This is the answer. Take those automaker handouts and toss them at ebike consumers. Tighten regulation on battery makers. Work to eliminate the value proposition of using a hacked up battery...
We continue to pass incredible legislation to incentivize electric car purchases. Why do we continue to prop up a lot of the automakers? I think that’s where the conversation should go.”
This is the answer. Take those automaker handouts and toss them at ebike consumers. Tighten regulation on battery makers. Work to eliminate the value proposition of using a hacked up battery instead of a tested one.
In the end, if an ebike can fulfill a need that a car would have, that is a huge win. A big enough one we should strive to make it the norm. A single-car garage can hold a dozen ebikes if it doesn't need to hold a car.
I don't know, man. I moved to Germany from the US six months ago, and of all the differences (besides the languages), America's suburban sprawl is the difference that leaves the largest impression...
I don't know, man. I moved to Germany from the US six months ago, and of all the differences (besides the languages), America's suburban sprawl is the difference that leaves the largest impression on me. In Germany, I'm a five minute walk from two grocery stores. From my brother's apartment -- who ostensibly lives in the heart of an American city -- it's a 15 minute walk to the nearest grocery store. From my parent's suburban home, it's nearly an hour.
I don't want to speak in absolute terms, but Germany just feels so much denser in comparison. A train ride between cities involves passing from a densely-packed urban cityscape to open fields to a densely-packed village to open fields to another densely-packed village and so on until you finally reach your destination. The tram ride from my city-center apartment to the city-outskirts university takes only 20 minutes. When I walk past the last building on campus, there's naught but open fields for as far as I can see. How often is the border between rural and urban so neatly delineated in the US?
I think /u/babypuncher is closest when they state that this a city planning issue. But I can't help but feel that's only half the problem, with the other half being our expectations. There's this American ideal that everyone should have their own house on a few acres of land. In fact, a common critique I hear of suburban homes is that the yards are too small (even though most people hardly use their yards!). But the ideal of large yards and single-family homes mutually excludes the ideal of a robust public transportation system, repelling each other like two charged balls: for every 10 meters you expand a lawn in both directions, there's another 100 square meters of public transport that must be considered.
So sure, give people their e-bike subsidies -- I don't think they can hurt. But don't expect e-bikes to solve fundamental issues in the way our cities are built and our expectations are managed.
I switched my main vehicle to an ebike over the summer, and it has been such a joy to ride. I’ve ridden bikes for fun/fitness/utility for most of my life, but an ebike is the only thing that has...
I switched my main vehicle to an ebike over the summer, and it has been such a joy to ride. I’ve ridden bikes for fun/fitness/utility for most of my life, but an ebike is the only thing that has really felt like a car replacement. I do wish they’d make an affordable tandem ebike. We still use the car when it’s two of us going somewhere, and my partner doesn’t want to buy his own ebike.
There's e-bikes that can have a second seat mounted on the cargo rack, if your partner is open to being a passenger. The Tern GSD is the one I'm looking at.
There's e-bikes that can have a second seat mounted on the cargo rack, if your partner is open to being a passenger. The Tern GSD is the one I'm looking at.
We’ve got the Yuba Spicy Curry, which we have decked out with foot rests, a seat, and handlebars in the back for a second adult to sit on. It’s definitely a different experience riding with...
We’ve got the Yuba Spicy Curry, which we have decked out with foot rests, a seat, and handlebars in the back for a second adult to sit on. It’s definitely a different experience riding with another person; balancing is a bit more challenging and you have to take turns much more slowly. I probably wouldn’t opt to do my 45-minute hilly cycle to my tae kwon do studio with another person on the back. But it’s awesome for just going into town with my wife!
Reading carefully, I largely agree. However, the sentiment irks me. Over the holidays, my wife and I have travelled via airplane, train, bus, Lyft rides, and private vehicle, and we've also...
Reading carefully, I largely agree. However, the sentiment irks me. Over the holidays, my wife and I have travelled via airplane, train, bus, Lyft rides, and private vehicle, and we've also walked. All these modes of transportation have their uses, as do bikes.
The niche for bikes is fairly limited. Winter die-hard bike commuters aside, bikes are not all-weather vehicles. They don't work for all people or jobs. (Personally, I'm reluctant to ride my bike below 60 degrees or so due to the wind.) We should talk about them as one option that can be usefully combined with all the other forms of transportation, not "cars bad, bikes good."
Even though people hate Musk for obvious reasons and Tesla seems like an iffy company to rely on, we should be happy that Tesla has been as successful as it's been, because if it had been a spectacular failure, it would have been a big setback for the transition to electric vehicles, which is definitely needed. Those electric vehicle subsidies did some good.
i will just leave this here https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes edit: and this https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/01/22/meet-the-bike-loving-finnish-city-that-keeps-pedalling-even-in-the-snow
I lived for some months in Oulu, and biked at -20°C there. while it's not pleasant, the fact that the infrastructure allows you to do it feels great. It even normalized cycling at around -10°C in...
I lived for some months in Oulu, and biked at -20°C there. while it's not pleasant, the fact that the infrastructure allows you to do it feels great. It even normalized cycling at around -10°C in the middle of the night for me.
Sadly the lack of half decent public transport outside of major cities (and even in them) is a major detriment in most of the US. I'd love to see a world where we just shut non-essentials down if...
Sadly the lack of half decent public transport outside of major cities (and even in them) is a major detriment in most of the US.
I'd love to see a world where we just shut non-essentials down if the weather is too crappy to bike/walk. That's a long way off though.
I'm reminded of an old saying. "There is no bad weather, only bad clothing." While active snow and rain is problematic, cold can be resolved with proper clothing. Some people ski for fun.
I'm reminded of an old saying.
"There is no bad weather, only bad clothing."
While active snow and rain is problematic, cold can be resolved with proper clothing. Some people ski for fun.
Yes, some people do a lot of things. It’s not about what’s physically possible. Older people talk about walking five miles to school in the snow (uphill both ways, as the joke goes) but that...
Yes, some people do a lot of things. It’s not about what’s physically possible. Older people talk about walking five miles to school in the snow (uphill both ways, as the joke goes) but that doesn’t mean anyone wants to go back to that.
Right, but if we had zoning and planning where stores weren't 5-15 miles away (because suburban, residence only zone is absurd) then it wouldn't be unreasonable to imagine you could do your...
Right, but if we had zoning and planning where stores weren't 5-15 miles away (because suburban, residence only zone is absurd) then it wouldn't be unreasonable to imagine you could do your shopping/recreating/work within your neighborhood. It is possible in the US, but largely in places developed before modern zoning laws. Would you rather a commute where you drive for 45 minutes in the rain or walk 5 minutes in the rain? Cars are what allow for ridiculously long commutes and unreasonable expectations around work.
