Focus develops 12.5kg Project Y e-bike that looks scarily like a normal road bike

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

e-bikes are having undesired effects for the eldery in the Netherlands but no-one will admit it.

Dunno about that.

There has actually  been a  lot of dicussion aabout elderly people (mainly men) crashing on e-bikes in NL. This shows up becasue elderly guys coming off bikes are much more likely to die than younger people are in similar crashes.

The point is that at least you have elderly people on some sort of bike - better that then them having no type of exercise at all. And also being more of a threat to others by driving.

Maybe they are dying doing something they like doing and being less of a threat to others by not driving? What's wrong with that?

ChairRDRF wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

e-bikes are having undesired effects for the eldery in the Netherlands but no-one will admit it.

Dunno about that.

There has actually  been a  lot of dicussion aabout elderly people (mainly men) crashing on e-bikes in NL. This shows up becasue elderly guys coming off bikes are much more likely to die than younger people are in similar crashes.

The point is that at least you have elderly people on some sort of bike - better that then them having no type of exercise at all. And also being more of a threat to others by driving.

Maybe they are dying doing something they like doing and being less of a threat to others by not driving? What's wrong with that?

Jesus wept, are you so ignorant of the facts you won't admit there is an obvious cause and effect, that's very typical. The ECF wouldn't answer my question regarding such but people on the ground in the Netherlands understand this problem.

You say that older people are more likely to die when in involved in an incident, maybe so, but  you have a significant INCREASE in cycling deaths in the over 60s age groups, compared to those that aren't buying e-bikes in any great numbers (those under 60) whose deaths have dropped significantly over the same period. We know comparing KSIs to other modes/groups is a good way to measure how safety aids or certain factors are having an effect negatively or positively.

What do you think that tells us, maybe that there has been a significant danger factor added to those in these age groups over and above that effecting the other age groups whom have seen significant decreases in deaths/improvement in safety?

Why do you think that increase can be ignored, you wouldn't ignore it in any other circumstance would you. it's totally irrelevant that they are doing something they like, I'm a massive proponent for older people and women to get onto bikes but e-bikes most definitely are having a negative effect on safety. Stop bloody ignoring it for gods sakes!

If this is noticeable for the Dutch then this is very likely to be seen elsewhere and in other countries, or do you think human beings will act differently somehow? We know this isn't true otherwise helmet wearing would have differing effects in different countries, except it doesn't, the effects are the same, negative impact all round.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

ChairRDRF wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

e-bikes are having undesired effects for the eldery in the Netherlands but no-one will admit it.

Dunno about that.

There has actually  been a  lot of dicussion aabout elderly people (mainly men) crashing on e-bikes in NL. This shows up becasue elderly guys coming off bikes are much more likely to die than younger people are in similar crashes.

The point is that at least you have elderly people on some sort of bike - better that then them having no type of exercise at all. And also being more of a threat to others by driving.

Maybe they are dying doing something they like doing and being less of a threat to others by not driving? What's wrong with that?

Jesus wept, are you so ignorant of the facts you won't admit there is an obvious cause and effect, that's very typical. The ECF wouldn't answer my question regarding such but people on the ground in the Netherlands understand this problem.

You say that older people are more likely to die when in involved in an incident, maybe so, but  you have a significant INCREASE in cycling deaths in the over 60s age groups, compared to those that aren't buying e-bikes in any great numbers (those under 60) whose deaths have dropped significantly over the same period. We know comparing KSIs to other modes/groups is a good way to measure how safety aids or certain factors are having an effect negatively or positively.

What do you think that tells us, maybe that there has been a significant danger factor added to those in these age groups over and above that effecting the other age groups whom have seen significant decreases in deaths/improvement in safety?

Why do you think that increase can be ignored, you wouldn't ignore it in any other circumstance would you. it's totally irrelevant that they are doing something they like, I'm a massive proponent for older people and women to get onto bikes but e-bikes most definitely are having a negative effect on safety. Stop bloody ignoring it for gods sakes!

If this is noticeable for the Dutch then this is very likely to be seen elsewhere and in other countries, or do you think human beings will act differently somehow? We know this isn't true otherwise helmet wearing would have differing effects in different countries, except it doesn't, the effects are the same, negative impact all round.

