The NYTimes is once again trashing the most promising mobility innovation of the 21st century

Honestly it’s both. There’s shitty infrastructure combined with 2-ton passenger trucks. But you also have a society that while creating bike lanes, doesn’t create cyclists. Instead I see motorcycles driving down the bike lane, cyclists going against traffic, scooters cutting through shit like the end of world is behind them.

Really no one person is wrong, we’re kinda all wrong for not getting fucking organized.

The street doesn’t belong to anyone, it’s there to efficiently move as many people as possible, as safely as possible. That requires everyone to participate though.

, it’s there to efficiently move as many people as possible, as safely as possible.

So you are saying you are in favor of banning cars from the street too then?
- Yea honestly I’m not defending cars.
  
  As a cyclist for decades my shit is all about safety. So running heavy motorcycles through a bike lane is a big fucking deal to me.
  
  But I’m also smart enough to realize the solution isn’t to ban cars nor is it to force cyclists into weird positions. Got to be something in between no?
  
  Nah let's ban cars. The petrol ones are polluters that are killing all life on earth, and the electric ones still have PM10 pollution that gives kids asthma and allergies, plus they're destructive to communities
  
  Let's ban meat and dairy farming, then, too!
  
  Yeah!
  
  Serious question: are you concerned that banning all cars will negatively impact some groups more than others - for instance, people living with disability? Cars are a far more preferable mode of transport for someone who has a physical disability; someone who has autism and struggles with sensory overload; or someone who is morbidly obese and struggles to walk even short distances. What are your thoughts on how their needs can be accommodated if we take all cars off the road overnight tonight?
  
  Amazing how the existence of a single person who (may possibly) need a car means that everyone gets to drive cars and there is nothing that should be done about cars. Man isn't that convenient for you.
  
  Amazing how that didn't address the question at all, and instead just dismissed it with your own preconceived notions for where this conversation might go.
  
  I think you might’ve made an unfair assumption about my position just because I asked a question. To clarify: I am all for reducing car usage as much as possible by implementing high-quality no-cost public transport solutions. I am however concerned that a blanket ban on all cars will negatively impact already underprivileged communities, and so a more methodical approach that limits and disincentivises car usage for those who don’t need it, while still retaining options for those who do, would better address the issue with the least unintended consequences possible.
  
  A car ban with specific exceptions, like for disabled folk.
  
  There, does that work for you?
  
  Also, everything has positives and negatives, does not mean you should discount them as options entirely.
  
  That sounds like a good place to start to me!
  
  A few other concerns that I have with a blanket ban are around implementation - if it’s done suddenly then public transport systems will be extremely overwhelmed and will underperform, leading to large losses in productivity across the economy. Do you think a staged approach or a fast approach is more appropriate, and what sort of timeframes do you think are feasible for enacting a ban?
  
  You’re absolutely right - just about any action taken on a population-wide scale will have both positives and negatives, and they’re also not likely to be shared equally among stratified groups in that population. Just to be clear - I’m not discounting a car ban as an option entirely but rather trying to determine how it would actually work. In my utopia there would rarely be need for personal vehicles, but I’m not smart enough to know the steps to get there. I’m keen on discussing what those steps might be, and how we can engage them in a way that their impact on individuals is as equitable as possible.
  
  In my opinion, people should change as quickly as possible, I think thats going to be extremely important for humans across the board moving forward.
  
  That said, I dont know how to apply that thought societally, everyone has different tolerances. And also, most people I meet resist change without thought, so my guess is it would be incredibly slow as everyone would be mostly concerned with making sure its not an inconvenient solution.
  
  Just giving it a few minutes thought here, I want to say this is a problem that should be solved by local government, as that would be the largest scale where you could vary the approach by specific population needs.
  
  Maybe some farm heavy states are going to essentially need most of their vehicles, who knows.
  
  Probably first we need to all agree on the problem though...
  
  Edit: idea! Maybe use federal government to set the goals and direction we should be heading in, and let local governments handle the how and how much and how fast.
  
  Depends heavily on the disability. For, for instance, blind people, the day cars were banned would be the best day of their lives!
  
  I think you're full of shit. I have autism and I can't drive a car. I struggle too much with sensory overload. I think there is a nuanced conversation to be had about this issue, but not with your bad faith ass telling me nonsense about my own disability. A car dependent society is ableist. And here's you defending it while using me as your prop to make a point that harms me. My disability isn't yours to weaponise. You're not helping me, you're harming me.
  
  That’s a fair call mate, but I would like to remind you that Autism is a spectrum, and many different people have many different presentations and symptomatology associated with their conditions. I’m sorry that you’re not able to drive due to your condition, but many others are able to including some of my close family members.
  
  My bad if what I wrote made you feel like a prop - it wasn’t my intention. I was genuinely trying to spark conversation about disability accommodations in car-free world.
  
  You said cars are a preferable mode of transport for people with physical disabilities, and used a semicolon to imply the same for people with autism. That's true in some cases, but the way you presented it is reductive and misleading, and it erases people like me and most other disabled people. Most disabilities benefit from public transit and walkability more than cars. Cars make elderly people lose their mobility faster. Cars cause obesity. It's easier to ride the train in a wheelchair than drive a car. Wheelchair cars are expensive and hard to use. What you presented as absolute truth is false most of the time.
  
  And I don't think we should ban Dutch style microcars, which are great for disabled mobility and travel at bicycle speeds.
  
  I see the confusion - my semicolon usage was to denote items in a list. Physical disabilities, Autism and obesity were three separate conditions that I was suggesting may be impacted by removing all cars from the road. My apologies if that was not clear. I included Autism in there specifically because my cousin recently got his licence and has been over the moon about how he no longer has to deal with the sensory overload shit he puts up with on public transport. It was an example close to my heart, and clearly it was close to yours as well.
  
  I’m sorry that it seems as though I’ve presented concepts as absolute truths - that was not my intention. My intention was to list some circumstances where some people may be negatively affected as a starting point for discussion around disability accommodations in a car-free world.
  
  Just to state - I personally do believe we need to reduce car usage as much as possible and seriously ramp up accessibility while removing all costs for high-quality public transport. I think cars are a blight on our society and we rely far too heavily on them. I just don’t know how to get rid of them without any negative unintended consequences. I was seeking a debate, or to be informed on how this could be done well. Instead it seems as though I’ve offended you, which was not my intention.
  
  I know that understanding tone from text can be difficult at the best of times but I’ve honestly tried to be as genuine and non-combative as possible. I’m sorry there’s not more I can do to convey that I agree with your sentiment and am asking for help in how that can be put into place without accidentally harming anyone.
we're all wrong because we're selfish pricks and there are very few consequences for our selfish actions.

if cops would enforce traffic laws you'd see a lot more compliance... but they won't.

Douches driving big trucks doesn't preclude teens from doing stupid shit on ebikes. You don't have to pick a side, you can recognize that there are multiple problems that need to be addressed.

@EatATaco @Moonrise2473 teens do stupid shit without ebikes. And them using one doesn't increase the danger to non users by much.

Cars and trucks do.
And you can recognize that there are multiple problems with different severity and need to be adressed from most severe to lowest severe.
- Awful aggro to someone just pointing out a simple fact. They never said we don't need to address large vehicles, or even that they shouldn't be the first thing addressed. They're simply pointing out that these aren't a perfect golden bullet to the issues that plague cities, and we need to be aware of the downsides to any potential solution, and be willing and able to make the changes necessary to then fix THOSE issues. I don't expect nuance, though, everything is a dichotomy online.
  
  Awful aggro my ass, you cunt.
  
  But jokes aside: I interpreted the comment like they put teens on ebikes and our car favoring infrastructure on the same level. Those two problems are so far apart, that I think that my response isn't too harsh, or even 'Awful aggro' (That's an awfully aggro interpretation of my comment, by the way).
- Sure, but I'm responding to a comment that is suggesting they aren't a problem. We don't have to turn a blind eye to all other problems just because we think one is biggest.
- Well since we can't ban cars, the most severe problem, then I guess we can't do anything. Good job defending the status quo I guess.
  
