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

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#21

Post by occz »

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.

>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.

They are far more safe than cars, and hence they should remain allowed until cars are banned.

>There is a reason arbitrary unregistered contraptions are not allowed to roam city streets.

Registration does nothing with regards to safety.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#22

Post by rob74 »

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…

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.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#23

Post by ryukafalz »

occz wrote: post #20
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 actuall…

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.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#24

Post by throwaway290 »

occz wrote: post #20
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 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.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#25

Post by throwaway290 »

ryukafalz wrote: post #18
throwaway290 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/knpDMq6wab…

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?

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#26

Post by throwaway290 »

ryukafalz wrote: post #15
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?

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.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#27

Post by throwaway290 »

inb4_cancelled wrote: post #19
throwaway290 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are free to not spin your legs out of where I walk, unless you do so at reasonable speed and give me right of way. Normally I don't see that happening.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#28

Post by mcv »

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…

> I believe that a modern city should not tolerate powered vehicles not fitting any of the specific categories though.

A lot of people are surprised that electric kick-scooters (I think that's the correct English word for it? Standup scooters maybe?) are illegal in Amsterdam, but this is exactly why. They're motorized, but they don't meet the standards of motorized vehicles around here.

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#29

Post by mcv »

ryukafalz wrote: post #11
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 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).

Re: Micromobility: The Obligatory Origin Story

#30

Post by ryukafalz »

throwaway290 wrote: post #25
ryukafalz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/knpDMq6wab…

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?

Many mobility devices can move at speeds higher than pedestrian speed, but they can only effectively do that on a smooth surface that’s designed for it. (As shown in both of those videos.) This is especially beneficial for people who can’t drive.

But as to your question about ruined pavement unfit for a mobility device moving at pedestrian speed, that describes a nontrivial portion of the sidewalks near my apartment in Philly. (And that’s if you can even navigate around all the parked cars blocking the crosswalks and curb cuts.)

Post reply on HN