Yes, I largely agree, but another way of saying it is that the built environments where bikes work well are somewhat restricted. It’s like a species that only thrives in certain habitats. Increase...
Exemplary
Yes, I largely agree, but another way of saying it is that the built environments where bikes work well are somewhat restricted. It’s like a species that only thrives in certain habitats. Increase the amount of favorable habitat and the species will be found in more places. But there are still going to be other habitats where there are different species, more adapted to those places.
This is okay. There are other modes of transportation that only work in certain niches. Ice skating and snowmobiles and boats and trains only work in certain places too. Bikes work in a lot of situations where those don’t work, but not in as many situations as cars.
I support increasing the amount of bike-friendly habitat, since there a lot of people who want to live in places like that, and I like it too. But this notion that people should only live in bike-friendly places is fairly restrictive, nice as those places often are. I know people with other priorities. An example: a couple that owns a lot of animals and bought a place out in the country, at the end of a dirt road. It’s great for them but would be terrible for someone who wanted to ride a bike to the store. I don’t want to live their life, but I don’t want them to give it up, either, and it wouldn’t work without cars and trucks.
Long commutes let people live in places that they wouldn’t otherwise consider. It’s not the work that’s making them live there, it’s their own desires about where they want to live. The long commute is a compromise. Hopefully, working remotely will make it easier for some.
So it seems like cars and remote work are both doing a similar thing, allowing people to live further away from work. Remote work is still thought of as a good thing, but it’s not likely to result in denser built environments.
It feels like you're giving cars pass. All modes of transit need infrastructure, how are cars any different? The vast majority of cars require very, very intensive infrastructure, abundant...
It’s like a species that only thrives in certain habitats... Bikes work in a lot of situations where those don’t work, but not in as many situations as cars.
It feels like you're giving cars pass. All modes of transit need infrastructure, how are cars any different? The vast majority of cars require very, very intensive infrastructure, abundant storage, and enormous subsidies. Let's see your average Toyota Corolla take on any non-maintained path, it won't get far. All transit specializes, there are an equal number of mutations for bikes or trains or cars.
It feels like you are viewing cars as the default, natural state. That isn't the case, we poured an incredible amount of collective dollars into making it the case and we're continuing to do so. We've also limited where we can be outside of our cars(i.e. only crossing at crosswalks), how we protect our children (i.e. no crossing major roadways, most of the retail in the US), and how we use our communal space (vaaaaast parking lots everywhere). It doesn't feel like a great value proposition.
I know people with other priorities. An example: a couple that owns a lot of animals and bought a place out in the country, at the end of a dirt road. It’s great for them but would be terrible for someone who wanted to ride a bike to the store. I don’t want to live their life, but I don’t want them to give it up, either, and it wouldn’t work without cars and trucks.
And that's great, but I don't want to help subsidies the absolute crap out of their lifestyle. The amount of additional infrastructure required for far flung, sparsely populated areas is enormous. Look at who was going to have their mail services cut when we considered making USPS a profit driven institution a few years ago, sparely populated rural areas. I don't think they need to give it up, but why we're prioritizing them and footing the bill doesn't make much sense to me.
Long commutes let people live in places that they wouldn’t otherwise consider.
You're right, the car does allow greater choice, but it does so at the cost of everyone else. My hope is that we can rethink what we want to pay for collectively and how it benefits us as a whole.
I made an analogy to the natural environment but of course this is about the built environment, not about natural habitat. Yes, cars require lots of built infrastructure too. (And services like...
I made an analogy to the natural environment but of course this is about the built environment, not about natural habitat. Yes, cars require lots of built infrastructure too. (And services like snow plowing, this time of year.)
There are choices to be made about what kinds of built infrastructure to maintain and who pays for what, but I don't think it's easy to say in the abstract what's too expensive. If you just look at taxes and government services then I can believe that more taxes go to fund things that are physically in rural areas than are collected in those places. But in a modern economy, everything is interconnected and locals aren't the only ones who benefit.
For example, interstate highways are better thought of as serving the entire economy, not just the places where they're located. In the US, shipping by rail is essential and yet more freight is shipped by truck than by rail. And a local post office doesn't just benefit the people who live there, but also everyone who does business with them.
Typical anti-car rhetoric doesn't make a serious attempt to account for how the costs and benefits differ depending on where you are. Sometimes it ignores rural communities altogether: roads and parking don't take much space in farm country. There's more room for everything along with greater distances.
Sometimes it's implicitly: "rural communities: you're too expensive and you should give up your way of life and be more like us." This is not politically feasible and it would also be morally abhorrent. (Consider a similar argument made about how Native Americans should pack it in and move to the city.) Rural people are not dead weight, they are an essential part of civilization.
I don't think it makes sense to argue in the abstract about what's too expensive since it would be complicated and inconclusive. Better to debate specific projects? I do support carbon taxes even though it would hit rural areas more, because it would result in local, practical decision-making about what's important to keep doing and what should be changed to cut costs.
I agree with all of your sentiments. I can see how my arguments make me come across as "BiKEs CAn dO EveRyTHiNg JUsT aS WelL", though that's not what I believe. I really liked your ecology...
I agree with all of your sentiments. I can see how my arguments make me come across as "BiKEs CAn dO EveRyTHiNg JUsT aS WelL", though that's not what I believe. I really liked your ecology metaphor, you are totally right that certain things thrive in certain environments. I just also think it applies to cars as well. My partner and I have 6 bikes in our arsenal (2 mountain bikes, 2 commuters, and 2 long distance touring bikes) and 2 cars (one 4 wheel drive for the mountains/gear and a sedan for local trips). My main gripe is that in these sorts of discussions folks mainly view transportation through the lens of our entrenched ways of doing things which are centered around cars and trucks. It is tough to change perspective when that is seen as just the natural way of doing things. We don't have other options, we have cars. Because of just how entrenched it is, it's going to take a huge investment and cultural shift to get us to move towards modes of transit and shipping that aren't car based, and while I know this is a personal value proposition, I think it's worth it.
I bring up things like subsidizing rural communities because often times the arguments against public transit or mixed use infrastructure projects is that they are too expensive or the common response of "why would I pay for something I'm not going to use?!?!". And I get incredibly frustrated because when we look at our current systems, ones that are heavily car/truck based, all of those things still apply. Rural people aren't dead weight, I hope to join them in the next year or so, but I have a hard time advocating for their wants (maintained large scale road based infrastructure and farming subsidies) when they are simultaneously advocating against mine (large scale mixed use public infrastructure and renewable energy investments). I like to use the example of the post office because the true cost of many federally or state programs often aren't seen or understood. It was eye opening watching the flip of support that happened around de-funding USPS when it came to light that it was a much higher benefit to rural communities.
