Connect with us

Published

on

The rise of electric bicycles is leading to a critical shift in urban transportation, bringing with it the potential for cleaner cities, reduced traffic congestion, and a boost to riders’ physical and mental health. However, there are still two significant barriers preventing many from adopting this green mode of transportation. The strange thing though is that neither of the two biggest problems with e-bikes are even about e-bikes themselves.

The deadly risk of cycling on roads

Riding an e-bike is almost entirely a positive experience in and of itself – at least if you ignore outside factors. Riders get where they’re going faster, they save money, and they get healthy.

But if you ask those who are bike-curious why they haven’t made the switch from their car to a bike, the most common answer will be something to do with getting hit by a car.

And it’s not an irrational fear. While most cyclists are likely never to get hit, especially when employing safe riding tips and practices, there’s no getting around the fact that the rate of cycling injuries and deaths is increasing in the US.

There’s plenty of blame to go around for this problem. Part of it can be related to car bloat, where every year we see cars growing a little bit bigger and heavier, resulting in today’s massive SUVs and trucks. Part of it can be attributed to distracted drivers who are increasingly tied to their phones instead of looking out for other road users. But the biggest culprit of all – and the one thing that can help negate all of those other issues – is a distinct lack of widescale safe cycling infrastructure.

Every year, countless cyclists lose their lives in collisions with motor vehicles. The juxtaposition of lightweight bicycles and heavy, fast-moving vehicles, especially in areas without designated bike lanes, means that cyclists are always the losers regardless of who’s at fault in a crash.

Cities worldwide must recognize this urgent issue and invest in creating safer infrastructure for cyclists. This means constructing protected bike lanes, especially those separated from traffic by barriers or a safe distance.

But it also means more comprehensive road safety campaigns, focusing on educating drivers about sharing the road. And lastly, penalizing dangerous driving. Speed cameras are a simple and easy way to enforce the most common cause of accidents (and the largest risk that an accident leads to injury or death), speeding cars. Other methods should also be explored. There’s no reason to allow dangerous driving that threatens other road users to go unchecked.

An AI-generated image of a bike lane has the right idea, even if it’sk a bit bollard-heavy. And yet, there’s still a van in the bike lane…

The lurking threat of bike theft

Even if we suddenly solved the issue of dangerous car drivers killing cyclists, there’d still be one other major hurdle to promoting widespread e-bike adoption: bike theft. It’s one of the main concerns potential e-bike riders face, with rampant theft of bicycles in urban areas now increasingly focusing on electric bikes for their higher value and ability to part out the expensive components.

E-bikes are often pricier than their traditional counterparts due to their motors and battery systems, making them especially attractive targets for thieves. The anxiety of leaving a pricey investment locked in public has deterred many potential riders.

electric bike stolen

One solution to this problem lies in strengthening security infrastructure. Cities can invest in more secure bike parking stations, equipped with surveillance systems and secure locking structures. Property owners can also contribute by providing safe indoor storage spaces for residents and employees. I recently spoke with LeGrand Crewse, the CEO of California-based e-bike company SUPER73, who told me about a local project where the company partnered with high schools to help build secure locking rooms on campus to ensure students wouldn’t have to worry about an expensive bike being stolen during the day.

Focusing on locking education, especially on which locks are higher quality and how to use multiple locks in unison, can help riders feel more confident about protecting their rides. I’ve used a Foldylock Forever from Seatlylock for the last few months and found it to be one of the best, most secure locks I’ve ever tried.

Education is key, but the best and most effective option relies upon cities helping to create safer locking locations. You don’t have to go full-Amersterdam, though that’d be a good place to draw inspiration. Check out the impressive bike parking garages I saw on my last visit to The Netherlands.

A call to action

While e-bikes offer a promising solution to many urban transportation problems, their potential remains needlessly limited by theft concerns and safety issues. These are issues with solutions, and we should work to implement those solutions.

As cities look to a more sustainable future, it’s imperative to tackle these challenges head-on. Safe and secure bike parking and dedicated protected bike lanes are not luxuries; they are necessities in a world where we rely on smaller and more efficient alternatives to the cars and SUVs that have taken over our cities.

It’s time to fix these problems and reimagine our urban spaces to ensure that everyone, from e-bike riders to pedestrians, can move about safely and confidently.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Elon Musk admits other automakers don’t want to license Tesla’s ‘Full Self-Driving’

Published

on

By

Elon Musk admits other automakers don't want to license Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving'

After years of teasing that other automakers would license Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, Elon Musk has now admitted that no other automakers want to license it.

“They don’t want it!” He says.

For years, the bull case for Tesla (TSLA) has relied heavily on the idea that the company isn’t just an automaker, but an “AI and robotics company”, with its first robot product being an autonomous car.

CEO Elon Musk pushed the theory further, arguing that Tesla’s lead in autonomy was so great that legacy automakers would eventually have no choice but to license Full Self-Driving (FSD) to survive.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Back in early 2021, during the Q4 2020 earnings call, Musk first claimed that Tesla had “preliminary discussions” with other automakers about licensing the software. He reiterated this “openness” frequently, famously tweeting in June 2023 that Tesla was “happy to license Autopilot/FSD or other Tesla technology” to competitors.  

The speculation peaked in April 2024, when Musk explicitly stated that Tesla was “in talks with one major automaker” and that there was a “good chance” a deal would be signed that year.  

We now know that deal never happened. And thanks to comments from Ford CEO Jim Farley earlier this year, we have a good idea why. Farley, who was likely the other party in those “major automaker” talks, publicly shut down the idea of using FSD, stating clearly that “Waymo is better”.

Now, Musk appears to have given up on the idea of licensing Tesla FSD. In a post on X late last night, Musk acknowledged that discussions with other automakers have stalled, claiming that they asked for “unworkable requirements” for Tesla.

The CEO wrote:

“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …

When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”

Suppose you translate “unworkable requirements” from Musk-speak to automotive industry standard. In that case, it becomes clear what happened: automakers demanded a system that does what it says: drive autonomously, which means something different for Tesla.

Legacy automakers generally follow a “V-model” of validation. They define requirements, test rigorously, and validate safety before release. When Mercedes-Benz released its Drive Pilot system, a true Level 3 system, they accepted full legal liability for the car when the system is engaged.

In contrast, Tesla’s “aggressive deployment” strategy relies on releasing “beta” (now “Supervised”) software to customers and using them to validate the system. This approach has led to a litany of federal investigations and lawsuits.

Just this month, Tesla settled the James Tran vs. Tesla lawsuit just days before trial. The case involved a Model Y on Autopilot crashing into a stationary police vehicle, a known issue with Tesla’s system for years. By settling, Tesla avoided a jury verdict, but the message to the industry was clear: even Tesla knows it risks losing these cases in court.

Meanwhile, major automakers, such as Toyota, have partnered with Waymo to integrate its autonomous driving techonology into its consumer vehicles.

Electrek’s Take

The “unworkable requirements for Tesla” is an instant Musk classic. What were those requirements that were unachievable for Tesla? That it wouldn’t crash into stationary objects on the highway, such as emergency vehicles?

How dare they request something that crazy?

No Ford or GM executive is going to license a software stack that brings that kind of liability into their house. If they license FSD, they want Tesla to indemnify them against crashes. Tesla, knowing the current limitations of its vision-only system, likely refused.

To Musk, asking him to pay for FSD’s mistakes is an “unworkable requirement.” It’s always a driver error, and the fact that he always uses hyperbole to describe the level of safety being higher than that of humans has no impact on user abuse of the poorly named driver assistance systems in his view.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

CPSC warns Rad Power Bikes owners to stop using select batteries immediately due to fire risk

Published

on

By

CPSC warns Rad Power Bikes owners to stop using select batteries immediately due to fire risk

In an unprecedented move, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a public safety warning urging owners of certain Rad Power Bikes e-bike batteries to immediately stop using them, citing a risk of fire, explosion, and potentially serious injury or death.

The warning, published today, targets Rad’s lithium-ion battery models RP-1304 and HL-RP-S1304, which were sold with some of the company’s most popular e-bikes, including the RadWagon 4, RadRunner 1 and 2, RadRunner Plus, RadExpand 5, RadRover 5 series, and RadCity 3 and 4 models. Replacement batteries sold separately are also included.

According to the CPSC, the batteries “can unexpectedly ignite and explode,” particularly when exposed to water or debris. The agency says it has documented 31 fires linked to the batteries so far, including 12 incidents of property damage totaling over $734,000. Alarmingly, several fires occurred when the battery wasn’t charging or when the bike wasn’t even in use.

Complicating the situation further, Rad Power Bikes – already facing significant financial turmoil – has “refused to agree to an acceptable recall,” according to the CPSC. The company reportedly told regulators it cannot afford to replace or refund the large number of affected batteries. Rad previously informed employees that it could be forced to shut down permanently in January if it cannot secure new funding, barely two weeks before this safety notice was issued by the CPSC.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

radrunner 2

For its part, Rad pushed back strongly on the CPSC’s characterization. A Rad Power Bikes Spokesperson explained in a statement to Electrek that the company “stands behind our batteries and our reputation as leaders in the ebike industry, and strongly disagrees with the CPSC’s characterization of certain Rad batteries as defective or unsafe.”

The company explained that its products meet or exceed stringent international safety standards, including UL-2271 and UL-2849, which are standards that the CPSC has proposed as a requirement but not yet implemented. Rad says its batteries have been repeatedly tested by reputable third-party labs, including during the CPSC investigation, and that those tests confirmed full compliance. Rad also claims the CPSC did not independently test the batteries using industry-accepted standards, and stresses that the incident rate cited by the agency represents a tiny fraction of a percent. While acknowledging that any fire report is serious, Rad maintains that lithium-ion batteries across all industries can be hazardous if damaged, improperly used, or exposed to significant water intrusion, and that these universal risks do not indicate a defect specific to Rad’s products.

The company says it entered the process hoping to collaborate with federal regulators to improve safety guidance and rider education, and that it offered multiple compromise solutions – including discounted upgrades to its newer Safe Shield batteries that were a legitimate leap forward in safety in the industry – but the CPSC rejected them. Rad argues that the agency instead demanded a full replacement program that would immediately bankrupt the company, leaving customers without support. It also warns that equating new technology with older products being “unsafe” undermines innovation, noting that the introduction of safer systems, such as anti-lock brakes, doesn’t retroactively deem previous generations faulty. Ultimately, Rad says clear, consistent national standards are needed so manufacturers can operate with confidence while continuing to advance battery safety.

Lithium-ion battery fires have become a growing concern across the US and internationally, with poorly made packs implicated in a rising number of deadly incidents.

While Rad Power Bikes states that no injuries or fatalities have been tied to these specific models, the federal warning marks one of the most serious e-bike battery advisories issued to date – and arrives at a moment when the once-dominant US e-bike brand is already fighting for survival.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Rivian’s e-bike brand launches $250 smart helmet with breakthrough safety tech and lights

Published

on

By

Rivian's e-bike brand launches 0 smart helmet with breakthrough safety tech and lights

ALSO, the new micromobility brand spun out of Rivian, just announced official pricing for its long-awaited Alpha Wave helmet. The smart helmet, which introduces a brand-new safety tech called the Release Layer System (RLS), is now listed at $250, with “notify for pre-order” now open on ALSO’s site. Deliveries are expected to begin in spring 2026.

The $250 price point might sound steep, but ALSO is positioning the Alpha Wave as a top-tier lid that undercuts other premium smart helmets with similar tech – some of which push into the $400–500 range. That’s because the Alpha Wave is promising more than just upgraded comfort and design. The company claims the helmet will also deliver a significant leap in rotational impact protection.

The RLS system is made up of four internal panels that are engineered to release on impact, helping dissipate rotational energy – a major factor in many concussions. It’s being marketed as a next-gen alternative to MIPS and similar technologies, and could signal a broader shift in helmet safety standards if adopted widely.

Beyond protection, the Alpha Wave also packs a surprising amount of tech. Four wind-shielded speakers and two noise-canceling microphones are built in for taking calls, playing music, or following navigation prompts. And when paired with ALSO’s own TM-B electric bike, the helmet integrates with the bike’s onboard lighting system for synchronized rear lights and 200-lumen forward visibility.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The helmet is IPX6-rated for water resistance and charges via USB-C, making it easy to keep powered up alongside other modern gear.

Electrek’s Take

This helmet pushes the smart gear envelope. $250 isn’t nothing, but for integrated lighting, audio, and what might be a true leap forward in crash protection, it’s priced to shake things up in the high-end helmet space.

One area I’m not a huge fan of is the paired front and rear lights. Cruiser motorcycles have this same issue, with paired tail lights mounted close together sometimes being mistaken for a conventional four-wheeled vehicle farther away. I worry that the paired “headlights” and “taillights” of this helmet could be mistaken for a car farther down the road instead of the reality of a much closer cyclist. But hey, we’ll have to see.

The tech is pretty cool though, and if the RLS system holds up to its promise, we might be looking at the new bar for premium e-bike head protection.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending