I disagree. It’s on the individual to decide what speed they can themselves handle. it’s not a car where you’re going to hurt someone else by plowing into them or into a group of people, on an ebike for the most part you’re only going to hurt yourself. (Yes yes you could hurt someone else by running into them but compared to a car it’s a much different thing). So I disagree, since you are taking on most of the risk yourself then you should be allowed to choose what you are comfortable with. Streets already have speed limits, as long as you’re respecting that then I think it’s enough. Is it safe? I don’t care, that’s on the individual to decide.
If parents are uncomfortable with that then it’s on them to regulate their own children, not force their wishes on everyone else. It’s a freedom issue, and I’m not willing to give up my freedom to choose a bike I want because other people are worried about their kids. The solution is incredibly simple: don’t buy your kids something that they can get hurt on.
I can’t help but notice the parallel between the freedom being described here and the car centric dominance that plagues society. In a micromobility community nonetheless.
You’re not wrong that when someone rides at a ridiculous speed on an ebike, barring direct collision, the rider is the only one being injured if an accident were to occur. However, if everyone were to behave with such disregard, serious accidents would occur all the time. Speed limits don’t do anything - speed bumps do. The former is reactionary and might only matter for the few that get speeding tickets, where the latter is preemptive and has a direct impact on everyone because everyone has to drive over it. Infrastructure is what keeps the train on the rails, not paint or signage.
Parents regulating their children is one thing, but I’m suggesting any group be permitted to force their wishes on the majority. I suggest that there is a middle ground that could be decided on as being a happy medium between safety for the masses and freedoms for the individual. However that doesn’t seem to be resonating here when the responses lean so heavily into personal freedoms outweighing the good of the whole - which is the same thing as a parent forcing their will for extreme safety measures on everyone else only in reverse.
I will bring this to a close by framing it as broadly as is your incredibly simple solution: if an adult is not willing to abide a minor inconvenience for the sake of another person’s wellbeing, that isn’t an adult worth benefiting from the labours of society.
I disagree. It’s on the individual to decide what speed they can themselves handle. it’s not a car where you’re going to hurt someone else by plowing into them or into a group of people, on an ebike for the most part you’re only going to hurt yourself. (Yes yes you could hurt someone else by running into them but compared to a car it’s a much different thing). So I disagree, since you are taking on most of the risk yourself then you should be allowed to choose what you are comfortable with. Streets already have speed limits, as long as you’re respecting that then I think it’s enough. Is it safe? I don’t care, that’s on the individual to decide.
If parents are uncomfortable with that then it’s on them to regulate their own children, not force their wishes on everyone else. It’s a freedom issue, and I’m not willing to give up my freedom to choose a bike I want because other people are worried about their kids. The solution is incredibly simple: don’t buy your kids something that they can get hurt on.
I can’t help but notice the parallel between the freedom being described here and the car centric dominance that plagues society. In a micromobility community nonetheless.
You’re not wrong that when someone rides at a ridiculous speed on an ebike, barring direct collision, the rider is the only one being injured if an accident were to occur. However, if everyone were to behave with such disregard, serious accidents would occur all the time. Speed limits don’t do anything - speed bumps do. The former is reactionary and might only matter for the few that get speeding tickets, where the latter is preemptive and has a direct impact on everyone because everyone has to drive over it. Infrastructure is what keeps the train on the rails, not paint or signage.
Parents regulating their children is one thing, but I’m suggesting any group be permitted to force their wishes on the majority. I suggest that there is a middle ground that could be decided on as being a happy medium between safety for the masses and freedoms for the individual. However that doesn’t seem to be resonating here when the responses lean so heavily into personal freedoms outweighing the good of the whole - which is the same thing as a parent forcing their will for extreme safety measures on everyone else only in reverse.
I will bring this to a close by framing it as broadly as is your incredibly simple solution: if an adult is not willing to abide a minor inconvenience for the sake of another person’s wellbeing, that isn’t an adult worth benefiting from the labours of society.
Cheers.