 

So you have no actual data or controlled study evidence to support your hypothesis then? But to be on the safe side you want old people off the streets and safely locked away? I hope you are more tolerant of your poor old Mum.

Mungecrundle wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

ChairRDRF wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

e-bikes are having undesired effects for the eldery in the Netherlands but no-one will admit it.

Dunno about that.

There has actually  been a  lot of dicussion aabout elderly people (mainly men) crashing on e-bikes in NL. This shows up becasue elderly guys coming off bikes are much more likely to die than younger people are in similar crashes.

The point is that at least you have elderly people on some sort of bike - better that then them having no type of exercise at all. And also being more of a threat to others by driving.

Maybe they are dying doing something they like doing and being less of a threat to others by not driving? What's wrong with that?

Jesus wept, are you so ignorant of the facts you won't admit there is an obvious cause and effect, that's very typical. The ECF wouldn't answer my question regarding such but people on the ground in the Netherlands understand this problem.

You say that older people are more likely to die when in involved in an incident, maybe so, but  you have a significant INCREASE in cycling deaths in the over 60s age groups, compared to those that aren't buying e-bikes in any great numbers (those under 60) whose deaths have dropped significantly over the same period. We know comparing KSIs to other modes/groups is a good way to measure how safety aids or certain factors are having an effect negatively or positively.

What do you think that tells us, maybe that there has been a significant danger factor added to those in these age groups over and above that effecting the other age groups whom have seen significant decreases in deaths/improvement in safety?

Why do you think that increase can be ignored, you wouldn't ignore it in any other circumstance would you. it's totally irrelevant that they are doing something they like, I'm a massive proponent for older people and women to get onto bikes but e-bikes most definitely are having a negative effect on safety. Stop bloody ignoring it for gods sakes!

If this is noticeable for the Dutch then this is very likely to be seen elsewhere and in other countries, or do you think human beings will act differently somehow? We know this isn't true otherwise helmet wearing would have differing effects in different countries, except it doesn't, the effects are the same, negative impact all round.

 

So you have no actual data or controlled study evidence to support your hypothesis then? But to be on the safe side you want old people off the streets and safely locked away? I hope you are more tolerant of your poor old Mum.

Er, yes of course I have the evidence, the compartive rates/numbers of deaths of the age groups in the Netherlands.

Where the fuck did I say i wanted old people off the street, are you totally incapable of reading ffs! I said I was an advocate of getting older people and women on bikes, I'm pointing out the very real and obvious negative effect of e-bikes that older people are being effected by.

If you have x change which is a very significant change (purchasing of e-bikes) and nothing else has changed except to make the roads and cycling in general safer, yet those purchasing e-bikes are suffering much greater rates/numbers of deaths, what other factors could it be?

We already knew that people into their mid 80s cycle in the Netherlands frequently so all the, 'older people are more likely to die when they fall' which is what chairRDF suggested would already be a factor in the numbers from previous years, in fact due to the roads/infra being even safer for everyone you would expect a fall in the number of deaths at roughly the same % points.

However those purchasing e-bikes in very large % (i.e. those over 60) are suffering massive increases in deaths, contra to the reduction in deaths in other age groups, if the only significant change is the purcahsing/use of e-bikes which increase the maximum speed of the persons riding then it's pretty clear there is a correlation.

Stick to petty insults though because you can't even grasp simple concepts sonny!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

ChairRDRF wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

e-bikes are having undesired effects for the eldery in the Netherlands but no-one will admit it.

Dunno about that.

There has actually  been a  lot of dicussion aabout elderly people (mainly men) crashing on e-bikes in NL. This shows up becasue elderly guys coming off bikes are much more likely to die than younger people are in similar crashes.

The point is that at least you have elderly people on some sort of bike - better that then them having no type of exercise at all. And also being more of a threat to others by driving.

Maybe they are dying doing something they like doing and being less of a threat to others by not driving? What's wrong with that?

Jesus wept, are you so ignorant of the facts you won't admit there is an obvious cause and effect, that's very typical. The ECF wouldn't answer my question regarding such but people on the ground in the Netherlands understand this problem.

