# New E-BIKE Act Would Offer Tax Credit for e-bike Purchases



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Damned straight, somebody's gotta help me pay for that Turbo Levo SL! I was thinking about a Go Fund Me...

More seriously, this is rad, it's even a tax credit so the people who need it most can take advantage. Though if they were targeting the lower income brackets, they should probable have a higher percentage credit and lower price cutoff. Not a lot of below median taxpayers buying an $8,000 e bike.

Also... if it passes I will be using this on something more suited to dirt than commute.


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

Do they have it for non ebikes?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Ogre said:


> Damned straight, somebody's gotta help me pay for that Turbo Levo SL! I was thinking about a Go Fund Me...


$8k limit. bah. Actually, that is pretty high.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

cmg said:


> Do they have it for non ebikes?


I did a search and there is a bicycle tax credit for commuters. It's offered by employers. I've seen a few companies do it.

I think the ebike one is targeted at commuters and car replacement. But emtbs might get a ride too.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Francis Cebedo said:


> $8k limit. bah. Actually, that is pretty high.


It's pretty high for a commuter. Just barely enough for the base Turbo Levo SL though.


----------



## DtEW (Jun 14, 2004)

The heart is in the right place, but the implementation as-stated will render it a joke mostly benefiting e-bike manufacturers and people with disposable incomes looking to acquire a new toy (i.e. us). I would love it for selfish ends, but it would do so at the cost of gov't and the rest of society.

Because there's nothing in the structure of the reward to guarantee reduction of automotive usage. The outcomes will be worse-skewed than the electric car tax credit (which has been known to skew to benefit toward the wealthier.)

OTOH, If it's paired with some sort of employer parking shifting (i.e. losing some reasonable percentage [~33%?] of automotive parking allotment, while gaining secured bike parking, then it might work to its expressed intent at reducing automotive use.

Also, is it much better for the environment (say, relative to an electric car) if a commuting e-bike is replaced every three years?


----------



## NorCal_In_AZ (Sep 26, 2019)

I've never been a fan of the tax credit idea for anything. It just favors upper-middle class and higher incomes. The average middle class and lower family isn't going to have $5k-$8k laying around to pay for the bike upfront, just to get a credit on their taxes. So they'll lay down the purchase on a CC then pay more interest on the purchase than the tax credit is worth. 

This isn't to say I'm against E-Bikes, Solar, E-Cars or anything else tax credit incentivized. I just don't think it works out like the politicians says it does.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

DtEW said:


> The heart is in the right place, but the implementation as-stated will render it a joke benefiting people with disposable incomes looking to acquire a new toy (i.e. us). I would love it for selfish ends, but it would do so at the cost of gov't and the rest of society.
> 
> Because there's nothing in the structure of the reward to guarantee reduction of automotive usage. The outcomes will be worse-skewed than the electric car tax credit (which has been known to skew toward benefit toward the wealthier.)
> 
> OTOH, If it's paired with some sort of employer parking shifting (i.e. losing some reasonable percentage [~33%?] of automotive parking allotment, while gaining secured bike parking, then it might work to its expressed intent.


Yup. And while it is a tax credit (which means even people who don't make enough to pay taxes can take advantage), you still have to pony up the cash at the time of purchase and wait until tax time to see the Benjamins.

It's also kind of bullshit that it's based on a percentage. That means people who can afford a bigger more bad-assed bike get more benefit than the broke as mo-fos who need it. That's upside-down.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Ogre said:


> Yup. And while it is a tax credit (which means even people who don't make enough to pay taxes can take advantage), you still have to pony up the cash at the time of purchase and wait until tax time to see the Benjamins.
> 
> It's also kind of bullshit that it's based on a percentage. That means people who can afford a bigger more bad-assed bike get more benefit than the broke as mo-fos who need it. That's upside-down.


Damn, that's kind a half-empty attitude there. Or... 10% empty. C'mon now it's totally unexpected, welcome and simple. It's easy to overburden it with employers, price brackets and... kill it.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Francis Cebedo said:


> Damn, that's kind a half-empty attitude there. Or... 10% empty. C'mon now it's totally unexpected, welcome and simple. It's easy to overburden it with employers, price brackets and... kill it.


I've been broke. Coming up for $1500 to buy a bike then waiting 6 months for the government to give you a rebate is rough. Watching someone who makes 4 times what you do roll off on a high end toy bike for playing in the woods and see an even bigger rebate would be a bitter pill.

I said up top I think it's a cool idea and I do. Just not the best implementation.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

If it’s based on 30%, isn’t it all relative? Besides the guy that buys a 2k bike is getting $600. The buyer of an 8k bike gets $1500?


----------



## J_Westy (Jan 7, 2009)

DtEW said:


> The heart is in the right place, but the implementation as-stated will render it a joke mostly benefiting e-bike manufacturers and people with disposable incomes looking to acquire a new toy (i.e. us). I would love it for selfish ends, but it would do so at the cost of gov't and the rest of society.


Mostly agreed.

The technology is on a fine trajectory and doesn't need the government to boost it along.

As someone that actually pays taxes, I don't like the idea of helping someone buy a toy.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

J_Westy said:


> Mostly agreed.
> 
> The technology is on a fine trajectory and doesn't need the government to boost it along.
> 
> As someone that actually pays taxes, I don't like the idea of helping someone buy a toy.


It's not a toy! It's not a TUMORRRR, said ahhnuld.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

If the goal is to reduce emissions they should exclude Emtb. The majority of Emtb owners will be driving their new toy to the trails. Sure there will be some that will ride from their house but let's be real, most will be driving to the trails. What we really need to see to address short distance commuter emissions is E commuter bikes you don't have to pedal but are still the same weight/size as pedal assist.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Enough of spending other people's money. We are in debt enough that I don't need to fund some guys ebike purchase. If they want be green their should be a 60% credit for non e-bikes since they use even less power and no toxic batteries.

Now If you want to buy and e-bike and ride it on trails so be it, but don't ask me to pay for it. that is total bull excrement.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

slimat99 said:


> If the goal is to reduce emissions they should exclude Emtb. The majority of Emtb owners will be driving their new toy to the trails. Sure there will be some that will ride from their house but let's be real, most will be driving to the trails. What we really need to see to address short distance commuter emissions is E commuter bikes you don't have to pedal but are still the same weight/size as pedal assist.


What about eGravel bikes?

Or for that matter eTouring bikes.


----------



## DtEW (Jun 14, 2004)

slimat99 said:


> If the goal is to reduce emissions they should exclude Emtb. The majority of Emtb owners will be driving their new toy to the trails. Sure there will be some that will ride from their house but let's be real, most will be driving to the trails.





Ogre said:


> What about eGravel bikes?
> 
> Or for that matter eTouring bikes.


Somebody will make the argument that excluding dirt-capable e-bikes unfairly excludes rural folks, who utilize a greater proportion of dirt roads, and by all accounts are lower-income than urban folks, nevermind that most rural commutes are not within realistic cycling distances. Somebody will then find some anecdotal cases in which rural dirt bike commutes _are_ possible, nevermind the low proportion of these cases relative to others who can exploit a more-permissive policy for purposes beyond the intent of the policy. Voters are moved by anecdotes, and pols know this. So they won't muddy the waters with e-bike type "discrimination" if their intent is to pass the bill. Pols whose intent is to sink the bill will simply vote no.

We have shitty laws because we are a nation of disparate interests, and the laws that do get passed are compromised with a known degree of exploits (at least at the outset, before society and industry tries to adapt for said exploits) to make it palatable (for reasons both in-line or contrary to the publicly-stated intent of the policy) to enough pols to pass.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

slimat99 said:


> If the goal is to reduce emissions they should exclude Emtb. The majority of Emtb owners will be driving their new toy to the trails. Sure there will be some that will ride from their house but let's be real, most will be driving to the trails. What we really need to see to address short distance commuter emissions is E commuter bikes you don't have to pedal but are still the same weight/size as pedal assist.


