Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

GM to make e-bikes

Old 11-15-18, 07:33 PM
  #101  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,953

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1379 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Sprawl is what happens when developers buy up land around a city and develop it with the idea that they can market a subdivision or job-site as 'just a short drive from the city.' At first, there's not much traffic to go back and forth to that area from other parts of the city, but as the developments grow and snowball, the traffic gets worse and worse until you end up with multilane roads, highways, expressways, bypasses, toll roads, etc.

From a financial perspective of investors living elsewhere, the sprawl development is a good thing, because all the road building and development renders concrete sales, contracts to build on the concrete, new business opportunities in the space built, etc. But from the perspective of people who moved out to a rural area to get away from bustle, it's a nightmare. Everyone wants the bustle of business and traffic to happen far from their own backyard.


I think a certain elite could have the lifestyle you're talking about without it hurting the environment too much, but there are too many people for everyone to live like that without it having negative impacts.


I just don't think that efforts to reform automotive culture are all doomed because of what people are concerned about outside the business/economics of auto-production, maintenance, insurance, etc. etc. These are big businesses that deal in a lot of money and they have a lot of people convinced that they can't live well with less than the excesses that they've normalized.

If everyone denies responsibility because they want to shift the burden to others, then nothing ever changes for the better. Everyone just keeps passing the buck, so to speak.
Fine, take your best shot. Even with a slowdown Auto sales were at 17.54 million. In China it was even higher. Are E-Bikes a bigger driving force for the industry? As someone said for these companies all the bla- bla-bla by the one percent will not change what the auto companies were designed to do. And 17.54 million vehicles, many SUV and trucks, will finance a lot of advertising.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 11-16-18, 05:31 PM
  #102  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,315
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8018 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
Fine, take your best shot. Even with a slowdown Auto sales were at 17.54 million. In China it was even higher. Are E-Bikes a bigger driving force for the industry? As someone said for these companies all the bla- bla-bla by the one percent will not change what the auto companies were designed to do. And 17.54 million vehicles, many SUV and trucks, will finance a lot of advertising.
As I've said many times in previous posts, you are always on the wrong side of history. Realism is a political stance and when the reality you are being realistic about is harmful and unsustainable, your stance is only reinforcing the bad being done by the reality you worship because you're either too powerless or indifferent to speak against it.
tandempower is offline  
Old 11-16-18, 06:33 PM
  #103  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,953

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1379 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
As I've said many times in previous posts, you are always on the wrong side of history. Realism is a political stance and when the reality you are being realistic about is harmful and unsustainable, your stance is only reinforcing the bad being done by the reality you worship because you're either too powerless or indifferent to speak against it.
When was the last time reality wasnít real? History is how we got where we are. I donít see your point it sounds like word salad. What it there but what is real?
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 11-17-18, 04:23 PM
  #104  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,315
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8018 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
When was the last time reality wasnít real? History is how we got where we are. I donít see your point it sounds like word salad. What it there but what is real?
When realists presume change is 'unrealistic,' they are fundamentally misrepresenting the inherent nature of reality, which is that it is always changing and that there are certain pathways of change that are more natural than others. So, patterns of large scale industrial waste are actually unrealistic in the sense of being unsustainable in terms of the bigger picture of how nature works, but because of the way humans have set up their complex house of mirrors, they can create the illusion that the unnatural/unrealistic/unsustainable levels of industrialism are the reality and the real sustainable realities of nature are what is unrealistic.

If you would think about it on a more basic level, you would see what I mean. What is more natural: doing the minimum work necessary to live and letting everything grow and prosper around you or maximizing industrial waste of resources to create as much artificial commodities and trade as possible before the house of cards comes tumbling down? Obviously the former scenario is more realistically sustainable, but because of the culture of 'realism' where unsustainable human patterns can be imagined in terms of an eternal present as opposed to the 100-200 years that they've actually been going on, the unsustainable can be asserted as 'realistic.'

Now I realize you're going to go on insulting me with words like, 'word salad,' but that's because you would rather deny the sense that I am making than deal with it. If you can't maintain that I'm crazy, then you'll go on and on about present day patterns that are unsustainable while trying to deny obviously untenable patterns are limited by their very intensity of waste. You are a person who looks at a raging bonfire and thinks that the fire can go on blazing forever and even grow without ever running out of wood. So you'll go on cutting the forest and burning through the fuel until it's all gone, and in the mean time the rising price due to scarcity will only invigorate you more because you love the money and the race to control others with it.

But maybe you should just stick with insisting that realism is realistic because reality is reality.
tandempower is offline  
Old 11-17-18, 05:29 PM
  #105  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,953

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1379 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
When realists presume change is 'unrealistic,' they are fundamentally misrepresenting the inherent nature of reality, which is that it is always changing and that there are certain pathways of change that are more natural than others. So, patterns of large scale industrial waste are actually unrealistic in the sense of being unsustainable in terms of the bigger picture of how nature works, but because of the way humans have set up their complex house of mirrors, they can create the illusion that the unnatural/unrealistic/unsustainable levels of industrialism are the reality and the real sustainable realities of nature are what is unrealistic.

If you would think about it on a more basic level, you would see what I mean. What is more natural: doing the minimum work necessary to live and letting everything grow and prosper around you or maximizing industrial waste of resources to create as much artificial commodities and trade as possible before the house of cards comes tumbling down? Obviously the former scenario is more realistically sustainable, but because of the culture of 'realism' where unsustainable human patterns can be imagined in terms of an eternal present as opposed to the 100-200 years that they've actually been going on, the unsustainable can be asserted as 'realistic.'

Now I realize you're going to go on insulting me with words like, 'word salad,' but that's because you would rather deny the sense that I am making than deal with it. If you can't maintain that I'm crazy, then you'll go on and on about present day patterns that are unsustainable while trying to deny obviously untenable patterns are limited by their very intensity of waste. You are a person who looks at a raging bonfire and thinks that the fire can go on blazing forever and even grow without ever running out of wood. So you'll go on cutting the forest and burning through the fuel until it's all gone, and in the mean time the rising price due to scarcity will only invigorate you more because you love the money and the race to control others with it.

But maybe you should just stick with insisting that realism is realistic because reality is reality.
you do know sustainable or not has ďnothing to do with GM and making profit from cars? You do realize what reality is donít you? A Light turns red, a car runs the light and hits another car the crash is reality. Someone sitting in a living room doing the minimum to survive will not change the fact that in a real world the accident happened? Wishing that GM was more interested in selling Ebikes than cars doesnít make that wish a reality.

This is is just silly. We see where things are going and what people want and are willing to pay for. It doesnít matter if we think is if fair or sustainable it is what it is. By your standards Neanderthal man lived a sustainable life. In reality where are they?

Just how many people have you convinced to live a minimalist life and how sustainable are you efforts? At the rate of change you have accomplished what is the time frame for sustainability? Do you believe developing nations will give up their quest for first world transportation? If not will they be sustainable? Do you believe first world nations will give up personal powered transport so everyone else can catch up and then become sustainable? That would be unrealistic in my opinion. You simply canít promise sustainability you can only hope for it. Think about it. GM cannot sustain the workforce it has today if the stopped building cars and trucks and switched to Ebikes, that wouldnít be realistic either. People are going to want the best form of transportation for their purposes at the time they need it. They are not going to worry about what someone else wants 3500 miles away and 200 years in the future. Where in recorded history have you seen a different human attitude?

You cannot not see how people can expect to continue on a path that isnít sustainable? Take a look at any third world country attacked with poverty and starvation. What is their birth rate. That is reality.

Last edited by Mobile 155; 11-17-18 at 05:38 PM.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 11-17-18, 05:34 PM
  #106  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 27,610

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Word salad often IS the reality of BF-LCF posts as well as incoherence. Always entertaining in a head shaking fashion, though often unintentionally.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 11-17-18, 05:44 PM
  #107  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,953

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1379 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
Word salad often IS the reality of BF-LCF posts as well as incoherence. Always entertaining in a head shaking fashion, though often unintentionally.
back in my college days it was also a form of psycho babble. Like, ďReality isnít real. Vision are a reflection of reality.Ē Works best with a bit of herb puffed through a water pipe.

Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 11-17-18, 07:43 PM
  #108  
badger1
Senior Member
 
badger1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 3,937
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 961 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
Word salad often IS the reality of BF-LCF posts as well as incoherence. Always entertaining in a head shaking fashion, though often unintentionally.
Correct.
badger1 is offline  
Old 11-17-18, 07:54 PM
  #109  
badger1
Senior Member
 
badger1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 3,937
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 961 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post


back in my college days it was also a form of psycho babble. Like, ďReality isnít real. Vision are a reflection of reality.Ē Works best with a bit of herb puffed through a water pipe.

Correct.
badger1 is offline  
Old 11-18-18, 03:17 PM
  #110  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,350

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1453 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 20 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
That smell is all over numerous threads and alleged "LCF discussions" on this list and has been for quite awhile.
Yes, if's the fuming of minds who bought cars in the 70s and 80s and it's not very topical here. There is another thread about a mid-drive folder GM prototype and all I could get from the reactions is that they were supposed to have bankrupted the company that innovated the motor drive.

How does this have anything to do with bicycling as a lifestyle and not as another thread about what boneheads the auto industry and drivers must be that almost infests LCF and A&S?

Rants are not advocacy. They don't have anything to do with safety (unless they are about unsafe bikes and parts).

I and others fully understand that you didn't like GM 35-40 years ago but this is 2018.

Maybe the problems are different now. What do they have to do with a bike?

I sense that you have allegiances to other e-bike and folder makes...this is fine. Try and stick to some positive critiques of the bike. Positive does include mentions of it's flaws as well as it's successes.
__________________
I don't know Everything...I've just been at it long enough to know why it's probably messed up.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 11-19-18, 01:28 AM
  #111  
Machka 
In Real Life
 
Machka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 51,332

Bikes: Lots

Mentioned: 125 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2821 Post(s)
Liked 28 Times in 21 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
I wonder if they will be barred at some point from getting into the alternative-transportation business because of conflict of interest.

...

maybe because people are still getting used to the idea of 'new transportation' ...


What conflict of interest????




What new transporation????

Machka is offline  
Old 11-19-18, 10:40 AM
  #112  
fietsbob 
coprolite
 
fietsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Posts: 41,005

Bikes: 8

Mentioned: 183 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6587 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 69 Times in 62 Posts
GMC got the Denali branded GMC by the company that made them ..

some company in Asia will do a similar job this time , probably Taiwan .
they're already the best at this..

Not Detroit.. there ate some small companies making good, simple bikes there..
fietsbob is offline  
Old 11-19-18, 01:13 PM
  #113  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,953

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1379 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Originally Posted by fietsbob View Post
GMC got the Denali branded GMC by the company that made them ..

some company in Asia will do a similar job this time , probably Taiwan .
they're already the best at this..

Not Detroit.. there ate some small companies making good, simple bikes there..
yes it is doubtful that GM will build the bikes. Much like they donít manufacture the spare tire. But the real point is are they trying to limit their own profit engine? I say no they are just trying to fill every small gap in their business model as they can.

The more interesting question will be what standards will they have for any GM branded Ebike sold at dealerships? My guess is the bikes will start between $1500.00 and $3000.00. How many supposed LCF advocates will be looking at buying a car or truck to add that kind of money onto the financing? These bikes will not likely be Wally World class bikes.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 11-20-18, 08:07 AM
  #114  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,315
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8018 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Machka View Post
What conflict of interest????
the interest in preventing lcf because they want everyone to drive

What new transporation????
lcf options are new to people who just mentally operate on the assumption that driving is the way you go places.
​​​​​​​
tandempower is offline  
Old 11-20-18, 05:19 PM
  #115  
TiHabanero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,202
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 617 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 11 Posts
GM should get into electric scooters, not electric assist pedal bikes. Makes no sense with the pedal bikes. Electric scooters make a lot of sense, well, at least to me. As long as the design comes from a company like Sanyo or Panasonic, I would buy one. If it is strictly GM engineering, I will pass on it.
TiHabanero is offline  
Old 11-20-18, 08:34 PM
  #116  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,350

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1453 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 20 Posts
What would be the difference if you are not a fan of GM design etc?