I agree it's difficult to discuss abstract ideas, but I don't think we can just discuss projects that rely on local decision making when discussing infrastructure. The highway system is a federal program and for real change on a public transit front we'll need both federal coordination and funding. You're right that it is incredibly abstract to say what is too expensive and what isn't, but without that discussion we'll just stay in stasis and maintain the system we're in. Silence benefits entrenched system.
For a less abstract idea we could fund roadways like we do public transit: ~60% (using your breakdown from Amtrak) of the development and maintenance cost of roadways falls to drivers to cover through additional vehicle registration taxes. That would equal the playing field as far as public spending percentages across infrastructure types and would act as a nudge to move people towards more affordable transportation methods. I would be up for seeing this with bicycle registration taxes as well (at least then there might be some funding put towards it). I also want to acknowledge that I've come up with this today as an attempt to give my thoughts a more concrete shape and am sure there are issues with it (beyond the usual outcome that it's going to have the biggest negative impact on the poor).
You always have interesting and measured perspectives of innovative infrastructure proposals (thinking back to our conversations of de-sal and desert reservoirs); I would be really interested to hear how you would like our transportation and shipping industries to change (or possibly not) in the future.
Yeah, thanks! I don't want to come across as criticizing your ideas in particular, or at least not too hard :-) Our discussions take place in the context of a set of imagined bad arguments of the...
Yeah, thanks! I don't want to come across as criticizing your ideas in particular, or at least not too hard :-) Our discussions take place in the context of a set of imagined bad arguments of the "other side," because social media is frustratingly full of bad but viral arguments. But I don't think we're actually on opposite sides.
How much common infrastructure should be funded out of user fees seems like a complicated issue. Treating fees as "sin taxes" makes sense to me. Fees discourage damaging use. So I think congestion taxes make sense to reduce traffic when and where it's heavy, but using available infrastructure in low-traffic times and places should be free.
Also, heavier vehicles damage roads more, so they should pay more registration tax and tolls. California has smog checks. Gas taxes make sense as a form of carbon tax, so electric vehicles get off the hook there, though they're also heavier.
Until we actually have crowds of bicyclists, I think bicycles are off the hook on all counts.
It seems like post offices are underused infrastructure. It's the only physical point of presence that the federal government has in many communities. Post offices could provide a variety of services when it makes sense for the federal government to do it. Other countries do more with their post offices.
Nobody wants to go with less. But in the US in particular, we almost by definition need to. The world can't be brought up to our energy usage levels without boiling the oceans. It's about kinda...
Nobody wants to go with less. But in the US in particular, we almost by definition need to. The world can't be brought up to our energy usage levels without boiling the oceans.
It's about kinda leveling-off and trying to avoid growing to start.
US energy use (per capita) peaked in 1973 and is down 18% since 2000 (based on Our World In Data.) It seems like a good start? I’m skeptical about “we have no choice” rhetoric because there tend...
US energy use (per capita) peaked in 1973 and is down 18% since 2000 (based on Our World In Data.) It seems like a good start?
I’m skeptical about “we have no choice” rhetoric because there tend to be alternatives being overlooked. There are certainly more things we could cut back on or use more efficiently, but having fewer, electrified cars and consolidating trips is a lot different from most people doing without cars, and I think people are more likely to cut back in practical ways to save money than to do it the ideologically pure way.
It did not. 3% annual gain on average since 1960 (really since start of Industrial revolution). The flatness in last 5-10 years is largely a short-term gain in efficiency (we're hitting close to...
US energy use (per capita) peaked in 1973 and is down 18% since 2000 (based on Our World In Data.) It seems like a good start?
It did not. 3% annual gain on average since 1960 (really since start of Industrial revolution). The flatness in last 5-10 years is largely a short-term gain in efficiency (we're hitting close to practicle maximums) and warmer weather.
Leveling off near today’s global rate of energy use spells an eventual decline in the U.S. standard of living by a large factor. Remember our premise at the beginning: if the goal is to pull up the world population to American standards of living, we need something more like a factor of five increase in scale. And that’s after taking a factor of two haircut to account for efficiency improvements achieved in tandem.
Do the Math has done some great number crunching about the physics and economics of our energy use. That excerpt discusses how the pipe dream of renewables isn't going to fix the problem.
At a very conservative 2.5% energy growth rate, which is slower than we've seen in 100 years, we boil the oceans away in less than 400 years, not accounting for greenhouse gasses. A yet-unaddressed problem is that eventually we outpace the Earth's ability to radiate heat into space. If we get fusion power off the ground without limiting our consumption we doom ourselves.
That’s a graph of US residential electricity use, which is different from total US energy use. The graph I was looking at it is here. I suspect the different trend is due to some energy use...
That’s a graph of US residential electricity use, which is different from total US energy use. The graph I was looking at it is here.
I suspect the different trend is due to some energy use shifting to electricity. (For example, natural gas heating to heat pumps.)
If our home usage increases, but overall usage decreases, there's a confounding factor. What major geopolitical phenomena started ramping up in that same timeframe? Overseas manufacturing....
If our home usage increases, but overall usage decreases, there's a confounding factor.
What major geopolitical phenomena started ramping up in that same timeframe? Overseas manufacturing. Factories shut down in US, get propped up elsewhere.
I would bet you a nickle that you'll see corresponding net energy gains in the countries manufacturing was outsourced to. And that globally 3% still roughly holds.
I would say in places with good bike infrastructure and planning, bikes are absolutely all-weather vehicles. I lived in the Netherlands for a year and rain, wind, sleet, snow, cold, didn't slow or...
The niche for bikes is fairly limited. Winter die-hard bike commuters aside, bikes are not all-weather vehicles.
I would say in places with good bike infrastructure and planning, bikes are absolutely all-weather vehicles. I lived in the Netherlands for a year and rain, wind, sleet, snow, cold, didn't slow or inhibit bike riding. I definitely had to adjust my wardrobe (particularly gloves) but I commuted, shopped, and recreated all using my bike. My commute was 7 miles, took about 25 minutes, and felt comfortable even in the snow. The infrastructure made it feasible. Now that I'm back stateside I'm lucky to have great bike infrastructure again and even do my Costco shopping trips on my bike (even though I do own a car because I need it for any travel outside of our area).
