Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story • Hacker News Board

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#31

Post by ryukafalz » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 6:38 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #29

ryukafalz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

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).

Light mobility sounds pretty good to me honestly. Though the term “micromobility” has caught on pretty well, so this may be a losing battle. :)

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#32

Post by inb4_cancelled » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 7:09 PM UTC

throwaway290 wrote: post #24

occz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 actuall…

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.

Random, unregulated... Now try and use this argument against regular bikes. They suffer from the same problem for the same reasons. Having a motor or not has nothing to do with it.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#33

Post by barnabee » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 10:02 PM UTC

throwaway290 wrote: post #24

occz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 actuall…

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.

A better solution is: not only make things legal that people like and want and are better for the world and fit better in congested cities and pollute the air less and are quieter, also make them supported and build for them.

Craft your laws around the best society you can imagine, don't stop society evolving because of the crappy laws you have.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#34

Post by barnabee » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 10:06 PM UTC

throwaway290 wrote: post #12

digdugdirk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 environmenta…

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.