9 ms·

HOV lanes in Bay Area will get so crowded...

pmalynin 9y ago
Assuming they're not now. 8-9 AM work-days it seems that the HOV lane is only marginally faster. Going back from Mountain View to San Jose at 4-5 is equally as bad with traffic grinding to a halt near the Montegue Express exit in any lane. It's kind of ridiculous actually because even if you're in a 4 person carpool its pretty horrific.
- hjaltij 9y ago
  It's quite busy but still saves me around 10 minutes from Cupertino to West San Jose.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  That's California for you: The people who use the lanes, by and large, don't need them[1], and simultaneously, California subsidizes and encourages electric car driving while having, by far, the absolute worst electrical infrastructure in the country, with no real plan to improve it[2] Don't worry, somehow, they are saving the environment in all this, despite the fact that most cars these days probably put out less emissions than a family that ate too many beans. [1] They are pretty much rich people lanes. None of the very large number of day laborers, etc, could afford an electric car (and there are no electric trucks they could use), but also probably spend significantly more away from their families than people who do use them. [2] Yes, the math says that if everyone in california drove an electric car, we'd be in trouble. Even if they only charge off peak. The same is even more true of the US, I did the math out in an earlier HN post, IIRC it comes out to something ridiculous like double or triple all current residential electric usage on a yearly basis.
  - greenyoda 9y ago
    "The same is even more true of the US, I did the math out in an earlier HN post, IIRC it comes out to something ridiculous like double or triple all current residential electric usage on a yearly basis." In NYC, we get uncomfortably close to peak electrical capacity on hot summer days, to the point where the utilities beg us to reduce consumption (e.g., e-mails at work saying the power company is asking us to turn off computers and lights that we aren't using). Even at night, people are running their air conditioners full blast. When we've maxed out the nuclear and gas power plants, we fire up the dirty, old oil-fired power plants as the generators of last resort. I can't imagine NYC being able to convert a significant number of cars to electric with the existing power infrastructure.
    - imron 9y ago
      > we fire up the dirty, old oil-fired power plants as the generators of last resort. But it's probably still a net win if that extra electricity is going to power electric cars, because a power plant is more efficient than thousands of internal combustion engines. See: https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-li...
      - mowenz 9y ago
        Good lord that is a long-winded post. Not just in scope, but the writing style rambles and opines endlessly. For the record, I'm excited for the Model 3, and would buy a Model S if I could afford it. That said, the claim in that reference is problematic for many reasons, which I didn't notice were addressed: 1) Thermal efficiency in a vehicle is converted directly to mechanical energy. A power plant must convert thermal energy into electrical energy (losses involved), transmit it long distances across an energy grid (more losses involved), store it in a battery (more losses), and convert it back to mechanical energy (even more losses). 2) EVs like the Model S lug around as much as >1,000s of lbs of batteries. That's monstrously inefficient when specifically compared to the energy density of gasoline. 3) Some power generators may emit more pollution than modern cars-1 From a public policy perspective, the low-hanging fruits in the fight for cleaner emissions are to get people in gas guzzlers into Civics and Accords, not to get people in Civics and Accords in to EVs. That, and public transportation, bicycling infrastructure, and raising the price of carbon to align with the public cost of it. 1-https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are...
        mowenz 9y ago
        If someone downvote, can you point out what is incorrect? It feels like saying anything negative about Tesla/EVs on HN is just downvoted without regard for merit.
      - greenyoda 9y ago
        It's not just a question of thermodynamic efficiency. Cars have emission control systems (catalytic converters, etc.) that mitigate some of the pollutants, and perhaps most importantly, use a much cleaner fuel (the heavy fuel oil burned in power plants produces soot, sulfur compounds, etc. which the more highly refined hydrocarbons in gasoline do not).
  - s0rce 9y ago
    Yes, they are rich people lanes, although cars like the leaf and the bolt make them more accessible to "middle" class people compared to a tesla for most people an electric car isn't practical and would have to be a secondary vehicle for only commuting which again makes it for rich people. Although, like many laws in California, it seems like a good idea to promote electric cars, allowing them to use the carpool infrastructure just doesn't seem like a good plan.