We should talk about them as one option that can be usefully combined with all the other forms of transportation, not "cars bad, bikes good."
I agree that it shouldn't be "cars bad, bikes good."; but it's hard not to be frustrated as an enthusiast for public transit and bikes when they get absolutely shafted by federal, state, county, and municipal budgeting and planning. Many rail companies have to bear the cost of upkeep for railways and associated infrastructure, mean while we collectively cover the cost for roads. That is not a fair rub. I would love a world where cars aren't given preferential treatment but can be used in tandem and at a fair parity with other modes of transit. Look at all the public and private investment for green infrastructure, it's almost all car centric and favors electric charging stations. Imagine what we could do if that wasn't the case. I might not even have to lock my bike to the shopping cart stand at Costco anymore!
Those electric vehicle subsidies did some good.
Definitely true. I am pretty excited to see if we get traction in the tracking industry soon. But it also feels like that level of subsidy at light/heavy rail could have had a larger impact. Companies are still dragging their feet and we're still having to provide the extensive road infrastructure to support cars of any kind. I think more people centric planning, truly viable public transit options, and walkable/bike-able infrastructure will do more for carbon reduction and quality of life improvements at a similar cost parity.
In all honesty, me too. You hit the nail on the head WRT infrastructure though. Our lives are so car centric in the US though that any suggestion to not subsidize cars is seen as wackado. I...
I agree that it shouldn't be "cars bad, bikes good."
In all honesty, me too. You hit the nail on the head WRT infrastructure though. Our lives are so car centric in the US though that any suggestion to not subsidize cars is seen as wackado.
I personally think a car should be seen as a luxury item, not something that needs to be driven daily to accomplish the most basic things like food/work/school.
And ultimately, we're never going to build sustainable, walkable towns so long as parking and traffic are prime considerations in town design.
Public transit often runs at a loss. (Not that that’s necessarily bad, since it’s worth it to get cars off the road.) And transit improvements are often funded via government bonds, much like...
Public transit often runs at a loss. (Not that that’s necessarily bad, since it’s worth it to get cars off the road.) And transit improvements are often funded via government bonds, much like highways are.
Amtrak had about $3 billion in revenue and lost about $1.8 billion in operations last year.
It doesn’t seem easy to tell what’s more subsidized and what’s “worth it” given indirect benefits. Seems like it’s pretty fuzzy math that could be argued either way depending on what you count.
No discount on eBikes will make them a usable alternative to cars where I live, along with many others. This is a long-term city planning issue. We shouldn't have let automakers dictate how we...
No discount on eBikes will make them a usable alternative to cars where I live, along with many others.
This is a long-term city planning issue. We shouldn't have let automakers dictate how we build our cities. However this is a problem that will take decades to fix even in the best case scenario. We need to decarbonize our transportation now.
Mostly irrelevant to the main topic, but honestly I'm pretty confused at how the pedaling bicycle become the prototypical last mile/short distance form of travel in western discourse. Pedal assist...
Mostly irrelevant to the main topic, but honestly I'm pretty confused at how the pedaling bicycle become the prototypical last mile/short distance form of travel in western discourse. Pedal assist e-bikes, which are the majority by a good margin, I really think are kinda stupid on a conceptual level - I'm pretty sure they're just popular because people don't want to get moped licenses (which seems more like an issue with moped licenses - people just buy e-bikes then easily modify them to break the laws anyway). Having a motor that only turns on when someone makes their foot go in a circle seems... silly? For a practical vehicle?
Outside of Europe + NA, while there's always people on bikes still, since a basic bicycle is the cheapest option, they're dwarfed by electric mopeds, scooters, whatever that thing is where they put a box and training wheels over a moped.
Since electric motors are so cheap and good now, powered vehicles are both easily achievable for people with quite literally 5% of the income level and much more practical.
For one, it can serve as an accessible onboarding. Going from 0 riding to 10 miles a day is way easier if a motor is helping with the hardest part. Given the obesity in America, even minimal...
For one, it can serve as an accessible onboarding. Going from 0 riding to 10 miles a day is way easier if a motor is helping with the hardest part. Given the obesity in America, even minimal movement is a net win.
Second...there are many roads that have incredibly steep inclines. Having electric assist makes short work of those and further reduces the 'ugh' factor, especially when its hot out.
Third, quite simply distance. Since it's an assist and not fully motorized, I can go a lot farther with much less battery. 5 miles each way is a bit rough for me with no assist, but isn't a problem at all when the assist helps get me up to speed.
It very much is a biking analog to hybrid cars, where you use the electric motor to handle the most inefficient part for engines (accelleration). People modding them to turn them into mopeds without regulations are asking for trouble though.
I think it might be due to perceived danger? Motorcycles are seen as dangerous for good reasons, mopeds are lumped in with motorcycles, and bikes avoid that somewhat via lower speeds and sometimes...
I think it might be due to perceived danger? Motorcycles are seen as dangerous for good reasons, mopeds are lumped in with motorcycles, and bikes avoid that somewhat via lower speeds and sometimes the possibility of avoiding driving in car traffic via dedicated bike paths.
Now e-bikes appear and are seen more like bikes, but due to higher speeds they’re somewhat more dangerous.
Whether bikes really should be seen as less dangerous is another question. I can name three people who got into accidents resulting in serious injury in the last couple of years. (All older than me, experienced and enthusiastic recreational bicyclists, and none involved cars as far as we know.)
So after saving for our wedding a few months ago, we realized that we actually had a decent amount of money left over, so we decided to get an ebike. We’d wanted one for a while; we only have one...
So after saving for our wedding a few months ago, we realized that we actually had a decent amount of money left over, so we decided to get an ebike. We’d wanted one for a while; we only have one car and live in the suburbs, and we really didn’t want a whole second car just for the once every other week that we both need to go places at the same time. We ended up getting a Yuba Spicy Curry from a local ebike place that donates their profits to a local boys and girls club.
Unbeknownst to me, literally on the day we got our ebike, my close friend’s partner’s ebike battery exploded in their apartment while they were sleeping, setting the apartment on fire. They were so, so lucky that they had a balcony to escape to while the fire died down and were able to eventually escape the apartment, and even more lucky that her partner’s young daughter wasn’t staying with them that night.
I honestly hadn’t looked into ebike battery safety at all, and after getting over the initial horror that this had almost killed my friend, was more than a little freaked out. I ended up getting an explosion-proof bag from this Dutch company, and now we charge and store our ebike battery in the bag in our concrete basement away from anything flammable. I got a smaller, less heavy duty one for my drone batteries, too.
