The New York Times published a pair of articles this weekend highlighting the rising number of deaths of cyclists riding electric bikes. However, in one of the most impressive feats of victim-blaming I’ve seen from the publication in some time, the NYT lays the onus on e-bikes instead of on the things killing their riders: cars.
The first article lays out a number of recent tragic deaths of e-bike riders, including that of a 15 year old boy in Encinitas, California.
The article even explicitly lists the biggest danger that played a role in that crash, explaining that the boy’s bike “had a top speed of 20 miles per hour, but his route took him on a busy road with a 55-mile-per-hour limit.” And yet the article seems to imply that the e-bike’s presence was the compounding issue, instead of reading into the author’s very own sentence to realize that the true problem was that the road didn’t have anywhere safe for cyclists to ride. There was no protected bike lane.
By all accounts, the e-bike rider was correctly and legally using the roadway in the only way he could. In fact, according to eye-witnesses of the car crash that killed the e-bike rider, he “did everything right,” including signaling his turn.
The article goes on to detail how just three days later another teenage e-bike rider was pulled out from under a BMW – thankfully still alive – and taken to the same emergency room where the previous boy had been pronounced dead. Apparent praise is lauded on Encinitas for soon afterwards declaring “a state of emergency for e-bikes”, which is a bit like saying we could just solve the school shootings crisis if kids would stop walking into all of those damn bullets.
The article goes on to describe several other recent deaths from crashes of electric bike riders, many of them younger riders.
As Visiting Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School David Zipper pointed out, every single e-bike crash listed in the article was a collision between a car and e-bike. None were simply e-bike crashes without the added of a car. “All could’ve been avoided if e-bike riders were protected from cars (or if there were no cars)”, Zipper explained on Twitter. “Fight the real enemy.”
Every crash in this story involves a e-bike colliding with a motor vehicle.
All could’ve been avoided if e-bike riders were protected from cars (or if there were no cars).
In a second NYT article this weekend dedicated to e-bike safety, removing any doubts otherwise with the title What Is an E-Bike, And How Safe Are They?, the publication does an even more olympic level of mental gymnastics to avoid blaming cars for cyclist injuries and deaths.
Amazingly, the article uses a statistic pointing out how dangerous cars are, but flips it around to imply that because studies have proven that faster moving cars are dangerous, that means e-bikes shouldn’t travel too fast, presumably to also reduce the danger of these small and lightweight machines.
“By various measures, the risks of serious injury and death rise sharply at around 20 m.p.h., although much of that research involved collisions between cars and pedestrians. For instance, the risk of severe injury to a pedestrian is 25 percent when the car is moving at 16 m.p.h., and it rises to 50 percent at 23 m.p.h., according to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.”
It’s right there. The answer is literally in the body of the NYT article. Unprotected road users (pedestrians and cyclists) are much more likely to be severely injured by cars as the car speed increases. And yet this statistic is used to imply that e-bikes shouldn’t be used at speeds of over 20 mph.
There’s no deeper analysis paid to the fact that the thing killing users of 50 lb machines going 25 mph are the 4,000 lb machines that can go 100+ mph.
Safer cycling infrastructure protects everyone
The answer is quite simple: make streets safer for everyone. To do so, protected cycling lanes must be installed. No one (outside of the few violent and aggressive drivers) actually wants to hit a cyclist with their car. These accidents usually happen because drivers simply aren’t looking for the smaller profile of cyclists when they scan intersections for cars. We can implore drivers to be more careful, or we can simply move them away from cyclists in the first place. Only one of those two methods have been proven effective at preventing injuries and deaths.
And that’s exactly the point. Car drivers can’t be trusted to look for cyclists, even when cyclists have the right of way. And thus the answer is to provide safer, separated cycling lanes with physical barriers.
These separated cycling lanes next to roads have numerous benefits. They of course create safer areas for cycling, but they also reduce traffic for cars by encouraging more people get out of cars and commute by bikes. The safer people feel using a bike, the more of them do it. And studies have shown that a 10% reduction in car volume can result in a 40% reduction in traffic congestions. Furthermore, separated cycling areas even make cities safer for emergency workers on calls. Protected bike lanes in the Netherlands are even used by firefighters and ambulances (safely) to arrive at emergency scenes more quickly. Dutch riders quickly move over for emergency vehicles borrowing the lanes.
Many cities around the US are making progress on improving their protected cycling infrastructure, but the wins are often hard fought against activist drivers who see protected cycling lanes as some sort of attack on cars. Still, each new safe cycling lane is a step in the right direction. The progress is slow, but it is moving forward.
Now if only someone at the New York Times could see that…
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Tesla’s India plans won’t include electric vehicle manufacturing, according to the local minister of industries, and the reason is quite simple.
Tesla has been trying to enter the Indian automotive market for years, but it has been unable to circumvent the country’s protectionist efforts, which include high import duties on foreign vehicles.
There have been several false starts in the country. CEO Elon Musk has stated on several occasions that Tesla is actively trying to enter the market.
For the last five years, it seemed that the American automaker was on the verge of entering the Indian market with local hires and even vehicle validation, but it never materialized.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Over the past few months, a new initiative has been underway, and it has shown promise.