    - fossuser 9y ago
      The Fiat 500e is extremely cheap to lease ($87/month). Last year there was even a point where it was $1500 down, since you get a $2500 incentive check from California if you got that deal you were basically being paid to take it. Most people would be fine with an EV given how much they actually drive, it's not just for rich people.
      - gcb0 9y ago
        and then you ignore that a cheap ev can't be the only car for a person, specially out of san fran. so now you have two insurances. two garages or live well enough to have two street parking. two maintenance bills. etc. etc.
        concede_pluto 9y ago
        You can't street park an EV, you have to run a 220V outlet to your garage if you plan to drive it two days in a row. Which means nobody in an apartment can use one.
        ido 9y ago
        Why can't a cheap ev be a person's only car in SF?
        taneq 9y ago
        But what about the one time per decade that they decide to make a road trip to Miami?
  - dfabulich 9y ago
    > Don't worry, somehow, they are saving the environment in all this, despite the fact that most cars these days probably put out less emissions than a family that ate too many beans. First, this comparison is wrong. Cars generate roughly 5,000 liters of of CO2 per gallon. A human passes about one liter of gas per day, maybe two. But even if you were right, what's the point of this comparison? We can eliminate the CO2 emissions from cars, but we can't do that to people, and we really need to cut these emissions a lot, or the earth will cook. https://ollilaasanen.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/humans-cows-methane-and-global-warming/ https://ollilaasanen.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/humans-cows-me... Humans pass 1L per day https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle-0 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-t... Cars generate ~9kg CO2/gallon http://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/volume-to-weight/substance/carbon-blank-dioxide http://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/volume-to-weight/substanc... CO2 is 1.8 grams per liter
    - dlgeek 9y ago
      Furthermore, human CO2 emissions come from plants as part of the normal carbon cycle - they're not an ecological problem. It's carbon-from-the-ground that's a problem.
      - wyager 9y ago
        CO2 is fungible.
        sadface 9y ago
        Yes, but surface-level biology is pretty much carbon neutral. All of the carbon you exhale to the atmosphere comes from the food you eat, which gets its carbon from the atmosphere via photosynthesis. Obviously there are edge cases, but by and large Global Warming is happening because we're pulling carbon out of the ground and putting it in the sky.
        schiffern 9y ago
        The catch is, modern agriculture isn't limited to "surface-level biology." >All of the carbon you exhale to the atmosphere comes from the food you eat, which gets its carbon from the atmosphere via photosynthesis. This is true, but also misleading. When you include the nitrous oxide, methane, diesel fuel, and loss of soil carbon, agriculture is actually net CO2e positive. >Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (24% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector come mostly from agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and deforestation. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector. So in other words, globally our agriculture emits 5 units of CO2e for every 1 unit sequestered by photosynthesis. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_nitrous.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_nit... When you include the entire supply chain from field-to-fork (agriculture, transport, refrigeration, processing, preparation) the general rule of thumb is that 10 kilocalories of fossil fuel energy go into making 1 kilocalorie of food. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/10-calories-in-1-calorie-out-the-energy-we-spend-on-food/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/10-calories-...
  - prawn 9y ago
    I don't have an issue with them being supposed "rich people lanes" if it's how companies gradually bring EVs to market and eventually to lower price points.
    - Animats 9y ago
      LA already has "rich people lanes".[1] There are paid toll transponders that let cars drive in the express lane. Price is about $1/mile. [1] https://www.metroexpresslanes.net/en/home/index.shtml https://www.metroexpresslanes.net/en/home/index.shtml
      - alasdair_ 9y ago
        Seattle also has these. Dynamic pricing based on congestion charges between 50c and $7.50. After that price it's HOV only.
  - ghouse 9y ago
    > while having, by far, the absolute worst electrical infrastructure in the country Source please?
  - maxsilver 9y ago
    > None of the very large number of day laborers, etc, could afford an electric car Used Nissan LEAF's start around $7k, even in the Bay Area. With $0 down, that works out to about $125/month car payment. For the vast majority of drivers -- if you can afford a regular car, you can easily afford an electric one instead. > Yes, the math says that if everyone in california drove an electric car, we'd be in trouble. Even if they only charge off peak. An electric car can charge on power draws all the way down to 1.4kW (that's a standard 15amp 3-prong US household outlet). An electric car charging likely uses less electricity per second than the Air Conditioner or Clothing Dryer you already have in your home. There is no doomsday scenario for the electric grid. Electric Cars simply don't draw enough power to do any of the things you've described. Especially once you factor in that their charging mostly happens off-peak anyway.
- bduerst 9y ago
  RWC to Mountain View (southbound) is still faster. The construction in Palo Alto still screws everything up but that's expected.
sxp 9y ago
The nice thing about a car with Autopilot is that it makes driving in heavy traffic less stressful. You still lose the time, but the trip is almost as relaxing as being a passenger during heavy traffic.
- taneq 9y ago
  How's the reliability on the new Autopilot these days? Last I heard it still didn't inspire much faith but I know they've been pumping out updates.
  - sxp 9y ago
    I wouldn't trust it on high-speed high-traffic roads, but it's good in high-speed & low-traffic (cruise control on long trips) and low-speed & high-traffic (traffic jams).
nerdwaller 9y ago
I live in Denver and we only have a few HOV lanes, but none on my commute. I'm fortunate enough to live close enough to one of the, somewhat weak, train system lines and now commute vis public transit and drive my car maybe 1x/2weeks. It's been really liberating. We still need one car for the family, but not one per working adult.
grecy 9y ago
No worries, they will add more. Before you disagree, remember there was a time they went from exactly zero HOV lanes to one.. which is an infinite increase. This time they will go from whatever they have now (usually one) to two, which is at most only a 100% increase. Also keep in mind the day will come that all roads will only permit electric vehicles, essentially meaning all lanes are "HOV". So from 2017 -> the future we must transition to that, which means we have to start adding HOV lanes sooner or later.
- wyager 9y ago
  > Also keep in mind the day will come that all roads will only permit electric vehicles, That would be pretty dumb. This is a very strange claim from an overlander (assuming you agree with it); surely you're aware that batteries are nowhere near the energy density of chemical fuel, and probably won't be for a long time. We're even further away from practical electric ATVs or motorcycles. Banning gas vehicles in the next ~50 years would be incredibly destructive to rural areas and outdoor recreation. By the time it would be semi-feasible to outlaw gas vehicles, there'd probably be no point, because electrics would be cheaper for most consumers anyway.
  - grecy 9y ago
    I believe it will happen, it's not really relevant if I agree with it. Think about how much battery tech has improved in the last 50 years, now extrapolate forward 50 more. Gasoline and the fumes cars pump into our towns are carcinogenic, and it will be banned. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it will happen.
  - AshleyGrant 9y ago
    >We're even further away from practical electric ATVs or motorcycles I literally googled "electric motorcycles" and the first result proved you wrong: http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/motorcycles/ http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/motorcycles/ Googling "electric ATV" again proves you wrong: http://www.polaris.com/en-us/ranger-utv/ranger-ev-avalanche-gray http://www.polaris.com/en-us/ranger-utv/ranger-ev-avalanche-... As far as banning non-zero emission vehicles? In cities, especially in Europe, it's likely to happen a lot sooner than you might think. And sure, rural areas will depend on ICE vehicles for longer than urban areas. That's no different than how there are plenty of places where it still makes more sense to ride a horse than to drive a vehicle. Edge cases are edge cases.
Spiritus 9y ago
What’s an HOV lane?
- sxates 9y ago
  Also known as a "carpool lane" - requires 2 or 3 passengers to use, and is a way to ease congestion on freeways.
  - chx 9y ago
    And in a lot of jurisdictions electric vehicles even with one passenger is allowed in them.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  "High Occupancy Vehicle", typically a car with 3 or more people in it. To allow use of the lanes for electric cars is technically cheating.

Assuming they're not now. 8-9 AM work-days it seems that the HOV lane is only marginally faster. Going back from Mountain View to San Jose at 4-5 is equally as bad with traffic grinding to a halt near the Montegue Express exit in any lane. It's kind of ridiculous actually because even if you're in a 4 person carpool its pretty horrific.

hjaltij 9y ago
It's quite busy but still saves me around 10 minutes from Cupertino to West San Jose.
DannyBee 9y ago
That's California for you: The people who use the lanes, by and large, don't need them[1], and simultaneously, California subsidizes and encourages electric car driving while having, by far, the absolute worst electrical infrastructure in the country, with no real plan to improve it[2] Don't worry, somehow, they are saving the environment in all this, despite the fact that most cars these days probably put out less emissions than a family that ate too many beans. [1] They are pretty much rich people lanes. None of the very large number of day laborers, etc, could afford an electric car (and there are no electric trucks they could use), but also probably spend significantly more away from their families than people who do use them. [2] Yes, the math says that if everyone in california drove an electric car, we'd be in trouble. Even if they only charge off peak. The same is even more true of the US, I did the math out in an earlier HN post, IIRC it comes out to something ridiculous like double or triple all current residential electric usage on a yearly basis.
- greenyoda 9y ago
  "The same is even more true of the US, I did the math out in an earlier HN post, IIRC it comes out to something ridiculous like double or triple all current residential electric usage on a yearly basis." In NYC, we get uncomfortably close to peak electrical capacity on hot summer days, to the point where the utilities beg us to reduce consumption (e.g., e-mails at work saying the power company is asking us to turn off computers and lights that we aren't using). Even at night, people are running their air conditioners full blast. When we've maxed out the nuclear and gas power plants, we fire up the dirty, old oil-fired power plants as the generators of last resort. I can't imagine NYC being able to convert a significant number of cars to electric with the existing power infrastructure.
  - imron 9y ago
    > we fire up the dirty, old oil-fired power plants as the generators of last resort. But it's probably still a net win if that extra electricity is going to power electric cars, because a power plant is more efficient than thousands of internal combustion engines. See: https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-li...
    - mowenz 9y ago
      Good lord that is a long-winded post. Not just in scope, but the writing style rambles and opines endlessly. For the record, I'm excited for the Model 3, and would buy a Model S if I could afford it. That said, the claim in that reference is problematic for many reasons, which I didn't notice were addressed: 1) Thermal efficiency in a vehicle is converted directly to mechanical energy. A power plant must convert thermal energy into electrical energy (losses involved), transmit it long distances across an energy grid (more losses involved), store it in a battery (more losses), and convert it back to mechanical energy (even more losses). 2) EVs like the Model S lug around as much as >1,000s of lbs of batteries. That's monstrously inefficient when specifically compared to the energy density of gasoline. 3) Some power generators may emit more pollution than modern cars-1 From a public policy perspective, the low-hanging fruits in the fight for cleaner emissions are to get people in gas guzzlers into Civics and Accords, not to get people in Civics and Accords in to EVs. That, and public transportation, bicycling infrastructure, and raising the price of carbon to align with the public cost of it. 1-https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are...
      - mowenz 9y ago
        If someone downvote, can you point out what is incorrect? It feels like saying anything negative about Tesla/EVs on HN is just downvoted without regard for merit.
    - greenyoda 9y ago
      It's not just a question of thermodynamic efficiency. Cars have emission control systems (catalytic converters, etc.) that mitigate some of the pollutants, and perhaps most importantly, use a much cleaner fuel (the heavy fuel oil burned in power plants produces soot, sulfur compounds, etc. which the more highly refined hydrocarbons in gasoline do not).
- s0rce 9y ago
  Yes, they are rich people lanes, although cars like the leaf and the bolt make them more accessible to "middle" class people compared to a tesla for most people an electric car isn't practical and would have to be a secondary vehicle for only commuting which again makes it for rich people. Although, like many laws in California, it seems like a good idea to promote electric cars, allowing them to use the carpool infrastructure just doesn't seem like a good plan.
  - fossuser 9y ago
    The Fiat 500e is extremely cheap to lease ($87/month). Last year there was even a point where it was $1500 down, since you get a $2500 incentive check from California if you got that deal you were basically being paid to take it. Most people would be fine with an EV given how much they actually drive, it's not just for rich people.
    - gcb0 9y ago
      and then you ignore that a cheap ev can't be the only car for a person, specially out of san fran. so now you have two insurances. two garages or live well enough to have two street parking. two maintenance bills. etc. etc.
      - concede_pluto 9y ago
        You can't street park an EV, you have to run a 220V outlet to your garage if you plan to drive it two days in a row. Which means nobody in an apartment can use one.
      - ido 9y ago
        Why can't a cheap ev be a person's only car in SF?
        taneq 9y ago
        But what about the one time per decade that they decide to make a road trip to Miami?
- dfabulich 9y ago
  > Don't worry, somehow, they are saving the environment in all this, despite the fact that most cars these days probably put out less emissions than a family that ate too many beans. First, this comparison is wrong. Cars generate roughly 5,000 liters of of CO2 per gallon. A human passes about one liter of gas per day, maybe two. But even if you were right, what's the point of this comparison? We can eliminate the CO2 emissions from cars, but we can't do that to people, and we really need to cut these emissions a lot, or the earth will cook. https://ollilaasanen.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/humans-cows-methane-and-global-warming/ https://ollilaasanen.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/humans-cows-me... Humans pass 1L per day https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle-0 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-t... Cars generate ~9kg CO2/gallon http://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/volume-to-weight/substance/carbon-blank-dioxide http://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/volume-to-weight/substanc... CO2 is 1.8 grams per liter
  - dlgeek 9y ago
    Furthermore, human CO2 emissions come from plants as part of the normal carbon cycle - they're not an ecological problem. It's carbon-from-the-ground that's a problem.
    - wyager 9y ago
      CO2 is fungible.
      - sadface 9y ago
        Yes, but surface-level biology is pretty much carbon neutral. All of the carbon you exhale to the atmosphere comes from the food you eat, which gets its carbon from the atmosphere via photosynthesis. Obviously there are edge cases, but by and large Global Warming is happening because we're pulling carbon out of the ground and putting it in the sky.
        schiffern 9y ago
        The catch is, modern agriculture isn't limited to "surface-level biology." >All of the carbon you exhale to the atmosphere comes from the food you eat, which gets its carbon from the atmosphere via photosynthesis. This is true, but also misleading. When you include the nitrous oxide, methane, diesel fuel, and loss of soil carbon, agriculture is actually net CO2e positive. >Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (24% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector come mostly from agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and deforestation. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector. So in other words, globally our agriculture emits 5 units of CO2e for every 1 unit sequestered by photosynthesis. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_nitrous.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_nit... When you include the entire supply chain from field-to-fork (agriculture, transport, refrigeration, processing, preparation) the general rule of thumb is that 10 kilocalories of fossil fuel energy go into making 1 kilocalorie of food. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/10-calories-in-1-calorie-out-the-energy-we-spend-on-food/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/10-calories-...
- prawn 9y ago
  I don't have an issue with them being supposed "rich people lanes" if it's how companies gradually bring EVs to market and eventually to lower price points.
  - Animats 9y ago
    LA already has "rich people lanes".[1] There are paid toll transponders that let cars drive in the express lane. Price is about $1/mile. [1] https://www.metroexpresslanes.net/en/home/index.shtml https://www.metroexpresslanes.net/en/home/index.shtml
    - alasdair_ 9y ago
      Seattle also has these. Dynamic pricing based on congestion charges between 50c and $7.50. After that price it's HOV only.
- ghouse 9y ago
  > while having, by far, the absolute worst electrical infrastructure in the country Source please?
- maxsilver 9y ago
  > None of the very large number of day laborers, etc, could afford an electric car Used Nissan LEAF's start around $7k, even in the Bay Area. With $0 down, that works out to about $125/month car payment. For the vast majority of drivers -- if you can afford a regular car, you can easily afford an electric one instead. > Yes, the math says that if everyone in california drove an electric car, we'd be in trouble. Even if they only charge off peak. An electric car can charge on power draws all the way down to 1.4kW (that's a standard 15amp 3-prong US household outlet). An electric car charging likely uses less electricity per second than the Air Conditioner or Clothing Dryer you already have in your home. There is no doomsday scenario for the electric grid. Electric Cars simply don't draw enough power to do any of the things you've described. Especially once you factor in that their charging mostly happens off-peak anyway.
bduerst 9y ago
RWC to Mountain View (southbound) is still faster. The construction in Palo Alto still screws everything up but that's expected.

sxp 9y ago

The nice thing about a car with Autopilot is that it makes driving in heavy traffic less stressful. You still lose the time, but the trip is almost as relaxing as being a passenger during heavy traffic.

taneq 9y ago
How's the reliability on the new Autopilot these days? Last I heard it still didn't inspire much faith but I know they've been pumping out updates.
- sxp 9y ago
  I wouldn't trust it on high-speed high-traffic roads, but it's good in high-speed & low-traffic (cruise control on long trips) and low-speed & high-traffic (traffic jams).

nerdwaller 9y ago

I live in Denver and we only have a few HOV lanes, but none on my commute. I'm fortunate enough to live close enough to one of the, somewhat weak, train system lines and now commute vis public transit and drive my car maybe 1x/2weeks. It's been really liberating. We still need one car for the family, but not one per working adult.

grecy 9y ago

No worries, they will add more. Before you disagree, remember there was a time they went from exactly zero HOV lanes to one.. which is an infinite increase. This time they will go from whatever they have now (usually one) to two, which is at most only a 100% increase. Also keep in mind the day will come that all roads will only permit electric vehicles, essentially meaning all lanes are "HOV". So from 2017 -> the future we must transition to that, which means we have to start adding HOV lanes sooner or later.

wyager 9y ago
> Also keep in mind the day will come that all roads will only permit electric vehicles, That would be pretty dumb. This is a very strange claim from an overlander (assuming you agree with it); surely you're aware that batteries are nowhere near the energy density of chemical fuel, and probably won't be for a long time. We're even further away from practical electric ATVs or motorcycles. Banning gas vehicles in the next ~50 years would be incredibly destructive to rural areas and outdoor recreation. By the time it would be semi-feasible to outlaw gas vehicles, there'd probably be no point, because electrics would be cheaper for most consumers anyway.
- grecy 9y ago
  I believe it will happen, it's not really relevant if I agree with it. Think about how much battery tech has improved in the last 50 years, now extrapolate forward 50 more. Gasoline and the fumes cars pump into our towns are carcinogenic, and it will be banned. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it will happen.
- AshleyGrant 9y ago
  >We're even further away from practical electric ATVs or motorcycles I literally googled "electric motorcycles" and the first result proved you wrong: http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/motorcycles/ http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/motorcycles/ Googling "electric ATV" again proves you wrong: http://www.polaris.com/en-us/ranger-utv/ranger-ev-avalanche-gray http://www.polaris.com/en-us/ranger-utv/ranger-ev-avalanche-... As far as banning non-zero emission vehicles? In cities, especially in Europe, it's likely to happen a lot sooner than you might think. And sure, rural areas will depend on ICE vehicles for longer than urban areas. That's no different than how there are plenty of places where it still makes more sense to ride a horse than to drive a vehicle. Edge cases are edge cases.

Spiritus 9y ago

What’s an HOV lane?

sxates 9y ago
Also known as a "carpool lane" - requires 2 or 3 passengers to use, and is a way to ease congestion on freeways.
- chx 9y ago
  And in a lot of jurisdictions electric vehicles even with one passenger is allowed in them.
jacquesm 9y ago
"High Occupancy Vehicle", typically a car with 3 or more people in it. To allow use of the lanes for electric cars is technically cheating.