You don’t need an SUV. You need a (much) cheaper electric cargo bike. Here’s why
America has an SUV problem. Or rather, just a big vehicle problem in general. The land of SUVs and pickup trucks has somehow been tricked into thinking you need a 4,000-pound vehicle to carry 20 pounds of groceries home from the supermarket.
But there’s a better way, and it’s called an electric cargo bike. It will save you money. It will save you time. It will make you more attractive. And it will make you happier. I all but guarantee it.
Now let’s be clear about something. When I say “You don’t need an SUV,” I’m speaking in general terms. It’s true – generally – for most people reading this article right now.
Sure, there are some of you that regularly transport seven people across vast distances on highway and interstates. But most of us don’t. It’s a simple numbers game. Most people in the US live in cities and urban centers. And that’s why you don’t need a massive SUV.
And even for those that do “need” an SUV for certain specific tasks, you don’t need it most of the time. I’d bet dollars to donuts that most people reading this right now who own an SUV do most of their trips in it with just one or two passengers.
For those that really need a car, you probably only need a small hatchback or sedan. But I’m going to make the case for why you probably don’t even need that, or at least not for most of your trips. Especially when you consider just how far electric cargo bikes have come.
Twenty years ago, a cargo bike was a nifty invention and fun to look at, but they cost a fortune and lord help you if you ever had to pedal one up a hill.
But electric bikes have come to the rescue. Electric motors now allow e-bike builders to make cargo bikes that are easier to pedal up hills (or that don’t require any pedaling at all in the case of throttle-enabled electric cargo bikes). Prices are also quickly dropping, meaning you can get a great cargo e-bike for a song. Instead of buying an expensive second car, you can probably get away with one car and one cargo e-bike.
There are two main styles of cargo e-bikes: front-loaders and longtails. (Technically there are also cargo e-trikes as well, but we’ll leave three-wheelers for another discussion soon.)
Front-loaders have a big cargo area in the front and are generally more expensive due to the funky frame and complicated steering linkage that front loaders require.
Longtails look more like a normal bike but have loooooong rear ends that are stretched to give more rack and seat space behind the rider.
Front-loaders are a bit more advanced and can take more time to get acclimated to, as the rider is much farther from the front wheel than they’re probably used to. If you’re new to cargo bikes, a longtail is probably a better place to start.
Both offer great cargo space, they just do it differently.
Can cargo e-bikes actually replace SUVs?
Okay, so cargo e-bikes sound neat and all. But c’mon, can they really replace cars and trucks?
Yes, for most people they can. And you might balk at that, but there’s a reason why I’m confidently correct here.
It’s true because most people don’t use their SUVs to explore to the Amazon. They use them to go buy the stuff they can’t find on Amazon.
Picking up groceries. Dropping off a kid or two at school. Driving to work. These are all normal, everyday tasks that for some reason people think requires heavy machinery. Which is as ridiculous as it is depressing. If you live in a city and you drive a massive car, then you’re probably in the wrong. Unless you’ve got several dozen 2×4’s hanging out the back of that truck or the entire starting lineup from little Jimmy’s T-ball team in your SUV, then you don’t need that massive vehicle.
I’ve actually used cargo e-bikes to carry construction material before, including bags of cement and dimensional lumber. It’s just not that hard.
And I’ve carried multiple passengers on them as well. Three people on a cargo e-bike is pretty standard, though it helps when one or two of those extra souls are also children.
A reddit commenter in a walkable cities advocacy group recently put it best. As the redditor explained, “Are there viable bikes that can replace the true power and utility of an SUV? Not even close. Are there bikes that can replace what 99% of drivers use their SUVs for 99% of the time? Absolutely.”
Now again, there are going to be those people who say, “But I need my truck, I use it for XYZ that a bike can’t do!”
And I get it. There are some big jobs out there. My sister runs a furniture refinishing business and regularly hauls dressers, desks, and other big things around town.
But then again, maybe you’re just still stuck in that “I need a car to do this” mentality. Did you know there are actually moving companies that work entirely by bicycle? They’ll move your apartment without getting trucks involved.
When there’s a will (and a cargo bike), there’s a way.
Cargo e-bikes save money
Not only can cargo e-bikes do most of what most people use their SUVs and trucks for, but they do it cheaper.
The hundreds of dollars per month that your truck or SUV burns in gasoline would equate to probably less than a dollar of electricity to power an electric cargo bike. If you do some serious mileage then you might be looking at as much as two dollars of electricity per month.
And don’t forget the hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of dollars you’ll save each month on parking, insurance, car payments, maintenance, and all the other costs associated with car ownership.