  Your list of ideas what we actually can do is pretty short, we obviously need to spread more information. Good to know, thanks.
  
  @PowerCrazy @glasgitarrewelt why can't we ban private cars in suburban and urban areas?
  
  (We can't do it tomorrow, but we can work towards it)
  
  You are right, banning private cars for only a few streets would be a great success for any city.
  
  Lower hanging fruits would be to allow bikes to drive in both directions in one way streets, put some asphalt on cobble stone streets, get an inner city speed limit of 30 km/h, use many zebra crossings, design narrower streets (the narrower the street, the faster a driving person feels, without going faster), remove parking space in the inner city and make cars park outside of the center,...
  
  Many many things that should be done before even starting to try to regulate 'rude teens on ebikes' with idiotic ideas presented here (driver license for ebikes?!)
  
  The fast ebike problem would solve itself with an infrastructure that stops favoring cars and starts to seperate pedestrians and bikes with the gained space.
Once you realize that all sides are wrong, then you are free.

Id say option 3. Both of the above.

People suck driving. They also suck at riding.

Frankly just like driving needs a better training/licensing system - so does bike riding.

Especially any sort of self propelled bike.

I realize this is fuck cars, but let's not pretend the biggest issues don't boil down to stupidity of people.

They also suck at riding.

I keep encountering cyclists riding against traffic, on roads with no shoulder and around blind turns. It's just about the most insane thing you can do on a bike, second only to sailing through red lights without looking. And it's people of all ages doing it, not just young people like I would expect.
- Those three scenarios you mentioned are all only dangerous because of cars.
  
  Actually, the closest I've come to colliding with someone doing this shit is when I was riding my bike - on the correct side of the road - and suddenly encountered a cyclist (a mom towing her two kids on a trailer, no less) head-on coming the wrong way around a blind turn. I was barely able to avoid hitting her; if I'd been in a car going 25 mph I almost certainly would have hit her.
  
  It's just fucking stupid because it's contrary to other drivers' (and cyclists') expectations and gives them virtually no chance of avoiding the situation or reacting correctly, and it also happens to be straight-up illegal.
  
  And yet had you collided, it's very unlikely that anyone would have died.
  
  Unsafe behavior isn't made okay just because the risk of death is minimal. The mother could have been concussed or had a broken bone, for all we know. If things go pear shaped and the trailer tips over, you could have the kids dumped out into traffic on one side, or down a ditch on the other, for all we know. This line of thinking, that it's okay as long as it's not equally dangerous as it would be in a car, makes no sense.
  
  There will always be people who do not act with regard to the safety of others. I would rather those people be on bikes than in cars.
  
  I'm not discussing the morality of this action in a vacuum. I'm discussing it in comparison to the same person behaving equally as unsafely in a car.
  
  Sure, all other factors being equal, it would be less severe with everyone on bikes, but your initial post read rather dismissively to me. Rather than, "Well at least it wasn't a car and they didn't die," it came across to me like "Nobody was in a car and it was unlikely to kill them, so it's not a problem." Perhaps that wasn't your intent, but it's certainly how I interpreted it. We can advocate for a safer mode of transit while also calling out dangerous behavior by people using our preferred mode.
  
  Bikes can be lethal. See my other comment here.
  
  An old lady at the hospital I used to work at was killed by a bike rider crashing into her at a high rate of speed. She hit her head on the pavement & fell unconscious - person on the bike bailed, when she was found after a few minutes it was too late.
  
  It is far easier to protect pedestrians from 4-wheeled vehicles with simple measures such as concrete bollards and fences, but a 2-wheeled vehicle can go basically anywhere a pedestrian can, and now with EVs they can do it way faster without much effort.
  