I forget where I saw this, but while doing research on this I found someone pointing out that ebike batteries like mine can move my bike (about 60lbs) and myself (about 160lbs) about 40 miles at 20mph. That’s a LOT of energy to be expelled very rapidly in the event of a catastrophic failure of the battery!
The other thing I read is that it’s really important to retire batteries that experience any sort of concussive event. If your bike gets hit by a car, or falls off your bike rack (take your battery off your bike when moving it!) or anything like that, you should consider the battery an explosion risk and dispose of it safely and get a new one.
My wife works at an e-bike retailer, and she says that unlike a lot of electric batteries on cheaper e-bikes and scooters, Bosch manufactures in the US and tests their electric motors and...
My wife works at an e-bike retailer, and she says that unlike a lot of electric batteries on cheaper e-bikes and scooters, Bosch manufactures in the US and tests their electric motors and batteries to modern safety standards. (Never buy electronic transportation on Amazon) Your Yuba Spicy Curry has a Bosch engine and battery so surprise conflagration is a lot less likely than with a cheaper item, but you're definitely right that you wouldn't want to use a damaged battery.
Concussive damage is a bigger concern with pouch-style lithium polymer cells (spicy pillows). Your battery is made up of 18650 cells. Each cell is housed inside an aluminum can. These are much...
Concussive damage is a bigger concern with pouch-style lithium polymer cells (spicy pillows). Your battery is made up of 18650 cells. Each cell is housed inside an aluminum can. These are much sturdier and I wouldn't be too concerned about dropping it. I found a video showing someone taking apart your battery, and it looks very well constructed. It looks about as well constructed as a cordless drill battery, and people throw those around all the time.
It's the lipo pouches used on drones and stuff that are really dangerous if you drop them. They only have a thin plastic wrapper and nothing structural to prevent the layers of the battery from shorting in case of impact.
It really helps that you happened to buy a really safe battery system. There's a lot of different ways for a lithium battery to fail, but as long as you've got multiple redundant safety features...
It really helps that you happened to buy a really safe battery system. There's a lot of different ways for a lithium battery to fail, but as long as you've got multiple redundant safety features checking for these things you can feel pretty safe. Bosch is definitely in the top tier of reliability and personally I'd feel fine charging a bosch pack indoors without the bag.
For context, I've been driving an e-scooter for over a decade using home-built lithium batteries salvaged out of wrecked electric cars, which I've been running without any BMS. I wouldn't advise that to anyone unless you're babysitting the voltages every time you charge, but for a well built commercial system like yours I wouldn't even worry.... I mean, do use the bag since you've got it, and try not to put anything flammable near the vent of the bag, but really I think you're absolutely fine and you're insuring against a one-in-a-million defect happening.
I'm not sure if something more than a technical fix is needed, but I think it'd be great for safety and sustainably if there was a shift towards lithium iron phosphate batteries in ebikes. I built...
I'm not sure if something more than a technical fix is needed, but I think it'd be great for safety and sustainably if there was a shift towards lithium iron phosphate batteries in ebikes. I built one for my ebike, and they're way safer than traditional lithium batteries since they don't really do thermal runaway, they last for way more charge cycles, and they lack a bunch of the rare metals that make lithium problematic, like cobalt.
This is the answer. Take those automaker handouts and toss them at ebike consumers. Tighten regulation on battery makers. Work to eliminate the value proposition of using a hacked up battery instead of a tested one.
In the end, if an ebike can fulfill a need that a car would have, that is a huge win. A big enough one we should strive to make it the norm. A single-car garage can hold a dozen ebikes if it doesn't need to hold a car.
I don't know, man. I moved to Germany from the US six months ago, and of all the differences (besides the languages), America's suburban sprawl is the difference that leaves the largest impression on me. In Germany, I'm a five minute walk from two grocery stores. From my brother's apartment -- who ostensibly lives in the heart of an American city -- it's a 15 minute walk to the nearest grocery store. From my parent's suburban home, it's nearly an hour.
I don't want to speak in absolute terms, but Germany just feels so much denser in comparison. A train ride between cities involves passing from a densely-packed urban cityscape to open fields to a densely-packed village to open fields to another densely-packed village and so on until you finally reach your destination. The tram ride from my city-center apartment to the city-outskirts university takes only 20 minutes. When I walk past the last building on campus, there's naught but open fields for as far as I can see. How often is the border between rural and urban so neatly delineated in the US?
I think /u/babypuncher is closest when they state that this a city planning issue. But I can't help but feel that's only half the problem, with the other half being our expectations. There's this American ideal that everyone should have their own house on a few acres of land. In fact, a common critique I hear of suburban homes is that the yards are too small (even though most people hardly use their yards!). But the ideal of large yards and single-family homes mutually excludes the ideal of a robust public transportation system, repelling each other like two charged balls: for every 10 meters you expand a lawn in both directions, there's another 100 square meters of public transport that must be considered.
So sure, give people their e-bike subsidies -- I don't think they can hurt. But don't expect e-bikes to solve fundamental issues in the way our cities are built and our expectations are managed.
I switched my main vehicle to an ebike over the summer, and it has been such a joy to ride. I’ve ridden bikes for fun/fitness/utility for most of my life, but an ebike is the only thing that has really felt like a car replacement. I do wish they’d make an affordable tandem ebike. We still use the car when it’s two of us going somewhere, and my partner doesn’t want to buy his own ebike.
There's e-bikes that can have a second seat mounted on the cargo rack, if your partner is open to being a passenger. The Tern GSD is the one I'm looking at.
We’ve got the Yuba Spicy Curry, which we have decked out with foot rests, a seat, and handlebars in the back for a second adult to sit on. It’s definitely a different experience riding with another person; balancing is a bit more challenging and you have to take turns much more slowly. I probably wouldn’t opt to do my 45-minute hilly cycle to my tae kwon do studio with another person on the back. But it’s awesome for just going into town with my wife!
Mine has that, but it’s super uncomfortable to sit back there. I have the Rad Wagon 4, which is the budget version of the Tern GSD.
Reading carefully, I largely agree. However, the sentiment irks me. Over the holidays, my wife and I have travelled via airplane, train, bus, Lyft rides, and private vehicle, and we've also walked. All these modes of transportation have their uses, as do bikes.
The niche for bikes is fairly limited. Winter die-hard bike commuters aside, bikes are not all-weather vehicles. They don't work for all people or jobs. (Personally, I'm reluctant to ride my bike below 60 degrees or so due to the wind.) We should talk about them as one option that can be usefully combined with all the other forms of transportation, not "cars bad, bikes good."
