9 ms·

Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

44 points by simonpure 4y ago

mangecoeur 4y ago
Seeing tons of really interesting an innovative e-bike designs, its very exciting. Electric cargo trikes are becoming common where I live, for professionals I can really seem them replacing the old 'plumber's minivan'. And we're seeing really cool innovations like Bosch ABS brakes, more efficient motors. Also a lot of opportunities for specialization, now that there is a much bigger market instead of one size fits all there are different products hitting different optimum points for commuters, off-roaders, cargo etc.
throwaway290 4y ago
Small EVs and their riders are a city menace. They hardly ever use roads--though they are allowed to, just like bicyclists are--and instead roam the sidewalks, expecting pedestrians to get out of the way and getting angry if they don't. The cities that get it right, in my opinion, divide all vehicles into either unpowered or powered. Powered vehicles use roads and are subject to regulations; those that do not fit any regulated class (eg. being too new) are illegal by default.
- joaonmatos 4y ago
  I wonder why velocipede users end up on the sidewalks. Could it be because they do not feel safe on the road, where they should be? Or that bike lanes have no separation from the road and often have larger vehicles parked there? In general, I suspect someone is purposely ignoring the gas-powered, 3-ton metal elephant in the room (road?).
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    For some of those EVs, like standing scooters, it's definitely half safety issue. By design they are less safe and stable than bicycles, I've seen multiple crashes (especially on wet surfaces). Plus, as a rider, you might assume someone who can afford a car or taxi would think of themselves as a more important person so you'd rather not slow them down or they might get angry--and they are the one driving a multi-ton metal box soft only on the inside. As a result somehow it's acceptable to inconvenience people who move with less environmental impact and protection (pedestrians as opposed to car drivers), while it should be the opposite. Re cars, I don't like them and the fact that many modern cities tend to be designed around them. This is at least partially why EVs are used. But that design issue can't be solved quickly, and meanwhile conceding the remaining safe surfaces and normalizing powered transport is moving in the opposite direction of the solution.
    - digdugdirk 4y ago
      Actually, I find that conceding the remaining safe surfaces and normalizing powered transport is exactly the solution. As the general population experiences both the benefits and the drawbacks of powered transport, cities are much more responsive to creating dedicated space for vehicles of this type. Even painted bike lanes are preferable to the usual status quo of rolling the dice in a regular lane against multiple F150 drivers on cell phones on a city street. And as such infrastructure improves further, the benefits of using that infrastructure for the powered transport rider increase dramatically vs competing against people walking on a sidewalk.
      - throwaway290 4y ago
        Every new lane you add makes a city less dense and less walkable. If you prefer sprawling suburbia and drivers ignoring traffic rules as the norm, that's your choice. The denser the city, the smaller and fewer the roads and intersections, the less resources you need to handle and prevent reckless driving, the more people choose against driving, the more viable the public transport system, the smaller the environmental footprint of the city, the less pollution from car tyres and exhaust, etc.
        rob74 4y ago
        Well of course there is no "one size fits all" solution. Where there is space for sidewalks, bike lanes beside the road and an adequate amount of greenery/trees, that's the way to go (even if it means sacrificing some parking space or a car lane); where there is not enough space, either create a "shared zone" where all vehicles are limited to walking speed, or convert it to a pedestrian area.
        barnabee 4y ago
        Agreed. Don't add lanes at the expense of density, take the existing lanes away from cars. Make the experience hellish and expensive for them so they stop driving around in cities where, for the most part, they shouldn't be, and turn that space into pedestrian walkways, cycle/micromobility infrastructure, and perhaps the occasional park or extra canal. Declare war on the automobile in urban environments, electric or otherwise.
- Attrecomet 4y ago
  Agree. For one, even actually commonly used technology in its self-propelled manifestation like bikes attracts riders that are on the low end of driving ability when electrified, making sharing so-far self-propelled pathways with these participants more difficult than before. For another, there aren't any good niches for, e.g., (pedal) scooters to move in cities so far. This hasn't been a problem, because the ~5 non-children per city using them so far (to use a number verified by a hard statistical method I call "pulling out of thin air") are easily worked around. Electrified "pedal" scooters OTOH are becoming more pervasive, and thus don't fit into the cracks of mobility, as it were. In addition, shared E-scooters are a plague simply by blocking bike and pedestrian routes because the companies externalize their storage to the public - and their users seem to be unable to not be assholes about it, on average. And the mode of transportation they replace isn't driving cars, but walking, public transport and perhaps short bike rides - all without any increase in carrying capacity for the riders. So they actually increase the environmental footprint of mobility, one of the major drivers of electrification, for all the drawbacks they offer...
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    E-scooters are roughly equivalent to bikes in terms of transportation ability within dense areas, while being more approachable for a lot of people. They let you go farther than walking when there’s no public transport to speak of. They should be ridden primarily in bike lanes… when those exist and are safe. So we need a lot more protected bike lanes!
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Approachability is not a feature here. This is powered vehicles we're talking about: a danger to both the rider and pedestrians. They should observe regulations for powered vehicles, period. If they are not safe, they should be banned. If they do not fit any regulated category, they should be banned. There is a reason arbitrary unregistered contraptions are not allowed to roam city streets.
      - ryukafalz 4y ago
- croisillon 4y ago
  it's because e-kickrollers (the sharing kind in particular) are mostly not used properly, either as a replacement for a short (under 10 minutes) walk or as a toy (riding fast, riding with friends in circle etc). if we could somehow cut/forbid such rides we would only be left with people intending to get "from a to b" more efficiently than by car or by bus, and hence behaving better
- mcv 4y ago
  There are different kind of small EVs of course. It depends on the role the EV fills. Sidewalks absolutely have to be reserved for pedestrian-level traffic, but people who are unable to walk need to be able to go there, so EVs on the sidewalk should be as small as they can possibly be, open, and go a maximum of 5 kph. Ideally, all urban street traffic should be slow enough to accommodate all other forms of traffic, so about 30 kph. Large connecting roads where you want cars to go faster than that should have a separation between car-level traffic and bike-level traffic, with bike traffic going about 15-25 kph and being narrow and preferably open, while car level traffic goes 40+ kph and is preferably enclosed. Of course there will always be vehicles that don't quite fit one of those categories, which leaves the question to what extent traffic design should accommodate those vehicles, and to what extent those vehicles should just try to fit into the category that fits best.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Agree on mobility vehicles for disabled persons, I didn't mention them specifically but they are in their own category as they do need to navigate walkable surfaces. I believe that a modern city should not tolerate powered vehicles not fitting any of the specific categories though. There is no limit to technical possibilities, but if we can it doesn't mean we should and meanwhile people have to live and go places without feeling constantly in danger, that's just not healthy.
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      Providing safe infrastructure for smaller powered (or unpowered) mobility devices means disabled people can get around more effectively too, because wheels work better on pavement than on (often uneven) sidewalks. I posted this in another thread but it’s relevant here too: https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo Or for a longer look, this interview with Maya Levi who has MS was also really inspiring: https://youtu.be/knpDMq6wab0 https://youtu.be/knpDMq6wab0
