Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

micromobility.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#11

Post by ryukafalz »

mcv wrote: post #8

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…

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

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.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#12

Post by throwaway290 »

digdugdirk wrote: post #10
throwaway290 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#13

Post by ryukafalz »

Attrecomet wrote: post #5
throwaway290 wrote: post #3

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…

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-…

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!

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#14

Post by throwaway290 »

ryukafalz wrote: post #13
Attrecomet wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

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!

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.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#15

Post by ryukafalz »

throwaway290 wrote: post #3

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…

Have you tried riding an e-scooter on a busy road?

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#16

Post by throwaway290 »

mcv wrote: post #9
throwaway290 wrote: post #3

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…

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, s…

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.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#17

Post by ryukafalz »

throwaway290 wrote: post #14
ryukafalz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

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.

It is when the alternative is driving a car, which is often the case. I would rather be hit by someone riding an e-scooter than someone driving a car, and the more people we get out of cars and onto smaller forms of transportation, the safer we will all be.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#18

Post by ryukafalz »

throwaway290 wrote: post #16
mcv wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, s…

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 wit…

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

Or for a longer look, this interview with Maya Levi who has MS was also really inspiring:

https://youtu.be/knpDMq6wab0

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#19

Post by inb4_cancelled »

throwaway290 wrote: post #14
ryukafalz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

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.

Why does it matter whether an e-scooter is "powered"? Mine has a 500W motor and the power cuts off above 20 km/h. I'd be much more dangerous on a regular bike.

Me having or not having to spin my legs around has nothing to do with anything.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#20

Post by occz »

throwaway290 wrote: post #3

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…

>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.

Post reply on HN