E-Bikes: More dangerous than regular bikes

Letter to the editor in today's New York Times:

Re “Teenagers’ Accidents Expose the Risks of E-Bikes” (front page, July 31):

While it is clear that stronger regulation around the speeds of e-bikes is needed, roadway design determines the safety of our communities.

What we are seeing is the deadly consequences of a system built for cars and cars only. As one of the people quoted in the article notes, the bikes’ speed is “too fast for sidewalks, but it’s too slow to be in traffic.”

In a better system, bikes and cars would not have to share the road, and our roads would be designed to accommodate the reality that people get around in different ways, and everyone deserves to get around safely.

Bikes are not motorcycles, and they should not be treated as if they were. These crashes are happening because people on bikes are forced to use unsafe roadways around cars that are often going too fast.

Earl Blumenauer

Portland, Ore.

The writer, a member of Congress, is the founder and co-chair of the Congressional Bicycle Caucus.

Rob's comment:

Regular readers of this blog know I take a dim view of bike riding in general because of the dangers: Riding a bike is dangerous: Don't do it.

Blumenauer's assumption about e-bikes is that speed and motor vehicles are the primary dangers for cyclists. In fact most cycling accidents are "solo falls" that have nothing to do with other vehicles: Solo falls: Only half the problem.

Click on "Solo Falls" below for more on the issue.

Repugs lose again on abortion

ANDREW CABELLERO-REYNOLDS

The New Republic:

....It is abundantly clear by now that Dobbs, the outcome of 50 years of activism by anti-abortion groups and the conservative legal movement, has become a major electoral blow to anti-abortion forces and to the Republican Party. 

Hostility to the court’s ruling seriously blunted the GOP’s House gains in last year’s midterms, where the president’s party traditionally loses seats. House Democrats came only a few gerrymanders (or, if you prefer, a slightly more competent set of New York state Democrats) away from retaining control of the chamber; their colleagues in the Senate actually picked up a seat.

Among anti-abortion conservatives, the failure to enact Issue 1 gave rise to frustration and concern. “It is a sad day for Ohio and a warning for pro-life states across the nation,” Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America said in a statement to National Review after the result became clear. “Millions of dollars and liberal dark money flooded Ohio to ensure they have a path to buy their extreme policies in a pro-life state. Tragically, some sat on the sideline while outsider liberal groups poured millions into Ohio.”

Laura Ingraham, who once remarked that there would be hell to pay if the Supreme Court didn’t reward years of right-wing legal activism by overturning Roe, struck a defiant note on Wednesday by describing that victory as “the greatest conservative accomplishment since ending the Cold War.” She urged Republican elected officials not to “run away” from the issue, a point with which many Democratic officials and candidates would likely concur. 

The Wall Street Journal editorial board, reading the tea leaves, urged the party to figure out a better strategy for defending itself to voters.

“Republicans spent half a century working to overturn Roe, yet they weren’t prepared for the democratic policy debate when that finally happened in Dobbs last year,” it opined on Wednesday. “Now they’re seeing abortion regimes as loose as Roe, or potentially looser, imposed by voters even in conservative states. This political liability will persist until the GOP finds an abortion message that most voters can accept.”

The problem for Republicans is that they have already staked out their policy on the matter and can’t credibly suggest an alternative....

Rob's comment:

Forcing women---and girls---to have babies they don't want. What could go wrong with that strategy?

See also Why the Ohio Special Election Backfired for the GOP.

Mike Luckovich