#!markdown
Glad this discussion is happening, but Specialized's responses sound like a
cop-out to me. Specialized keeps referring to the IMBA study (which they
funded) almost like it's a green-light for these things. I don't like pulling
extreme comparisons, but let's think about self-driving cars for a minute.
Self-driving cars have been observed, in some studies, to drive more
conservatively and more "safely" than your average human behind the wheel. But
just because a study on average safety came out with some favorable things to
say about self-driving cars doesn't mean that they're suddenly road legal, or
even a good idea in their current form. Instead, there's an extensive,
continued review going on that has revealed some other issues in reacting to
random adverse situations that may not be revealed in normal testing.
In the case of e-bikes, Specialized is also basically saying "all we do is
sell the things, it's up to the shops and consumers to make good choices".
Bullshit. That really does sound like an NRA argument. Back to self-driving
cars, it would be like Google saying - "ok, let's partner with Ford and sell
these through their dealership network. Sure, lots of people have concerns
about their legality and safety on the road, but ultimately its up to the
dealership and consumer to know how and where to do use them appropriately.
Not our fault". I realize the stakes are a lot higher with self-driving cars
(endangerment of those around you, for example), but the example applies in
it's blind ignorance of the consequences of innovation with an eye toward
profit or being the first mover.
One of the things that does make it hard, though, is the argument about
getting folks who can no longer ride back on the trail. I think that's great.
So while I'm not going to wish universal death to e-bikes everywhere and on
all trails, I'm again pleading that consumers and advocacy groups (usually
without much money or influence, really) hold manufacturers (usually with lots
of money and influence) accountable for making sure that these things are
actually ok to ride, rather than dooming trail access rights in blind pursuit
of a few bucks.
Dec. 22, 2016, 8:44 a.m. - babyzhendo
#!markdown Glad this discussion is happening, but Specialized's responses sound like a cop-out to me. Specialized keeps referring to the IMBA study (which they funded) almost like it's a green-light for these things. I don't like pulling extreme comparisons, but let's think about self-driving cars for a minute. Self-driving cars have been observed, in some studies, to drive more conservatively and more "safely" than your average human behind the wheel. But just because a study on average safety came out with some favorable things to say about self-driving cars doesn't mean that they're suddenly road legal, or even a good idea in their current form. Instead, there's an extensive, continued review going on that has revealed some other issues in reacting to random adverse situations that may not be revealed in normal testing. In the case of e-bikes, Specialized is also basically saying "all we do is sell the things, it's up to the shops and consumers to make good choices". Bullshit. That really does sound like an NRA argument. Back to self-driving cars, it would be like Google saying - "ok, let's partner with Ford and sell these through their dealership network. Sure, lots of people have concerns about their legality and safety on the road, but ultimately its up to the dealership and consumer to know how and where to do use them appropriately. Not our fault". I realize the stakes are a lot higher with self-driving cars (endangerment of those around you, for example), but the example applies in it's blind ignorance of the consequences of innovation with an eye toward profit or being the first mover. One of the things that does make it hard, though, is the argument about getting folks who can no longer ride back on the trail. I think that's great. So while I'm not going to wish universal death to e-bikes everywhere and on all trails, I'm again pleading that consumers and advocacy groups (usually without much money or influence, really) hold manufacturers (usually with lots of money and influence) accountable for making sure that these things are actually ok to ride, rather than dooming trail access rights in blind pursuit of a few bucks.