You say that older people are more likely to die when in involved in an incident, maybe so, but  you have a significant INCREASE in cycling deaths in the over 60s age groups, compared to those that aren't buying e-bikes in any great numbers (those under 60) whose deaths have dropped significantly over the same period. We know comparing KSIs to other modes/groups is a good way to measure how safety aids or certain factors are having an effect negatively or positively.

What do you think that tells us, maybe that there has been a significant danger factor added to those in these age groups over and above that effecting the other age groups whom have seen significant decreases in deaths/improvement in safety?

Why do you think that increase can be ignored, you wouldn't ignore it in any other circumstance would you. it's totally irrelevant that they are doing something they like, I'm a massive proponent for older people and women to get onto bikes but e-bikes most definitely are having a negative effect on safety. Stop bloody ignoring it for gods sakes!

If this is noticeable for the Dutch then this is very likely to be seen elsewhere and in other countries, or do you think human beings will act differently somehow? We know this isn't true otherwise helmet wearing would have differing effects in different countries, except it doesn't, the effects are the same, negative impact all round.

 

So you have no actual data or controlled study evidence to support your hypothesis then? But to be on the safe side you want old people off the streets and safely locked away? I hope you are more tolerant of your poor old Mum.

Er, yes of course I have the evidence, the compartive rates/numbers of deaths of the age groups in the Netherlands.

Where the fuck did I say i wanted old people off the street, are you totally incapable of reading ffs! I said I was an advocate of getting older people and women on bikes, I'm pointing out the very real and obvious negative effect of e-bikes that older people are being effected by.

If you have x change which is a very significant change (purchasing of e-bikes) and nothing else has changed except to make the roads and cycling in general safer, yet those purchasing e-bikes are suffering much greater rates/numbers of deaths, what other factors could it be?

We already knew that people into their mid 80s cycle in the Netherlands frequently so all the, 'older people are more likely to die when they fall' which is what chairRDF suggested would already be a factor in the numbers from previous years, in fact due to the roads/infra being even safer for everyone you would expect a fall in the number of deaths at roughly the same % points.

However those purchasing e-bikes in very large % (i.e. those over 60) are suffering massive increases in deaths, contra to the reduction in deaths in other age groups, if the only significant change is the purcahsing/use of e-bikes which increase the maximum speed of the persons riding then it's pretty clear there is a correlation.

Stick to petty insults though because you can't even grasp simple concepts sonny!

Put up or shut up, link to your peer reviewed data analysis please.

So far it seems you have found another subject on which you have no first hand experience on which to pontificate.

Mungecrundle wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

ChairRDRF wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

e-bikes are having undesired effects for the eldery in the Netherlands but no-one will admit it.

Dunno about that.

There has actually  been a  lot of dicussion aabout elderly people (mainly men) crashing on e-bikes in NL. This shows up becasue elderly guys coming off bikes are much more likely to die than younger people are in similar crashes.

The point is that at least you have elderly people on some sort of bike - better that then them having no type of exercise at all. And also being more of a threat to others by driving.

Maybe they are dying doing something they like doing and being less of a threat to others by not driving? What's wrong with that?

Jesus wept, are you so ignorant of the facts you won't admit there is an obvious cause and effect, that's very typical. The ECF wouldn't answer my question regarding such but people on the ground in the Netherlands understand this problem.

You say that older people are more likely to die when in involved in an incident, maybe so, but  you have a significant INCREASE in cycling deaths in the over 60s age groups, compared to those that aren't buying e-bikes in any great numbers (those under 60) whose deaths have dropped significantly over the same period. We know comparing KSIs to other modes/groups is a good way to measure how safety aids or certain factors are having an effect negatively or positively.

What do you think that tells us, maybe that there has been a significant danger factor added to those in these age groups over and above that effecting the other age groups whom have seen significant decreases in deaths/improvement in safety?

Why do you think that increase can be ignored, you wouldn't ignore it in any other circumstance would you. it's totally irrelevant that they are doing something they like, I'm a massive proponent for older people and women to get onto bikes but e-bikes most definitely are having a negative effect on safety. Stop bloody ignoring it for gods sakes!

If this is noticeable for the Dutch then this is very likely to be seen elsewhere and in other countries, or do you think human beings will act differently somehow? We know this isn't true otherwise helmet wearing would have differing effects in different countries, except it doesn't, the effects are the same, negative impact all round.

 

So you have no actual data or controlled study evidence to support your hypothesis then? But to be on the safe side you want old people off the streets and safely locked away? I hope you are more tolerant of your poor old Mum.

Er, yes of course I have the evidence, the compartive rates/numbers of deaths of the age groups in the Netherlands.

Where the fuck did I say i wanted old people off the street, are you totally incapable of reading ffs! I said I was an advocate of getting older people and women on bikes, I'm pointing out the very real and obvious negative effect of e-bikes that older people are being effected by.

If you have x change which is a very significant change (purchasing of e-bikes) and nothing else has changed except to make the roads and cycling in general safer, yet those purchasing e-bikes are suffering much greater rates/numbers of deaths, what other factors could it be?

We already knew that people into their mid 80s cycle in the Netherlands frequently so all the, 'older people are more likely to die when they fall' which is what chairRDF suggested would already be a factor in the numbers from previous years, in fact due to the roads/infra being even safer for everyone you would expect a fall in the number of deaths at roughly the same % points.

However those purchasing e-bikes in very large % (i.e. those over 60) are suffering massive increases in deaths, contra to the reduction in deaths in other age groups, if the only significant change is the purcahsing/use of e-bikes which increase the maximum speed of the persons riding then it's pretty clear there is a correlation.

Stick to petty insults though because you can't even grasp simple concepts sonny!

Put up or shut up, link to your peer reviewed data analysis please. So far it seems you have found another subject on which you have no first hand experience on which to pontificate.

Do one numpty, the ONLY change is e-bikes being bought in significant % by the only group affected by the backward trend for safety, that evidence is clear, or are you suggesting that making the comparisons between modes or age groups doesn't apply in this singular instance? Sadly for you all other organisations can join the dots when it comes to assessing facts with respect to comparing increases/decreases of incidents/KSIs.

This doesn't need a peer reviewed paper when the evidence is there right in front of your nose simpleton. Suggest you bother to ask a grown up with regard to fathoming out these things as clearly you're either mentally retarded or deliberately being obtuse!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Do one numpty, the ONLY change is e-bikes being bought in significant % by the only group affected by the backward trend for safety, that evidence is clear, or are you suggesting that making the comparisons between modes or age groups doesn't apply in this singular instance? Sadly for you all other organisations can join the dots when it comes to assessing facts with respect to comparing increases/decreases of incidents/KSIs.

This doesn't need a peer reviewed paper when the evidence is there right in front of your nose simpleton. Suggest you bother to ask a grown up with regard to fathoming out these things as clearly you're either mentally retarded or deliberately being obtuse!

The only significant change in an entire country over the last decade is the introduction of e-bikes?

Whenever you try and discuss statistics you just expose your own ignorance.

Your consistent failure to distinguish between absolute and relative risk is getting a bit embarrassing now.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Jesus wept, are you so ignorant of the facts you won't admit there is an obvious cause and effect, that's very typical. The ECF wouldn't answer my question regarding such but people on the ground in the Netherlands understand this problem.

You say that older people are more likely to die when in involved in an incident, maybe so, but  you have a significant INCREASE in cycling deaths in the over 60s age groups, compared to those that aren't buying e-bikes in any great numbers (those under 60) whose deaths have dropped significantly over the same period. We know comparing KSIs to other modes/groups is a good way to measure how safety aids or certain factors are having an effect negatively or positively.

What do you think that tells us, maybe that there has been a significant danger factor added to those in these age groups over and above that effecting the other age groups whom have seen significant decreases in deaths/improvement in safety?

Why do you think that increase can be ignored, you wouldn't ignore it in any other circumstance would you. it's totally irrelevant that they are doing something they like, I'm a massive proponent for older people and women to get onto bikes but e-bikes most definitely are having a negative effect on safety. Stop bloody ignoring it for gods sakes!

If this is noticeable for the Dutch then this is very likely to be seen elsewhere and in other countries, or do you think human beings will act differently somehow? We know this isn't true otherwise helmet wearing would have differing effects in different countries, except it doesn't, the effects are the same, negative impact all round.