  Momentum is the biggest factor in the severity of the crash, and an ebike is never going to have as much momentum as a car. Severe incidents can happen with bikes and they should be sensibly regulated, but it is far less common than crashes involving cars.
- Going against traffic is actually the safe option in some situations. Being able to see oncoming traffic is a good thing.
  
  Personally, I prefer a helmet mirror. Riding against traffic means that you reduce the reaction time for drivers. If you're going 15 mph and the driver is going 30 mph, you are approaching at 45 mph. If you are both going the same way, the driver is approaching at 15 mph, giving three times more time to react. It also tends to place you in spots on the road where you are not expected. A helmet mirror isn't as good as a straight-on view, but the tradeoffs are worth it.
  
  Agreed. It's definitely situational.
Yeah, some of the e-bike circlejerk sounds like it's from people who have never been in a major city where they get used by people with no regard for others. I've nearly been run down by app delivery drivers on ebikes and mopeds turning onto the sidewalk going the wrong way down one way streets at 30+ mph, people riding both acting crazy in the bike lanes, running red lights and cutting through traffic with no regard for their own safety or anyone else's. You'll have to excuse me when I lack sympathy for the guys on souped-up ebikes doing 30mph over a blind hill with no lights or helmet that get mad and start threatening me because they had to swerve to dodge since they were riding in the wrong lane.

Some of it could be app delivery drivers struggling to make ends meet while being subject to unreasonable and dangerous metrics, along with unlivable pay. I feel for them, but their struggle to earn a living doesn't give them carte blanche to put other people's lives at risk. On the other hand, a lot of people I see riding these tricked out ebikes and mopeds are the same people I know that were riding dirt bikes on NYC streets a few years back and moaning about how misunderstood they were and how the cops are picking on them just because they want to ride 40 deep down Third Ave and do wheelies while the streets and sidewalks are full of other vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.

I'm all for encouraging people to use other modes of transportation, but people are being assholes and demonstrating why there's going to be a need to regulate the ebike and moped industry more rigorously, and probably introduce some sort of licensing requirement to enable tracking dangerous riders and enforcing safety rules. You have people riding devices rigged up to go at highway speeds, being careless while riding and disregarding pedestrians, riding the wrong way, and just generally being reckless and putting other people at risk. This is also ignoring the issue of people being cheap and buying aftermarket batteries that cause some nasty fires.

If you're on an ebike, scooter or moped that exceeds 25mph, I don't think you have any business being in the bike lane. Yes, it's riskier for those riders to be in vehicular traffic, but even ignoring the mass of the bike, just a person's body hitting you at 30mph or more can do some serious damage. If you're riding at a massively higher speed than those around you in the same lane, you're a safety hazard to others in your lane, whether you're on a moped doing 40mph in a 15-20mph zone, or in a car doing 70mph in a 45mph zone. People still need to be held accountable for putting others at risk with dangerous behavior, too, whether it's a car driving erratically, ebikes going down one way streets the wrong way, cyclists taking blind corners at speeds that don't let them stop for pedestrians, or even just pedestrians doing stupid shit like insisting on walking in the bike lane, rather than using a perfectly good sidewalk or pedestrian path right next to them. That said, they need to be enforced across the board, not just singling out people on ebikes or cyclists, while ignoring others.
- There is no regulation for ebikes in the US?
  
  Here if the ebike goes >15mph it is like any other vehicle (must have insurance and plate) and is not allowed on bike lanes.
  
  Of course uber drivers and many others people use home made set-up on their bike which exceed legal regulations and drive recklessly but heh that's an other problem.
  
  There isn't a federal standard, but there is a common state-level standard in the US with class 1, 2, and 3. Class 1 cuts out at 20 mph and must be assist-only. Class 2 also cuts out at 20 mph, but may also have a throttle that works without peddling. Class 3 cuts out at 28 mph and may or may not have a throttle. Technically there are laws around not taking class 3 e-bikes in some spots, but I have found with mine as long as I ride it like a class 1 (15-20 mph max), no one bothers me. However, none of them require a license or insurance.