The idea of needing specialized transport as an individual beyond just walking is a failure of society. Replacing cars with "not-cars" isn't really helping that aspect. You should be structuring society so that cars or "not-cars" have no need to exist for almost everyone.
Someone versed in urban ecosystems could chime in better, because there's gotta be proper terms for city to city transport, city to neighborhood, neighborhood to street, street to home.
Bikes or some kind of personal vehicle are still probably necessary to get you from city to home, because they can't put train stations next to every house (unless they figure out how to shoot us through tubes or something).
@dessalines@PowerCrazy No, it really is feasible to have PT close enough to everyone's house. Some will choose a bike to cut 15m walking into 5m riding, but it isn't required.
Part of that is that every neighbourhood needs all types of housing. Okay, not every one needs high rise apartments. But medium rise next to the station above the restaurants and retail, surrounded by town houses, surrounded by units, surrounded by 1/3rd acre house blocks
I rode my bike instead of driving today. It took twice as long, and the hills kicked my ass, but I felt amazing afterwards. Evem hours later I am still riding the endorphin high. Hearing traffic used to give me anxiety, but I used noise cancelling earbuds so I could listen to an audio book and that made a huge difference
The transition needs to be easy for adoption to happen though. I think first replacing cars with not-cars, and only then scaling cities to be more walkable makes sense.
I don't see how going from car to proper city planning is any harder than going from not-car to proper city planning. This just feels like an extra unnecessary step that could be taking resources away from the city planning part.
It'll take years to build that high density housing. And several generations to convince everyone to move into it. In the mean time, it'd be good to use velo mobiles for transportation from suburb to suburb.
Both the velomobile and the electric bicycle increase the limited range of the cyclist – the former optimises aerodynamics and ergonomics, while the latter assists muscle power with an electric motor fuelled by a battery.
The electric velomobile combines both approaches, and so maximises the range of the cyclist – so much so that it is able to replace most, if not all, automobile trips.
I wished we would just tax the environment destroying vehicles to subsidize these velomobils.
Another idea would be to include them in car-sharing offerings. I don't need to own one, but I would love to rent it once in a while.
In Sweden people generally dont drive around in dinosaur-sized car, but they have been increasing lately. Yesterday I had my first personal experience of how much of an issue they are. I was in line for a left-turn in a crossing and noticed that the last car from the opposite side was also gonna turn left. The 2 cars in front of me already crossed the road and head left, i drive forward just a moment later than the huge RAM from the other side and notice a Nissan Micra that is heading straight towards me instead of turning. It was completely hidden behind the monster car and neither me nor the drivers in front of me in my lane had noticed it. Cars of that size not only endanger pedestrians by not seeing them but also obscure general traffic scenarios. They should not be allowed on the street tbh..
I'm not sure the bike is the accurate comparison target compared to the scooter or car for commuting.
Also, I think the main reason they are not so popular is laws. I think there was another article on solar.lowtechmagazine where this was discussed, but from my fuzzy memory, the issue there is not yet a separate category for these kinds of high speed limit, electrical assistance vehicles. You either have to use it like a bike, in which case in many countries you are not allowed to go past a low set speed limit (something like 30 km/h) with elecrical assistance, or you have to register the vehicle to be in the category of motorbikes, in which case you are subject to the same rules, like having a license plate, needing to get your vehicle checked at the garage every year and other things. Maybe try to find the article, it will be better explained.
@ertai@frightful_hobgoblin Registered as a car may mean adding airbags, passing crash safety tests, etc. It all depends on where you are.
If you need to pass all those car tests you can't be a velomobile any more, you have to be a car. Someone was making a modern electric Moke, which sounds like a fantastic vehicle, except it wasn't legal in many places because it couldn't pass modern safety regulations.
(Heck postie bikes aren't legal in Australia any more because they wont add dual ABS)
They also have e-scooters now that can do like 80 mph / 130 km/h .
This wiki page on Efficiency of transport is really well done. But if you sort by km / MJ, e-scooters and bikes are the most efficient forms of transport.
If I lived in a city, I’d love one of those! I live right out in the sticks, and it’s worrying enough meeting a big vehicle down the lanes on a bike, so being wider and lower is terrifying. I had a go on a recumbent bike a while ago, and would have bought it if it weren’t for the feeling of permanently being about to be squashed by a kid in a tractor. An electric-assisted recumbent trike that looks like a spaceship, and has room for some shopping would be mint anywhere else though!
Kinda. There's a subreddit with people making fiberglass shells to strap to their off- the- shelf recumbent bikes. Converting a recumbent into an ebike is well documented online.
Adaik there isnt a 1 stop comprehensive plan to build a velomobile.
At what point is it just a car pretending to be a bike? You can't take a velomobile inside with you, so you'll need a parking lot. They can't take tight corners like bikes, skateboards, scooters, or other methods of personal transportation.
We don't need any knew infrastructure, we just need to get cars out of the way.
That article speaks to my soul!
Just this past weekend, I rode about 70km each way to see my folks, across 6 or 7 municipalities.
I made it there in about 2.5 hours, across some pretty sketch "not high speed roads, but cars were going high speed anyway", with much of that having no cycling infrastructure (or shoulders).
What frustrated me most wasn't the asshole who punished passed me (pickup truck, of course), or the BMW driver who stopped on a raised, protected bike lane to pick up a passenger, but the amount of time I spent at red lights. Over 40 minutes each way!
Had there been a highway for bikes, or even just priority bike intersections, this trip would have taken no time.
Well, unsafe if there are cars all around you. But if we replaced a lot of cars with these vehicles which typically go around 40 to 70 km/h cruise speed, I think it would become way safer than cars.
A colleague of mine has one. They are easy to overlook and he sometimes has pretty bad looking crashes (from the outside) but the chassis themselfs are extremely sturdy and protecting. He slid down a road 25m at one point, crashing into a pole, but only got a bruise from it. Because, and that's the main point: these things are not going down 50mph, they are at 18mph and the only dangerous parts are intersections where cars are slower anyways
separation of bikes and cars are rare in my city/country, and traffic tends to be very chaotic.
the main reason i say these look unsafe is that they look way less maneuverable for this situation. the nimbleness my bike has helped me avoid pretty gnarly accidents a couple of times before.