this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
126 points (99.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

15716 readers
324 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
toaster@slrpnk.net
grue@lemmy.world
Toaster1@lemmy.world
126
California Wants to Put License Plates on E-Bikes and Slow Them Down. Cyclists Are Not Happy About It (guessingheadlights.com)
submitted 1 week ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
70 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition weighed in with a pointed response, arguing that the state should be making it easier, not harder, to own and use e-bikes. Their senior organizer echoed the sentiment shared by many riders: the real confusion and danger comes from people not being able to tell the difference between a legal e-bike and an electric moped, not from the bikes themselves.

Brett Thurber, co-owner of a San Francisco e-bike shop, raised a practical industry concern about AB 1557. Restricting California’s speed limits below what manufacturers currently build for the U.S. market could push companies to skip California customers entirely, shrinking the supply available to local shops and consumers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If you don’t want to believe something that’s fine but that doesn’t change the fact that it is true.

But you never showed anything that said it is true, you are the one believing without checking for the facts. I am the one saying: I don't know if people actually go out of their way to tune their e-bikes. If you are sick of searching for sources, all you need to say is "I don't know, I just feel like a lot of people get their limiter removed, I don't have any sources on that."

How about you find me some numbers about

You cannot ask me to prove a negative, everyone knows that.

In the context of mandating a limiter being built in by law, it is important to distinguish between people who get the limiter removed, and people who buy bikes which never had a limiter, because group 1 spends effort or money to make their bike illegal, and the group 2 doesn't spend to make their bike legal.

I agree, in the context of "people drive illegally fast", this does not matter.

[–] Photonic@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I did in fact. Many times. You just kept sealioning about it, which gets annoying fast.

The fact that you can’t prove a negative is also absolute and utter nonsense. A simple study design would be to ask people when they get the fine whether they knew about it or not. And you will get a lot of liars, so it would be heavily biased, but it might show that they didn’t know.

Null hypotheses also get proven all the time.

So please, at least try to put as much effort into it as I did. You owe me as much.