      - throwaway290 4y ago
        What speeds are you talking about where a normal sidewalk is a problem? What kind of ruined pavement is unfit for a mobility device moving at pedestrian speed?
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  Have you tried riding an e-scooter on a busy road?
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    If you are implying they are unsafe (which I totally agree about), then they shouldn't be allowed. I ride a bicycle on roads all the time with no problems.
- occz 4y ago
  >Small EVs and their riders are a city menace. They hardly ever use roads--though they are allowed to, just like bicyclists are--and instead roam the sidewalks, expecting pedestrians to get out of the way and getting angry if they don't. You should probably try to dig a layer deeper and try to understand the root cause of this behaviour. We can read from your paragraph that the users of these vehicles are not actually particularly happy about being on the sidewalk - understandably so, there are plenty of pedestrian in their way there. So why would they not choose the road, then? The answer is simple - the roads are filled with cars, riding at unsafe speeds, threatening their lives if they dare use this infrastructure. There is a pretty simple solution to this issue: build infrastructure that is appropriate for this category of vehicles, that all travel faster than pedestrian speeds (~5 km/h) but slower than car speeds. Bicycle infrastructure happens to be an excellent fit for all these vehicles. Observe also that cities with adequate bicycle infrastructure do not suffer from this issue - micromobility users choose the bicycle infrastructure in that case, because it's the best option available. >The cities that get it right, in my opinion, divide all vehicles into either unpowered or powered. Powered vehicles use roads and are subject to regulations; those that do not fit any regulated class (eg. being too new) are illegal by default. Given what we learned from the analysis above, this is quite obviously a really bad take.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    Precisely. Build infrastructure that’s suited to small vehicles and they’ll use it (and you’ll get more people using them when they might otherwise have driven a car). Build only roads for fast-moving cars and sidewalks for slow-moving pedestrians, and those who do use small vehicles will have to pick one of the two. And they probably won’t pick the one that puts their life in danger.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    The answer is simple: make random unregulated vehicles illegal. Actually, they are already illegal on roads, but only some cities do it for sidewalks. If you say they are unsafe for roads, then make them illegal. If it's reckless drivers that are the problem, then that's the problem to solve; throwing more powered transport in pedestrian's way is only making it worse.
mcv 4y ago
I'm not actually a huge fan of the word "micromobility". It makes it sound small, like it's only for going just around the corner or something. But long before the introduction of electric bikes, people have already been using regular bikes for lots of travel within cities, and even outside it. Electric bikes make those distances more accessible to people with less stamina, but certainly the faster electric bikes and scooters, and even human powered streamlined recumbent bikes, at perfect for medium-distance travel outside cities. It's not small-scale mobility; it's just mobility. More efficient mobility. Smarter mobility.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  It’s smaller-scale than automobility though, which is what people are used to. I agree it’s not perfect, but I think we need a better designator than “bike lanes” for the type of infrastructure we’re aiming for. It can and should be used by more than just cyclists; cycle tracks can also be great for those using e.g. mobility scooters: https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo In the Netherlands there are enough cyclists that it works, but here in the US I feel like the term “cyclist” is often used as a pejorative. Making the name more inclusive of varying modes I think might help to counter this.
  - mcv 4y ago
    Maybe "light mobility"? I considered "smart mobility", but that has a bit too much of a value judgement in it (though I definitely agree with that judgement).
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      Light mobility sounds pretty good to me honestly. Though the term “micromobility” has caught on pretty well, so this may be a losing battle. :)

