• grue@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 days ago

    Ah, yeah, I read your initial comment as claiming that existing e-bikes actually being sold have uselessly-small motors, not hypothetically suggesting it as a way to game the subsidy.

    I’m not sure such a scheme would work because even a comically under-spec’d system would add enough cost to mostly cancel out the subsidy.

    I’m sympathetic to the rhetorical point that ‘acoustic’ bikes are worth subsidizing too, just as a matter of good public policy. But to be fair, it’s not necessary like it is for e-bikes because there are enough of those available used that you can afford one no matter how poor you are. For example, my ‘daily driver’ ‘acoustic’ bike, which I don’t use as much now that I have the cargo e-bike but nevertheless has served me faithfully for well over a decade at this point, I got for free from a co-op back when I was a poor college student.

    • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      I suppose if it gets more bikes on the road overall its an improvement. Here we have a cycle to work scheme but its mostly for execs to get big tax cuts on expensive bikes while regular workers get much smaller discounts. Also wish we had more classifications of ebike too, there is only 1 and it must be limited to 15mph 250w pedal assist. Next step up is comparable to a 50cc scooter and is a licensed/insured/registered vehicle.