"Pedals of fire"

[Doug[_3_]]

The motorists who dominate this cycling newsgroup will just love this
news item. They will be falling over themselves to respond with the
usual insulting rhetoric. But some genuine cyclists will be bemused,
as will environmentalists. Me? I am laughing. Motorists are starting
to get some serious competition for a change.

"PEDESTRIANS in China are often terrorised by electric bicycles
zipping along the country’s pavements. China’s authorities, too, seem
to have been caught unawares by an industry that, like the bikes
themselves, has emerged speedily and stealthily from the shadows:
local output grew from a few thousand bikes a year less than a decade
ago to more than 22m last year, along with millions of kits to turn
ordinary bicycles into electric ones. Annual sales have reached about
$11 billion. The government is suddenly paying attention—but its urge
to regulate is pulling it in two different directions.

More and more Chinese cyclists, it seems, would like a battery and
motor to turn the wheels for them. Production of ordinary bicycles,
which peaked in 2006 at nearly 80m units, has since fallen by more
than 25%. But as with many businesses in China, the electric-bike
industry is plagued by too much capacity, thin margins and variable
quality. More than 2,600 firms had permits to make electric bikes last
year, although only around 1,000 are thought to be using them. Most
started as conventional bicycle-makers; others have come from the
motorcycle business. The biggest manufacturer, Jiangsu Xinri Electric
Vehicle Co, produced 1.8m “e-bikes” last year. Its lead is under
threat from at least half a dozen other manufacturers. One rival,
Tianjin Aima Science and Technology Co, says it is gearing up to make
more than 5m bikes a year; Jiangsu Yadea Technical Development Co
hopes to triple its sales to 3m this year..."

"...Yet the government also wants to encourage electric bicycles to
curb the pollution and congestion created by other vehicles..."

More:
http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16117106

--
Car Free Living Project
http://www.carfreelivingproject.org.uk/
For people wishing to live without a car

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> The motorists who dominate this cycling newsgroup will just snip
_id=16117106

OT for UK group, surely?

[Doug[_3_]]

On 23 May, 14:02, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > The motorists who dominate this cycling newsgroup will just snip
>
> _id=16117106
>
> OT for UK group, surely?
>
Here's a better response...

"In defense of e-bikes: An e-bike is not a motorcycle. Most that I see
on the streets are not even capable of surpassing the speed of an
ordinary cyclist on a bicycle with gears; on my single-speed city
cruiser I pass many a slower e-bike. I don't know which pedestrians
the writer of this article thinks the e-bikes "terrorize." Perhaps if
you're a visitor unfamiliar with the rules (or lack thereof) of the
road in China, you might unwittingly step into the path of an e-bike.
But the vast majority of accidents I see involve at least one car.

I find e-bikes provide an excellent alternative for people who do not
want to bike and would otherwise be taking cabs or driving a car.
They're still much smaller and take far less road and parking space
than do cars, they're often faster and more convenient, and always
cheaper than taking a taxi, and, compared to traditional bicycles, can
carry heavy loads or several passengers (it's not uncommon to see an
entire family on one e-bike), and, because of their weight, are less
likely to get stolen than a traditional bicycle--a pressing concern in
Chinese cities. And they cost about as much as a decent, geared
bicycle. China's cities are becoming more congested on a daily basis,
and at the same time, their boundaries are expanding ever outward.
When all's said and done, the e-bike, I think, is one of the top modes
of transportation to address all of those conflicting factors.

Jane (Chengdu, China)"

--
Car Free Living Project
http://www.carfreelivingproject.org.uk/
For people wishing to live without a car

[BrianW[_2_]]

On May 23, 7:13�am, Doug > wrote:
> The motorists who dominate this cycling newsgroup will just love this
> news item. They will be falling over themselves to respond with the
> usual insulting rhetoric. But some genuine cyclists will be bemused,
> as will environmentalists. Me? I am laughing. Motorists are starting
> to get some serious competition for a change.

Are e-cyclists "Proper Cyclists" according to the Book of Doug?

[bugbear]

Doug wrote:
> The motorists who dominate this cycling newsgroup will just love this
> news item.

Oh yes; I keep forgetting. We're all motorists apart from you.

You and your one man campaign to make cycling
look as bad as possible.

BugBear

[Doug[_3_]]

On 24 May, 09:54, bugbear > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > The motorists who dominate this cycling newsgroup will just love this
> > news item.
>
> Oh yes; I keep forgetting. We're all motorists apart from you.
>
Almost all.
>
> You and your one man campaign to make cycling
> look as bad as possible.
>
I prefer to be regarded as a non-motorist who uses better forms of
personal transport.

--
Carfree UK
http://carfree.org.uk/
Promoting carfree development and its environmental, social, financial
and health benefits.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 23 May, 21:46, BrianW > wrote:
> On May 23, 7:13 am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > The motorists who dominate this cycling newsgroup will just love this
> > news item. They will be falling over themselves to respond with the
> > usual insulting rhetoric. But some genuine cyclists will be bemused,
> > as will environmentalists. Me? I am laughing. Motorists are starting
> > to get some serious competition for a change.
>
> Are e-cyclists "Proper Cyclists" according to the Book of Doug?
>
There is no book. Maybe e-bikes are best regarded as a superior
alternative to cars as e-bikes are much less harmful than cars.