IMHO, the number of emtb rides from home will increase. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. Not all will ride from home but it will be a lot more attractive even on mountain bike tires.

Before ebikes, I rode from home 10% of the time. With ebikes, I ride from home 80% of the time. Instead of one trail that is three miles away, I now have 8 trails that I can ride from home. Up to 10 miles away for the trailhead is ok on E for me.

Of course they can exclude emtb and this and that but really, keep it simple and maximize support seems like the strategy.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

DtEW said:


> Somebody will make the argument that excluding dirt-capable e-bikes unfairly excludes rural folks, who utilize a greater proportion of dirt roads, and by all accounts are lower-income than urban folks, nevermind that most rural commutes are not within realistic cycling distances. Somebody will then find some anecdotal cases in which rural dirt bike commutes _are_ possible, nevermind the low proportion of these cases relative to others who can exploit a more-permissive policy for purposes beyond the intent of the policy. Voters are moved by anecdotes, and pols know this. So they won't muddy the waters with e-bike type "discrimination" if their intent is to pass the bill. Pols whose intent is to sink the bill will simply vote no.
> 
> We have shitty laws because we are a nation of disparate interests, and the laws that do get passed are compromised with a known degree of exploits (at least at the outset, before society and industry tries to adapt for said exploits) to make it palatable (for reasons both in-line or contrary to the publicly-stated intent of the policy) to enough pols to pass.


Was sort of playing devils advocate there because there are a lot of ways people recreate on bikes. I think trying to come up with a complex definition of what qualifies is a slippery slope. (and will be abused by some)

If their goal it to get people commuting by ebike, the most practical solution is to just give a flat credit for any ebike purchase. Encouraging high dollar purchases by making it a sliding scale seems silly. You can get a good e bike commuter for $1000-1500 so that's probably where this should be pointed.

FWIW, I've seen eMTBs used for commuting legitimately. In fact the only time I've seen someone commuting by ebike was a guy with a converted franken-eMTB. So the carve-out strikes me as a bit arbitrary.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Francis Cebedo said:


> IMHO, the number of emtb rides from home will increase. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. Not all will ride from home but it will be a lot more attractive even on mountain bike tires.


This is a fantastic point. People focus on the idea of using bikes for transportation _to_ somewhere. But if the place you are going is the trailhead, and you ride a lot, this is mission accomplished. I'd be far likelier to pedal over to the trails ~3-10 miles from my house with an eMTB than I am currently.

Next, making it legal for me to ride those trails on that bike.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

People 4 bikes is officially the ebike lobbying arm of the biking industry. Subsidizing an expensive toy seems like a waste of tax money IMO (even if it would in fact benefit me). On top of that, ebikes are already selling like hot cakes, so there's really no need for this.


----------



## DtEW (Jun 14, 2004)

Francis Cebedo said:


> IMHO, the number of emtb rides from home will increase. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. Not all will ride from home but it will be a lot more attractive even on mountain bike tires.
> 
> Before ebikes, I rode from home 10% of the time. With ebikes, I ride from home 80% of the time. Instead of one trail that is three miles away, I now have 8 trails that I can ride from home. Up to 10 miles away for the trailhead is ok on E for me.





Ogre said:


> This is a fantastic point. People focus on the idea of using bikes for transportation _to_ somewhere. But if the place you are going is the trailhead, and you ride a lot, this is mission accomplished. I'd be far likelier to pedal over to the trails ~3-10 miles from my house with an eMTB than I am currently.


To us it makes perfect sense.

To a non-riding public, somehow I doubt that pols representing voters are willing to pay for a ~1/3 of somebody's recreational vehicle so it gives the recreationists the option (but without obligation) that the overall activity can be conducted in a more-environmentally-friendly way.



Ogre said:


> First Next, making it legal for me to ride those trails on that bike.


Amen. But I think you just gave a wealthy (and likely bristling-at-his/her-tax-burden) equestrian an aneurism.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

*"E-bikes are not just a fad for a select few, they are a legitimate and practical form of transportation that can help reduce our carbon emissions"*

Hopefully this'll get them off our trails and to where they belong: on the street!


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

So peopleforbikes is funded by Batch bicycles, Cannondale, Giant, Niner, Shimano, Trek, and Vaast, all of who stand to benefit from this legislation if passed. The purchasers most likely to benefit are upper middle class and higher, since few people making $15 an hour or less have the money to buy an ebike, or benefit from tax credits. It is nothing more than a classic example of companies lobbying to get the government (i.e. We the People) to subsidize the companies' bottom line. This has nothing to do with the environment or improving peoples' lives, it is just another company trying to get money from the taxpayers.

Minor correction , Vaast does not appear to make ebikes and appears to be targeted at high value v price bikes.


----------



## diamondback1x9 (Dec 21, 2020)

so people who buy electric motorbikes for under 8k get a tax credit for reducing carbon footprint, but people who buy mtbs don't get one, even though they don't have any carbon foot print, except for the tires? makes sense to me🤷‍♂️


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## diamondback1x9 (Dec 21, 2020)

^^^i knew that meme had to be somewhere


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

A Tesla Model 3 uses 0.3 kWh per mile. The Aptera claims to use 0.1 kWh per mile. A pedal-assist emtb uses 0.01 to 0.03 kWh per mile depending on aero losses and pedaling input. An electric velomobile is even more efficient, using 0.01 kWh per mile even when cruising at higher speeds (30-40 mph).

I recall some study on the carbon emissions of a cyclist's caloric needs vs the equivalent in joules from the grid. I think the efficiency was so close, it depended on how the grid's power was generated. I think natural gas emissions were comparable to the emissions from transporting food. It didn't cover the emissions of harvesting the coal, gas, etc., nor producing the food. Might not be so great if your power is fueled by coal: Mapped: The world's coal power plants in 2020

I see this similar to getting a cashback reward from ActiveJunky or a credit card company. Just a bonus come tax time, and a way to nudge someone off the fence on a purchase.

All those industry brands supporting P4B sell normal bikes too. The credit will get people to open up to pay the price difference between motor-assisted and not ($1200-2000 extra for a high-end mid-drive motor and 500 Wh battery built to high safety standards).

Normal people are stressed by the effort it takes to pedal up hills, into headwinds, on unpaved surfaces, and with heavy cargo loads. They doubt they have the capability to do this on a regular basis. They worry that riding to work will tire them out enough that they won't have the stamina for actual work _and_ the trip back home. It'd be a challenge to replace their habit of stopping for errands on the way home too. An ebike is more viable at replacing car trips for normal people. For better or worse, ordinary people choose mtbs for comfort and safety, since they see big balloon tires, squishy suspension, and an upright riding position.


----------



## Milner (Apr 13, 2007)

Cary said:


> So peopleforbikes is funded by Batch bicycles, Cannondale, Giant, Niner, Shimano, Trek, and Vaast, all of who stand to benefit from this legislation if passed. The purchasers most likely to benefit are upper middle class and higher, since few people making $15 an hour or less have the money to buy an ebike, or benefit from tax credits. It is nothing more than a classic example of companies lobbying to get the government (i.e. We the People) to subsidize the companies' bottom line. This has nothing to do with the environment or improving peoples' lives, it is just another company trying to get money from the taxpayers.
> 
> Minor correction , Vaast does not appear to make ebikes and appears to be targeted at high value v price bikes.


I guess I'll scratch a new upper end Cannondale and Trek off my list for consideration.


----------



## johneracer (Mar 23, 2006)

That technology is here to stay and will keep evolving. Accustic people can cry all they want but electric power is here to stay forever. Be it pedal assist, throttle, whatever the wheel of invention will not turn back. It’s with great sadness I can say that since we are witnessing the death of the internal combustion engine and the sound of V4 Ducati will go the way of 500GP two strokes. Into the pages of history. Resistance is futile.


----------



## johneracer (Mar 23, 2006)

diamondback1x9 said:


> so people who buy electric motorbikes for under 8k get a tax credit for reducing carbon footprint, but people who buy mtbs don't get one, even though they don't have any carbon foot print, except for the tires? makes sense to me🤷‍♂️


where do you think food to keep you well fed comes from?? How do you get to your trail? Do you drink water when you ride? I assume you do, how do you think we get that to you?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Milner said:


> I guess I'll scratch a new upper end Cannondale and Trek off my list for consideration.