Even though people hate Musk for obvious reasons and Tesla seems like an iffy company to rely on, we should be happy that Tesla has been as successful as it's been, because if it had been a spectacular failure, it would have been a big setback for the transition to electric vehicles, which is definitely needed. Those electric vehicle subsidies did some good.
i will just leave this here
https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes
edit: and this
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/01/22/meet-the-bike-loving-finnish-city-that-keeps-pedalling-even-in-the-snow
I lived for some months in Oulu, and biked at -20°C there. while it's not pleasant, the fact that the infrastructure allows you to do it feels great. It even normalized cycling at around -10°C in the middle of the night for me.
Sadly the lack of half decent public transport outside of major cities (and even in them) is a major detriment in most of the US.
I'd love to see a world where we just shut non-essentials down if the weather is too crappy to bike/walk. That's a long way off though.
The winters are long in some places. Are you suggesting hibernation?
Short of another pandemic, we aren’t going to go to “essential workers only” and keeping kids home from school because you could just drive instead.
I'm reminded of an old saying.
"There is no bad weather, only bad clothing."
While active snow and rain is problematic, cold can be resolved with proper clothing. Some people ski for fun.
Yes, some people do a lot of things. It’s not about what’s physically possible. Older people talk about walking five miles to school in the snow (uphill both ways, as the joke goes) but that doesn’t mean anyone wants to go back to that.
Right, but if we had zoning and planning where stores weren't 5-15 miles away (because suburban, residence only zone is absurd) then it wouldn't be unreasonable to imagine you could do your shopping/recreating/work within your neighborhood. It is possible in the US, but largely in places developed before modern zoning laws. Would you rather a commute where you drive for 45 minutes in the rain or walk 5 minutes in the rain? Cars are what allow for ridiculously long commutes and unreasonable expectations around work.
Yes, I largely agree, but another way of saying it is that the built environments where bikes work well are somewhat restricted. It’s like a species that only thrives in certain habitats. Increase the amount of favorable habitat and the species will be found in more places. But there are still going to be other habitats where there are different species, more adapted to those places.
This is okay. There are other modes of transportation that only work in certain niches. Ice skating and snowmobiles and boats and trains only work in certain places too. Bikes work in a lot of situations where those don’t work, but not in as many situations as cars.
I support increasing the amount of bike-friendly habitat, since there a lot of people who want to live in places like that, and I like it too. But this notion that people should only live in bike-friendly places is fairly restrictive, nice as those places often are. I know people with other priorities. An example: a couple that owns a lot of animals and bought a place out in the country, at the end of a dirt road. It’s great for them but would be terrible for someone who wanted to ride a bike to the store. I don’t want to live their life, but I don’t want them to give it up, either, and it wouldn’t work without cars and trucks.
Long commutes let people live in places that they wouldn’t otherwise consider. It’s not the work that’s making them live there, it’s their own desires about where they want to live. The long commute is a compromise. Hopefully, working remotely will make it easier for some.
So it seems like cars and remote work are both doing a similar thing, allowing people to live further away from work. Remote work is still thought of as a good thing, but it’s not likely to result in denser built environments.
It feels like you're giving cars pass. All modes of transit need infrastructure, how are cars any different? The vast majority of cars require very, very intensive infrastructure, abundant storage, and enormous subsidies. Let's see your average Toyota Corolla take on any non-maintained path, it won't get far. All transit specializes, there are an equal number of mutations for bikes or trains or cars.
It feels like you are viewing cars as the default, natural state. That isn't the case, we poured an incredible amount of collective dollars into making it the case and we're continuing to do so. We've also limited where we can be outside of our cars(i.e. only crossing at crosswalks), how we protect our children (i.e. no crossing major roadways, most of the retail in the US), and how we use our communal space (vaaaaast parking lots everywhere). It doesn't feel like a great value proposition.
And that's great, but I don't want to help subsidies the absolute crap out of their lifestyle. The amount of additional infrastructure required for far flung, sparsely populated areas is enormous. Look at who was going to have their mail services cut when we considered making USPS a profit driven institution a few years ago, sparely populated rural areas. I don't think they need to give it up, but why we're prioritizing them and footing the bill doesn't make much sense to me.
You're right, the car does allow greater choice, but it does so at the cost of everyone else. My hope is that we can rethink what we want to pay for collectively and how it benefits us as a whole.
I made an analogy to the natural environment but of course this is about the built environment, not about natural habitat. Yes, cars require lots of built infrastructure too. (And services like snow plowing, this time of year.)
There are choices to be made about what kinds of built infrastructure to maintain and who pays for what, but I don't think it's easy to say in the abstract what's too expensive. If you just look at taxes and government services then I can believe that more taxes go to fund things that are physically in rural areas than are collected in those places. But in a modern economy, everything is interconnected and locals aren't the only ones who benefit.
For example, interstate highways are better thought of as serving the entire economy, not just the places where they're located. In the US, shipping by rail is essential and yet more freight is shipped by truck than by rail. And a local post office doesn't just benefit the people who live there, but also everyone who does business with them.
Typical anti-car rhetoric doesn't make a serious attempt to account for how the costs and benefits differ depending on where you are. Sometimes it ignores rural communities altogether: roads and parking don't take much space in farm country. There's more room for everything along with greater distances.
Sometimes it's implicitly: "rural communities: you're too expensive and you should give up your way of life and be more like us." This is not politically feasible and it would also be morally abhorrent. (Consider a similar argument made about how Native Americans should pack it in and move to the city.) Rural people are not dead weight, they are an essential part of civilization.
I don't think it makes sense to argue in the abstract about what's too expensive since it would be complicated and inconclusive. Better to debate specific projects? I do support carbon taxes even though it would hit rural areas more, because it would result in local, practical decision-making about what's important to keep doing and what should be changed to cut costs.
I agree with all of your sentiments. I can see how my arguments make me come across as "BiKEs CAn dO EveRyTHiNg JUsT aS WelL", though that's not what I believe. I really liked your ecology metaphor, you are totally right that certain things thrive in certain environments. I just also think it applies to cars as well. My partner and I have 6 bikes in our arsenal (2 mountain bikes, 2 commuters, and 2 long distance touring bikes) and 2 cars (one 4 wheel drive for the mountains/gear and a sedan for local trips). My main gripe is that in these sorts of discussions folks mainly view transportation through the lens of our entrenched ways of doing things which are centered around cars and trucks. It is tough to change perspective when that is seen as just the natural way of doing things. We don't have other options, we have cars. Because of just how entrenched it is, it's going to take a huge investment and cultural shift to get us to move towards modes of transit and shipping that aren't car based, and while I know this is a personal value proposition, I think it's worth it.