--
Carfree UK
http://carfree.org.uk/
Promoting carfree development and its environmental, social, financial
and health benefits.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> There is no book. Maybe e-bikes are best regarded as a superior
> alternative to cars as e-bikes are much less harmful than cars.

I wonder what resources are used to make the cells used?

Or how much energy is used shipping them out of China?

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Doug[_3_]]

On 24 May, 11:32, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > There is no book. Maybe e-bikes are best regarded as a superior
> > alternative to cars as e-bikes are much less harmful than cars.
>
> I wonder what resources are used to make the cells used? *
>
> Or how much energy is used shipping them out of China?
>
Much less than cars.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
Feed people not cars.

[bugbear]

Doug wrote:
> On 24 May, 09:54, bugbear > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> The motorists who dominate this cycling newsgroup will just love this
>>> news item.
>> Oh yes; I keep forgetting. We're all motorists apart from you.
>>
> Almost all.
>> You and your one man campaign to make cycling
>> look as bad as possible.
>>
> I prefer to be regarded as a non-motorist who uses better forms of
> personal transport.

You'd better change your behaviour then. Right now
you're regarded as an idiot.

Your activities appear to be designed to turn
moderate motorists in cyclist haters.

I have *no idea* what your actual intention is.

BugBear

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> On 24 May, 11:32, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > There is no book. Maybe e-bikes are best regarded as a superior
> > > alternative to cars as e-bikes are much less harmful than cars.
> >
> > I wonder what resources are used to make the cells used? *
> >
> > Or how much energy is used shipping them out of China?
> >
> Much less than cars.

Just because it's less doesn't make it right. You preach from a flawed
perspective.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Paul - xxx wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>
>> On 24 May, 11:32, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> There is no book. Maybe e-bikes are best regarded as a superior
>>>> alternative to cars as e-bikes are much less harmful than cars.
>>>
>>> I wonder what resources are used to make the cells used?
>>>
>>> Or how much energy is used shipping them out of China?
>>>
>> Much less than cars.
>
> Just because it's less doesn't make it right. You preach from a
> flawed perspective.

ebike in china 250 dollars, same bike in usa is 2500. one of the major
drawbacks to ebikes is their limited battery durability, something like 5
sets in the machines life. ebikes in china catch on because of the large
city ban on motorcycles

[Doug[_3_]]

On 24 May, 12:02, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 24 May, 11:32, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > There is no book. Maybe e-bikes are best regarded as a superior
> > > > alternative to cars as e-bikes are much less harmful than cars.
>
> > > I wonder what resources are used to make the cells used? *
>
> > > Or how much energy is used shipping them out of China?
>
> > Much less than cars.
>
> Just because it's less doesn't make it right. *You preach from a flawed
> perspective.
>
Imported bicycles do not need to be perfect to be better than imported
cars. Nothing flawed about that. Bicycles are also less harmful than
cars.

--
Car Free Living Project
http://www.carfreelivingproject.org.uk/
For people wishing to live without a car

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 24 May, 09:54, bugbear > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> The motorists who dominate this cycling newsgroup will just love this
>>> news item.
>> Oh yes; I keep forgetting. We're all motorists apart from you.
>>
> Almost all.

Come on, name names.

>> You and your one man campaign to make cycling
>> look as bad as possible.
>>
> I prefer to be regarded as a non-motorist who uses better forms of
> personal transport.
>
> --
> Carfree UK
> http://carfree.org.uk/
> Promoting carfree development and its environmental, social, financial
> and health benefits.
>

I would have thought you would be a cyclist.
--
Tony Dragon

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> On 24 May, 12:02, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 24 May, 11:32, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > There is no book. Maybe e-bikes are best regarded as a
> > > > > superior alternative to cars as e-bikes are much less harmful
> > > > > than cars.
> >
> > > > I wonder what resources are used to make the cells used? *
> >
> > > > Or how much energy is used shipping them out of China?
> >
> > > Much less than cars.
> >
> > Just because it's less doesn't make it right. *You preach from a
> > flawed perspective.
> >
> Imported bicycles do not need to be perfect to be better than imported
> cars. Nothing flawed about that. Bicycles are also less harmful than
> cars.

But they are harmful.

As I say, you preach from a flawed base.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[BrianW[_2_]]

On May 24, 11:30�am, Doug > wrote:
> On 23 May, 21:46, BrianW > wrote:> On May 23, 7:13 am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > The motorists who dominate this cycling newsgroup will just love this
> > > news item. They will be falling over themselves to respond with the
> > > usual insulting rhetoric. But some genuine cyclists will be bemused,
> > > as will environmentalists. Me? I am laughing. Motorists are starting
> > > to get some serious competition for a change.
>
> > Are e-cyclists "Proper Cyclists" according to the Book of Doug?
>
> There is no book.

I'm sorry, my mistake. Of course there's no "Book of Doug". I meant
"Book of Gollum".

[Doug[_3_]]

On 24 May, 18:29, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 24 May, 12:02, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > On 24 May, 11:32, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > > There is no book. Maybe e-bikes are best regarded as a
> > > > > > superior alternative to cars as e-bikes are much less harmful
> > > > > > than cars.
>
> > > > > I wonder what resources are used to make the cells used? *
>
> > > > > Or how much energy is used shipping them out of China?
>
> > > > Much less than cars.
>
> > > Just because it's less doesn't make it right. *You preach from a
> > > flawed perspective.
>
> > Imported bicycles do not need to be perfect to be better than imported
> > cars. Nothing flawed about that. Bicycles are also less harmful than
> > cars.
>
> But they are harmful.
>
> As I say, you preach from a flawed base.
>
Wrong. The base is that the most dangerous is better dealt with first
rather than last. You know it makes sense.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> On 24 May, 18:29, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 24 May, 12:02, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > On 24 May, 11:32, "Paul - xxx" >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > > > There is no book. Maybe e-bikes are best regarded as a
> > > > > > > superior alternative to cars as e-bikes are much less
> > > > > > > harmful than cars.
> >
> > > > > > I wonder what resources are used to make the cells used? *
> >
> > > > > > Or how much energy is used shipping them out of China?
> >
> > > > > Much less than cars.
> >
> > > > Just because it's less doesn't make it right. *You preach from a
> > > > flawed perspective.
> >
> > > Imported bicycles do not need to be perfect to be better than
> > > imported cars. Nothing flawed about that. Bicycles are also less
> > > harmful than cars.
> >
> > But they are harmful.
> >
> > As I say, you preach from a flawed base.
> >
> Wrong. The base is that the most dangerous is better dealt with first
> rather than last. You know it makes sense.

You preach that we shouldn't use 'harmful' cars when you yourself use
harmful bicycles, and have previously boasted of using harmful
motorbikes and vehicles in the past.

Your preaching base is flawed.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Doug[_3_]]

On 25 May, 11:08, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 24 May, 18:29, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > On 24 May, 12:02, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > > On 24 May, 11:32, "Paul - xxx" >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > > > > There is no book. Maybe e-bikes are best regarded as a
> > > > > > > > superior alternative to cars as e-bikes are much less
> > > > > > > > harmful than cars.
>
> > > > > > > I wonder what resources are used to make the cells used? *
>
> > > > > > > Or how much energy is used shipping them out of China?
>
> > > > > > Much less than cars.
>
> > > > > Just because it's less doesn't make it right. *You preach from a
> > > > > flawed perspective.
>
> > > > Imported bicycles do not need to be perfect to be better than
> > > > imported cars. Nothing flawed about that. Bicycles are also less
> > > > harmful than cars.
>
> > > But they are harmful.
>
> > > As I say, you preach from a flawed base.
>
> > Wrong. The base is that the most dangerous is better dealt with first
> > rather than last. You know it makes sense.
>
> You preach that we shouldn't use 'harmful' cars when you yourself use
> harmful bicycles, and have previously boasted of using harmful
> motorbikes and vehicles in the past.
>
> Your preaching base is flawed.
>
You obviously haven't noticed that the 'preaching' is being done by
motorists like you on this cycling newsgroup, who criticise cyclists
right left and centre for doing things which are much less dangerous
than the actions of motorists. And your latest target for your wannabe
self-righteous preaching is e-bikes which are electronically limited
to 15mph.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> You obviously haven't noticed that the 'preaching' is being done by
> motorists like you on this cycling newsgroup, who criticise cyclists
> right left and centre for doing things which are much less dangerous
> than the actions of motorists.

So you agree cyclists do dangerous things ...

> And your latest target for your wannabe
> self-righteous preaching is e-bikes which are electronically limited
> to 15mph.

Huh? I haven't preached about anything. You're the one who constantly
harps on about green credentials, then espouses the benefits of
shipping a bicycle thousands of miles just so you can press a trigger
and go rather than exerting any effort.

Your base for preaching is basically flawed

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Doug[_3_]]

On 25 May, 16:25, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > You obviously haven't noticed that the 'preaching' is being done by
> > motorists like you on this cycling newsgroup, who criticise cyclists
> > right left and centre for doing things which are much less dangerous
> > than the actions of motorists.
>
> So you agree cyclists do dangerous things ...
>
Mostly a danger to themselves and not nearly as dangerous as
motorists. Why are you so concerned about the danger from bicycles and
not the much more serious danger from cars?
>
> > And your latest target for your wannabe
> > self-righteous preaching is e-bikes which are electronically limited
> > to 15mph.
>
> Huh? *I haven't preached about anything. *You're the one who constantly
> harps on about green credentials, then espouses the benefits of
> shipping a bicycle thousands of miles just so you can press a trigger
> and go rather than exerting any effort.
>
> Your base for preaching is basically flawed
>
You are almost certainly not aware of this, and are ignoring the fact
that the same applies to imported cars, but modern shipping is
extremely efficient. So much so that it sometimes is less
environmentally unfriendly to ship something in than attempt to
produce it here. BTW the term 'green' is something of a euphemistic
misnomer. Very few if any human activities are green. Indeed one of
the worst examples is car use.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%.