PeopleForBikes | Every ride. Every rider. Join us.


PeopleForBikes is committed to improving biking for everyone. Learn more about our work and join our movement.



www.peopleforbikes.org





Santa Cruz, Yeti, Specialized, Canyon, YT, Kona, Evil, Intense, Pivot, Scott, Orbea, Devinci, Marin, Propain, Norco, Rocky Mtn

SRAM (+RockShox, etc.), DT Swiss, Fox Factory (+Marzocchi, Easton, RaceFace), Shimano, Maxxis, Bell, Giro, Cane Creek, Pearl Izumi, Feedback Sports, Stan's, FSA, Rapha, POC, Osprey, Kuat...

KTM, Yamaha, Bafang, Bosch, Haibike, Fantic

Let's see what that leaves you with: Ibis, Revel, Canfield, Guerrilla Gravity, Banshee, Schwalbe, DVO, Manitou, microshift, Box, Crank Bros... hmm, not as limited as I thought


----------



## Milner (Apr 13, 2007)

Varaxis said:


> PeopleForBikes | Every ride. Every rider. Join us.
> 
> 
> PeopleForBikes is committed to improving biking for everyone. Learn more about our work and join our movement.
> ...


Companies supporting underhanded legislation to pad their business model is my point. Plenty of boutique brands are accelerating due to their less corporate ways. I'll vote with my dollars. But thanks for your input 🤘


----------



## FactoryMatt (Apr 25, 2018)

They changing their name to People for Mopeds?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Why is People For Bikes getting the flak? Did they write this up, instead of the representatives? Just says P4B applaud it. That's akin to saying Francis applauds it.

Does this basically offset the tariff on imports from China? Usable one time every 3 years per person? Hmm, maybe that would encourage the purchase of 1 quality ebike that actually lasts 3 years, rather than entry-level and budget-level "stepping-stone" bikes that people replace in 1 year or less.


----------



## diamondback1x9 (Dec 21, 2020)

johneracer said:


> where do you think food to keep you well fed comes from?? How do you get to your trail? Do you drink water when you ride? I assume you do, how do you think we get that to you?


i should have clarified i am not a environmentally friendly person. by that i mean that i wouldn't knowingly trash the environment. but then i wouldn't get low emissions cars to save the environment vs having fun in a sports car or 4x4ing in a diesel truck. haha yes i drink water during a ride. but where does the lithium come from for electric cars and bikes? it's an endless argument...


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Varaxis said:


> Why is People For Bikes getting the flak? Did they write this up, instead of the representatives? Just says P4B applaud it. That's akin to saying Francis applauds it.
> 
> Does this basically offset the tariff on imports from China? Usable one time every 3 years per person? Hmm, maybe that would encourage the purchase of 1 quality ebike that actually lasts 3 years, rather than entry-level and budget-level "stepping-stone" bikes that people replace in 1 year or less.


Because they bought the bill. First look at their campaign contributions,Earl Blumenauer received$10,000 this election cycle and $7,500 the last one.









PeopleForBikes PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates


PeopleForBikes gave $26,500 to federal candidates in the 2019-2020 election cycle. See the details.




www.opensecrets.org





I love all the individual donations from SRAM and Trek employees, which gets around the corporate donation caps.









PeopleForBikes PAC Donors


Individual donors gave Individual donors gave 83 large ($200+) contributions to PeopleForBikes PAC in the 2017-2018 election cycle. See the details.




www.opensecrets.org


----------



## FactoryMatt (Apr 25, 2018)

Illusory individual donations. Thats slimy.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

diamondback1x9 said:


> i should have clarified i am not a environmentally friendly person. by that i mean that i wouldn't knowingly trash the environment. but then i wouldn't get low emissions cars to save the environment vs having fun in a sports car or 4x4ing in a diesel truck. haha yes i drink water during a ride. but where does the lithium come from for electric cars and bikes? it's an endless argument...


Actually, the science is pretty clear that an electric car is fundamentally more sustainable than a gas/diesel car. Lithium can be recycled once the batteries die. Plenty of studies to prove it, but we digress.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Cary said:


> Because they bought the bill. First look at their campaign contributions,Earl Blumenauer received$10,000 this election cycle and $7,500 the last one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The bill was written by Panetta. Panetta E-BIKE Act V2.pdf

Blumenauer has been an ally of cycling for ages. I presume he's introducing this with the writer because he's one of the co-chairmen of the Congressional Bike Caucus. Vern Buchanon is the other co-chair.

There are others applauding the bill:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1359163002352771073








Congressman Panetta Introduces E-BIKE Act to Encourage Use of Electric Bicycles and Reduce Carbon Emissions


Today, Congressman Jimmy Panetta (D-Carmel Valley) and Congressional Bike Caucus Chairman Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) introduced the Electric Bicycle Incentive Kickstart for the Environment (E-BIKE) Act to encourage the use of electric bicycles, or e-bikes, through a consumer tax credit. Due to the...




panetta.house.gov





How useful do you think these petitions are? California Bicycle Coalition to Congressman Peter DeFazio - National Transportation Funding Petition - CalBike

DeFazio is Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Other recipients are also pro-bike.

Seems like a really cheap price for a bill, if it really was bought. Seems more like a form of gratitude. Reminds me of that meme about thanking "heroes" for their service with just words, and essential workers of today realizing how empty those gestures are.


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

I gotta be clear here and say this Bill does not affect me as I live in Europe.
It sounds like a crock to be honest and there are many good points about it in the thread, but several really spring to mind for me:

ebikes are already selling like crazy
taxpayers subsidising a ´"dentists toy" (stereotypical, but you know what I mean)
normal bikes arent getting subsidised ?????
a 120mm FS eMTB should not qualify for this scheme, commuters only


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Varaxis said:


> The bill was written by Panetta. Panetta E-BIKE Act V2.pdf
> 
> Blumenauer has been an ally of cycling for ages. I presume he's introducing this with the writer because he's one of the co-chairmen of the Congressional Bike Caucus. Vern Buchanon is the other co-chair.
> 
> ...


DeFazio is a true believer. I spent a summer in the same federal building as him in Eugene. While I disagree with a lot of his politics, you hear things about people, and his reputation was one of integrity and good moral character.


----------



## johneracer (Mar 23, 2006)

cmg said:


> I gotta be clear here and say this Bill does not affect me as I live in Europe.
> It sounds like a crock to be honest and there are many good points about it in the thread, but several really spring to mind for me:
> 
> ebikes are already selling like crazy
> ...


The policy makers look at things on a macro level and adding complications to the bill that 99% of general public does not understand is not relevant to them. This is true of every policy. Making distinctions between an e bike commuter or downhill machine is too much of a detail that average citizen is not concerned about nor are proposed policy makers willing to engage in, in order to satisfy 1% of bike experts on these forums. Just my opinion, but what the hell do I know.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

I think people are being a bit overly cynical here.

This idea of this isn't terrible, it's just poorly written. I'm sure some of the lobby money has to do with the latter. 

As it's written, I'm afraid the majority of the money would go towards toys and not transportation.


----------



## J_Westy (Jan 7, 2009)

Francis Cebedo said:


> *News Release:
> -------
> New E-BIKE Act Would Offer Tax Credit for Electric Bicycle Purchases*
> BOULDER, COLO. (Feb. 09, 2021) - PeopleForBikes applauds the introduction...
> The bill also mandates a report from the IRS after two years to understand the distribution of the credit by income tax bracket and adjust for equity in the future.





JoePAz said:


> Enough of spending other people's money...





Milner said:


> Companies supporting underhanded legislation to pad their business model is my point...


And don't dismiss the footnote toward wealth redistribution in the name of equity to entice congressmen/women who believe in such things. If a dentist and his wife get $3000 off the top, it's only fair that the person with an entry-level job (or no job) should get an eBike "free" paid for by the taxpayers. The bike company gets paid either way.