I bring up things like subsidizing rural communities because often times the arguments against public transit or mixed use infrastructure projects is that they are too expensive or the common response of "why would I pay for something I'm not going to use?!?!". And I get incredibly frustrated because when we look at our current systems, ones that are heavily car/truck based, all of those things still apply. Rural people aren't dead weight, I hope to join them in the next year or so, but I have a hard time advocating for their wants (maintained large scale road based infrastructure and farming subsidies) when they are simultaneously advocating against mine (large scale mixed use public infrastructure and renewable energy investments). I like to use the example of the post office because the true cost of many federally or state programs often aren't seen or understood. It was eye opening watching the flip of support that happened around de-funding USPS when it came to light that it was a much higher benefit to rural communities.
I agree it's difficult to discuss abstract ideas, but I don't think we can just discuss projects that rely on local decision making when discussing infrastructure. The highway system is a federal program and for real change on a public transit front we'll need both federal coordination and funding. You're right that it is incredibly abstract to say what is too expensive and what isn't, but without that discussion we'll just stay in stasis and maintain the system we're in. Silence benefits entrenched system.
For a less abstract idea we could fund roadways like we do public transit: ~60% (using your breakdown from Amtrak) of the development and maintenance cost of roadways falls to drivers to cover through additional vehicle registration taxes. That would equal the playing field as far as public spending percentages across infrastructure types and would act as a nudge to move people towards more affordable transportation methods. I would be up for seeing this with bicycle registration taxes as well (at least then there might be some funding put towards it). I also want to acknowledge that I've come up with this today as an attempt to give my thoughts a more concrete shape and am sure there are issues with it (beyond the usual outcome that it's going to have the biggest negative impact on the poor).
You always have interesting and measured perspectives of innovative infrastructure proposals (thinking back to our conversations of de-sal and desert reservoirs); I would be really interested to hear how you would like our transportation and shipping industries to change (or possibly not) in the future.
Yeah, thanks! I don't want to come across as criticizing your ideas in particular, or at least not too hard :-) Our discussions take place in the context of a set of imagined bad arguments of the "other side," because social media is frustratingly full of bad but viral arguments. But I don't think we're actually on opposite sides.
How much common infrastructure should be funded out of user fees seems like a complicated issue. Treating fees as "sin taxes" makes sense to me. Fees discourage damaging use. So I think congestion taxes make sense to reduce traffic when and where it's heavy, but using available infrastructure in low-traffic times and places should be free.
Also, heavier vehicles damage roads more, so they should pay more registration tax and tolls. California has smog checks. Gas taxes make sense as a form of carbon tax, so electric vehicles get off the hook there, though they're also heavier.
Until we actually have crowds of bicyclists, I think bicycles are off the hook on all counts.
It seems like post offices are underused infrastructure. It's the only physical point of presence that the federal government has in many communities. Post offices could provide a variety of services when it makes sense for the federal government to do it. Other countries do more with their post offices.
Nobody wants to go with less. But in the US in particular, we almost by definition need to. The world can't be brought up to our energy usage levels without boiling the oceans.
It's about kinda leveling-off and trying to avoid growing to start.
US energy use (per capita) peaked in 1973 and is down 18% since 2000 (based on Our World In Data.) It seems like a good start?
I’m skeptical about “we have no choice” rhetoric because there tend to be alternatives being overlooked. There are certainly more things we could cut back on or use more efficiently, but having fewer, electrified cars and consolidating trips is a lot different from most people doing without cars, and I think people are more likely to cut back in practical ways to save money than to do it the ideologically pure way.
It did not. 3% annual gain on average since 1960 (really since start of Industrial revolution). The flatness in last 5-10 years is largely a short-term gain in efficiency (we're hitting close to practicle maximums) and warmer weather.
Do the Math has done some great number crunching about the physics and economics of our energy use. That excerpt discusses how the pipe dream of renewables isn't going to fix the problem.
At a very conservative 2.5% energy growth rate, which is slower than we've seen in 100 years, we boil the oceans away in less than 400 years, not accounting for greenhouse gasses. A yet-unaddressed problem is that eventually we outpace the Earth's ability to radiate heat into space. If we get fusion power off the ground without limiting our consumption we doom ourselves.
That’s a graph of US residential electricity use, which is different from total US energy use. The graph I was looking at it is here.
I suspect the different trend is due to some energy use shifting to electricity. (For example, natural gas heating to heat pumps.)
If our home usage increases, but overall usage decreases, there's a confounding factor.
What major geopolitical phenomena started ramping up in that same timeframe? Overseas manufacturing. Factories shut down in US, get propped up elsewhere.
I would bet you a nickle that you'll see corresponding net energy gains in the countries manufacturing was outsourced to. And that globally 3% still roughly holds.
I would say in places with good bike infrastructure and planning, bikes are absolutely all-weather vehicles. I lived in the Netherlands for a year and rain, wind, sleet, snow, cold, didn't slow or inhibit bike riding. I definitely had to adjust my wardrobe (particularly gloves) but I commuted, shopped, and recreated all using my bike. My commute was 7 miles, took about 25 minutes, and felt comfortable even in the snow. The infrastructure made it feasible. Now that I'm back stateside I'm lucky to have great bike infrastructure again and even do my Costco shopping trips on my bike (even though I do own a car because I need it for any travel outside of our area).
I agree that it shouldn't be "cars bad, bikes good."; but it's hard not to be frustrated as an enthusiast for public transit and bikes when they get absolutely shafted by federal, state, county, and municipal budgeting and planning. Many rail companies have to bear the cost of upkeep for railways and associated infrastructure, mean while we collectively cover the cost for roads. That is not a fair rub. I would love a world where cars aren't given preferential treatment but can be used in tandem and at a fair parity with other modes of transit. Look at all the public and private investment for green infrastructure, it's almost all car centric and favors electric charging stations. Imagine what we could do if that wasn't the case. I might not even have to lock my bike to the shopping cart stand at Costco anymore!
Definitely true. I am pretty excited to see if we get traction in the tracking industry soon. But it also feels like that level of subsidy at light/heavy rail could have had a larger impact. Companies are still dragging their feet and we're still having to provide the extensive road infrastructure to support cars of any kind. I think more people centric planning, truly viable public transit options, and walkable/bike-able infrastructure will do more for carbon reduction and quality of life improvements at a similar cost parity.
In all honesty, me too. You hit the nail on the head WRT infrastructure though. Our lives are so car centric in the US though that any suggestion to not subsidize cars is seen as wackado.
I personally think a car should be seen as a luxury item, not something that needs to be driven daily to accomplish the most basic things like food/work/school.
And ultimately, we're never going to build sustainable, walkable towns so long as parking and traffic are prime considerations in town design.
Public transit often runs at a loss. (Not that that’s necessarily bad, since it’s worth it to get cars off the road.) And transit improvements are often funded via government bonds, much like highways are.
Amtrak had about $3 billion in revenue and lost about $1.8 billion in operations last year.
It doesn’t seem easy to tell what’s more subsidized and what’s “worth it” given indirect benefits. Seems like it’s pretty fuzzy math that could be argued either way depending on what you count.
No discount on eBikes will make them a usable alternative to cars where I live, along with many others.
This is a long-term city planning issue. We shouldn't have let automakers dictate how we build our cities. However this is a problem that will take decades to fix even in the best case scenario. We need to decarbonize our transportation now.
Mostly irrelevant to the main topic, but honestly I'm pretty confused at how the pedaling bicycle become the prototypical last mile/short distance form of travel in western discourse. Pedal assist e-bikes, which are the majority by a good margin, I really think are kinda stupid on a conceptual level - I'm pretty sure they're just popular because people don't want to get moped licenses (which seems more like an issue with moped licenses - people just buy e-bikes then easily modify them to break the laws anyway). Having a motor that only turns on when someone makes their foot go in a circle seems... silly? For a practical vehicle?
Outside of Europe + NA, while there's always people on bikes still, since a basic bicycle is the cheapest option, they're dwarfed by electric mopeds, scooters, whatever that thing is where they put a box and training wheels over a moped.
Since electric motors are so cheap and good now, powered vehicles are both easily achievable for people with quite literally 5% of the income level and much more practical.
For one, it can serve as an accessible onboarding. Going from 0 riding to 10 miles a day is way easier if a motor is helping with the hardest part. Given the obesity in America, even minimal movement is a net win.
Second...there are many roads that have incredibly steep inclines. Having electric assist makes short work of those and further reduces the 'ugh' factor, especially when its hot out.
Third, quite simply distance. Since it's an assist and not fully motorized, I can go a lot farther with much less battery. 5 miles each way is a bit rough for me with no assist, but isn't a problem at all when the assist helps get me up to speed.
It very much is a biking analog to hybrid cars, where you use the electric motor to handle the most inefficient part for engines (accelleration). People modding them to turn them into mopeds without regulations are asking for trouble though.
I think it might be due to perceived danger? Motorcycles are seen as dangerous for good reasons, mopeds are lumped in with motorcycles, and bikes avoid that somewhat via lower speeds and sometimes the possibility of avoiding driving in car traffic via dedicated bike paths.
Now e-bikes appear and are seen more like bikes, but due to higher speeds they’re somewhat more dangerous.
Whether bikes really should be seen as less dangerous is another question. I can name three people who got into accidents resulting in serious injury in the last couple of years. (All older than me, experienced and enthusiastic recreational bicyclists, and none involved cars as far as we know.)
So after saving for our wedding a few months ago, we realized that we actually had a decent amount of money left over, so we decided to get an ebike. We’d wanted one for a while; we only have one car and live in the suburbs, and we really didn’t want a whole second car just for the once every other week that we both need to go places at the same time. We ended up getting a Yuba Spicy Curry from a local ebike place that donates their profits to a local boys and girls club.
Unbeknownst to me, literally on the day we got our ebike, my close friend’s partner’s ebike battery exploded in their apartment while they were sleeping, setting the apartment on fire. They were so, so lucky that they had a balcony to escape to while the fire died down and were able to eventually escape the apartment, and even more lucky that her partner’s young daughter wasn’t staying with them that night.
I honestly hadn’t looked into ebike battery safety at all, and after getting over the initial horror that this had almost killed my friend, was more than a little freaked out. I ended up getting an explosion-proof bag from this Dutch company, and now we charge and store our ebike battery in the bag in our concrete basement away from anything flammable. I got a smaller, less heavy duty one for my drone batteries, too.
I forget where I saw this, but while doing research on this I found someone pointing out that ebike batteries like mine can move my bike (about 60lbs) and myself (about 160lbs) about 40 miles at 20mph. That’s a LOT of energy to be expelled very rapidly in the event of a catastrophic failure of the battery!
The other thing I read is that it’s really important to retire batteries that experience any sort of concussive event. If your bike gets hit by a car, or falls off your bike rack (take your battery off your bike when moving it!) or anything like that, you should consider the battery an explosion risk and dispose of it safely and get a new one.
My wife works at an e-bike retailer, and she says that unlike a lot of electric batteries on cheaper e-bikes and scooters, Bosch manufactures in the US and tests their electric motors and batteries to modern safety standards. (Never buy electronic transportation on Amazon) Your Yuba Spicy Curry has a Bosch engine and battery so surprise conflagration is a lot less likely than with a cheaper item, but you're definitely right that you wouldn't want to use a damaged battery.
Oh that’s a huge relief actually, thanks for sharing that!
Concussive damage is a bigger concern with pouch-style lithium polymer cells (spicy pillows). Your battery is made up of 18650 cells. Each cell is housed inside an aluminum can. These are much sturdier and I wouldn't be too concerned about dropping it. I found a video showing someone taking apart your battery, and it looks very well constructed. It looks about as well constructed as a cordless drill battery, and people throw those around all the time.
It's the lipo pouches used on drones and stuff that are really dangerous if you drop them. They only have a thin plastic wrapper and nothing structural to prevent the layers of the battery from shorting in case of impact.
Thank you for the reassurance, seriously, that does relieve quite a bit of my anxiety!
It really helps that you happened to buy a really safe battery system. There's a lot of different ways for a lithium battery to fail, but as long as you've got multiple redundant safety features checking for these things you can feel pretty safe. Bosch is definitely in the top tier of reliability and personally I'd feel fine charging a bosch pack indoors without the bag.
For context, I've been driving an e-scooter for over a decade using home-built lithium batteries salvaged out of wrecked electric cars, which I've been running without any BMS. I wouldn't advise that to anyone unless you're babysitting the voltages every time you charge, but for a well built commercial system like yours I wouldn't even worry.... I mean, do use the bag since you've got it, and try not to put anything flammable near the vent of the bag, but really I think you're absolutely fine and you're insuring against a one-in-a-million defect happening.
I'm not sure if something more than a technical fix is needed, but I think it'd be great for safety and sustainably if there was a shift towards lithium iron phosphate batteries in ebikes. I built one for my ebike, and they're way safer than traditional lithium batteries since they don't really do thermal runaway, they last for way more charge cycles, and they lack a bunch of the rare metals that make lithium problematic, like cobalt.