 

Do you have any data showing an increase in relative risk for cyclists over 60?

Absolute numbers are meaningless in isolation.

The 60+ age demographic is growing faster than others so an increase in absolute deaths is entirely expected.

If e-bikes are allowing more people over 60 to continue cycling then an increase in absolute deaths is, again, entirely expected.

Absolute numbers here:
https://www.swov.nl/en/facts-figures/factsheet/road-deaths-netherlands

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

Fuck this and all e-bikes.

The idea of cycling is that YOU power the bike, after all, isn't that part of the appeal of it?

If this bike appeals to you, just admit that cycling is not for you, and buy a moped, scooter, motorcycle, or what have you. You don't really like BICYCLES and CYCLING, you are a poseur.

Soon the bikelanes and paths will be full of these things, and then we are back to square one, having to deal with motorized traffic that endangers cyclists, but now they will be even closer to us.

I prefer the struggle, to grind up a hill, and the challenge of doing by my own power; I realize that is an old-fasioned view these days, when cheating is en vogue, and using your phone to do everything is the new norm.

Fuck this trend.

 

I expect someone once said exactly the same thing about the derailleur.

This will get more people cycling. As another article today reports that should make all cyclists safer.

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

If this bike appeals to you, just admit that cycling is not for you, and buy a moped, scooter, motorcycle, or what have you.

I support your sentiment however it's like trying to stop the tide. I think eBikes should be kept from off road areas and preserve the wilderness aspect but on the road, we'll just see numbers growing as they get cheaper.

kitkat wrote:

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

If this bike appeals to you, just admit that cycling is not for you, and buy a moped, scooter, motorcycle, or what have you.

I support your sentiment however it's like trying to stop the tide. I think eBikes should be kept from off road areas and preserve the wilderness aspect but on the road, we'll just see numbers growing as they get cheaper.

Well yes, but a few weeks ago I met a chap down the local offroad who uses an eBike on account of having 2 artificial knees.

An older gentleman in our club uses an eBike on account of having a pacemaker. He simply cannot exert himself to get up hills under his own power.

Mungecrundle wrote:

kitkat wrote:

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

If this bike appeals to you, just admit that cycling is not for you, and buy a moped, scooter, motorcycle, or what have you.

I support your sentiment however it's like trying to stop the tide. I think eBikes should be kept from off road areas and preserve the wilderness aspect but on the road, we'll just see numbers growing as they get cheaper.

Well yes, but a few weeks ago I met a chap down the local offroad who uses an eBike on account of having 2 artificial knees. An older gentleman in our club uses an eBike on account of having a pacemaker. He simply cannot exert himself to get up hills under his own power.

Freedom of will isn't it. To the detriment of the majority.

I'm also against motorised vehicles (which is what these are) being used on bridleways. However, for this application I'm 100% behind because it could mean less crowded trains and less exhaust emissions. This is great. Motorised mountain bikes not so in my opinion.

Twowheelsaregreat wrote:

Freedom of will isn't it. To the detriment of the majority.

I'm also against motorised vehicles (which is what these are) being used on bridleways. However, for this application I'm 100% behind because it could mean less crowded trains and less exhaust emissions. This is great. Motorised mountain bikes not so in my opinion.

There is no detriment to the majority. Take for example the first ever British Stage winner in the Tour de France, now into his 80s he can't climb quite like he once could but using electrical assistance he is able to ride and enjoy his home turf. He isn't using a bike as a motorised wheelchair (although that in itself might be a good thing) but is getting out enjoying healthy exercise, company and the outdoors whilst continuing to inspre young people. That stuff matters to many more less famous cyclists too.

It is not a motorised bike which you can ride along without pedal input, it can't propel itself, it doesn't use power beyond the specified 25kph.

If you don't get this then you might read up and perhaps drop a couple of prejudices.

kitkat wrote:

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

If this bike appeals to you, just admit that cycling is not for you, and buy a moped, scooter, motorcycle, or what have you.

I support your sentiment however it's like trying to stop the tide. I think eBikes should be kept from off road areas and preserve the wilderness aspect but on the road, we'll just see numbers growing as they get cheaper.

I certainly do NOT support either the sentiment or the manner in which it was expressed.

