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.
Britain’s BP has agreed to sell a 65% shareholding in lubricants business Castrol to Stonepeak for $6 billion, months on from the oil giant seeking a buyer for the unit.
The deal comes as the company looks to launch a strategic reset, including a green strategy U-turn and the divestment of $20 billion of assets by the end of 2027. The sale values Castrol at $10.1 billion.
Energy companies, including India’s Reliance Industries and Saudi Arabia’s oil behemoth Aramco, as well as private equity firms Apollo Global Management and Lone Star Funds, had all been touted as suitors for BP’s Castrol unit in May, according to Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the matter.
“With this, we have now completed or announced over half of our targeted $20bn divestment programme, with proceeds to significantly strengthen bp’s balance sheet,” interim CEO Carol Howle said in a statement.
“The sale marks an important milestone in the ongoing delivery of our reset strategy. We are reducing complexity, focusing the downstream on our leading integrated businesses, and accelerating delivery of our plan.”
BP has the option to sell its remaining 35% stake in Castrol after a two-year lock-up period.
Strategy reset
The Castrol majority stake sale comes days on from the oil giant announcing it was appointing a new CEO — it’s fourth in six years.
Woodside Energy boss Meg O’Neill will take up the role on April 1, replacing Murray Auchincloss, who lasted less than two years in the role.
Stephen Isaacs, strategic advisor at Alvine Capital, which holds a position in BP, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” last week that while BP has been “a very poor performer for a long, long time,” the CEO change could be “the last piece of the jigsaw” in getting its house in order.
“I think there’ll be further stake sales of different parts of BP” going forward, Dan Boardman-Weston, CEO at BRI Wealth Management, told CNBC on Wednesday. The shift will see the company “getting back to their bread and butter of focusing on oil and gas exploration and development.”
The London-listed company has underperformed compared with its peers in recent times, having reported declining annual profits in both 2023 and 2024.
BP’s shares opened at 1.3% on Wednesday before paring gains slightly to last trade 0.9% higher. Its share price is up around 9% so far this year, following a 15.7% drop in 2024. Pressure on the stock eased in 2025 following a leadership shakeup, a cost-cutting program, and a string of oil discoveries.
Annealed neodymium iron boron magnets sit in a barrel at a Neo Material Technologies Inc. factory in Tianjin, China on June 11, 2010.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Rare earth magnet makers are having a moment as Western nations scramble to build domestic “mine-to-magnet” supply chains and reduce their dependence on China.
A turbulent year of supply restrictions and tariff threats has thrust the strategic importance of magnet manufacturers firmly into the spotlight, with rare earths surging toward the top of the agenda amid the U.S. and China’s ongoing geopolitical rivalry.
Magnets made from rare earths are vital components for everything from electric vehicles, wind turbines, and smartphones to medical equipment, artificial intelligence applications, and precision weaponry.
It’s in this context that the U.S., European Union and Australia, among others, have sought to break China’s mineral dominance by taking a series of strategic measures to support magnet makers, including heavily investing in factories, supporting the buildout of new plants, and boosting processing capacity.
The U.S. and Europe, in particular, are expected to emerge as key growth markets for rare earth magnet production over the next decade. Analysts, however, remain skeptical that Western nations will be able to escape China’s mineral orbit anytime soon.
“Frankly, we were the solution to the problem that the world didn’t know it had,” Rahim Suleman, CEO of Canadian group Neo Performance Materials, told CNBC by video call.
Photo taken on Sept. 19, 2025 shows rare-earth magnetic bars at NEO magnetic plant in Narva, a city in northeastern Estonia.
“The end-market is growing from the point of physics, not software, so therefore it has to grow in this way,” he continued. “And it’s not dependent on any single end market, so it’s not dependent on automotive or battery electric vehicles or drones or wind farms. It’s any energy-efficient motor across the spectrum,” Suleman said, referring to the demand for magnets from fast-growing industries such as robotics.
His comments came around three months after Neo launched the grand opening of its rare earth magnet factory in Narva, Estonia.
Situated directly on Russia’s doorstep, the facility is widely expected to play an integral role in Europe’s plan to reduce its dependence on China. European Union industry chief Stéphane Séjourné, for example, lauded the plant’s strategic importance, saying at an event in early December that the project marked “a high point of Europe’s sovereignty.”
Neo’s Suleman said the Estonian facility is on track to produce 2,000 metric tons of rare earth magnets this year, before scaling up to 5,000 tons and beyond.
