Originally Posted by UmneyDurak

Before I support this statement I must know that kind of pie.

Originally Posted by sbhikes

Actually, I would rather have free lattes instead of pie. Oh, but I already do! I'm so lucky!

I'd like to see more people riding bikes. I would like to see riding your bike to work not be a political statement of one kind or other but instead just be what most people do.

Originally Posted by Cyclaholic

...and my wish for the one thing that would make things better for cyclists is a holographic projector attached to your handlebars that makes you look and sound just like an 80 tonne semi rolling down the road

Originally Posted by The other Inane

I wish for an extra 1 metres room on a 500m stretch of my daily commute (I am easy to please), ohhh and pie.

And for the multi mode people ... do you mean something like this?

Originally Posted by Helmet Head

Just to be clear, by "multimodal" you mean trimodal (cars, bikes, peds) as opposed to bimodal (vehicular, peds), right?

It's not an engineering problem. It's a basic math problem. Assuming you want to provide continuous segregated routes, as much as possible, for each mode, it's the intersections that are the problem. The intersections are a problem for just a single mode problem. The engineering problem is that we're trying to do this on essentially a single plane. That means you have to stop certain flows across an intersection to allow another through (stop signs, traffic signals). The alternative is much more expensive; grade separation.

When you add a second mode to the problem, that complicates the problem. Others understand this, and so seek to eliminate cars, for example.

But adding a third mode, that's really impractical. You either have impractically expensive multi-grade solutions at intersections, or you have to allow mode-specific flows at intersections, adding delay for everyone. Again, this is already a problem in just a bimodal system (consider how many peds are killed per year).

Adding a third mode to bimodal transportation system complicates everything by probably an order of magnitude. That makes it impractical.

Originally Posted by genec

Perhaps it is only a matter of time before wireless speed control governors are installed in motor vehicles to limit their speeds in urban surface street environments. (only one of many possible solutions)

Originally Posted by genec

It simply comes down to doing things at a human scale, not a car scale.

Originally Posted by noisebeam

Maybe with a red button 'bypass' that activates flashing lights and sends a signal (to ?) that one has engaged bypass. This will eliminate the 'need speed for emergency' arguements.

Al

Originally Posted by genec

Gee, don't we pretty much put lights and sirens on those vehicles that are emergency vehicles today?

Originally Posted by noisebeam

I was refering to non-offical emergency vehicles - every day cars driven my everyday people. The idea being one could push a button allowing unlimited speed for whatever reason (emergency or not), but in doing so it would alert somone (police, ?) to prevent abuse. I don't think there is any reason to speed, but at least such an overide button would prevent the inevitable lawsuit or argument that speed restiction on car cause some such problem.

Anyway it was more suggested in the fun of ideas and disucssion. I think we are along way off from speed limited cars based on where they are driving.

Other thoughts: If this ideas was implemented, what speed would it limit a car to in a 25mph residential zone? 35? 25? 26?

What about handing the phasing in of this technology? Would it create resistance to new car purchases as older cars would be unlimited? Would it be fair that a driver of a 2031 model year could not go over 25, but the driver of an old 2005 clunker could? Would it be required for old cars to be retrofitted? Who would pay?

Al