Two Victims, One System: The Political Economy of E-Bike Deregulation

The horrific crash on Manhattan’s Upper West Side on July 7 between an e-bike delivery worker and a jogger, which left the jogger in a medically induced coma, has produced two victims. Public discussion, however, is already moving toward a familiar script: the search for individual blame. There is blame here, but not on the individual who was eking out an existence, and reportedly tried to leave the scene.

In this script, what is hidden in the workings of the political economy’s hegemony which made this tragedy possible. Unlike trickle-down economics, deregulation actually transfers risk downward. Harms that should be absorbed by manufacturers, regulators, or public infrastructure are instead absorbed by ordinary people navigating increasingly chaotic streets in an even more chaotic economy. It is socialism for corporations and brutal, skull-crushing capitalism for everyone else, pushed by a regime under the cloak of advocacy that often advances the language of safety.

But whose safety? It appears to be the safety of the balance sheet.

For decades, advocates and policymakers alike have embraced a culture of vehicular cycling and market fundamentalism: the idea that the bicycle is simply another vehicle and that innovation should move faster than regulation.

And here we are, not at the site of an accident but at the site of a crash that could have been prevented. Through the weltanschauung of what feminist scholars describe as disaster patriarchy, the rapid expansion of high-speed e-bikes creates harm and damage, of all kinds, to economic, health, and social relations. The elite captures the gains while the public absorbs the risk. This is not an argument against e-bikes. I do not own an e-bike, but I ride with people who do. For disabled riders, adults who tire easily, and anyone who benefits from mobility assistance, a modestly powered e-bike can be transformative. Around the world, pedal-assisted e-bikes that go under 20 mph have helped thousands, if not millions, escape auto asphyxiation.

The problem is the absence of democratic limits and regulations. Hegemony has demanded a race toward speed and market expansion while neglecting and defanging the public institutions capable of governing the technology. As a daily cyclist, I want stronger regulation of manufacturers, clearer standards, and infrastructure that prioritizes people over maximum speed and maximum market efficiency. The problem is this, much of contemporary bike advocacy has become entangled with industry interests. In the US, many organizations often present themselves as public-interest actors while advancing agendas closely aligned with car, tech, bike & real estate businesses.

Policymakers, searching for credible partners, frequently treat these groups as neutral experts. They are often FAR from neutral.

The result is that lobbying arrives dressed as civic engagement to make people healthier. Well, I’m going to say what so many refuse to, you are naked, and you need to go in the house and put some pants on.

Especially in communities that have experienced decades of disinvestment, policymakers are more likely to come from K-12, where historically excluded people who score well on college entry exams are pushed, rather than from economics and urban planning. When these elected officials in particular, mistake industry lobbying for public representation, policies intended to improve safety can instead result in physical harm, labor exploitation, displacement, and distrust of anyone with a bicycle.

The tragedy is that we are now headed toward an individualist response. More policing. More punishment. More conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. More division within a working class that is already fragmented and polarized. The question will tragically become, like currently in New Jersey, how to regulate individuals rather than how to govern powerful institutions.

I am not writing about an accident between a jogger and a delivery worker. I am writing about the crash that results when a system privatizes rewards and socializes risk. The anger here should be aimed upward—at the economic and political arrangements that make ordinary people bear the costs of decisions made in corporate boardrooms.