That is incorrect because those e-bikes did not replace actual gas-powered motorcycles or mopeds. Most of them are owned by people who never owned a gas-powered 2-wheeler, let alone a car. They represent new demand, not replacement, thus did not "save" any actual oil. It's like saying that today's ICE cars slashed demand for billions upon billions of horses - while in reality, before ICE majority of people simply couldn't afford any means of transportation, and they won't be able to afford horses today, either.
tocs3•1mo ago
I do not doubt the numbers in the article are inflated to get the rosier picture but... The people I know that are riding e-bikes are commuting the few miles to work rather than drive (which they did in the past).
quantified•1mo ago
Replaced in a personal sense is different than replaced in a population sense. Any person may not have replaced ICE with electric. But when the population loses a member that used ICE and gains a member that uses an e-bike, that's a replacement.
There can be new demand too, if these e-bike trips represent trips that would not have been taken due to distance, lack of public transport to the destination, etc. An e-bike could be an acceptable equivalent of the scooter that crowds many a city globally.
anovikov•1mo ago
That's exactly what i meant. "Replacement" is about "number of people who abandoned gas-powered 2-wheelers", not about "number of people who started using e-bikes", and the former number is a lot lot lower.
mekdoonggi•1mo ago
E-bikes are fun. For that reason alone, I think they will keep growing until they are huge part of transportation in the US. People in the US will never let you take away stuff that is fun.
anovikov•1mo ago
tocs3•1mo ago
quantified•1mo ago
There can be new demand too, if these e-bike trips represent trips that would not have been taken due to distance, lack of public transport to the destination, etc. An e-bike could be an acceptable equivalent of the scooter that crowds many a city globally.
anovikov•1mo ago