The deal involves significantly reducing import duties for a limited number of electric vehicles, provided the automaker makes a substantial investment and commitment to establish an electric vehicle factory in India within the coming years.
Since then, Tesla has started hiring service and sales staff, and there have been several reports that the automaker is closing in on some retail and service locations.
However, we now learn that Tesla doesn’t plan to take advantage of the deal, which includes establishing local vehicle manufacturing.
HD Kumaraswamy, India’s Ministry of Heavy Industries, announced that Tesla won’t be one of the automakers planning to build EV factories in the country (via BBC):
“Mercedes Benz, Skoda-Volkswagen, Hyundai and Kia have shown interest [in manufacturing electric cars in India]. Tesla – we are not expecting from them.”
Another Indian government official added that while Tesla participated in the first round of discussions with stakeholders, it stopped participating in the process after, while the previously mentioned automakers continued.
Kumaraswamy still said that he believes Tesla plans to open “two showrooms” in the country, but it’s not clear how it plans to handle the situation with the import duties.
I said it several times in the last few months amid Tesla’s latest effort to enter India, but I’ll repeat it: I’ll believe it when I see it.
We have been burned too many times on this.
Showrooms are one thing, but Tesla also needs to deploy service and charging stations. If its vehicles are still subject to steep import duties without the benefits of the promise of a manufacturing investment, it’s going to be a tough market for Tesla.
It makes no sense to invest in more manufacturing capacity if you are not already utilizing your current fully deployed capacity. That’s also why Tesla halted its Gigafactory Mexico project, along with the US tariffs.
Tesla currently has a demand problem. Not a production capacity demand.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
A year later, it looks like these are ongoing and Tesla is trying to address them.
Last week, Tesla had a week-long production shutdown at Gigafactory Texas and employees were offered to come in for some training during that time.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
One of the training sessions was related to “company culture,” and Business Insider obtained a recording, releasing some quotes from it.
The instructor asked Tesla employees attending the training if they’d ever felt “I can’t work under these conditions”or had felt set back by constant change at the company.” “I know I have,” the instructor told the employees.
The recording made it clear that Tesla is having some turnover issues due to morale. The instructor said:
“A lot of people leave this company, and they have kind of a negative taste in their mouth. They think: ‘Man, it was terrible. It was bad. I got burnt out. I feel like I didn’t get anything done, nobody listened to me.’”
The company culture training reportedly used to be for Tesla management, but the instructor said that the company decided to expand it to all employees.
They added:
“Leadership has kind of another level of responsibility for trying to guide and direct that culture. But at the end of the day, it’s us as the people on the ground that are the reflection of the culture.”
The instructor highlighted the need for employees to focus on Tesla’s “higher purpose.”
Tesla greatly benefited from being a mission-driven company with the aim. of accelerating the transition to electric transport and sustainable energy.
It helped with hiring and in pushing Tesla’s well-known aggressive work rate.
However, Tesla’s mission shifted in the last few years as CEO Elon Musk had Tesla focus on autonomous driving, and many people feel that the original mission has taken a step back with the CEO backing Donald Trump and the Republican party, who have historically campaigned against electric vehicles and renewable energy.
Electrek’s Take
Company culture begins at the top and flows down. Musk has historically asked a lot out of Tesla employees, but he has barely been working at Tesla for the past year.
That’s not outstanding leadership.
Furthermore, he alienated most of Tesla’s customer base, and while he still has loyalists at Tesla, I think that his massive drop in favorability is also reflected among Tesla employees.
I think talent retention should be one of the biggest concerns at Tesla right now.
I track employee comings and goings closely and I see a continued exodus of talent right now that doesn’t seem to be slowing down. Employee morale is part of it.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
President Donald Trump’s Truth Social platform moved a step closer to having a bitcoin exchange-traded fund available to everyday investors.
NYSE Arca, the all-electronic arm of the New York Stock Exchange that handles most ETF trading, filed on Tuesday to list a bitcoin fund linked to the president’s media company, the latest sign of Trump’s expanding push into the crypto world. Known as a 19b-4 form, the filing is required before regulators can decide whether to allow the fund to launch and trade on a U.S. exchange.
Called the Truth Social Bitcoin ETF, the fund is designed to track the price of bitcoin and offer a simpler way for investors to gain exposure without holding the asset directly. The filing follows an announced partnership between Trump Media and Crypto.com in March to bring a suite of digital asset products to market later this year, pending regulatory approval.
Those planned offerings include baskets of cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin and Crypto.com’s native Cronos token, combined with traditional securities. The products will be branded under Trump Media and made available to global investors through major brokerage platforms and the Crypto.com app, which serves more than 140 million users worldwide.
Since the January 2024 launch of spot bitcoin ETFs, the market has swelled to more than $130 billion in total assets. BlackRock‘s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) accounts for the lion’s share, with nearly $69 billion in assets, making it the largest digital asset manager in the world.
Trump is the majority owner of Truth Social’s parent company, Trump Media & Technology Group, which has made a series of crypto-aligned moves in recent months — from trademarking digital asset products to unveiling a $2.5 billion bitcoin treasury plan last week in Las Vegas. If approved, the ETF would represent one of the most politically connected entries into the booming market for bitcoin funds.