“Globally, the market is 250,000 tons and going to 600,000 tons, so more than doubling in ten years,” Suleman said. “And more importantly, our concentration is 93% in a single jurisdiction, so when you put those two factors together, I think you’ll find an enormously quick growing market.”
‘Skyrocketing demand’
To be sure, the global supply of rare earths has long been dominated by Beijing. China is responsible for nearly 60% of the world’s rare earths mining and more than 90% of magnet manufacturing, according to the International Energy Agency.
A recent report from consultancy IDTechEx estimated that rare earth magnet capacity in the U.S. is on track to grow nearly six times by 2036, with the expansion driven by strategic support and funding from the Department of Defense, as well as increasing midstream activity.
Magnet production in Europe, meanwhile, was forecast to grow 3.1 times over the same time period, bolstered by the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act, which aims for domestic production to satisfy 40% of the region’s demand by 2030.
Regional composition of rare earths and permanent magnet production in 2024, according to data compiled by the International Energy Agency.
IEA
John Maslin, CEO of Vulcan Elements, a North Carolina-based rare earth magnet producer, told CNBC that the company is seeking to scale up as fast as possible “so that this fundamental supply chain doesn’t hold America back.”
Vulcan Elements is one of the companies to have received direct funding from the Trump administration. The magnet maker received a $620 million direct federal loan last month from the Department of Defense to support domestic magnet production.
“Rare earth magnets convert electricity into motion, which means that virtually all advanced machines and technologies—the innovations that shape our daily lives and keep us safe—require them in order to be operational,” Maslin told CNBC by email.
“The need for high-performance magnets is accelerating exponentially amid a surge in demand and production of advanced technologies, including hard disk drives, semiconductor fabrication equipment, hybrid/electric motors, satellites, aircraft, drones, and almost every military capability,” he added.
Separately, Wade Senti, president of Florida-based magnet maker Advanced Magnet Lab, said the only way to deliver on alternative supply chains is to be innovative.
“The demand for non-China sourced rare earth permanent magnets is skyrocketing,” Senti told CNBC by email.
“The challenge is can United States magnet producers create a fully domestic (non-China) supply chain for these magnets. This requires the magnet manufacturer to take the lead and bring the supply chain together – from mine to magnet to customers,” he added.
BYD is closing the gap between gas pumps and EV chargers. A new video shows one of its EVs gaining nearly 250 miles (400 km) of range in just five minutes.
BYD’s 5-minute EV charging matches refuel speeds
“The ultimate solution is to make charging as quick as refueling a gasoline car,” BYD’s CEO, Wang Chuanfu, said after unveiling its new Super e-Platform in March.
Chuanfu was referring to the so-called “charging anxiety” that’s holding some drivers back from going electric. BYD’s Super e-Platform is the first mass-produced “full-domain 1000V high-voltage architecture” for passenger vehicles.
BYD also launched its Flash Charging Battery during the event, with charging currents of 1000A and a charging rate of 10C, both new records.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
The ultra-fast charging battery can deliver 1 megawatt (1,000 kW) of charging power, which BYD claims enables EVs equipped with the setup to regain 400 km (248 miles) of CLTC driving range in just 5 minutes of charging.
BYD CEO Wang Chuanfu unveils Super e-Platform with Flash Charging Battery enabling EVs to add 400 km of range in 5 minutes (Source: BYD)
With the new models rolling out across China, we are getting a look at the ultra-fast charging speeds in action. A video posted on X by user Dominic Lee shows BYD’s EV charging at up to 746 kW, with an estimated charging time to 70% of around 4 minutes and 40 seconds.
BYD’s charging station in China, 400km in 5 minutes!
In just six minutes, BYD said the Han L, based on its Super e-Platform, can recharge from 10% to 70%, and in 20 minutes, the battery can be fully charged.
The Tang L SUV, also based on BYD’s 1000V architecture, can add 370 km (230 miles) of range in 5 minutes, while a full charge takes about 30 minutes.
BYD said its Flash Charging Battery enables EVs to gain the same range as a gas-powered vehicle would at the pump, “ultimately making the charging time as short as refueling time.”
Although 400 km (250 miles) is more than enough range for most drivers, BYD is out to make gas stations a thing of the past. And it’s not just in China, BYD plans to bring its Flash Charging system to Europe and likely other overseas markets.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.