Electric bicycles and scooters are taking a lot of heat. Concerns about traffic fatalities, terrorized pedestrians and urban lawlessness have led a growing chorus of politicians and media commentators to conclude that the technology should be banned outright.
However, these critics are missing the point. Small, portable, electric transportation options are a tremendous opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, avoid traffic jams and relieve human frustration.
A scooter that averages 16km per day produces 3,500g less carbon dioxide than a car traveling the same distance. If 10,000 people were to switch from cars to scooters, their combined carbon dioxide emissions would decline by 35 tonnes per day; if 5 million people did so, they would produce a mere 370 tonnes per day, or just 2 percent of that generated by the equivalent number of cars.
The problem is that transportation managers, and the politicians who set their budgets, have not yet made the policy and infrastructure adjustments to accommodate such a transportation revolution.
For lessons on maximizing the benefits of this technology without compromising public safety, they can look to Tel Aviv, which is home to more than 5,000 rental electric scooters.
To help the city’s transportation and police departments formulate the best policies for managing them, my graduate students and I have delved into usage data.
For starters, we find that while electric two-wheelers can indeed be dangerous, the hazard is primarily to the rider.
Since 2014, the number of riders in Israel who died in accidents has increased from one per year to 19. Last year, an additional 414 people were hospitalized as a result of reported accidents involving scooters, almost one-quarter of them under the age of 16.
Of the cases involving head injuries, 95 percent involved riders not wearing helmets, and most were the result of riders being forced into the street, owing to a lack of proper bike lanes and a prohibition against riding on the sidewalk.
These findings suggest that most accidents and injuries are preventable, either through enforcement or proper infrastructure.
In Israel, the number of citations filed against riders ----— most of them for riding on the sidewalk — increased from 12,356 in 2015 to 30,178 last year.
Municipal governments have also introduced new laws requiring riders to wear a helmet, setting the minimum riding age to 16, barring scooters from pedestrian crosswalks, prohibiting more than one rider per scooter and banning the use of cellphones or headphones in both ears.
As an additional measure, two-wheelers should also be required to have a license plate to enable police and municipal authorities to bring some order to the chaos.
These enforcement measures are prudent and justifiable. However, by focusing solely on scooter riders, they tend to contribute to the broader vilification of those who have embraced a socially optimal form of transportation.
In Israel, the media have led the charge against scooter riders. In our analysis of scooter-related coverage in the country’s main online newspapers over the past few years, we found that 67 percent of articles have been uniformly negative, 13 percent neutral and only 20 percent even remotely positive.
Worse, the scorn heaped on this promising new transportation technology has generated a wave of disinformation.
So, a few facts are in order. First, more scooters mean fewer accidents. Countries with the highest number of cycling trips per inhabitant have the fewest fatalities per billion kilometers of bicycle travel.
The cycling fatality rates in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland are one-quarter that of the US, even though per capita bicycle travel in each country is about 20 times higher. When bicycle travel reaches a critical mass, drivers are more aware and policymakers are compelled to provide the proper infrastructure.
Such awareness can also be legislated.
In 2014, Queensland, Australia, passed an ordinance requiring motorists to keep at least 1m between themselves and cyclists they are passing. At speeds above 60kph, the required distance increases to 1.5m.
Within a couple of years, the new rule reduced cycling-related traffic fatalities by 35 percent, while halving collisions requiring hospitalization. Several cities across North America have since adopted similar rules.
Moreover, contrary to the usual complaints from politicians, protected bicycle lanes are not a budgetary or economic burden. By reducing traffic jams, infrastructure that encourages cycling can yield impressive economic dividends.
A recent report from the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection finds that Israeli drivers spend an average of 40 minutes per day sitting in traffic.
In addition, owing to the rapid growth in population and car ownership rates, this daily dead time is expected to increase to 90 minutes by 2030, implying tens of billions of dollars in lost output per year.
Given that people who must sit through daily traffic jams are prone to higher rates of depression and even domestic violence — in the case of men — it stands to reason that more commuters would readily adopt an alternative if they could.
Finally, scooters and electric cycles have a crucial role to play in combating climate change. For countries as hot as Israel is in the summer, banning these forms of transportation would dramatically reduce non-car vehicular traffic just when it is most needed.
A far more environmentally and economically friendly strategy is to invest in the infrastructure and enforcement mechanisms needed to maximize scooter benefits.
Rather than denounce those who have already opted for a more ethical and efficient form of urban transport, smart municipal governments should clear a path for them.
Alon Tal is chair of the department of public policy at Tel Aviv University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS