Advocacy & Safety - GM's new PUMA to use bikelanes!

Looks like GM sees the writing on the wall and has developed an electric Segway-like two seater that will run in bikelanes! Wouldn't it be funny if all of a sudden the top twenty cities started a big push for seperated paths. If Forester were dead, he'd be turning over in his grave.


http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/07/gm-and-segways-p-u-m-a-makes-its-stage-debut/


The biggest obstacle to commercialization, however, is the lack of infrastructure: P.U.M.A. in its current incarnation is designed for for bike lanes, and the first cities to get it will be ones with existing, comprehensive bike lanes -- not as much of an obstacle in Europe, but quite the stretch for most American cities. Still, the mathematics are quite alluring, with a 35 mile range at 35 mph for a 35 cent charge -- even us mouth-breathing Statesiders can understand that.

Cities with extensive bike lanes -- look out:
http://weblogs.newsday.com/cars/blog/2009/04/gm_segway_unveil_puma_twowheel.html


...the first cities to get it will be ones with existing, comprehensive bike lanes -- not as much of an obstacle in Europe, but quite the stretch for most American cities.

P.U.M.A. in its current incarnation is designed for for bike lanes . . . . at 35 mph

Now that's simply ridiculous. Heck, even I tend to leave bike lanes when I top 20mph or so. If its top speed is 15 or 20mph, it'd be more understandable.

Now that's simply ridiculous. Heck, even I tend to leave bike lanes when I top 20mph or so. If its top speed is 15 or 20mph, it'd be more understandable.

I guess it is all about the consumer's perception of safety. Many cyclists will be able to blow the PUMA's away. But given GM's track record for inovation this will probably never take off.

This is the same GM that killed the EV-1 and Saturn?

RIP PUMA....

OTOH, the IT Segway changed the transportation world, didn't it?

GM is gonna build a vehichle for the Segway market? Sheesh! Hasn't the Segway been failure enough?

GM killed the EV-1 and someday they may bring out the Volt.

They're not bankrupt but the government tells them who their CEO can be and the taxpayer is on the hook to pay for waranty repairs.

The world ain't nuts; it's crazy.

Talk about an "accelerated pedestrian."

Pun intended.

-Kurt

It seems clear to us that the PUMA is a bad idea. But wasnt replacing public transportation in LA with an extensive road system a bad idea? What about the countless bridges and roads to nowhere? I bet the road building folks will eat this up as an idea to spend more on bmodal infrastructure, Might sound appealing to bike lane advocating cyclists.

The thing looks like a wheelchair with a roll cage to me, just say'n.

I wonder how it does on hills.

I'd better not catch one in a bike lane...

GM is gonna build a vehichle for the Segway market? Sheesh! Hasn't the Segway been failure enough?

GM killed the EV-1 and someday they may bring out the Volt.

They're not bankrupt but the government tells them who their CEO can be and the taxpayer is on the hook to pay for waranty repairs.

The world ain't nuts; it's crazy.

They need this so that when you go shopping for an electric car at a chevy dealership the salesman can point to the PUMA and say "that's what electric cars are like, you want this SUV here." It's how GM makes good ideas sound ridiculous. They may do something similar with the volt: "Oh you want a plugin hybrid, we have one but it's $50,000. You want a Cadillac!"

GM did it to electric cars the last time by building a thousand of them and including R&D costs into the purchase price of 1,000 vehicles. In software we know how this game works: Research is risk. If you succeed you win it back ten times over. If you fail then you wasted all of your time. You don't get to charge for it because it's not a per widget cost.

That's just my theory on what they're trying to do. It could also be that they want to claim they hire engineers and researchers to build electric cars. Then they encourage them to build something unmarketable so that they won't risk actually building a successful electric car. Electric cars ruin GM's policy of selling you the bigger engine at a ridiculous markup. They limit the silly electric gadgets that everyone sells at a crazy high markup.

They need this so that when you go shopping for an electric car at a chevy dealership the salesman can point to the PUMA and say "that's what electric cars are like, you want this SUV here." It's how GM makes good ideas sound ridiculous. They may do something similar with the volt: "Oh you want a plugin hybrid, we have one but it's $50,000. You want a Cadillac!"