PS Panasonic is Sanyo, Sanyo was bought by Panasonic a few years ago.
__________________
I don't know Everything...I've just been at it long enough to know why it's probably messed up.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 11-20-18, 08:35 PM
  #117  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,350

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1453 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 20 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post

the interest in preventing lcf because they want everyone to drive


lcf options are new to people who just mentally operate on the assumption that driving is the way you go places.
​​​​​​​
You drive a bike, so how is that different?
__________________
I don't know Everything...I've just been at it long enough to know why it's probably messed up.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 11-21-18, 07:17 PM
  #118  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,315
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8018 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rollfast View Post
You drive a bike, so how is that different?
They want everyone to drive because cars cost a lot more than bikes.
tandempower is offline  
Old 11-21-18, 08:09 PM
  #119  
badger1
Senior Member
 
badger1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 3,937
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 961 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
They want everyone to drive because cars cost a lot more than bikes.
Who are "they"? Oh wait ... never mind; you mean The Forces of Automotivist Evil:

badger1 is offline  
Old 11-22-18, 10:12 AM
  #120  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,315
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8018 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by badger1 View Post
Who are "they"? Oh wait ... never mind; you mean The Forces of Automotivist Evil:

The problem is we can't know exactly who 'they' are, because the corporations, unions, etc. have PR people to say whatever sounds best. But several people here have said that the primary interest is to sell more cars, so that implies a conflict of interest when it comes to providing services to (potentially) car-free people. In short, 'they' seem to be creating this multimodal transportation vision for the sake of preventing people from giving up car-ownership in favor of bike- and scooter- sharing.
tandempower is offline  
Old 11-22-18, 11:23 AM
  #121  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 27,610

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
The problem is we can't know exactly who 'they' are, because the corporations, unions, etc. have PR people to say whatever sounds best. But several people here have said that the primary interest is to sell more cars, so that implies a conflict of interest when it comes to providing services to (potentially) car-free people. In short, 'they' seem to be creating this multimodal transportation vision for the sake of preventing people from giving up car-ownership in favor of bike- and scooter- sharing.
No problem knowing who is included when you use the word "we." Nobody but yourself.

BTW, GM does offer a service to car-free people - the opportunity to not be car-free.

For those who choose not to own a car, the front door at every GM showroom has easy exit to the street as well as entry, as well as prominent displays of the products being sold so that nobody should be confused about what is being offered.

Only a confused person walks into a GM showroom because he wants to be car-free.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 11-22-18, 11:54 AM
  #122  
badger1
Senior Member
 
badger1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 3,937
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 961 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
The problem is we can't know exactly who 'they' are, because the corporations, unions, etc. have PR people to say whatever sounds best. But several people here have said that the primary interest is to sell more cars, so that implies a conflict of interest when it comes to providing services to (potentially) car-free people. In short, 'they' seem to be creating this multimodal transportation vision for the sake of preventing people from giving up car-ownership in favor of bike- and scooter- sharing.
No, there is no 'conflict of interest'.

If GM promotes a 'multimodal transportation vision-thing' as part of its on-going efforts to sell the products it makes, that is not inherently or even potentially a 'conflict of interest' -- it is part of GM's on-going efforts to sell the products it makes. Provided its advertising is not wilfully false/misleading to the point of illegality, and its actions are lawful, there is nothing wrong with its attempts to do so.

