Who Benefits From e-Bike Rebates?

 As an undergraduate, I passed an economics course by telling the professor that, if I failed, I would have to re-take the course--and he might have me in the class!

The "threat" worked, sort of.  He told me I could barge in on him or call him whenever he was in his office (We didn't have e-mail in those days!) and he'd help me in whatever way he could.  I wonder whether he genuinely felt pity for me, was swayed by my  promise that if i passed that course and semester (I was also failing another class: Calculus), I would major in "something that didn't require math" or simply didn't want to see me in his class the following semester.

Anyway, I did pass that class--but not Calculus.  I returned to school the following semester--on probation.  But, as I promised, I changed my major--from Biochemistry and Economics (strange combination, I know) to English Literature and History.

I mention all of that so that you can take what I'm about to say with whatever amount of salt suits your taste.  Here goes:  The more expensive an item is, or perceived to be, the less likely they are to spend it on local merchants.

Denver's e-bike rebate program, which has become a model for similar schemes in other cities, seems to offer evidence of what I have just said. 

While more than 30 retailers in the Mile High City are eligible to accept the rebates, Seattle online retailer Rad Power bikes has been, by far, the most popular vendor in the program. That, in spite of the recalls, lawsuits and other safety concerns associated with the company.

To be clear, Rad Power offers e-bikes at lower prices than most brick-and-mortar retailers.  So, the rebats--typically 300 to 500 dollars--cover a larger portion of a bike from Rad Power than from a local shop.

Although I'm not ready to start riding e-bikes, I understand how they benefit some people and are certainly better for urban and global livability than automobiles. On the other hand, if e-bikes are being promoted in the name of "sustainability," I think planners need to think about what they mean by that term.  While e-bikes don't contribute nearly as much to ambient air pollution, we need to consider the costs to the environment of having our purchases delivered on single-trip runs by vehicles that pollute as much as passenger cars or trucks and spend more time idling--not to mention the distances from which e-bikes (and other items) are delivered.  

The Right To Mobility

Are bicycles a human right?

The organizers of a workshop don't ask this question directly.  But they could have:  Their event, to be held on the University of California-Davis campus on 1-2 November, is concerned with "mobility justice."

The school's Feminist Research Institute is inviting "emerging scholars" whose work "engages issues of race and inequality in studies of bicycling and sustainable transportation."  These junior scholars and graduate students will discuss ways in which "complex systems of history, power and oppression affect people's movement and ability to live, work and play."  The goal is to make bicycling, along with "new mobilities" and other forms of sustainable transportation, "accessible and desirable to all."

This sounds interesting and necessary.  As I have said in other posts, bicycles and other sustainable forms of transportation are vital to our future for all sorts of reasons, from mitigating climate change to making cities more habitable.  But they're also vital, in some places, for giving people any sort of mobility at all:  Think of jungles and other rural areas where, even if people could afford cars and trucks, they wouldn't be able to use them.

Well, judging from what UC-Davis Feminist Research Institute says about its upcoming workshop, they seem to think mobility is a human right.  I would agree, and bicycles are certainly part of that.