• Elting@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 days ago

      If you have ever been a pedestrian in one of these towns you would understand the danger they pose. People on regular bikes go 10 miles an hour. People on these things go 20 miles an hour.

      • Fluffy Kitty Cat@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        4 days ago

        The problem is there aren’t bike lanes, riding in the street is simply too dangerous you will be run over. Even residential streets have speed limits of 25 miles an hour and even the class 2 ebike won’t give you assistance to that speaking, which is necessary for safety with your elderly or merely exhausted. People ride on the sidewalk because it’s the only safe option. Nobody ever complains about how cars are extremely dangerous and responsible for most so-called ebike fatalities and we continue to allow extremely dangerous conditions not just for cyclists but also pedestrians and drivers themselves for no good reason

        • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          No, the problem is dumb ass kids who wouldn’t obey the laws of there was. What’s wrong with foot powered while on campus?

        • Elting@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          Yeah I agree it sucks there arent bike lanes in a lot of towns. In most places it would be absolutely fine to use the side walk, but the center of university towns are congested pedestrian walkways. For the same reason you don’t want to be out on the road on your E-bike, people walking to class don’t want to share the way with fast moving E-bikes. This has never been a problem with regular bikes because people don’t typically sprint them through the middle of campus.

        • Elting@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 days ago

          Exactly, I don’t blame the university not wanting them even if they’re off either on account of how they can spontaneously catch on fire

          • Fluffy Kitty Cat@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            The fire issue is generic to lithium batteries, and even the industry itself wants regulations on Battery safety which I support. Sodium ion batteries don’t catch fire and China’s Mass producing them and you can buy them today. It’s likely that electric cars and bikes will probably end up using sodium ion batteries long term. You only really need Lithium-ion batteries for Ultra portable devices

            • Elting@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 days ago

              That’s interesting actually, I’ll have to look more into sodium ion batteries to figure out what they’re all about.

            • hallettj@leminal.space
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 days ago

              There’s also lithium iron phosphate (LFP) which doesn’t catch on fire either, and has been around longer. There are trade-offs, like sodium being vastly more plentiful than lithium.

  • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 days ago

    The new policy will include five bike racks on the perimeter of campus designated for e-bike parking and storage. These are the only approved locations for e-bikes on campus.

    Ah. It’s a fully pedestrianized campus and their solution seems to preserve the ability to commute to and from campus via ebike. Still kinda sucks though.

    • litchralee@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 days ago

      A fully-pedestrianized campus could justify the “collision risk” cited in the campus email, but it’s really hard to do the same for the “fire risk” that they also cited. If the idea is that the five bike racks in question are somehow more easily defended against battery fires, or have no structures nearby that would be within range of a battery fire, that’s a hard sell when a map of the campus shows over a dozen car-parking surface lots scattered all over.

      These lots are large enough that if car parking was displaced in the center to make room for more ebike racks, there would be no structures or even other cars within damage range if a fire broke out. Having just five racks is, IMO, a sign of being inconsiderate and car-centric.

      • Elting@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        I think the purpose of the E-bike racks is so that students can still commute to campus on their E-bikes. They just dont want them zooming around highly populated pedestrian walkways. Also, lithium battery fires are no joke and people do take these kinds of devices indoors to charge. If this prevents even a single indoor fire, then the policy is sound.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      The question to ask is how many people got run over before this policy happened.