Source is in French, pay-walled and talking about the in-coming issues with fat-bikes: https://www.lemonde.fr/m-perso/article/2024/11/09/gros-pneus-et-coups-de-sonnettes-vers-la-suvisation-du-velo_6385307_4497916.html
Are “fat bikes” the over powered electric motorcycles? 'Cause we got problems with those in the United States, too.
From the article:
The article mentions “SUV-ization” of the bycicle.
the ‘form factor’ isn’t the problem. a ‘cool’ tricked-out bike could just be cosmetics, tire size and suspension; and still have a legally allowed motor output and a safe rider.
it’s the modifications to bypass power limits (some can go 60+ km/h, where the legal limit is closer to 25) or swap out motors for much stronger ones, and how reckless some people ride.
the difference is that’s objectively cool whereas there’s nothing cool about an SUV
What makes you think the reasons you think this is cool is different from the reasons why other people find SUV cool? This article mentions the similarities.
Just add 2 more wheels and a big bumper front and back, maybe a passenger seat or two and a trailer behind it, enclose it in a weatherproofing shell then it’d be cooler.
/s
Technically no, but people are really confused with terminology around electric bikes of all sorts. Fatbikes are just a bicycle with oversized tires. When we look at mountainbike tires, they typically stop at around 2.6, maybe 2.8 inches in width. Fatbikes are more around 3.8 or even more, and are typically intended for snowy areas, or if you just want the extra cushioning off road. What people nowadays cry about and describe as “fatbike” is more of an electric moped.
Fat bikes are bikes with wide tires. The wide tire acts as a sort of suspension in effects. They’re fun as hell especially when you hit potholes, but idk why people are using them on streets for transport, they’re far more of a fun bike
Electric assist makes up for the heavy wheels
Oh that’s stupid. I’ve ridden a non assisted fat bike once and loved it, but it really is a toy bike. You’re far better off with a road bike that has some shocks if you aren’t using it for shit like dune riding or something like that.
I’m not saying every bike should be ultra focused on the custom stuff. I grocery shop with a gravel bike, but different bike styles exist for a reason
Fatbikes look cool but lose one of the main advantages of bicycles, which is that you can easily carry them, whether up stairs, onto a train or into a car. Electric fatbikes must be even worse for that. Its probably better thinking of them as motorbikes.
As a comparison, the Aventon Level.2 is their city commuter ebike. Stock, it weighs 62 lbs (28 kg). Nobody is carrying that bike up stairs, and it’s not a fatbike.
The problem here is people exceeding speed limits in populated places, creating danger.
The ones being referenced are much closer to a moped than a bicycle / fatbike.
I thought these things were a bit dumb, then I figured out that the fatter tires make riding on the cobble stones that are common in my city more comfortable. I still don’t want one, but I see that they have their place.
No getting your wheels stuck in tram tracks either. Not relevant everywhere ofcourse but in places where they have trams plenty of people fall and get injured because of tram tracks.
Tram tracks are my second biggest nightmare after car doors!
You can go with regular wide tires for those already. No need for fatbike tires.
Only if you also reduce the air pressure, which comes with its own drawbacks. This is mountainbike 101 basically.
Is that in a “this is what the future could be like” way, or a “grr, war on motorists, blame gay immigrants” way?
I mean, isn’t that what we literally already say today?
Not really, for now it is mostly “here’s the bike lane”, because the street is attributed to cars by default. So this quote is about reversing this mind set.
So what I mean is that cars can only go in car-lanes - you’re not allowed to drive on sidewalks, bike lanes, bus lanes and so on.
I may have misunderstood, though.
Yes, I think you’re not getting the point, it’s about making the default for bikes and pedestrians now, and treating cars as secondary users, that have their smaller delimited special lane.
Could be something lost in translation, or I’m just usually dense today.
Anyway, is this person saying this as a negative? Because I think it’s definitely a positive.
He’s supporting this change, he’s part of the local government developing it. So he’s saying that to illustrate the change of mindset.
Based
As I get it, it’s about shifting the perspective from everything is for cars and pedestrians are an after thought to something like everything is for pedestrians except this particular piece of road where cars may drive. From “car first”, to “pedestrian first”.
deleted by creator
NonStill-Paywalled:https://archive.is/27Wjk Edit: didn’t manage to bypass paywall…
The article is paywalled, so good luck with it. Isn’t “Lemon de” on the conservative carbrain side?
And, yes, speed limits need to be enforced somehow for all motorized vehicles within their contexts. Sidewalks are not for riding fast and bike paths aren’t for riding fast either. Speed limiters are most definitely needed, as is a lot of education. Civilization is 100% not ready for “sharable” scooters either.
Le monde is more of a liberal progressist newspaper iirc. But almost all newspapers in france are owned by billionaires either way sooo
Le Monde Group is mainly owned by various rich people, but 25% is owned by employees, and they have specific rights that are not common for billionaire-owned journals, like voting for their own newspaper managing editor and approving changes of shareholders.
Yes, I said it is paywalled a couple of worlds before the link. I was just giving a source for the quote, it’s not really the point of the article.
No, Le Monde (The World) is center left, which in France means close to Socialist party, which is close to Bernie Sanders in the USA. It’s probably the most well respected newspaper from France.