GM is not under a duty to subscribe to, let alone promote/serve goals that you deem appropriate. Look up even a basic definition of conflict of interest, never mind a legal one. The concept is tied to the notion of duty owed: a conflict of interest may exist where the self-interest of a corporation or person might work against a duty that corporation or person is under to make decisions for the benefit of someone other that itself. GM is under a duty to obey the laws and regulations of the state jurisdictions in which it operates. That is all; it is not under a duty to conform itself to your idea of what it should do or promote -- it is not under a duty to make corporate decisions for your benefit, or mine, or the Little Birdies and Trees and Streams and Bambi, except as required by law.
badger1 is offline  
Old 11-22-18, 06:50 PM
  #123  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,315
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8018 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
No problem knowing who is included when you use the word "we." Nobody but yourself.
Who's included in the word, 'y'all' then?

BTW, GM does offer a service to car-free people - the opportunity to not be car-free.
That would be the conflict of interest, yes. It would be like a beer company sponsoring AA.

For those who choose not to own a car, the front door at every GM showroom has easy exit to the street as well as entry, as well as prominent displays of the products being sold so that nobody should be confused about what is being offered.
I just wonder whether they should be allowed to get into the bicycle and scooter business, or even ride-sharing for that matter. I think they could position themselves in the market in a way that allows them to make LCF more difficult in order to steer people toward car ownership.

Only a confused person walks into a GM showroom because he wants to be car-free.
The issue is preventing them from trying to once again stop a trend toward decreasing per capita car ownership. The automakers and dealerships need to allow car ownership to go down so that the roads will be less congested. If they keep thwarting the ability of people to conveniently LCF by interfering with things like bike- and scooter- sharing and ride-sharing, then we keep having to go back to square one with providing convenient alternatives to car ownership for transportation reform.
tandempower is offline  
Old 11-22-18, 06:59 PM
  #124  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,315
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8018 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by badger1 View Post
No, there is no 'conflict of interest'.

If GM promotes a 'multimodal transportation vision-thing' as part of its on-going efforts to sell the products it makes, that is not inherently or even potentially a 'conflict of interest' -- it is part of GM's on-going efforts to sell the products it makes. Provided its advertising is not wilfully false/misleading to the point of illegality, and its actions are lawful, there is nothing wrong with its attempts to do so.
Many companies are barred from getting into rival industries because of potential conflicts of interest like this one. You would have to do a market analysis and see if the overall competitive landscape would be threatened by them getting into these markets.

It is a difficult thing to assess because there are multiple levels of government in play. E.g. I've noticed that it is mostly local/municipal governments that are restricting the dockless scooters and bikes, so it is difficult to know what interests are behind those restrictions. It may be local car dealerships, insurance companies, auto mechanics, etc. who are afraid of losing business. Somehow these anti-competitive actions need to be stopped. People may need to take local municipal governments to court, etc. Stopping car companies from getting involved with LCF transportation may just be one prong of a broader strategy.

GM is not under a duty to subscribe to, let alone promote/serve goals that you deem appropriate. Look up even a basic definition of conflict of interest, never mind a legal one. The concept is tied to the notion of duty owed: a conflict of interest may exist where the self-interest of a corporation or person might work against a duty that corporation or person is under to make decisions for the benefit of someone other that itself. GM is under a duty to obey the laws and regulations of the state jurisdictions in which it operates. That is all; it is not under a duty to conform itself to your idea of what it should do or promote -- it is not under a duty to make corporate decisions for your benefit, or mine, or the Little Birdies and Trees and Streams and Bambi, except as required by law.
They are claiming to support a more multimodal vision of transportation, but if their true motive is to subvert it so they can sell more cars, then why should they be allowed to insert themselves into market positions that allow them to manipulate markets against the interests of people who truly want to invest in alternatives to driving?
tandempower is offline  
Old 11-22-18, 07:11 PM
  #125  
Machka 
In Real Life
 
Machka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 51,332

Bikes: Lots

Mentioned: 125 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2821 Post(s)
Liked 28 Times in 21 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
They want everyone to drive because cars cost a lot more than bikes.

Why can't people do both?
Machka is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.