That is incorrect because those e-bikes did not replace actual gas-powered motorcycles or mopeds. Most of them are owned by people who never owned a gas-powered 2-wheeler, let alone a car. They represent new demand, not replacement, thus did not "save" any actual oil. It's like saying that today's ICE cars slashed demand for billions upon billions of horses - while in reality, before ICE majority of people simply couldn't afford any means of transportation, and they won't be able to afford horses today, either.
Replaced in a personal sense is different than replaced in a population sense. Any person may not have replaced ICE with electric. But when the population loses a member that used ICE and gains a member that uses an e-bike, that's a replacement.
There can be new demand too, if these e-bike trips represent trips that would not have been taken due to distance, lack of public transport to the destination, etc. An e-bike could be an acceptable equivalent of the scooter that crowds many a city globally.
That's exactly what i meant. "Replacement" is about "number of people who abandoned gas-powered 2-wheelers", not about "number of people who started using e-bikes", and the former number is a lot lot lower.
I do not doubt the numbers in the article are inflated to get the rosier picture but... The people I know that are riding e-bikes are commuting the few miles to work rather than drive (which they did in the past).
E-bikes are fun. For that reason alone, I think they will keep growing until they are huge part of transportation in the US. People in the US will never let you take away stuff that is fun.