E-bikes are not the problem, it's human behaviour, just as we see in every single aspect of life.

I'd prefer people to ride e-bikes if it means they get out instead of driving cars or deciding to stay at home. Cycling doesn't belong only to macho types who can haul themselves up steep slopes wearing lycra. Perhaps your pal meathead, with his 19th Century-perspective, only rides fixed and considers gears to be for weak people who should stay at home.

If you want to ban e-bikes from so-called wilderness areas (or anywhere else) then you must ban full-sus MTBs. Why not go the whole way and ban everything except pedestrians? Ah hang on, all those people walking damage footpaths up popular mountains as we see in Snowdonia or the Lake District. We need to ban them too. Get orff that land!!!

Simon E wrote:

E-bikes are not the problem, it's human behaviour, just as we see in every single aspect of life.

I'd prefer people to ride e-bikes if it means they get out instead of driving cars or deciding to stay at home. Cycling doesn't belong only to macho types who can haul themselves up steep slopes wearing lycra. Perhaps your pal meathead, with his 19th Century-perspective, only rides fixed and considers gears to be for weak people who should stay at home.

If you want to ban e-bikes from so-called wilderness areas (or anywhere else) then you must ban full-sus MTBs. Why not go the whole way and ban everything except pedestrians? Ah hang on, all those people walking damage footpaths up popular mountains as we see in Snowdonia or the Lake District. We need to ban them too. Get orff that land!!!

Another round of the Black Death is the only thing that's going to sort that lot out.

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

Fuck this and all e-bikes.

The idea of cycling is that YOU power the bike, after all, isn't that part of the appeal of it?

If this bike appeals to you, just admit that cycling is not for you, and buy a moped, scooter, motorcycle, or what have you. You don't really like BICYCLES and CYCLING, you are a poseur.

Soon the bikelanes and paths will be full of these things, and then we are back to square one, having to deal with motorized traffic that endangers cyclists, but now they will be even closer to us.

I prefer the struggle, to grind up a hill, and the challenge of doing by my own power; I realize that is an old-fasioned view these days, when cheating is en vogue, and using your phone to do everything is the new norm.

Fuck this trend.

 

Fashioned

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

Fuck this and all e-bikes.

I can understand the sentiment. You know how terribly a lot of mopeds are ridden... so you give them a wide berth. You also know how terribly a lot of bicycles are ridden... but usually at speeds where they're not going to injure anyone.

Now combine terrible riding with looking like a bicycle and travelling at moped speeds.

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

Fuck this and all e-bikes.

The idea of cycling is that YOU power the bike, after all, isn't that part of the appeal of it?

If this bike appeals to you, just admit that cycling is not for you, and buy a moped, scooter, motorcycle, or what have you. You don't really like BICYCLES and CYCLING, you are a poseur.

Soon the bikelanes and paths will be full of these things, and then we are back to square one, having to deal with motorized traffic that endangers cyclists, but now they will be even closer to us.

I prefer the struggle, to grind up a hill, and the challenge of doing by my own power; I realize that is an old-fasioned view these days, when cheating is en vogue, and using your phone to do everything is the new norm.

Fuck this trend.

 

Chill out dude. The bike is limited to 16 mph anyway so not a threat to the more serious rider.
This Will get more people out of the car and onto bikes. This is a good thing. The more bikes we have the better the provisions for us. Look at Holland.
I've chased down a few of these bikes now - it's good exercise.
Bring on the bikes in whatever form. They still have to be pedaled and studies show that e bike riders ride their bikes more - so it evens out.

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

I prefer the struggle, to grind up a hill, and the challenge of doing by my own power; I realize that is an old-fasioned view these days, when cheating is en vogue, and using your phone to do everything is the new norm.

 

So just so you prefer the challenge no product should exist that doesn't fit your worldview. I bicycle isn't just for sport and racing. It's for (nearly) all people and is just simple transport for people.
E-bikes like this, being a pedalec, still improve a rider's fitness and wellbeing and also mean less people in cars or public transport. Surely that's win-win for all?
E-bikes like this are not like motorbikes. You are just getting assistance as you pedal. Of course if people use one to cheat in sport or Strava etc, then it is shameful, just like any other form of cheating.