GM did it to electric cars the last time by building a thousand of them and including R&D costs into the purchase price of 1,000 vehicles. In software we know how this game works: Research is risk. If you succeed you win it back ten times over. If you fail then you wasted all of your time. You don't get to charge for it because it's not a per widget cost.

That's just my theory on what they're trying to do. It could also be that they want to claim they hire engineers and researchers to build electric cars. Then they encourage them to build something unmarketable so that they won't risk actually building a successful electric car. Electric cars ruin GM's policy of selling you the bigger engine at a ridiculous markup. They limit the silly electric gadgets that everyone sells at a crazy high markup.

Based on what Toyota has come up with... I tend to agree... what in the world is GM thinking! Obviously GM and the Oil companies have some sort of behind the scenes connection.

As far as innovation... GM left it all behind somewhere... sheesh. The CEO didn't step down soon enough.

That piece of crap doesn't belong in the bike lane.

Since the auto industry in the US went from being run by Auto executives (up until the 1960s) to Ralph Nader luddites and their congressional ilk, its all been downhill for the auto industry and GM. I don't blame management OR the unions.

This garbage can on wheels is only the beginning of the turd vehicles we will see out of detroit.

roughstuff

I'd better not catch one in a bike lane...

I'd carry a spare frame pump just to Cinzano one of those abominations.

Another good reason to avoid bike lanes....or can we start calling them PUMA lanes? :lol:

The thing looks like a wheelchair with a roll cage to me, just say'n.
I often see people in wheelchairs driving vehicularly. They don't need no stinkin' bike lanes.

Ironically, I also see people on bicycles riding on the sidewalk-- on the same street at the same time (what a hoot!).

I can't for the life of me figure out why a vehicle that can go 35mph would need a special lane. Isn't 35 mph pretty much the speed limit on many roads?

yawn...

I often see people in wheelchairs driving vehicularly. They don't need no stinkin' bike lanes.

Ironically, I also see people on bicycles riding on the sidewalk-- on the same street at the same time (what a hoot!).

I can't for the life of me figure out why a vehicle that can go 35mph would need a special lane. Isn't 35 mph pretty much the speed limit on many roads?

Because if it collides with anything larger than a bicycle, all occupants of the electric rickshaw will be killed?


:rolleyes:

While this is very unlikely for a wide range of reasons, it would be welcome as it could increase the visibility of the problems with bike lanes to a wider audience.

While I'm not betting any of my money that it will succeed, it seems like it has some of the features that are bound to be found in future vehicles. Things like smaller foot print, cheaper to buy and run, less polluting, less stylish, and more utilitarian.

The speed limit on city of Pittsburgh public streets is never more than 35.

Spike, I think that you name for that bubble on wheels, might stick and kill the concept alltogether, at least in the Western half of the globe.

"electric rickshaw"

Would a city of PUMAs be the same as "car free"?

The PUMA can't crash into anything.

The PUMA can't crash into anything.

True that. However, It's an unfortunate fact that all other vehicles can crash into pumas.

Unless PUMAs have pedals for the major part of their propulsive power, they may well be screwed. Many communities prohibit motor vehicles from operating in bike lanes, and nearly all prohibit them on bike paths and multi-use paths. Pretty much the same problems that mo-peds and E-bikes have in many places...

The PUMA can't crash into anything.

IF the network that does not yet exist is created...till then it can crash just like anything else.
Geesh...now the bike lanes are gonna go wireless too!
We can surf the web as we ride! :lol:

Geesh...now the bike lanes are gonna go wireless too!
We can surf the web as we ride! :lol:

Don't need no stinkin' futuristic PUMA, we can do that NOW, in or out of bike lanes! Happy Texting!

This is the same GM that killed the EV-1 and Saturn?

RIP PUMA....

OTOH, the IT Segway changed the transportation world, didn't it?

The GM CEO at the time claims that was his largest mistake he's ever made.

Another good reason to avoid bike lanes....or can we start calling them PUMA lanes? :lol:

What if GM uses its influence like in LA in the 40's? Could be that bi-modal streets are comming. Then we'd be sharing the road with the electric rickshaws. I can see it now, young heros souping up thier pumas. Who knows, maybe they be able to program them to "drift", (as in Tokyo drif), spin like tops, bypass the safety sensors or even top out at 50 mph!

Ha ha ha ha ha


I would like to see these things on a bike lane around here. parked cars, trash, rocks, pedestrians, right hooks, lanes that deliver you into 40mph traffic ect. Yeah! let more prople experience the "safety" of the bike lanes. Maybe then they'll get rid of them. At the very least they will stop buying these things.

Don't need no stinkin' futuristic PUMA, we can do that NOW, in or out of bike lanes! Happy Texting!

That crap the wireless folks try to pass off as wireless is hardly wireless. :p I'm talkin full out broadband...with a data port at every intersection! :D

GM is gonna build a vehichle for the Segway market? Sheesh! Hasn't the Segway been failure enough?

GM killed the EV-1 and someday they may bring out the Volt.

They're not bankrupt but the government tells them who their CEO can be and the taxpayer is on the hook to pay for waranty repairs.

The world ain't nuts; it's crazy.

The government actually told GM that the Volt was not viable because ... well, honestly... GM has ownership of it. That alone was enough for the folks doing the report to decide it wasn't going to work out.

Forcing them to ride in bike lanes doesn't seem that new and extreme to me. In some states it has been the law for 7+ years now for mopeds to ride in the bike lane if they can't keep up with traffic.

If Forester were dead, he'd be turning over in his grave.:lol:

Because if it collides with anything larger than a bicycle, all occupants of the electric rickshaw will be killed?

Sort of like motorcycles, scooters, mopeds, and bicycles - all of which have the longstanding right to use the roadways?

I don't know about where the rest of you live, but here in Seattle most bike lanes are the door zone variety and are physically narrower than the PUMA appears to be.

If I had one, I'd take the lane :-)

Unless PUMAs have pedals for the major part of their propulsive power, they may well be screwed. Many communities prohibit motor vehicles from operating in bike lanes, and nearly all prohibit them on bike paths and multi-use paths. Pretty much the same problems that mo-peds and E-bikes have in many places...

Yep, in California for example, even "e-bikes" are not legally bicycles (a device "propelled
exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears..."). No way would this thing be allowed in bike lanes under existing law.

Yep, in California for example, even "e-bikes" are not legally bicycles (a device "propelled
exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears..."). No way would this thing be allowed in bike lanes under existing law.

From what I've read (and I've been wrong before) California is one of those states where mopeds are required to ride in the bike lane if they can't keep up with traffic.

The California law appears very similar to the Hawaii law:
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/08/12/news/kokualine.html

The government actually told GM that the Volt was not viable because ... well, honestly... GM has ownership of it. That alone was enough for the folks doing the report to decide it wasn't going to work out.

If it were my money (and some of it is) I'd agree: Never invest in GM or Chrysler because they're cursed.

I was really excited when I heard GM was going to die. I thought: "Oh, cool, this'll leave room for new American car manufacturers. Maybe by the time I need to buy a car again I can buy American." Then the Government went and bailed them out. I suppose I'll be buying another Toyota or Honda when my current one wears out.

I think GM is planning to use the Volt to sell Cadillacs. You set a $50,000 Volt next to a $55,000 CTS and what do you think those consumers will buy? I think they're planning to use the PUMA to sell economy cars in much the same way.

I think GM is planning to use the Volt to sell Cadillacs. You set a $50,000 Volt next to a $55,000 CTS and what do you think those consumers will buy? I think they're planning to use the PUMA to sell economy cars in much the same way.

It may even be worse than that... perhaps GM is going after cyclists, much like GM once bought up the trolley car systems and then disappeared them. Now they introduce something that will make the lives of cyclists more difficult...

It's a vast conspiracy I tell ya... vast. :innocent:

The thing looks like a wheelchair with a roll cage to me, just say'n.

This thing will never work. It encompasses the worst elements of most road vehicles, and none of the benefits.

It's slow and exposed to the elements, so what advantage does it have over a bicycle?

Why in the world would you buy a wheelchair with a roll bar when you could get a small scooter or a motorcycle for much less money, that gives you a higher speed, better maneuverability and easier parking.

What are GM and Segway thinking? Oh, I guess they're not.

