3 ms·

>and fix the last mile issue with automated taxi cabs Why not bikes and walking? Consequently, this solution also fixes the following which automated taxis can

>and fix the last mile issue with automated taxi cabs Why not bikes and walking? Consequently, this solution also fixes the following which automated taxis can't: -pollution(bikes have much less total in mfg than cars) -maintenance(many bike shops exist and fixing bikes is comparatively easy) -parking(take it with you on the train, store in house/apartment) -cost(nice reliable used bike is under $1000) -familiarity/public acceptance(people are used to bikes) -security (take your bike with you and bikes have no software to break/get hacked) -human fitness (heart disease really sucks) -infrastructure (no batteries, gas, chargers, parking really required)

protomyth 15y ago
Bikes are not a useful solution to much of the populace due to medical conditions or climate. Looking out my window currently, a bike is pretty much impossible to use (ice, gusting winds). Never mind the additional facilities needed at the employer end (e.g. Showers).
- pak 15y ago
  Weather is usually less problematic than you'd think for short rides in most temperate climate cities. It's only raining or snowing hard a small fraction of the time. Even with snow, once the roads are plowed you can bike with caution. Medical issues--I really think more people could bike if they had the courage; there are the elderly and the disabled, but your average 30 year old would do fine on a bike, even if overweight. Never mind the health benefits. I think what holds most people back are the safety issues with cars, particularly in the suburban sprawl where bike lanes are sparse. ~20 min bike commutes shouldn't get you too sweaty unless it's above 85 outside and humid. If it does, lower the pace and catch more of the breeze! For those that need to wear business attire, you'd have to stash your wardrobe at work. But I wouldn't think a shower is a requirement for most, just a bathroom to switch clothes.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    Cars are successful because they work in all climes, are enclosed, and don't make people sweaty. Bikes will not work in a lot of places with snow because plowing doesn't really remove ice patches and winds can be brutal (40 - 60 mph gusts). The future replacement for cars will probably use the same infrastructure and be powered and enclosed. As to the no need for showers, it seems a lot more people who think they don't need to shower actually do. I had a cube two rows down from a biker that believed that, but it wasn't so.
    - pak 15y ago
      I think cars are successful for more complicated reasons than that, such as the physical and sociopolitical infrastructure invested in them, and advertising and culture. I can't speak for anywhere but the northeast US, but within every metropolitan center over here, biking would be a better form of transportation for at least half of city dwellers, 90% of the time--provided they all woke up and did it at once, regaining road-space from the taxis and the cars. Imagine New York, Toronto, or Boston with one full lane of every avenue bustling with bikes, the way you do in Amsterdam. There simply aren't enough ice patches and 40mph winds in any of those places to justify the level of car traffic. Also, anybody that currently rides the subway/bus/train or walks is already sweating and does not feel entitled to their own enclosed space. The road to better health is paved with sweaty armpits. I for one would not mind a little workplace B.O. if it meant for happier, safer commutes and fewer billions spent treating the pandemic of heart disease and diabetes. But that's just me.
- maurits 15y ago
  Not having a shower hardly invalidates an entire transport system. Nor do I believe that much of the populace has a medical condition that makes it impossible to bike. After a couple of years in Netherlands I strongly believe that to make the bike a success you obviously need a bike-suitable commute in terms of distance, but also, it needs to be safe. And that boils down to - infrastructure that is designed for bikes and cars a like. Not some stupid painted lane as an after thought. - Stringent traffic laws that protect the weaker traffic participant. In Holland for example, the burden of proof is for the more dangerous vehicle in a collision. For this reason I am not a fan of bike-rental programs. I feel they are easy to implement (dump 20 bikes at train station) and get some political brownie points (see, we do bikes) yet change very little. Redesigning an intersection for safer passage is a whole different matter. Inspiration? Have a look: http://vimeo.com/29401217 http://vimeo.com/29401217 Yes, that is government promo, so here is a random busy intersection in a major city. Note, no helmets, no high vis gear, and all ages are represented. Also, no cars, no door-zone... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M
  - muxxa 15y ago
    For what it's worth Utrecht has a high student population. Rather than weather, I suspect that flat terrain has the biggest positive effect on bicycle use, especially for commuting. On flat ground you don't have to work up a sweat.
    - pak 15y ago
      Many cities (in the U.S. at least) have a metropolitan center that is almost completely flat. San Francisco, Pittsburgh, and Seattle are the most obvious exceptions, but as far as I can remember, almost all the other cities toward the top of this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by...) are really, really flat.

