• Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Your welcome to your opinions. I’m just pointing out a study of primary school children is irrelevant to this particular thread. If you have studies on teens, I’d love to read them.

    • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Primary school age runs to age 11/12 (depending on exact birthdate - someone born on 1st September will be 12 when they enter secondary school). A 13 year old is not significantly more developmentally mature than a 12 year old, particularly in the context of how development of the brain continues until 25. Teens are more prone to risky behaviour, due to poor impulse control and poor perception of how dangerous a given activity may be, which is as much of a problem on an e-bike at 30mph as it is with drugs, alcohol, sex, and a wide range of other risky behaviours teens indulge in because they can’t objectively judge what the risks actually are. The younger the teen, the higher the risk because of the lower neurological development.

      • Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        #1 killer of teens is dangerous driving most often influenced by peer pressure. Removing the peers by putting them ona bike would reduce the teen mortality rate by far more than the mortality rate of teens on bikes going over 30mph. See, stats can be used in many ways. Not always supportive of your opinion. Which is why it is important to choose a source that specifically relates to the topic. If you don’t want it pointed out that your source is irrelevant to the discussion.

        • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          13 and 14 year olds shouldn’t be driving cars in the first place, and they’re also the ones most likely to make bad decisions about riding e-bikes without speed limiters.

          • Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But teens are not primary school and are far more than 13 and 14. Why would you ignore 15-19? It seems like your point only covers a minority of cases in which case any recommendation will have a minimal impact. Why are you so concerned about a minority of cases?

            • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because I’m in favour of kids not dying unnecessarily?

              Additionally, depending on the country 16-19 is considered old enough to ride a motorbike, in which case they’re also old enough to ride an e-bike at similar speeds. The fact is that teens are a broad range, and there’s plenty of things that 16-19 year olds are considered mature enough to do that 13-15 year olds aren’t. Just because a 16 year old can ride a motorbike and 18 year olds can smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol doesn’t magically make 13 year olds mature enough to do so. The same should apply to e-bikes: an e-bike that can go faster than 20mph is basically an electric motorbike, and should be similarly age-restricted.

                • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  More than they should, especially when they’re on electric bikes going at speeds up to 45mph. There is plenty of evidence that directly demonstrates that the chance of death increases exponentially with increased speed. The more children there are on e-bikes with their speed limiters cut, the more children die unnecessarily as a result. And those aged 13-14 are children, not adults. You’re not going to change my mind on this, and I’m not going to change yours, so there seems to be no point in debating this further.