Even the purchase price is usually 10x less. If you go nuts with the best electric cargo bikes out there from the highest dollar manufacturers, you could be looking at expensive $8,000 e-bikes. But if you are more reasonable, there are great options in the $4,000 range and still very good options in the sub-$2,000 range.
Heck, you can even get close to $1,000 if you really try. Take for example the $999 Lectric XP 3.0. It’s not a cargo e-bike (but rather a fat-tire folding e-bike), though it turns into a cargo bike when you add the $110 cargo package. Or add the $74 passenger package to easily carry a second adult rider on the bike.
Other affordable e-bikes like the Rad Power Bikes RadRunner 2 (or RadRunner Plus shown in the video above) are purpose-built for carrying passengers and offer a comfortable way to bring a friend or loved one on back.
You can even fit two riders on the back of a RadRunner as long as they’re fairly small.
Why drive to dinner in a massive car when you and your wife could zip there on an e-bike built for two? Add a little excitement and adventure into date night!
Look, just think about it
Let’s get real: Most people could do most of their daily travel needs in a city on an e-bike. But because of the world we live in, that doesn’t mean that a car can be totally replaced all the time.
For some people, that means not owning a car and occasionally using a car sharing service for the once-in-a-while Ikea trip or other car-related journey. My wife and I did that for years. If we needed a car for a couple hours here and there, we rented a car for a couple hours. It was waiting on the street corner and that’s where we left it when we were done. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
For others that still use a car somewhat frequently, perhaps that means having one family car but getting an e-bike instead of a second car. And of course, that also means trying to use the e-bike for as many trips as possible.
If you live at the end of a 3-mile private driveway that connects to a 70 mph six-lane highway, then an e-bike probably can’t be your only vehicle. But you also don’t exist because that’s a silly made-up scenario that the anti-anti-car crowd tends to think is all too common.
In reality, of course there are people that an e-bike won’t work for and of course there are still some cases where a big vehicle may be necessary. But those people and those cases are much fewer and farther between than most will realize. Sometimes it just takes looking at the problem from another angle.
The cargo e-bike angle.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Jaguar is betting on expensive luxury EVs, like the controversial Type 00, as part of its comeback plans. The struggling British automaker sees an opportunity in the 140,000 euro ($160,000) to 300,000 euro ($350,000) price range.
Jaguar bets on $300,000 luxury EVs for survival
If you haven’t seen it yet, well, the Type 00 is unique, to put it nicely. Jaguar revealed the radical GT concept late last year, nearly breaking the internet.
Everyone from Tesla’s Elon Musk to Lucid Motors chimed in, poking fun at the design and Jaguar’s desperate search for a new image.
Although Jaguar’s design boss, Gerry McGovern, the man behind the Type 00’s controversial look, was fired earlier this month, that isn’t stopping the company from plowing ahead with plans to launch its first next-gen EV in 2026.
Members of the media were invited to Jaguar’s UK headquarters earlier this month for a closer look at the flagship EV and a brief test run.
According to WIRED, which attended the event, the Type 00 “still looks odd,” but it packs some serious power. Unlike the two-door GT concept, the vehicle actually has four doors. Although the second set of doors is a slight improvement, the hood is still a bit too long.
Jaguar’s managing director, Rawdon Glover, said the company has gone through about 150 prototypes, and that six months ago the hardware was updated.
The interior design wasn’t finalized with wires and bolted-on displays, but “it does have one of the nicest steering wheels I have seen in a long time,” WIRED said (at least it’s a start.).
Like BMW and Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar stressed the importance of computing power. JLR’s vehicle engineering director, Matt Becker, said that, like BMW’s “Heart of Joy” ECU, Jaguar’s new tech cuts ECUs’ lag time to just 1 millisecond.
Thanks to the improved ECU and added software, the “car seems to keep accelerating with ease way beyond the 100-mph mark.”
Jaguar revealed the flagship EV will be equipped with a tri-motor setup, delivering over 1,000 hp. The setup will include two electric motors on the rear axle, plus one on the front.
Other specs, including charging speeds and official driving range, have yet to be revealed. However, Jaguar did say it’s aiming for around 400 miles (WLTP).
Glover made it clear that “Jaguar had to change” to ensure the brand’s survival. According to Jaguar’s boss, “there’s a space right at the top end of premium, but underneath the uber luxury of the Rolls Royce, the Lamborghinis, the Bentleys. There’s a big gap between 140,000 euros and 300,000 euros [$160,000 and $350,000].”
Jaguar has been successful in that segment before. Can it do it again as an all-electric brand? With other global OEMs, like Ford, water down EV plans, will Jaguar follow suit? “Anything’s possible,” Glover said, adding, “but it’s not in our plan.”
Jaguar’s electric four-door GT is expected to launch in the first half of 2026. It will be followed by at least two more luxury EVs, which are expected to be a sedan and an SUV.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
A California judge ruled late Tuesday afternoon that Tesla engaged in “deceptive marketing” in reference to its Full Self-Driving system, and that Tesla’s license to sell and produce cars in the state should be revoked for 30 days.
However, the California DMV has said it will give Tesla 60 days to comply and fix its marketing before going through with the suspension.
The ruling is big news in a case that has been ongoing for years now.
Tesla has been selling level 2 driver assist software since 2016 which it calls “Full Self-Driving” (FSD), despite that this software did not (and still does not) make its cars capable of driving themselves.
This name has attracted much consternation over the years, becoming more absurd as each of Tesla’s predicted deadlines for the advent of full autonomy blow by.
Tesla also provides software under the name “Autopilot,” another term that evokes some level of autonomy, though perhaps not as explicitly as the aforementioned FSD. Tesla long held the position that this word is meant to evoke airplane-like systems that still require a pilot, but can just do most of the work for them.
So eventually, in 2021, the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) officially started an investigation into Tesla’s marketing claims, to determine whether the company had lied to consumers.
California found that the company was saying different things to the public than it was saying to the DMV.
The DMV then sent an official inquiry to Tesla in 2022, asking for it to respond to the claim that it was creating incorrect perceptions about the capabilities of its system. Tesla’s response stated that it had been allowed to lie about FSD for so long that it should get to keep going, which was apparently not persuasive enough to the courts, and the case was then slated for trial.
During this time, the California legislature got involved as well, passing a law that specifically banned automakers from deceiving consumers into thinking vehicles have more autonomous capabilities than they do.
Well, after all these investigations and waiting, we finally have an an answer, and the judge’s ruling makes it quite clear: Tesla lied to consumers about its autonomous capabilities.
California court rules Tesla lied about autonomy
The court looked at Tesla’s marketing claims and also at surveys of people exposed to those claims and their opinion of whether a Tesla would be able to drive itself, given the marketing messages put out by the company.
It found problems both with the word Autopilot and the phrase Full Self-Driving.
The word “Autopilot” was not found to be “unambiguously false,” but the court said that its use “follows a long but unlawful tradition of ‘intentionally (using) ambiguity to mislead consumers while maintaining some level of deniability about the intended meaning.’” The court found that a reasonable person could believe that a car on Autopilot doesn’t require their constant undivided attention, which is incorrect as the driver is still fully responsible for the vehicle.
On “Full Self-Driving,” the court was even more harsh. It found that this feature name is “actually, unambiguously false and counterfactual” (comically, Tesla tried to argue here that “no reasonable person” could believe that Full Self-Driving actually means Full Self-Driving).
The court noted other language used by Tesla, including marketing copy that said “the system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat,” and suggested that “legal reasons” are the only things holding Tesla back from full autonomy. Tesla tried to say that this was a statement of future intent, but the court found that its use of the present tense shows otherwise.
Tesla has repeatedly changed its wording around FSD, first calling it Full Self-Driving Capability, then changing that to Full Self-Driving (Supervised) to emphasize the need for a driver to supervise the vehicle. The court noted these changes, and then said it would not be a burden to force Tesla to change its marketing further to clarify that its cars do not drive themselves.
The DMV could now shut Tesla down for 30 days if it does not comply
Which leads us to the proposed legal remedy: the court said that the DMV could suspend or revoke Tesla’s licenses for 30 days, stopping its ability to sell or build cars in the state.
Tesla’s first factory is in Fremont, California, where it still builds around half a million vehicles a year and employs some ~20,000 employees. Tesla says this remedy would be “draconian,” but the court said that without this option, there’s no reason to believe Tesla would stop its misrepresentations to the public.
The court also examined the possibility of financial restitution, but deemed that inappropriate. Since the case did not establish any quantifiable financial harm done by Tesla’s misrepresentation and noted the impracticality of accounting for that harm.
This ruling does not yet mean that Tesla can’t sell cars in California, which is its largest market in the US by far. The court noted that the DMV has the option of suspension or revocation, which the DMV can do at its discretion. And the DMV has said that it will allow Tesla 60 days to comply with the order before it takes action, and that it would focus on Tesla’s dealer license rather than its manufacturing license.
This would mean, specifically, that Tesla not refer to a level 2 driving system as “Autopilot” or using language that suggests these vehicles are autonomous. It will have to change its marketing materials and stop making public statements misleading the public about its autonomous capabilities.
Tesla said after the ruling that “sales in California will continue uninterrupted.” But we’ll see what happens in 60 days, and what sort of changes Tesla does or does not make to its deceptive marketing.
Tuesday’s ruling is just one of many legal cases against Tesla right now, specifically having to do with FSD. One relevant case is a class action lawsuit in California claiming Tesla misled customers about its cars self-driving capabilities. This ruling could provide fuel for that lawsuit, given a California judge has already gone on the record with an official determination that Tesla misled the public about FSD.
Electrek’s Take
Well, this ruling has been a long time coming, but it’s good that it has finally come.
Tesla has deceived its customers in many ways regarding FSD. It’s not just a deceptive name, but Tesla’s timelines have continually been wrong, it has lied about hardware capabilities and tried to charge owners again for hardware they already bought (then pretended that never happened), it has changed prices willy-nilly, and it has held customers’ software purchases hostage as an incentive to try to get them to buy new cars.
Most significantly, there are around 4 million cars on the road that do not have the hardware Tesla said they have.
And these misstatements continue through today, with Tesla constantly hyping up its “Robotaxi” program, despite that those cars are only capable of level 2 driver-assistance. It even says that robotaxis are operating in California, when by any definition, they are not.
While courts have held Tesla to account a few times with small claims actions in the UK and the US, this is the first big, sweeping decision that could require the company to change its ways.
That said, government has gagged Tesla CEO Elon Musk before, to little effect. After the SEC found that he lied to investors in a tweet, it said that all his public statements must be pre-screened if they’re relevant to Tesla’s stock price.
That didn’t seem to change his behavior much, though. So given that history, he may continue with the same misleading public statements about FSD.
Which leaves it up to the California DMV: will it follow through and do something if the lies continue? Or will Tesla change its ways and start being more realistic about its cars’ capabilities? Either way, we’ll find out within 60 days.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Waymo seeks massive $15 billion raise at $100 billion valuation to fuel robotaxi expansion
Waymo is reportedly looking to raise a massive new round of funding that would value the autonomous driving company at over $100 billion as it accelerates its expansion.
Since Alphabet spun out its self-driving car project into Waymo back in 2016, the company has been seen as the leader in the space, at least when it comes to deploying actual driverless vehicles on public roads without anyone in the driver’s seat.
While Tesla has been promising “Full Self-Driving” for years with a camera-only approach on consumer vehicles, Waymo has taken the more expensive, sensor-heavy robotaxi route.
It has been a capital-intensive journey, but it seems to be paying off in terms of deployment, as it now completes hundreds of thousands of paid autonomous rides per week in half a dozen US cities.
Now, a new report from Bloomberg states that Waymo is looking to raise more than $15 billion in a new funding round.
According to the report, the round is expected to value Waymo at nearly $100 billion:
“Waymo, Alphabet Inc.’s autonomous driving unit, is in discussions to raise more than $15 billion at a valuation near $100 billion, in a financing round led by its parent company. The maker of robotaxis has discussed raising billions in equity from external backers as well as Alphabet, said the people.”
This would be a massive jump in valuation for the company. For context, Waymo raised $5.6 billion just a year ago in October 2024 at a valuation of around $45 billion.
If this new round goes through, it would more than double the company’s valuation in less than a year.
The funding push comes as Waymo aggressively expands its service. The company recently announced that it has completed over 14 million rider-only trips in 2025 alone. It is currently operating fully driverless commercial services in several major markets, including San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Austin, with plans to expand to cities like Miami and potentially international markets like London and Tokyo by 2026.
Waymo’s fleet currently consists of about 2,500 vehicles, primarily the Jaguar I-PACE, though it is transitioning to a custom-built robotaxi vehicle from Zeekr in the near future.
Electrek’s Take
Waymo can do a lot with $15 billion. It could 40x its fleet with 100,000 vehicles and still have a few billion left for operations.
For a long time, the narrative was that Waymo’s approach, HD maps, LiDAR, expensive sensors, and remote monitoring, was too expensive to scale compared to Tesla’s vision-only global fleet approach.
And while that might still be true in the long run if Tesla solves FSD, which is a big if, the reality on the ground today is that Waymo is the one offering rides with nobody in the front seat.
With 100,000 autonomous vehicles, it could capture 10% of the US ride-hailing market and likely become financially self-sustainable.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024