protomyth 15y ago

Bikes are not a useful solution to much of the populace due to medical conditions or climate. Looking out my window currently, a bike is pretty much impossible to use (ice, gusting winds). Never mind the additional facilities needed at the employer end (e.g. Showers).

pak 15y ago
Weather is usually less problematic than you'd think for short rides in most temperate climate cities. It's only raining or snowing hard a small fraction of the time. Even with snow, once the roads are plowed you can bike with caution. Medical issues--I really think more people could bike if they had the courage; there are the elderly and the disabled, but your average 30 year old would do fine on a bike, even if overweight. Never mind the health benefits. I think what holds most people back are the safety issues with cars, particularly in the suburban sprawl where bike lanes are sparse. ~20 min bike commutes shouldn't get you too sweaty unless it's above 85 outside and humid. If it does, lower the pace and catch more of the breeze! For those that need to wear business attire, you'd have to stash your wardrobe at work. But I wouldn't think a shower is a requirement for most, just a bathroom to switch clothes.
- protomyth 15y ago
  Cars are successful because they work in all climes, are enclosed, and don't make people sweaty. Bikes will not work in a lot of places with snow because plowing doesn't really remove ice patches and winds can be brutal (40 - 60 mph gusts). The future replacement for cars will probably use the same infrastructure and be powered and enclosed. As to the no need for showers, it seems a lot more people who think they don't need to shower actually do. I had a cube two rows down from a biker that believed that, but it wasn't so.
  - pak 15y ago
    I think cars are successful for more complicated reasons than that, such as the physical and sociopolitical infrastructure invested in them, and advertising and culture. I can't speak for anywhere but the northeast US, but within every metropolitan center over here, biking would be a better form of transportation for at least half of city dwellers, 90% of the time--provided they all woke up and did it at once, regaining road-space from the taxis and the cars. Imagine New York, Toronto, or Boston with one full lane of every avenue bustling with bikes, the way you do in Amsterdam. There simply aren't enough ice patches and 40mph winds in any of those places to justify the level of car traffic. Also, anybody that currently rides the subway/bus/train or walks is already sweating and does not feel entitled to their own enclosed space. The road to better health is paved with sweaty armpits. I for one would not mind a little workplace B.O. if it meant for happier, safer commutes and fewer billions spent treating the pandemic of heart disease and diabetes. But that's just me.
maurits 15y ago
Not having a shower hardly invalidates an entire transport system. Nor do I believe that much of the populace has a medical condition that makes it impossible to bike. After a couple of years in Netherlands I strongly believe that to make the bike a success you obviously need a bike-suitable commute in terms of distance, but also, it needs to be safe. And that boils down to - infrastructure that is designed for bikes and cars a like. Not some stupid painted lane as an after thought. - Stringent traffic laws that protect the weaker traffic participant. In Holland for example, the burden of proof is for the more dangerous vehicle in a collision. For this reason I am not a fan of bike-rental programs. I feel they are easy to implement (dump 20 bikes at train station) and get some political brownie points (see, we do bikes) yet change very little. Redesigning an intersection for safer passage is a whole different matter. Inspiration? Have a look: http://vimeo.com/29401217 http://vimeo.com/29401217 Yes, that is government promo, so here is a random busy intersection in a major city. Note, no helmets, no high vis gear, and all ages are represented. Also, no cars, no door-zone... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M
- muxxa 15y ago
  For what it's worth Utrecht has a high student population. Rather than weather, I suspect that flat terrain has the biggest positive effect on bicycle use, especially for commuting. On flat ground you don't have to work up a sweat.
  - pak 15y ago
    Many cities (in the U.S. at least) have a metropolitan center that is almost completely flat. San Francisco, Pittsburgh, and Seattle are the most obvious exceptions, but as far as I can remember, almost all the other cities toward the top of this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by...) are really, really flat.