni Goldstein wrote in the National Post from two years ago,

“Ten days ago, Toronto Mayor David Miller actually came up with a decent idea: In an effort to curb use of environment-destroying plastic bags, he wanted to offer consumers a 10¢ discount to not use plastic bags. That is, each time you go shopping — for groceries, clothing, appliances, whatever — and agree to carry your booty home in your hands, instead of in a plastic bag, you get a couple cents off. That idea would have surely got consumers interested.

Really? I bet consumers would not be interested at all.  I have a reusable coffee cup on my desk, I never take it to Starbucks even though they will give me a dime off of my coffee.  Soup Nazi, downstairs, will save me a quarter if I reuse the paper bag, again no dice. It is a matter of convenience versus cost.  It is easier for me to pay the fee than remember to bring my grocery bag to work.

It is easier to pay for something I would be paying for anyway so offering a discount is not that big of an incentive..  If the city really wants to move people away from plastic bags, let retailers charge what they want, as long as it is over a nickel and let the retailers keep the profit.  We have to make some sort of move to save the planet so I say raise the bag fee to a dollar.  Make it hurt Toronto!

Other fun upcoming bylaws and rules for the GTA:
As of December 31, 2010Food service companies must develop a reusable and/or refillable take-out food container or protocol.
As of February 28, 2011The sale or distribution of plastic take-out food containers will be banned if they are not compatible with the City’s recycling program.
As of December 31, 2011City divisions are asked to develop a program that bans bottled water in all other City facilities and improves access to tap water.   (From Greengta.ca)

Share
Authority education environment Social causes
No Comments »

Just a thought

Saturday, March 21st, 2009

Earth Hour is coming up again.  As I mentioned before it is a complete waste of time.  Not to mention the money, energy and waste produced in making all that fucking advertising.

earthhour

This earth hour, why don’t you try to do something that might actually make a difference.  Park your car. Take public transit to work. Ride your bike. Walk.

Share
environment
No Comments »