E Bike Act

[5oakterrace]

This may have been covered in another thread, but it it is new to me. Congress is considering an E Bike act which provides a tax credit of up to $1500 on the purchase of an e Bike. There are more details. I am all in favor of reducing car use. My first thought was "what about people who use regular bikes?" They are even "better" for the environment as they avoid all the battery issues. They are even better for public health as they foster more exercise. The ebike folks must have terrific lobbyists. Good for them. But as someone who commuted for years - and all year at that in New England - on a regular bike I was stunned. Why not subsidize regular bikes while you are at it.

[buddybikes]

Just put that money into public transit, this includes e-bike infrastructure in cities. Most of the e-bikes (least from what I have seen) are for cruising around. Otherwise I agree bicycle > e-bike.

[bicycletricycle]

They really do like spending their great great great grand kids money.

[prototoast]

I think the optimistic case is that getting more people on ebikes will shift the balance of bike vs car priorities.

The pessimistic case is it'll mostly just subsidize the people who were going to buy ebikes anyway.

I'm not sure if a good way to estimate the likely outcomes in advance.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by 5oakterrace

This may have been covered in another thread, but it it is new to me. Congress is considering an E Bike act which provides a tax credit of up to $1500 on the purchase of an e Bike. There are more details. I am all in favor of reducing car use. My first thought was "what about people who use regular bikes?" They are even "better" for the environment as they avoid all the battery issues. They are even better for public health as they foster more exercise. The ebike folks must have terrific lobbyists. Good for them. But as someone who commuted for years - and all year at that in New England - on a regular bike I was stunned. Why not subsidize regular bikes while you are at it.

About 30 sponsors in the House..all Dems so you can be assured this will not even get out of committee let alone be passed by the House. Good idea or not.

For right below, I agree. More 'virtue signaling' aimed at their base..common on both sides of the isle these days...some more wacky than others.

[AngryScientist]

good example of "half baked" gov't policy.

for most americans, an e-bike is a curiosity or weekend toy, not a legit replacement for an auto.

[sg8357]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

[snip]
For right below, I agree. More 'virtue signaling' aimed at their base..common on both sides of the isle these days...some more wacky than others.

The righties and lefties can unite against it as more bucks for bougies,
like e-car credits and mortgage deductions.

My tax money could go to the Navy were it belongs,
if the gummint did give out so much free stuff to me.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

good example of "half baked" gov't policy.

for most americans, an e-bike is a curiosity or weekend toy, not a legit replacement for an auto.

Obviously the goal of the policy would be to change that. I certainly can't say whether or not it will be effective, but it is within the realm of possible that public policy can do more than just reinforce the status quo.

I'm sure a lot of this is regional, too. Here in coastal California, where snow is rare, I have personally observed significant growth in utilitarian ebike usage over the past few years.

Would a government subsidy further increase the adoption of ebikes as substitutes for cars? Absolutely.

Would this adoption be large enough to justify its cost? I don't know.

In terms of carbon emission reduction per dollar, how does this compare to other subsidies like the one for solar electricity generation? Again, I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem implausible.

If I were a member of Congress, I would want more analysis before deciding whether or not to vote on this, but I would not dismiss it out of hand.

[slambers3]

In my recent experience (affluent suburban/semi-rural bike shop) I see e-bikes functioning more as bicycle replacements than car replacements. I can’t say if this necessarily represents most e-bike purchases, but the vast majority that I have sold or serviced live in the garages of the wealthy or permanently hang off the back of their RVs. For these folks, these toys certainly do not replace *all* car trips or even most, but there must be still be a collective benefit if they replace *some* of their car trips? Like if your mix for trips leaving the house is 90% car 10% other, does an e-bike in the garage re-arrange that balance? And to what extent?
I think it’s easy to diminish these tax breaks or schemes as virtue signaling/pandering but I genuinely think encouraging more light mobility alternatives serve the greater good. More of these on the roads, means more mixed use pathway development in communities in the future (hopefully)

[bikinchris]

Originally Posted by sg8357

The righties and lefties can unite against it as more bucks for bougies,
like e-car credits and mortgage deductions.

My tax money could go to the Navy were it belongs,
if the gummint did give out so much free stuff to me.

The summit already spends more on our military than the next NINE countries combined. Yes, despite the alarmist screams, we could cut the military budget by 35% and still be ready for WWIII today.
As for eBikes, we really don't need to subsidize more dirt cheap, amazingly dangerously badly made eBikes.
We SHOULD subsidize riding to work and mass transportation. It would help American's health in several ways.

[witcombusa]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Obviously the goal of the policy would be to change that....

If I were a member of Congress, I would want more analysis before deciding whether or not to vote on this, but I would not dismiss it out of hand.

IF you were, you would do what every other 'congressman' does, sell their vote to the highest bidder. How anyone can believe in the current systems level of corruption is beyond me.

And E-bikes are simply mopeds 2.0.

[R3awak3n]

I mean I am more ok with this than with subsidizing EVs. EVs are way too expensive, you going to subsidize something only people with means can buy, they will buy it anyways.

E bikes are expensive for a bike but as a method of transport they are not too bad. I agree that people will look at it as a bike and an expensive bike so once again I think only people that already have money will take advantage of this so one of those, good idea but poor execution.

[Mark McM]

This act isn't actually a subsidy, it is a tax credit. Governments like tax credits because they can say they aren't raising spending. Businesses and wealthy people like tax credits because it lowers their tax burdens. But tax credits have less affect on lower income people, who may not owe enough in taxes to qualify for tax credits.

The e-bike act has been discussed in the forum before, and I still had the opinion that I stated then - the result of this act will mostly be to make fancy toys less expensive for the middle class.

Now, if a tax credit were given to actually commute to work by bike (either by traditional bike or e-bike), then I might be in favor of it. But people merely buying e-bikes doesn't mean they will reduce car trips. Scooters and mopeds have been available for decades as alternative transportation, but these haven't gotten people out of their cars.

[R3awak3n]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

This act isn't actually a subsidy, it is a tax credit. Governments like tax credits because they can say they aren't raising spending. Businesses and wealthy people like tax credits because it lowers their tax burdens. But tax credits have less affect on lower income people, who may not owe enough in taxes to qualify for tax credits.

The e-bike act has been discussed in the forum before, and I still had the opinion that I stated then - the result of this act will mostly be to make fancy toys less expensive for the middle class.

Now, if a tax credit were given to actually commute to work by bike (either by traditional bike or e-bike), then I might be in favor of it. But people merely buying e-bikes doesn't mean they will reduce car trips. Scooters and mopeds have been available for decades as alternative transportation, but these haven't gotten people out of their cars.

I used the wrong word, I mean tax credit. And you are right, no one is going to ride their bikes to work if there is no infrastructure but also really just not the American mindset.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

This act isn't actually a subsidy, it is a tax credit.

Tax credits are subsidies.