I think the reason they are saying it is meant for bike lanes is to get around the safety regulations for crash testing. If it's a car it needs to have all the safety features. If it's not meant for roads it doesn't.

I think that GM may indeed have their sights on the cycling commuters and bike lane infrastructure. We probably represent one of the largest competitors in the individual transportation market. Not that I support PUMAs but they will be cheap, end our dependence on foreign oil, and these will bestow upon the owner a green-conscious aura. If they can sell the thing for 10K or less the ROI could be as little as a year if you are driving a ten year old 12 mpg suv and your r/t commute is less that 30 miles.

This is for the naysayers of the PUMA and other similar devices--


The car will never replace the horse. MOTORS December 1903 issue reports that, according to a Texas newspaper, "Though the motor-driven vehicle steadily increases in numbers and availability...the horse market does not show the slightest effects of the automobile, the demand being as great and the prices as high as before the automobile came into use."

Gasoline will never be the fuel of choice. May 1905, in an article by Victor Lougheed: "In the speculation that goes the rounds concerning the motor car of the future, there is one point on which every one seems agreed. The fuel of the future, it seems generally believed, is not likely to be gasoline."

The airplane will never be a success. October 1905: "The aeroplane has demonstrated its possibility of navigating the air, but...the limits of success have been reached with this type of flying machine, since landing becomes as great a problem as that of flight itself, while the maintenance of equilibrium requires a great deal of skill, and the proposition of alighting is not much easier. The principle of the beating wing would meet every one of the objectionable features..."

I wonder how much tax payer dollars will go through Government Motors to fund this thing. I think it is obvious Americans don't like little cars. Much less, rolling coffins.

I can understand why Segway would want to team up with GM but I have no idea why GM would want to associate with a dead-end idea like the Segway. Segway's gyroscopic drive thingy is a complex and expensive technology without a practical purpose. You could just put a couple more wheels on the thing, increase the turning radius a little and save a heck of a lot of money. You'd have an electric Isetta, which actually might not be a bad a idea.

GM killed the EV-1 and tried to destroy all evidence that it ever existed but they're willing to associate the GM name with the Segway lunacy. If anyone questions whether GM management has rocks in their heads, this should settle the issue.

I do understand why they would want to demonstrate the thing in a darkened room.

I'd ride one -- at an amusmenet park. Just put a thick rubber bumper on and disable the safety sensors and they'd make a cool update to the bumper cars. Put them on the real street and it would be ugly.

I think you're all shortsighted. If the Segway works as promised, it's a hell of a lot better for the environment that any of the cars (including electric cars) that it might replace. I think it's also better for cyclists. At any rate, I would rather share the road with these little buggers than ride alongside ever increasing numbers of cars and trucks. It would at least make breathing at stop lights a lot more pleasant.

Segways need to be far less manueverable so they're a little more predictable.

I think you're all shortsighted. If the Segway works as promised, it's a hell of a lot better for the environment that any of the cars (including electric cars) that it might replace. I think it's also better for cyclists. At any rate, I would rather share the road with these little buggers than ride alongside ever increasing numbers of cars and trucks. It would at least make breathing at stop lights a lot more pleasant.


They remind me of the tuk-tuks in Pakistan. Will be interesting sharing the road with them.

roughstuff

I want to see a cougar out cruising in a Puma.

I think you're all shortsighted. If the Segway works as promised, it's a hell of a lot better for the environment that any of the cars (including electric cars) that it might replace. I think it's also better for cyclists. At any rate, I would rather share the road with these little buggers than ride alongside ever increasing numbers of cars and trucks. It would at least make breathing at stop lights a lot more pleasant.

I think that the idea is a bit ahead of its time. First cars as we know them would have to get smaller, slower, smarter and more fuel efficeint. Problem with mass adoptation of the PUMA, say in India or China, is that it would drive down the price gas and we'd go back to driving our over-powered, high style-in, psychograpically calculated liberation mobiles.

True, I'd much rather compete, I mean share, with PUMAs rather than cars.

im totally opposed to this crap using existing bicycle infrastructure.

the way people will drive this thing will be worse than a car and putting it in the bike lane at 35 mph is going to cause a lot of problems. i'm totally against it. make them use the streets lanes.

btw. these things are easy to lift up and flip over right? or do i have to go to the gym a little extra?