Rubbish all around.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

Any (favorable) bike legislation is probably a good thing, but I see bike manufacturers trying to drive sales more than anything else with this.

If someone in government actually wanted to do something about decreasing automobile congestion and emissions and environmental impact from all of that, they need to put some focus on building more infrastructure for people to naturally choose bicycling vs their cars. That way whoever can afford whatever they can afford will choose to ride it instead of driving their car because it makes way more sense in a number of ways, but the current bicycle infrastructure is non-existent, and it's way more dangerous, less convenient, and more nonsensical to ride a bike because of it.

Gary Fisher said it best in an interview recently, and I'm paraphrasing here, but the drive home in this country is almost a contact sport, and which is safer for a person in general, riding your bicycle from point A to B or getting in your car and going 80 miles an hour? If we can just get bike paths physically separated from automobile traffic lanes as a matter of routine in this country, that will make a massive impact, way more of one than a tax cut on e-bikes will.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

How would you re-write the bill?

Just sounds like people have strange ideas on "fairness" and are demanding "perfection" or nothing at all.

The press release explains the purpose. Promote a viable way to replace car trips, get people out of their cars, reclaim the roads for use by people instead of cars, improve health, and ultimately induce effective change on climate issues.

Are you caught up on the $8000 part? The way I see it, it's just for headroom: 1-5000 gets 30% "cashback", 5001-8000 gets 1500 flat rate, and 8001+ gets nothing. A taxpayer can claim it once every 3 years on a class 1/2/3 pedal-assist bicycle.

Would love to see people out on the roads having fun on their bikes, locking 'em up outside of stores, and carrying groceries home on them. Hardly any normal people on normal bikes do this. People are even reluctant to go shopping with the bike hanging off of a car rack. Understandable if people don't want to support that. E-bikes have the potential to change this. I guess I'm optimistic about the effect of seeing many bikers in visible places, like the road, which will have a chain reaction towards a clean revolution that we need. This bill is just a small catalyst to make it seem a bit normal. It's the best "tweener" solution that I see ATM, fitting in between where regular bikes and EVs struggled to meet their idealized potential.

I'm optimistic about the sales triggering technology too, making bikes "smarter". I foresee an age when the bikes communicate with other users (collision prevention, accident watch), infrastructure (to get green lights), and make maintenance easier to manage, having useful features like anti-theft. Maybe once smart tech is refined, people would be less scared of e-velomobiles, which would be the solution that sticks to the road. This is what mtb purists want, right?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

So, you can get eMTB that would suck for commuting, but not a road bike that would let you go just as fast?

Can I buy the eMTB, and sell it for a slight discount in the LBS parking lot, walk back in and buy a real bike? And then, using the original receipt, claim the tax credit? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FactoryMatt (Apr 25, 2018)

Of course "the science is clear". The march of progress would be stopped cold in its tracks if it wasnt. /s


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Francis Cebedo said:


> IMHO, the number of emtb rides from home will increase. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. Not all will ride from home but it will be a lot more attractive even on mountain bike tires.
> 
> Before ebikes, I rode from home 10% of the time. With ebikes, I ride from home 80% of the time. Instead of one trail that is three miles away, I now have 8 trails that I can ride from home. Up to 10 miles away for the trailhead is ok on E for me.
> 
> Of course they can exclude emtb and this and that but really, keep it simple and maximize support seems like the strategy.


Most people do not live that close to the trails they want to ride so I don't see cars being removed from the equation. Anyway, what this is supposed to be about is reducing emissions for commuters, not recreation. What will come from this won't be emission reductions, it will just be tax payers giving the well to do a coupon to add another overpriced toy to their quiver. Considering how dirty the grid is in most of the country my money is on this producing a net gain in greenhouse emissions from all the trail riders charging their new ebikes and driving them to the trail head. Narrow this down to commuter bikes no one would buy just to ride trail and I'm listening.


----------



## johneracer (Mar 23, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> So, you can get eMTB that would suck for commuting, but not a road bike that would let you go just as fast?
> 
> Can I buy the eMTB, and sell it for a slight discount in the LBS parking lot, walk back in and buy a real bike? And then, using the original receipt, claim the tax credit?


Not everyone looks good in Lycra, plus strapping groceries on a road bike where the owner just spent $3000 to shave off 124g of rotating mass with titanium spokes and carbon bits doesn't make much sense. The performance ultra light seats are terrible at comfort and pencil tires inflated to 100psi would rattle your groceries to death. Sure you want to make an omelette when you get home not while you are getting there.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Varaxis said:


> How would you re-write the bill?
> 
> Just sounds like people have strange ideas on "fairness" and are demanding "perfection" or nothing at all.
> 
> The press release explains the purpose. Promote a viable way to replace car trips, get people out of their cars, reclaim the roads for use by people instead of cars, improve health, and ultimately induce effective change on climate issues.


Just looking at the bill authors goals. They suggest the purpose is to incentivize bikes as "a legitimate and practical form of transportation ... for all socio-economic levels". You seem to have left that last bit out of your comment here which is kind of the point. The bill does a poor job of serving lower income people.

If you want to do something for lower income people, requiring they pony up $1500 and wait for their tax return is a big ask. Something they could use at the time of purchase would be far more likely to get used. Lots of issues with that too, I know.



> Are you caught up on the $8000 part? The way I see it, it's just for headroom: 1-5000 gets 30% "cashback", 5001-8000 gets 1500 flat rate, and 8001+ gets nothing. A taxpayer can claim it once every 3 years on a class 1/2/3 pedal-assist bicycle.


Again, look at the goals. Practical transportation. Most e bikes built around practical transportation are in the $1000-1500 price range. Why not have the maximum benefit at $1500 and not waste taxpayer dollars on bells and whistles? (Maybe literal bells!)

I've never suggested this is actually bad or shouldn't pass, just pointed out there is a lot of room for improvement.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

johneracer said:


> Not everyone looks good in Lycra, plus strapping groceries on a road bike where the owner just spent $3000 to shave off 124g of rotating mass with titanium spokes and carbon bits doesn't make much sense. The performance ultra light seats are terrible at comfort and pencil tires inflated to 100psi would rattle your groceries to death. Sure you want to make an omelette when you get home not while you are getting there.


This is crazy:

When I take the groceries off my 15.5 pound road bike and use it for the 100 mile Sunday group ride, it still weighs 15.5 pounds. It's almost like once I remove the groceries from the bike, the bike is still the same as it was before.

And the only people who still ride road bikes with 23mm tires at 100psi are stuck in the 90s.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## johneracer (Mar 23, 2006)

I think again people on these forums are picking apart arguments based on their narrow view of biking and hate of e bikes. Fine. Free discussion is always good. I think if we zoom out for a sec and consider 99% of public is not into bicycles the way we are on these forums. The fact that you are here shows above average interest. 
The purpose of this legislation is to infuse some $$ into ebike market by encouraging people to give it a try. Not everyone will splurge on a $11000 turbo levo, some will, but vast majority will pick up some commuter from REI to give it a go. More bikes sold will strengthen the bike industry to lobby for more access and more bike shops will open up. It’s a win/win for all, even the Lycra guys,,,,


----------



## Jack7782 (Jan 1, 2009)

johneracer said:


> I think again people on these forums are picking apart arguments based on their narrow view of biking and hate of e bikes. Fine. Free discussion is always good. I think if we zoom out for a sec and consider 99% of public is not into bicycles the way we are on these forums. The fact that you are here shows above average interest.
> The purpose of this legislation is to infuse some $$ into ebike market by encouraging people to give it a try. Not everyone will splurge on a $11000 turbo levo, some will, but vast majority will pick up some commuter from REI to give it a go. More bikes sold will strengthen the bike industry to lobby for more access and more bike shops will open up. It's a win/win for all, even the Lycra guys,,,,


Not to be cynical or suggest another conspiracy - but maybe big brands in the USA are getting their ass kicked by RAD Power Bikes - that are so cheap that they do not need a #$%@*& tax break!


----------



## johneracer (Mar 23, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> This is crazy:
> 
> When I take the groceries off my 15.5 pound road bike and use it for the 100 mile Sunday group ride, it still weighs 15.5 pounds. It's almost like once I remove the groceries from the bike, the bike is still the same as it was before.
> 
> ...


Surely you are embarrassed to strap something not aerodynamic on your road bike and venture outside? The other roadies must be giving you evil eye for being associated with them? These people shave their legs in a quest to prevent air ripples. I'm sure Ralph's bag flopping in the wind drives them insane. Save them the anxiety and buy a commuter with the above mentioned tax credit.


----------



## johneracer (Mar 23, 2006)

Jack7782 said:


> Not to be cynical or suggest another conspiracy - but maybe big brands in the USA are getting their ass kicked by RAD Power Bikes - that are so cheap that they do not need a #$%@*& tax break!


I'm sure trek and specialized are shaking in their boots. Specialized is sold out of everything and just bumped up their prices big time. Times are good!


----------



## johneracer (Mar 23, 2006)

I think the E bike industry is recognizing that this new trend of e bikes must evolve with legislation hand in hand. That means access for e bikes but they must play by the rules. Speed limits, power limits etc. manufacturers are trying very hard to prevent de restricting of motors and removal of speed limits. They recognize the long term potential is there as long as the e bikes play by the rules. there is a real danger of cheap Chinese crap that is not concerned about anything but making money now. I saw 2 guys on electric throttle bikes cruising the trails. 1000 watt motors and huge batteries have potential for 60mph plus there was a case of one similar Chinese bike catching fire on the local trail. This is the danger e bike industry is presented with as these one off cases could lead to outright ban


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

johneracer said:


> Surely you are embarrassed to strap something not aerodynamic on your road bike and venture outside? The other roadies must be giving you evil eye for being associated with them? These people shave their legs in a quest to prevent air ripples. I'm sure Ralph's bag flopping in the wind drives them insane. Save them the anxiety and buy a commuter with the above mentioned tax credit.


I'm not a "roadie". I'm a cyclist. I commute, ride MTB, ride gravel and on the road.

Why would I be embarrassed by using a bike for transportation? That is the purpose of a bike. Why would I need to buy another bike when one of my current bikes works just fine for commuting?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sptimmy43 (Jul 27, 2018)

KobayashiMaru said:


> Gary Fisher said it best in an interview recently, and I'm paraphrasing here, but the drive home in this country is almost a contact sport, and which is safer for a person in general, riding your bicycle from point A to B or getting in your car and going 80 miles an hour? If we can just get bike paths physically separated from automobile traffic lanes as a matter of routine in this country, that will make a massive impact, way more of one than a tax cut on e-bikes will.


There's a lot to digest with all of this but I'll put a different spin on it, just for giggles. If we get more bikes out there, like significantly more, maybe the bike infrastructure will improve. Right now cyclists are perceived as rich white guys playing on their expensive toys getting in the way of traffic. Few people partake in cycling and it's definitely a fringe element. We need it to become more mainstream. If more people decide that cycling is a priority in their lives and that it's a viable means of transportation then maybe that dynamic will shift and resources will be allocated to improving cyclist safety.

I've actually considered an e-bike for commuting as my commute is 25 miles each way. That's a big day on the bike to do on a regular basis, at least on an acoustic bike, especially with a work day sandwiched in there. The real obstacle isn't necessarily the mileage or time, especially when an e-bike could be leveraged. The problem is that I don't feel safe doing it. Due to the terrain and way roads are constructed, there are a few spots where I am just not comfortable riding. There just aren't good (safe) alternatives to get from my home to my place of work on a bicycle. Our lives are centered around automobiles and as a society, we don't value alternatives to that lifestyle.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

johneracer said:


> I think the E bike industry is recognizing that this new trend of e bikes must evolve with legislation hand in hand. That means access for e bikes but they must play by the rules. Speed limits, power limits etc. manufacturers are trying very hard to prevent de restricting of motors and removal of speed limits. They recognize the long term potential is there as long as the e bikes play by the rules. there is a real danger of cheap Chinese crap that is not concerned about anything but making money now. I saw 2 guys on electric throttle bikes cruising the trails. 1000 watt motors and huge batteries have potential for 60mph plus there was a case of one similar Chinese bike catching fire on the local trail. This is the danger e bike industry is presented with as these one off cases could lead to outright ban


Absolutely agreed with all your points.

The other key if this legislation passes is it makes ebikes and bikes approved and encouraged. That will go a long way into their use and adoption as a pillar for our future. Bike lanes and trail access will improve.

fc


----------



## johneracer (Mar 23, 2006)

To further add, I would not mind paying a tax to use ebike on local trails. Maybe a sticker like with dirt bikes. Pedal assist with less than 250W motors are good to go. Get the unrestricted home builds and Chinese junk off the trails. All it takes is one huge fire in Los Angeles to start from these bikes and we are f’ed.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

johneracer said:


> To further add, I would not mind paying a tax to use ebike on local trails. Maybe a sticker like with dirt bikes.


Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## johneracer (Mar 23, 2006)

Francis Cebedo said:


> Absolutely agreed with all your points.
> 
> The other key if this legislation passes is it makes ebikes and bikes approved and encouraged. That will go a long way into their use and adoption as a pillar for our future. Bike lanes and trail access will improve.
> 
> fc


I actually have a spare set of wheels with gravel tires (oh the humanity, gravel bikes,,) and I ride it on pavement occasionally and when I commute to work. My mountain bike with gravel tires is a pleasure to ride to work. I can't stand the traffic in Los Angeles and roadies biking on local streets are nuts, so if there was more access, I would absolutely ride everywhere on it. Hope this legislation could add access and get more people moving. This would lower the healthcare costs for us all.


----------



## johneracer (Mar 23, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!


I'm extending the olive branch here,,,NFS has not approved ebikes yet but they absolutely have no resources to enforce anything. I have had my ebike for 7 months and ride everything and everywhere and I have yet to see a ranger anywhere checking bikes. I do see home made throttle bikes that have no business on trail. Now I'm starting to see sun ron bikes on hiking only trails! Gotta stop this before it gets out of control


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

My additional thoughts, but also my biases. I have libertarian leanings (small minimal government, minimal regulation of private enterprise, what people do is their own business as long as not hurting another) and concerns about the long term impacts of mountain ebikes on access (I am in the Bay Area in Northern California where access is hard to come by and many of the public land agencies are already not very bike friendly). So that said:


If the purpose of the bill is to get people to use bikes instead of cars, why not focus the credit on cargo bikes and ecargo bikes? These are the type of bikes that people can easily use to go shopping at their local stores, get to work, take children to school and other short day to day trips.
Why give a credit solely to ebikes? Why not all bikes, and even electric scooters and small electric motorcycles?
While I am against the government (i.e. taxpayers) subsidizing these purchases (which is what the proposed credit does), if you are going subsidize it, make it an easy to get grant that is applied directly to the purchase price (i.e. the paperwork is short and can be filled out in the store by anyone with a 6th grade education). Put an income cap on the grant ((preferably adjusted for the cost of living where the person lives) and vary the percentage of the purchase price the grant covers based on the income of the purchaser. By doing this, instead of this being a windfall for middle class and upper income purchasers who will most likely use the credit for an ebike that they are going to cart to trails, the money is actually going to getting transportation for those who could not otherwise afford it.
Why not offer an additional kicker for people who trade in a high polluting vehicle? Poorer people tend to own older, higher emission producing automobiles. Combine with a cash for klunkers type of purchase of the older vehicles so for those that can make an ebike work as their sole source of transportation, it could potentially be a fully subsidized purchase. This gets a higher polluting vehicle off the road, helps the person get into transportation with a lower monthly operating cost, and takes some traffic off the road.
Include as part of the program 1) a helmet, 2) a high quality bike lock, and 3) a three year moderate deductible theft insurance policy. The people who most need the subsidy/grant are those most likely to live in high theft areas and be left in a worse position if their transportation is stolen. It is much harder to steal a car and make it disappear than a bike. Also the market for stolen crapped out cars is minimal, while it is much stronger for stolen ebikes, so they are more likely to be stolen.
Earmark some of funds for better transportation routes for bikes. I live in bike friendly Northern California and even here, there are limited routes in most areas that people can take to get to and from work that they aren't exposed to being directly next to vehicles traveling at much higher speeds than on their bikes.
Just my ranting, but I see this as nothing more than a subsidy to put money in the manufactures pockets. While the subsidy will go back to the people who pay the most taxes and effectively decrease their tax rate (so probably equitable at the end of the day), it is not doing what the bill is supposedly designed to do.


