51–60 of 243 posts
"Modern cities are ruled by cars." "Some folks, however, still cling to the old idea that cities are for people," How strange. Every time I see a car, one or more people are in it. I also see other vehicles, such as trucks, that not only have a person in it, they also are carrying things (such as food or building materials) that other people need.
This seems like the urban version of road hierarchy. With the local roads being more like a large shared driveway. Similar to how cul-de-sacs are used in suburban settings. The place to spend the money on improvements would be the roads outside of the 9 block cube. Obviously they would now have a lot more traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or share the car with other people for a lot fewer cars overall. Imagine a town with 1/5 as many cars as today. How nice it would be.
Why not just hop on a bus then? How is it different?
Great idea! The only puzzling point is the 10 km/h limit. In my experience it's almost impossible to go that slow. Better to set the limit at 20 km/h and cope with the conditions of the road. It will be slow for bicycles too. It forces bikers to go on the roads for cars or be very patient. Maybe it's the intended effect but I don't approve it.
"Modern cities are ruled by cars." "Some folks, however, still cling to the old idea that cities are for people," How strange. Every time I see a car, one or more people are in it. I also see other vehicles, such as trucks, that not only have a person in it, they also are carrying things (such as food or building materials) that other people need.
Everything humans do are for humans. What's your point? Transportation doesn't equal car, but more car space equals less pedestrian space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could send the car back home after it drops you off, or release it to pick up someone else. That is, if it is fully autonomous. I suspect that long before then, the "self driving" term is going to get abused by marketing until it means nothing more than "autonomously maintains RPM relative to pedal angle".
Well on one hand you can move parking lots, on the other hand you end up with a lot of empty cars driving around which means even more traffic.
I don't think there's any simple answer for what the overall effect will be. It will probably vary a lot from place to place.
"Modern cities are ruled by cars." "Some folks, however, still cling to the old idea that cities are for people," How strange. Every time I see a car, one or more people are in it. I also see other vehicles, such as trucks, that not only have a person in it, they also are carrying things (such as food or building materials) that other people need.
The biggest waste of all is free parking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
nope, it's a two phases plan: they will begin with 20Km/h in phase one and then to 10Km/h in phase two
For the record, buses in Glasgow have to travel at 10mph to enter the bus station, and do so with ease. I've been in a car driving at 5mph into a campsite. If you're driving a car beefy enough that it's impossible to do that, in the middle of a city where people respect pedestrian life... maybe it's a better idea to park-and-ride instead?
Buses and trucks tend to have gearboxes with lots of gears (e.g. 12 forward and 6 back), so they can afford low gears with very high ratios (engine to wheel rpm) for fine manoeuvres.
> If you're driving a car beefy enough that it's impossible to do that
Less an issue of power and more an issue of gears count and gears ratio. Also according to other commenters automatic apparently don't truly idle and settle at relatively high speed: someone quoted 15mph unless the driver is actively braking. Even with high power, you can run a stick idle in1st gear and likely not reach 10km/h.