this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
94 points (99.0% liked)

micromobility - Ebikes, scooters, longboards: Whatever floats your goat, this is micromobility

2337 readers
17 users here now

Ebikes, bicycles, scooters, skateboards, longboards, eboards, motorcycles, skates, unicycles: Whatever floats your goat, this is all things micromobility!

"Transportation using lightweight vehicles such as bicycles or scooters, especially electric ones that may be borrowed as part of a self-service rental program in which people rent vehicles for short-term use within a town or city.

micromobility is seen as a potential solution to moving people more efficiently around cities"

Feel free to also check out

!utilitycycling@slrpnk.net

!bikewrench@lemmy.world

!bikecommuting@lemmy.world

!bikepacking@lemmy.world

!electricbikes@lemmy.world

!bicycle_touring@lemmy.world

!notjustbikes@feddit.nl

!longboard@lemmy.world

It's a little sad that we need to actually say this, but:

Don't be an asshole or you will be permanently banned.

Respectful debate is totally OK, criticizing a product is fine, but being verbally abusive will not be tolerated.

Focus on discussing the idea, not attacking the person.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Backspacecentury@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

To say that laws should apply more to e-bikes because cities are designed for cars is both wrong and dangerous. You realize that the bike came before the car, right? That cities actually were built around bikes, horses, and ..ugh.. walking, long before the assembly line was even a twinkle in young Ford's eye?

The poster is saying that if you are going to call out the operators of one for gross negligence, then the other should be called out as well. It is a very comparable situation and pretending that because cars are more ubiquitous, they should somehow be less restricted is a leap in logic that is rather ludicrous.

[โ€“] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I don't think they're saying that. They're hoping e-bikes get banned because of the issues they cause. Cars, regular bicycles and whatnot are sorta a lost cause at this point, they're so crucial and numerous that it'd be really hard to ban them. So you have to deal them in other ways. Not so much for e-bikes which are new and nowhere near as numerous, so could feasibly be banned without as much issues.

It's all well and good to consider them all equal and want to treat them as such, from a fairness point of view. But there's big differences between them and in reality you'd have to take that into account and work with those differences. Even if it means being more lenient to one method.

Unless we're talking about just pure hypothetical or fantasy scenario. Then it's fine, don't have to care about the differences then. But it's good to keep things somewhat grounded imo.

The poster is saying that if you are going to call out the operators of one for gross negligence, then the other should be called out as well.

By all means. I'm just saying it's not the same, for the (imo) obvious and well, now mentioned reasons.

pretending that because cars are more ubiquitous, they should somehow be less restricted is a leap in logic that is rather ludicrous.

Don't know what you mean with less restricted. I don't care if you ban all vehicles. I'm not advocating for some policy. Just saying it was a bad comparison because of the big differences.