44 points by simonpure 4y ago

Seeing tons of really interesting an innovative e-bike designs, its very exciting. Electric cargo trikes are becoming common where I live, for professionals I can really seem them replacing the old 'plumber's minivan'. And we're seeing really cool innovations like Bosch ABS brakes, more efficient motors. Also a lot of opportunities for specialization, now that there is a much bigger market instead of one size fits all there are different products hitting different optimum points for commuters, off-roaders, cargo etc.

throwaway290 4y ago

Small EVs and their riders are a city menace. They hardly ever use roads--though they are allowed to, just like bicyclists are--and instead roam the sidewalks, expecting pedestrians to get out of the way and getting angry if they don't. The cities that get it right, in my opinion, divide all vehicles into either unpowered or powered. Powered vehicles use roads and are subject to regulations; those that do not fit any regulated class (eg. being too new) are illegal by default.

joaonmatos 4y ago
I wonder why velocipede users end up on the sidewalks. Could it be because they do not feel safe on the road, where they should be? Or that bike lanes have no separation from the road and often have larger vehicles parked there? In general, I suspect someone is purposely ignoring the gas-powered, 3-ton metal elephant in the room (road?).
- throwaway290 4y ago
  For some of those EVs, like standing scooters, it's definitely half safety issue. By design they are less safe and stable than bicycles, I've seen multiple crashes (especially on wet surfaces). Plus, as a rider, you might assume someone who can afford a car or taxi would think of themselves as a more important person so you'd rather not slow them down or they might get angry--and they are the one driving a multi-ton metal box soft only on the inside. As a result somehow it's acceptable to inconvenience people who move with less environmental impact and protection (pedestrians as opposed to car drivers), while it should be the opposite. Re cars, I don't like them and the fact that many modern cities tend to be designed around them. This is at least partially why EVs are used. But that design issue can't be solved quickly, and meanwhile conceding the remaining safe surfaces and normalizing powered transport is moving in the opposite direction of the solution.
  - digdugdirk 4y ago
    Actually, I find that conceding the remaining safe surfaces and normalizing powered transport is exactly the solution. As the general population experiences both the benefits and the drawbacks of powered transport, cities are much more responsive to creating dedicated space for vehicles of this type. Even painted bike lanes are preferable to the usual status quo of rolling the dice in a regular lane against multiple F150 drivers on cell phones on a city street. And as such infrastructure improves further, the benefits of using that infrastructure for the powered transport rider increase dramatically vs competing against people walking on a sidewalk.
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Every new lane you add makes a city less dense and less walkable. If you prefer sprawling suburbia and drivers ignoring traffic rules as the norm, that's your choice. The denser the city, the smaller and fewer the roads and intersections, the less resources you need to handle and prevent reckless driving, the more people choose against driving, the more viable the public transport system, the smaller the environmental footprint of the city, the less pollution from car tyres and exhaust, etc.
      - rob74 4y ago
        Well of course there is no "one size fits all" solution. Where there is space for sidewalks, bike lanes beside the road and an adequate amount of greenery/trees, that's the way to go (even if it means sacrificing some parking space or a car lane); where there is not enough space, either create a "shared zone" where all vehicles are limited to walking speed, or convert it to a pedestrian area.
      - barnabee 4y ago
        Agreed. Don't add lanes at the expense of density, take the existing lanes away from cars. Make the experience hellish and expensive for them so they stop driving around in cities where, for the most part, they shouldn't be, and turn that space into pedestrian walkways, cycle/micromobility infrastructure, and perhaps the occasional park or extra canal. Declare war on the automobile in urban environments, electric or otherwise.
Attrecomet 4y ago
Agree. For one, even actually commonly used technology in its self-propelled manifestation like bikes attracts riders that are on the low end of driving ability when electrified, making sharing so-far self-propelled pathways with these participants more difficult than before. For another, there aren't any good niches for, e.g., (pedal) scooters to move in cities so far. This hasn't been a problem, because the ~5 non-children per city using them so far (to use a number verified by a hard statistical method I call "pulling out of thin air") are easily worked around. Electrified "pedal" scooters OTOH are becoming more pervasive, and thus don't fit into the cracks of mobility, as it were. In addition, shared E-scooters are a plague simply by blocking bike and pedestrian routes because the companies externalize their storage to the public - and their users seem to be unable to not be assholes about it, on average. And the mode of transportation they replace isn't driving cars, but walking, public transport and perhaps short bike rides - all without any increase in carrying capacity for the riders. So they actually increase the environmental footprint of mobility, one of the major drivers of electrification, for all the drawbacks they offer...
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  E-scooters are roughly equivalent to bikes in terms of transportation ability within dense areas, while being more approachable for a lot of people. They let you go farther than walking when there’s no public transport to speak of. They should be ridden primarily in bike lanes… when those exist and are safe. So we need a lot more protected bike lanes!
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Approachability is not a feature here. This is powered vehicles we're talking about: a danger to both the rider and pedestrians. They should observe regulations for powered vehicles, period. If they are not safe, they should be banned. If they do not fit any regulated category, they should be banned. There is a reason arbitrary unregistered contraptions are not allowed to roam city streets.
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
croisillon 4y ago
it's because e-kickrollers (the sharing kind in particular) are mostly not used properly, either as a replacement for a short (under 10 minutes) walk or as a toy (riding fast, riding with friends in circle etc). if we could somehow cut/forbid such rides we would only be left with people intending to get "from a to b" more efficiently than by car or by bus, and hence behaving better
mcv 4y ago
There are different kind of small EVs of course. It depends on the role the EV fills. Sidewalks absolutely have to be reserved for pedestrian-level traffic, but people who are unable to walk need to be able to go there, so EVs on the sidewalk should be as small as they can possibly be, open, and go a maximum of 5 kph. Ideally, all urban street traffic should be slow enough to accommodate all other forms of traffic, so about 30 kph. Large connecting roads where you want cars to go faster than that should have a separation between car-level traffic and bike-level traffic, with bike traffic going about 15-25 kph and being narrow and preferably open, while car level traffic goes 40+ kph and is preferably enclosed. Of course there will always be vehicles that don't quite fit one of those categories, which leaves the question to what extent traffic design should accommodate those vehicles, and to what extent those vehicles should just try to fit into the category that fits best.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  Agree on mobility vehicles for disabled persons, I didn't mention them specifically but they are in their own category as they do need to navigate walkable surfaces. I believe that a modern city should not tolerate powered vehicles not fitting any of the specific categories though. There is no limit to technical possibilities, but if we can it doesn't mean we should and meanwhile people have to live and go places without feeling constantly in danger, that's just not healthy.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    Providing safe infrastructure for smaller powered (or unpowered) mobility devices means disabled people can get around more effectively too, because wheels work better on pavement than on (often uneven) sidewalks. I posted this in another thread but it’s relevant here too: https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo Or for a longer look, this interview with Maya Levi who has MS was also really inspiring: https://youtu.be/knpDMq6wab0 https://youtu.be/knpDMq6wab0
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      What speeds are you talking about where a normal sidewalk is a problem? What kind of ruined pavement is unfit for a mobility device moving at pedestrian speed?
ryukafalz 4y ago
Have you tried riding an e-scooter on a busy road?
- throwaway290 4y ago
  If you are implying they are unsafe (which I totally agree about), then they shouldn't be allowed. I ride a bicycle on roads all the time with no problems.
occz 4y ago
>Small EVs and their riders are a city menace. They hardly ever use roads--though they are allowed to, just like bicyclists are--and instead roam the sidewalks, expecting pedestrians to get out of the way and getting angry if they don't. You should probably try to dig a layer deeper and try to understand the root cause of this behaviour. We can read from your paragraph that the users of these vehicles are not actually particularly happy about being on the sidewalk - understandably so, there are plenty of pedestrian in their way there. So why would they not choose the road, then? The answer is simple - the roads are filled with cars, riding at unsafe speeds, threatening their lives if they dare use this infrastructure. There is a pretty simple solution to this issue: build infrastructure that is appropriate for this category of vehicles, that all travel faster than pedestrian speeds (~5 km/h) but slower than car speeds. Bicycle infrastructure happens to be an excellent fit for all these vehicles. Observe also that cities with adequate bicycle infrastructure do not suffer from this issue - micromobility users choose the bicycle infrastructure in that case, because it's the best option available. >The cities that get it right, in my opinion, divide all vehicles into either unpowered or powered. Powered vehicles use roads and are subject to regulations; those that do not fit any regulated class (eg. being too new) are illegal by default. Given what we learned from the analysis above, this is quite obviously a really bad take.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  Precisely. Build infrastructure that’s suited to small vehicles and they’ll use it (and you’ll get more people using them when they might otherwise have driven a car). Build only roads for fast-moving cars and sidewalks for slow-moving pedestrians, and those who do use small vehicles will have to pick one of the two. And they probably won’t pick the one that puts their life in danger.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  The answer is simple: make random unregulated vehicles illegal. Actually, they are already illegal on roads, but only some cities do it for sidewalks. If you say they are unsafe for roads, then make them illegal. If it's reckless drivers that are the problem, then that's the problem to solve; throwing more powered transport in pedestrian's way is only making it worse.

mcv 4y ago

I'm not actually a huge fan of the word "micromobility". It makes it sound small, like it's only for going just around the corner or something. But long before the introduction of electric bikes, people have already been using regular bikes for lots of travel within cities, and even outside it. Electric bikes make those distances more accessible to people with less stamina, but certainly the faster electric bikes and scooters, and even human powered streamlined recumbent bikes, at perfect for medium-distance travel outside cities. It's not small-scale mobility; it's just mobility. More efficient mobility. Smarter mobility.

ryukafalz 4y ago
It’s smaller-scale than automobility though, which is what people are used to. I agree it’s not perfect, but I think we need a better designator than “bike lanes” for the type of infrastructure we’re aiming for. It can and should be used by more than just cyclists; cycle tracks can also be great for those using e.g. mobility scooters: https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo In the Netherlands there are enough cyclists that it works, but here in the US I feel like the term “cyclist” is often used as a pejorative. Making the name more inclusive of varying modes I think might help to counter this.
- mcv 4y ago
  Maybe "light mobility"? I considered "smart mobility", but that has a bit too much of a value judgement in it (though I definitely agree with that judgement).
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    Light mobility sounds pretty good to me honestly. Though the term “micromobility” has caught on pretty well, so this may be a losing battle. :)