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

johneracer said:


> Surely you are embarrassed to strap something not aerodynamic on your road bike and venture outside?.


Ifs bad enough aerodynamically when lm on it


----------



## diamondback1x9 (Dec 21, 2020)

Cary said:


> Why give a credit solely to ebikes? Why not all bikes, and even electric scooters and small electric motorcycles?


my thoughts exactly


----------



## alkalifly (Mar 18, 2016)

Cary said:


> Why give a credit solely to ebikes? Why not all bikes, and even electric scooters and small electric motorcycles?


Probably because those particular industries' lobbyists didn't spend as much time taking the congressmen to lunch?


----------



## johneracer (Mar 23, 2006)

diamondback1x9 said:


> my thoughts exactly


Or it could be like it was in case of electro cars, is that to encourage industry growth and product development? Regular bicycles have been around for over 100-150 years and some people will never use them. This they might,,,


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

alkalifly said:


> Probably because those particular industries' lobbyists didn't spend as much time taking the congressmen to lunch?


Absolutely. Call me disillusioned. I want to believe that there was a time where elected officials did things because they were the right thing to do, not based on who donates to their campaigns and paid lobbyists. I think most want to do the right thing, but unfortunately, are prisoners to the constant need to raise money to get elected and then stay in office. Instead of being able to focus on servicing their constituents, they are forced to, in essence, make deals with the devil, and hope they squeeze in serving their constituents.


----------



## johneracer (Mar 23, 2006)

Cary said:


> Absolutely. Call me disillusioned. I want to believe that there was a time where elected officials did things because they were the right thing to do, not based on who donates to their campaigns and paid lobbyists. I think most want to do the right thing, but unfortunately, are prisoners to the constant need to raise money to get elected and then stay in office. Instead of being able to focus on servicing their constituents, they are forced to, in essence, make deals with the devil, and hope they squeeze in serving their constituents.


You are delusional. That never existed.


----------



## FactoryMatt (Apr 25, 2018)

could you imagine the uproar in norcal if politicians subsidized Lime scooters and the like?

definitely curious what "studies" have been done to predict actual adoption rate of ebikes at X amount of subsidization?
e.g. is the minimum wage worker who relies on a $300 walmart bike to get to work really now going to spring for an ebike to chain up outside their place of business? is a mother of three going to buy a cargo bike to get to the store on rather than spring for that new three-row SUV?

I predict this won't move the needle above adding to existing quivers.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

johneracer said:


> You are delusional. That never existed.


I know,but I can dream of a time when politicians were honest, just like I dream of being married to a supermodel.


----------



## johneracer (Mar 23, 2006)

Honest politician. Isn’t that a misnomer? I have not encountered that creature, where do you see those things? Our local government is not capable of fixing anything albeit they ban plastic straws and plastic bags but I think plastic bags were later reversed. With a city overwhelmed with homelessness, crime and traffic I would put plastic straws lower on the scale of importance, but what do I know? Federal government is printing money so fast that we all wonder when will a burger cost $95.00 with a drink (no straw) not included! But this is a another topic altogether


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

johneracer said:


> Honest politician. Isn't that a misnomer? I have not encountered that creature, where do you see those things? Our local government is not capable of fixing anything albeit they ban plastic straws and plastic bags but I think plastic bags were later reversed. With a city overwhelmed with homelessness, crime and traffic I would put plastic straws lower on the scale of importance, but what do I know? Federal government is printing money so fast that we all wonder when will a burger cost $95.00 with a drink (no straw) not included! But this is a another topic altogether


Do you think this is 1920? The government doesn't just increase M1 and cause inflation, as so little M1 is used now. Inflation is in fact very low and has been for years. I think what you are actually referring to is quantitative easing and low reserve requirements on the part of the Fed, combined with our government's unsustainable deficit spending (even before the huge pandemic related deficit spends).

In short, yes, there are huge systemic financial problems in our federal government, which if not addressed will become insurmountable. Unfortunately this requires us as an entire society to accept that 1) nothing is free, and 2) that if we want to fix it, we will have to pay higher taxes and drastically cut government spending and services. As a society we have been living by borrowing money, it has to be repaid as some point and before the debt become so large it cannot be paid.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

Tax incentives to do "the right thing" often go to those who don't financially need them. The next time you do your taxes, look at that long list of available credits (that couldn't possibly be of any use to the poor).

That's where the money is.


----------



## Salespunk (Sep 15, 2005)

For those saying that this does not help the lower income earners, there are very few tax breaks that will. This is because the lower 50% pays near zero in Federal taxes.

For those complaining about this being a misuse of Federal funds, we have much, much bigger problems. Universal Basic Income is being implemented through a slow rollout. How many of you sent your stimulus checks back? The Fed is driving massive income disparity and pouring gasoline on the fire. 

Telling the government to make a distinction between a commuter bike and a mountain bike is like telling a gorilla to code the SW for your Tesla. It just isn't going to happen.

Most of the people blowing up this plan are anti eBike anyway and are using this as an excuse to complain about them more.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

slimat99 said:


> Considering how dirty the grid is in most of the country my money is on this producing a net gain in greenhouse emissions from all the trail riders charging their new ebikes and driving them to the trail head. Narrow this down to commuter bikes no one would buy just to ride trail and I'm listening.


That's most certainly not true. Not that I agree with the bill as written, but the grid is fairly clean and getting cleaner every day.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Salespunk said:


> For those saying that this does not help the lower income earners, there are very few tax breaks that will. This is because the lower 50% pays near zero in Federal taxes.
> 
> For those complaining about this being a misuse of Federal funds, we have much, much bigger problems. Universal Basic Income is being implemented through a slow rollout. How many of you sent your stimulus checks back? The Fed is driving massive income disparity and pouring gasoline on the fire.
> 
> ...


Totally agree and not like a nice mtb doesn't cost 5-8k and is more or less "an expensive toy" also, unless these guys are getting paid to ride! Hardly. Anyrate, I think they ought to give the 30% to mtb chapters for new trails. JMO.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Subsidized bike prices, e-bike or otherwise will only make the current buying situation worse. Increased prices with an already limited supply - terrible timing.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

noapathy said:


> Subsidized bike prices, e-bike or otherwise will only make the current buying situation worse. Increased prices with an already limited supply - terrible timing.


Totally agree. Inventory is scarce. Maybe when we get our last stimulus check, inventory will be up!! My kids, not China will continue to pay for this pandemic.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

zorg said:


> slimat99 said:
> Considering how dirty the grid is in most of the country my money is on this producing a net gain in greenhouse emissions from all the trail riders charging their new ebikes and driving them to the trail head. Narrow this down to commuter bikes no one would buy just to ride trail and I'm listening.
> 
> That's most certainly not true. Not that I agree with the bill as written, but the grid is fairly clean and getting cleaner every day.


There isn't "one" grid. Despite the large use of coal, the pacific NW grid is fed with a very large amount of hydro-power. The west and southwest, solar and wind . The northeast: nuclear, and canadian hydro. The southeast has the largest percentage of coal input into its grid.

Nationally, in addition to being inefficient, our "grid" is dumb as f#&k. Not at all built for distributed energy inputs.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

D. Inoobinati said:


> There isn't "one" grid. Despite the large use of coal, the pacific NW grid is fed with a very large amount of hydro-power. The west and southwest, solar and wind . The northeast: nuclear, and canadian hydro. The southeast has the largest percentage of coal input into its grid.
> 
> Nationally, in addition to being inefficient, our "grid" is dumb as f#&k. Not at all built for distributed energy inputs.


Sure. But even with coal powerplants, it's cleaner to ride an electric bike than drive a car. The average car is 25-40mpg. An ebike has to be over 200mpg equivalent.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

sptimmy43 said:


> The problem is that I don't feel safe doing it. Due to the terrain and way roads are constructed, there are a few spots where I am just not comfortable riding. There just aren't good (safe) alternatives to get from my home to my place of work on a bicycle. Our lives are centered around automobiles and as a society, we don't value alternatives to that lifestyle.


I'm in agreement that getting more bikes out there will probably improve things, but it's really a chicken and the egg scenario. I could see a whole lot of people rushing out to get bikes if infrastructure was provided and others see it in thr way that if everyone all the sudden had bicycles and we're using them then infrastructure would have to adjust to accommodate them. I'm not sure which would be the more effective method to actually elicit change, but I won't say either way is wrong.

What I absolutely agree with is your observation on the safety of a commute. I'll do you one better. For a couple of years I worked in a location that was less than two miles from my home. I would go there in the morning, come home for lunch, return to work, and come home in the evening. When I first started the job I was excited about the possibility of riding my bicycle to work, but the reality of the situation was, no matter which route I took, I had to cross a highway intersection that had three lanes of traffic in both directions with two turn lanes in both directions. The intersecting road was two lanes wide with two turn lanes. As much as I want to be positive about what the outcomes could have been, the reality is the danger was way more evident than my high hopes could have made the experience beneficial.

People in automobiles in this country see people on bicycles as idiots who are infringing on their rights. They have no qualms about trying to run them off the road, or at least disregarding their need for a minimum amount of space for safety.

Back to the chicken and egg scenario, I want to lean more toward the Field of Dreams "If you build it they will come" philosophy. We've been buying bikes in this country forever, but we still have very little infrastructure. If we put the infrastructure in place, I think people would buy bikes.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

zorg said:


> Sure. But even with coal powerplants, it's cleaner to ride an electric bike than drive a car. The average car is 25-40mpg. An ebike has to be over 200mpg equivalent.


Ebike 200 MPGe? More like 3370 MPGe, considering it gets 50 miles on a 500 Wh battery in eco mode. Turbo/Boost mode drops the economy to 1/3 of that.

The EPA measure goes by caloric capacity. 1 gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 33.7 kWh in terms of how much it can heat (29000 calories or 115000 BTU). Gives the illusion that EV is better, 112 miles per gallon for an EV that uses 0.3 kWh/mi, when they are pretty equivalent with ICE cars in terms of ownership costs (with current cheap gas prices), leaving the eco-friendliness and ownership experience (driving feel and maintenance) to be argued.

Home charging an EV on a typical 110/120V outlet is really slow. It pulls 12 to 16 amps, which means it can charge at a rate of 1.5 to 2 kWh (120V * 16amps = 1920W). 1500W generally is the most electrical current standard appliances draw (e.g. space heaters). A Tesla's 75 kWh battery would take 39 hours to fully charge, without more current. A 220/240V outlet for charging is needed for faster charging, which calls for a parking spot that is specially equipped. That's a luxury that most people can't afford. The fixture isn't expensive, the parking real estate is (e.g. having your own garage spot). An e-bike doesn't have this problem, charging fine on regular outlets, which shouldn't need its own dedicated circuit.

======================

The people who are shitting on the bill don't know normal people. They're using their shitty view of themselves, pessimistically thinking people are corrupt and immoral. I don't know normal people either. I see normal people as naive and foolish. I see them buying affordable, stylish and simple e-bikes more than Trek Powerfly FS super commuter "E-SUVs". What people say from surveys will be diff from what they do. Marketing will attract them to use their tax credit a certain way, similar to how marketing got people to consider solar panels and EVs. People will follow trends, but supply will be a big issue. There are dozens of cargo ships lined up outside of ports like Long Beach, likely with a lot of bike stuff on them.


























Or maybe some geeky types might try Modmo:










I expect the boomers and gen-Xers, who already have money, to be the most likely to cash in on higher quality e-mtbs, but I doubt these types are numerous. Even if they are, they have already paid plenty of taxes in their lifetime to warrant a greater return. If poorer types want greater returns, there are always payment plans.

This is an incentive to encourage something that the US can use to meet climate change accords. France is going through a revolution right now to reclaim the road from car traffic. Cycling lanes are popping up overnight. Doubt this will happen throughout the US since the US sprawled differently and they were quite broad thinking with their right-of-way planning.

It's not about getting to places fast. It's about getting to places safely, sustainably, and enjoyably. Debris, unperfect roads, hills, headwinds, cargo, traffic... I'd rather ride in the dirt on the side of the road, than try to share the pavement with cars. People yelling at others to getting off their lawns and off the roads (and off the singletrack) seem to have gained too much entitlement. Not surprised to see people fight back, for a world that suits living creatures rather than an economic monster.


----------



## sptimmy43 (Jul 27, 2018)

KobayashiMaru said:


> ...but it's really a chicken and the egg scenario...


I almost used the exact same words in my post. It's really the crux of the issue. Not enough interest in cycling leads to sub-par infrastructure. Sub-par infrastructure leads to less interest in cycling.


----------



## J_Westy (Jan 7, 2009)

KobayashiMaru said:


> Back to the chicken and egg scenario, I want to lean more toward the Field of Dreams "If you build it they will come" philosophy. We've been buying bikes in this country forever, but we still have very little infrastructure. If we put the infrastructure in place, I think people would buy bikes.





sptimmy43 said:


> I almost used the exact same words in my post. It's really the crux of the issue. Not enough interest in cycling leads to sub-par infrastructure. Sub-par infrastructure leads to less interest in cycling.


X1000000

This waste of money will turn precious few Americans into meaningful commuters.

It takes a committed person in the first place (and they're probably already on a traditional bike) , but adding the too high percentage of drivers that want to teach you a lesson for riding on "their" road to the mix, makes it even less likely.

Sure, people with means might partially fund an eBike on the tax-payers back, but hardly any will use them as hoped in the green utopia.


----------



## cat3shark (Feb 4, 2021)

Why not give folks that buy regular bikes a discount? Our bikes don't cause near as much CO2 emissions as an e-bike lithium battery build...


----------



## DWSX (May 25, 2019)

Ogre said:


> I've been broke. Coming up for $1500 to buy a bike then waiting 6 months for the government to give you a rebate is rough. Watching someone who makes 4 times what you do roll off on a high end toy bike for playing in the woods and see an even bigger rebate would be a bitter pill.
> I said up top I think it's a cool idea and I do. Just not the best implementation.


The envy you see in the "someone" who PAYS OVER 4 Times in graduated income taxes that helps you pay less has every right what benefits you.. He/She has Payed it and Earned it... Your bitter pill is self induced...Having said this, I wish you much success in life... Signed, worked and retired blue collar...


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

DWSX said:


> The envy you see in the "someone" who PAYS OVER 4 Times in graduated income taxes that helps you pay less has every right what benefits you.. He/She has Payed it and Earned it... Your bitter pill is self induced...Having said this, I wish you much success in life... Signed, worked and retired blue collar...


He said that he has been broke, not that he is. There's a difference. And I agree with him. If this passes, it'll mostly benefit folks that don't need the break. A better implementation would have been to limit it to bikes under $4000, which would cover the ebike commuting market just fine.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

DWSX said:


> The envy you see in the "someone" who PAYS OVER 4 Times in graduated income taxes that helps you pay less has every right what benefits you.. He/She has Payed it and Earned it... Your bitter pill is self induced...Having said this, I wish you much success in life... Signed, worked and retired blue collar...


I'm trying to parse your ramblings. Maybe if dialed back your sense of entitlement a bit it would be easier?

The little I could parse makes me think you mis-read my massage. The days when I have to scrimp to buy a $500 Redline Monocog are behind me now. I highly doubt you pay 4 times for anything I do.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

Lawmowers are next...
I'm introducing a bill to give a $2,000 tax break on electric lawnmowers costing less than $20,000. $10,000 if you have 3 acres of kentucky bluegrass.

If you live in a 5 story walk-up. F#%k you. Get off the grass.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

zorg said:


> He said that he has been broke, not that he is. There's a difference. And I agree with him. If this passes, it'll mostly benefit folks that don't need the break. A better implementation would have been to limit it to bikes under $4000, which would cover the ebike commuting market just fine.


This isn't about helping people, it's about motivating people. It's a "tax incentive". Social engineering would be another way to phrase it. Not something the government should be involved in imho, but don't hate the player, hate the game.

.


----------



## rekmeyata (Jan 25, 2021)

Francis Cebedo said:


> *News Release:
> -------
> New E-BIKE Act Would Offer Tax Credit for Electric Bicycle Purchases*
> 
> ...


NO, NO, NO!! Since when should taxpayers pay for someone else to own an electric bike or car for that matter? The government should not be handing out tax credits for anything, especially for something that is more for pleasure.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

cat3shark said:


> Why not give folks that buy regular bikes a discount? Our bikes don't cause near as much CO2 emissions as an e-bike lithium battery build...


Regular bikes are seen more like toys and not proven to reduce car trips. In fact, they increase car trips, considering the amount of shuttling done with them (hauling bikes from home to trailhead/ride destination). Who does errands like grocery shopping with their expensive lightweight bike? Who makes stops to grocery shop with their bike on the back of their car? People live in areas of opportunistic crime, and will only make stops if they can keep an eye on their bike from a window.

Emissions to provide the 1/2 kWh to charge is so little that it compares to the emissions for food transport.

There's not much lithium in a battery. A Tesla battery is by far mostly nickel, followed by graphite. Lithium ions are just the cathode part of the chemical reaction (2% of the material). Tesla specs chemistry with cobalt (NCA? or some new NMC) which is the controversial part. I expect programs to handle them like how lead-acid batteries are handled. Arguing this point is akin to arguing wind turbines kill birds, including bald eagles, when trying to find an alternative to coal (or in this case, car reliance).









Again with the argument that if something isn't perfect, it shouldn't be implemented. The anti-masker stance relies on this logic. Selfish behavior is expected from people, but this is just on a different level than normal. It impedes improvement, in favor of no change. Reg bikes didn't get picked up by the masses like they picked up cars; it's toy/recreation vs transportation+more. E-bikes are a promising tweener that fills in where cars, motorcycles, mopeds, scooters, bike share, and reg bikes weren't effective. The pedaling aspect gives it a special feel.

The congressman is making an effort in this direction based on studies like these:

Particularly good one, but Europe-based: Electrically-assisted bikes: Potential impacts on travel behaviour

American focused one: https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/...merican-Survey-of-Electric-Bicycle-Owners.pdf

For science skeptics, there's plenty of stories about first-time ebike owners hyped about their purchase, revealing why they were reluctant to ride normal bikes.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

_CJ said:


> This isn't about helping people, it's about motivating people. It's a "tax incentive". Social engineering would be another way to phrase it. Not something the government should be involved in imho, but don't hate the player, hate the game.


Did you read the same article I did?


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

D. Inoobinati said:


> Lawmowers are next...
> I'm introducing a bill to give a $2,000 tax break on electric lawnmowers costing less than $20,000. $10,000 if you have 3 acres of kentucky bluegrass.
> 
> If you live in a 5 story walk-up. F#%k you. Get off the grass.


Too late. My grandfather traded in his old gas mower for electric and got a check for the government like 15 years ago.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)




----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Worth reading this article.









Cities are transforming as electric bike sales skyrocket


Cities are taking space back from cars as residents emerge from pandemic lockdown.




www.theverge.com





Seeing more bikers on the road could perhaps trigger a "viral trend" as it becomes a normal sight. Good time to try with reduced traffic.


----------



## cat3shark (Feb 4, 2021)

_CJ said:


> This isn't about helping people, it's about motivating people. It's a "tax incentive". Social engineering would be another way to phrase it. Not something the government should be involved in imho, but don't hate the player, hate the game.
> 
> .


Just like welfare was never meant to be a lifestyle but the gov't incentivized it so many are now on that teet. The mo kids they have the mo money they git.

If we want it to change, need to vote out the lifers and make sure the new hires (yes, they are supposed to work for us) know that if they choose to take the lobbyists side then they will be relieved of duty or put in jail (that needs to be a law).


----------



## J_Westy (Jan 7, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> Worth reading this article.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Incredibly, the governments in Europe didn't need to subsidize eBike purchases.

What they did do, is enhance bike lanes once people didn't want ride the subway/tube/ubahn/metro for social distancing... In Paris, people were already biking more because of the public transportation strikes in 2019.

For sure, I have a small government mindset, but I guess my point is, a 1 time credit with your neighbors' money isn't going to incentivize a meaningful number of people for very long. We humans need a daily incentive to not push the easy button:

Safe bike lanes
Secure place to lock up your bike
Free/easier parking


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

cat3shark said:


> Just like welfare


No, not like that.....at all.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

J_Westy said:


> Incredibly, the governments in Europe didn't need to subsidize eBike purchases.
> 
> What they did do, is enhance bike lanes once people didn't want ride the subway/tube/ubahn/metro for social distancing... In Paris, people were already biking more because of the public transportation strikes in 2019.
> 
> ...


 And those things would encourage regular cyclist to not use their car as well, which is the whole point, getting people to travel by means other than their car. I would definitely use my bike for grocery runs, etc. if it was safe to do so and I could securely lock it up.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

J_Westy said:


> Incredibly, the governments in Europe didn't need to subsidize eBike purchases.
> 
> What they did do, is enhance bike lanes once people didn't want ride the subway/tube/ubahn/metro for social distancing... In Paris, people were already biking more because of the public transportation strikes in 2019.
> 
> ...


If anything, I'd expect some pretty hard "incentives" to be coming down the pike that motivate people to find other modes of transportation. Americans seem to embrace the authoritarian model (stick vs. carrot), so I expect gasoline will become very expensive in the near future.

.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Back to the chicken vs egg argument. Make bike infrastructure and expect bikers to come? I doubt that, as it's my belief that an average "fackidioter" in power is a very risk-averse reactionary. I'd be surprised if they believed in Braess's paradox or understand the problems that free parking for cars causes for city planning.

The economic argument regarding funding reminds me of the crock when Trump said Mexico will pay for the wall. Who's gonna pay for the cycling infrastructure, the secure parking, etc.?

The "dream" of owning a car and house with family is questionable on current wages. People are splitting these costs. I don't know how you are imagining things, but I see people having to pay up 100% of the cost, with the lingering anticipation of getting a sizable tax refund. They're invested in trying to make the purchase worth it, which they put over 70% of their money into. IMO, this will create a chain reaction in demanding more bike-friendly stuff. Gov't won't need to spend for secure parking if the people are demanding it from their employers. Maybe they might even collect funds to make it themselves...

People seem to overlook the dignity of Americans. The masses are seen as fat, stupid, lazy, entitled, and on the decline. IMO, an opportunity to change from this to setting an example is extremely valuable in terms of foreign relations. The young are way more adaptable/flexible than the old, and this is a rare opportunity for them to get financial help on something they might actually afford and find profoundly useful (esp consider the smartphone and social media addictions). Having others look up to you... I heard this saying somewhere: tier 1 organizations set standards, tier 2 orgs create innovative designs, tier 3 orgs do the labor (manufacture). Is your country "first world"? I heard that good orgs vertically integrate.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

The county I live in has/had a program that rewarded non-driving based commuting as part of the "clean air campaign". This could be by bike or carpooling. You input your commutes online so it was on the honor system and you could only do it for a month or maybe it was three. I think I earned over $100, which I did carpooling as I did not have a safe route to bike.


----------

