GM to make e-bikes
#101
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
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.
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.
#102
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
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.
#103
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
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.
#104
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
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.
#105
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
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.
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.
This is is just silly. We see where things are going and what people want and are willing to pay for. It doesn’t 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 can’t 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 wouldn’t 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 isn’t 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.
#106
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,984
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,539 Times
in
1,048 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.
#107
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
#110
What happened?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927
Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
255 Posts
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 nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
#111
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 596 Times
in
329 Posts
What conflict of interest????
What new transporation????
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
#112
Banned
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..
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..
#113
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
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.
#115
Senior Member
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.
#116
What happened?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927
Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
255 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.
PS Panasonic is Sanyo, Sanyo was bought by Panasonic a few years ago.
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
#117
What happened?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927
Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
255 Posts
You drive a bike, so how is that different?
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
#120
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
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.
#121
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,984
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,539 Times
in
1,048 Posts
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.
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.
#122
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 5,129
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1582 Post(s)
Liked 1,197 Times
in
608 Posts
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.
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.
#123
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
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.
#124
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
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.
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.
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.
#125
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 596 Times
in
329 Posts
Why can't people do both?
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery