Roody

Here's the one I was thinking of, the SMOVE bike by Mercedes. On second viewing, it doesn't have auto-steering, but it does have an onboard computer that automatically shifts gears and adjusts the suspension. Just like a top-of-the-line Mercedes-Benz motor-car!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41mBrgHTYsA

Mobile 155

Roody:
1: I don't even know you personally so how could you bother me?
2: I am not the only one that has mentioned your hall monitor like posts.
3: I am pretty sure you remember the conversation about people being allowed to live in the forest and burn wood and others do as well.
4: you will not be able to force me to go back and use the quote function so you can refresh your memory and then say what you said isn't what you meant.
a. I haven't read a rule that says I need to use the quote function.
5: my response was to the OP and you interjected what you thought they meant, again.
So in conclusion maybe it would be better if you ignored me and you let others defend their own positions? Just a suggestion.

Roody

I will respond in PM. I don't think others are very interested in our bickering.

kickstart

I wonder if those who cycle for transportation because they are cycling enthusiasts and/or as a reflection of their ideologies are really in touch with what will be accepted by everyone else.

Roody

Like what, for example?

kickstart

Pretty simple, most people just want to get from A to B as fast and easy as possible, and for most people a bicycle isn't going to meet that criteria.

There's a big difference between someones life fitting transportation cycling, and fitting transportation cycling to someone's life. Also, when driving isn't an option, most people choose public transportation or getting a ride with someone else.


In short, we do it because we want to, and the rest don't because they lack the desire.

Walter S

That's absurd. Roody is correct. The topic of cars is in no way central to the OP. You're dodging the fact that this is meant to be a car free list and thread by pretending that Roody is overly concerned with nuiance when he objects to the thread being derailed at a fundamental level.

I just have to suspect that the internet is just full of places to debate gobs of automobile topics. That amounts to pollution here. That's not what BF LCF is for.

kickstart

Isn't it realistic to consider how different modes will effect each other? Just because I wish Seattle would become another Amsterdam doesn't mean it will happen. It's unlikely POVs are going away, therefore their future will effort cyclings future.

Mobile 155

Walter: I once read this:
"In that case EVERYTHING is about car free living. Even the things that have a completely nuetral effect on car free living at least deserve a thread where that can be debated."

But Roody and I have already discussed or differences and I had said I will drop posting any more suggestions in this thread.

tandempower

Desire is culturally programmed/influenced for many, if not most, people. You can hardly blame the lack of desire for cycling or anything else on innate preferences. Many people also don't want to walk more than absolutely necessary, but once upon a time it was necessary to walk farther than it is today, and it may be getting more necessary as the driving is becoming ever more inconvenient as population continues to grow.

Even if the automotive culture continues to imbue the masses with a cultural desire to drive, it's just not going to be feasible. Even in the 1920s, Model T traffic was already frustrating people. You just can't combine the incredible cultural hopefulness that comes with the ease and convenience of driving-based consumerism with the reality that population can't grow infinitely without encountering limits.

So instead of making life exceedingly easy and convenient and then allowing the hope to blossom into dystopia, it is better to have a society/economy where not everyone gets to attain the hyperconvenience of automotive-consumerism, but those who don't have the option of putting in a little pedaling effort and making a life for themselves without having to fight for their spot in the traffic jam.

kickstart

There's a huge difference between making options practical and accessible, and forcing change through denying free choice. Cycling isn't going to become a major form of transportation except by coercion.

DosWheelsBtr

Agreed. I am 23 now and been thinking the same with more people entering the road on bicycles. They will eventually impose heavy regulations and take all the fun out of it. But as for OP, I heard they were building a city/town in SC where you could only get around cycling or walking. It has been awhile since I have heard anything about this. Do not know what has become of the notion, but seemed rather interesting.

Machka 

+1


+1 again!

Machka 

Well ... actually ....

InternetBrands, the owners of the forum, are a car-oriented company, so ...

tandempower

There will be people calling it coercion if transportation-biking is made practical and convenient through policies that limit the expansion of automotive-convenience. Limiting the expansion of roads and making bikes more practical as transportation are two separate goals but they support each other. Even if cycling didn't exist as a transportation option, it would still be necessary to limit the expansion of driving. Congestion is already so bad in some places that the convenience of driving is basically collapsing/degenerating under the weight of its own popularity. Then people have the gaul to oppose dedicated lanes and priority signaling for buses so that everyone has to wait in the same traffic, whether they make the sacrifice of taking the bus or not.

You can assert your prophecies about cycling becoming a major form of transportation or not but the reality is that driving infrastructure should not expand, and cycling should be available as a convenient option to avoid congested motorways. You can call it 'coercion' to neither expand roads nor build more highways and instead build better bike and pedestrian routes, but it isn't; it's just providing an alternative for a failing mode.

Dahon.Steve

First, a number of Google cars have already been involved in accidents. There's a reason why this product is not in production and it's quite simple. Google knows it too dangerous to sell this product to the open public. In fact, every time there is an accident, Google always stated it was the other driver's fault. Heck, it was even involved in an accident when there was a driver behind the wheel.

1. Rain, Snow, trees, skyscrapers, clouds, tunnels or bridges and guess what often happens to your GPS?

2. Most street maps come from two sources. As an avid gps user for years, I can tell you first hand they have done an adequate job in mapping New Jersey. However, to put your life in the hands of a driver-less car, you need more than adequate. More like perfection.

3. Streets and highways are under constant change every day. Maps become outdated by the month and these two sources (who are doing all the recording) are in no way updating these changes.

Having said all that, I actually like using a GPS with my bike and won't head out to the suburbs without one. But I have seen first hand the limitations and problems and will no way ride a driver-less electric bicycle!

kickstart

I don't think you're being realistic, but rather you're being a cyclist that wants to make the cycling experience better to suit your own needs and desires rather than address the needs and desires of the entire population.

If major population centers continue to grow, all forms of transportation will need to be expanded. Its also important to keep in mind transportation isn't going to stop evolving, its most likely that technology will address the safety, environmental, and congestion issues long before society could transform itself into a cycling utopia.

I'm optimistic because I'm not seeking validation through my choices, and believe things will work out without turning everything upside down.

gregf83 

There's always a driver behind the wheel in the Google cars. They haven't started autonomous tests.

Seems to work fine in inclement weather. No problem using inertial navigation for brief outages. Also the cars don't rely soley on GPS as they have vision systems.

Google maps stay up do date in large part due to volunteers. When major new roads are under construction the information is generally available and accurate on google maps prior to the road being opened.

tandempower

Actually, I started thinking about the problem of population growth years ago. At first I thought smaller motor-vehicles were the solution to growing congestion, and to some extent I think they will help by increasing the number of motor vehicles that can fit in existing lanes. However, ultimately traffic has to slow down to prevent congestion, so bicycles end up being a convenient solution because you don't have to wait until motorways have congealed into a slow-moving river to shift some of that slow traffic to bikes. Transit also helps because it puts multiple people in a single vehicle, but bikes are convenient because you can choose your own route and schedule.

It may not 'suit the entire population' currently to shift to more biking and transit use but there's no other good option possible. Cities are already overpaved with motor-lanes and lacking in trees and green space. Adding more lanes and bypasses/highways only compounds the problems of sprawl, heat, and unlivability. Who wants to live next to a clover leaf highway interchange or an overpass or any other part of a highway? Motor traffic is going to have to shrink to smaller proportion of total traffic and that means people are going to have to bike if they don't all want to be stuck dealing with fixed transit schedules.

That all sounds good at the rhetorical level but how exactly can transportation continue evolving in a way that reduces congestion and sprawl except with more transportation cycling? People resist cycling for some reason, which is fine, but if the choice is between transit and cycling, how many will continue to avoid cycling? The only reason they avoid cycling and transit now is because they keep dreaming that congestion will start getting better instead of worse. More roads, lanes, and bypasses won't ultimately make it any better. Those only provide temporary relief until the population/traffic catches up with the expanded infrastructure. Then you're back to the problem of how to allow more people to live without further expanding motor lanes.

Nothing is "turning upside down." More roads are getting bike lanes. More bike paths are being built so people can have a more pleasant bike commute than alongside motor traffic. More trees are getting planted in medians and alongside roads to shade cyclists and partially insulate them from motor traffic where possible. People can continue driving but they just can't expect to widen roads more than they've already been widened. What's more, they should prepare for gradual slowing of traffic to prevent congestion build-up.

One way or another, if population continues to grow (which it always does), cycling will end up being a more attractive option than driving in congested traffic; so we might as well make it an attractive option now so that we don't have to wait until large masses of people are absolutely fed up with driving before shifting some of that congestion onto bikes and buses.

Roody

"Retail politics" prevails in a democracy. The primary purpose of politics is to determine the allocation of resources, including transportation development capital and allocation of scarce space in urban/suburban environments. It's always a scrimmage to determin where resources should go, and who will benefit from them.

Road developers, car and oil companies, AAA, and cement contractors certainly understand this. They're fighting for as much money as they can get from governments to build or expand car facilities.

Cyclists who hope for a piece of the pie had better be prepared to organize and ask for our share. Each of us as lone wolf cyclists has absolutely zero power to affect the outcome. But united we can hope to accomplish a lot.

This is not about "seeking validation." It's about seeking allocation.

kickstart

I totally agree that the needs and desires of cyclists have been marginalized, and needs to be addressed as with other alternative forms of transportation. These improvements need to work with and compliment each other, not used as a punitive action against how people live and move about.

kickstart

Addressing the shortcomings of alternatives is a far cry from arbitrarily declaring a mode "failed", and quit working to improve it.

Roody

Can you give any examples or details of times when bicycle or carfree improvements were used punitively? Offhand, I can't think of any.

For example, I'm pretty sure that not a single bicycle lane has ever been installed without a preliminary study to guarantee that travel times for cars would not be impacted by so much as one second.

cooker

ah, come on - you guys live for this. You're the LCF version of Statler and Waldorf.

Roody

I hereby declare that internal combustion cars for travel in urban areas have failed. They have failed on many levels, from pollution to congestion to sprawl to crash fatalities to global warming to expense to noise to just plain ugliness. The only thing they're good for is speed--and that doesn't apply to many congested areas where bikes are faster.