Letter to the Editor: Flipside of e-bike debate

DEAR News Of The Area,

E-bikes are topical, let’s keep the discussion going.

Jasminda (NOTA 4 Feb) and Allan Shrimpton (NOTA 11 Feb) raise pertinent issues but there are more.

Too much of the news about e-bikes is negative: Jasminda quotes increasing injury rates.

Bike usage is increasing.

She does not reference the reduction in pollution and reduction in medical costs following the cleaning of the atmosphere and increased exercise.

Allan cites the severe penalties, not for behaviour but for capability.

Jasminda further is of the belief that e-bikes are for the less mobile: “close to getting a knee replacement”.

Whereas e-bikes are a major contributor to a sustainable future.

A shire to the east of us has recently had a debate about the horrendous and increasing cost of road maintenance. The traditionalist sees population – more ratepayers – as the solution.

Most people can see the idiocy of this argument – more people, more road wear, more rate payers required… ad infinitum.

Insane thinking on a finite planet.

The bicycle reduces road wear, and hence maintenance costs in the order of 7000 times or greater (wear being proportional to the 4^th power of the vehicle weight).

With respect to e-bikes the solution must be directed to rider training, a minimum age (perhaps), enforcement of misbehaviours, e.g. speed limits, and helmets and the encouragement of further uptake.

‘AverageManOnabike’ has a worthwhile take on this topic in his YouTube: “Exposed: The Ultimate Double Standard in Road Safety”.

“If it were about safety, the heavier vehicle would have the strictest limits. That’s just basic risk assessment.

“If you handle a weapon, you have strict rules. If you handle a pillow, no one cares.”

Regards,
Rod FLETCHER,
Octogenarian cyclist,

Gresford.