GM and Segway plan electric two-wheeler

In summary: It's important to have infrastructure for all forms of transportation in order to make the most efficient use of resources.In summary, General Motors and Segway announced a new two-wheeled, two-seat electric vehicle for city use. The prototype is designed to reach speeds of up to 35 miles per hour and travel up to 35 miles between recharges. However, the groups did not say when the two-wheeler would hit the roads or how much it would cost.
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,142
1,759
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/media/ALeqM5iDkrR9K_sSP-BxgI_CEdpYtl4VIA

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US automaker General Motors and scooter maker Segway announced Tuesday they were working together to build a new two-wheeled, two-seat electric vehicle for city use.

... The prototype is designed to reach speeds of up to 35 miles (56 kilometers) per hour and travel up to 35 miles between recharges. But the groups did not say when the two-wheeler would hit the roads or how much it would cost...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gN4pf_E8M_gBzWETe8o8rmbLDdbQ

Visionaries, or cockeyed optimists?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
Isn't it rather dangerous to move with such vehicle at such speeds?
 
  • #4
It's scary to take such two wheeler out on the road. Imagine going up against an SUV, or if some drunk diver hits you.
 
  • #5
waht said:
It's scary to take such two wheeler out on the road. Imagine going up against an SUV, or if some drunk diver hits you.

The same is true for motorcycles.
 
  • #6
waht said:
It's scary to take such two wheeler out on the road. Imagine going up against an SUV, or if some drunk diver hits you.

Scary as going on a bicycle?

They said this an urban car and going with traffic at about 20-30 km/hr isn't that dangerous (edit: oops that's ~50.. but then average speed will be about 30-40 km/hr.. still not dangerous IMO). But I think that looks no better than a tricycle:

http://technogra.ph/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/philippine-tricycle.jpg
 
  • #7
The last desperate move from GM to get their hands on government funds.
 
  • #8
misgfool said:
The last desperate move from GM to get their hands on government funds.
While making sure that no serious electric cars get built - threatening the 100% markup SUV/Pickup market.
 
  • #9
One thing is for sure: The Volt isn't going to save them.

Effectively a $35,000 electric [plug-in hybrid] Corolla... :rolleyes: Yeah, those are going to sell like hotcakes.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Ivan Seeking said:
The same is true for motorcycles.

yea but there isn't that many people riding motorcycles. And if more and more people are going to switch to these mini-cars then there is a possibility of more serious and life threatening accidents. But if we are to rid of oil dependence, we have to make this transition.
 
  • #11
and also this is not the time to put volt on the street because gas prices are very low
 
Last edited:
  • #12
What a stupid and useless vehicle. Honestly, who the hell is going to buy one of these things?
 
  • #13
Perhaps it is time to claim the bike lanes for alternative vehicles? I could see a lot of commuters using these if they are cheap, keep you dry, and perform as claimed. Barring national economic collapse, we will never see bicycles as a commuter vehicle in the mainstream. While I applaud the cyclists, it will always be a fringe mode of transport.

In the same light, there is no way that I would be caught in one of these in normal traffic. There would have to be a dedicated lane.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
I'm not giving that vehicle much of a chance. You've essentially got a 2-seat electric wheelchair with a very small and odd profile. Most drivers wouldn't recognize it for what it is until they have already T-boned you in the intersection. Harleys with relatively loud exhausts (compared to cars) don't get any driver-recognition, either. The typical driver response is "He must have been speeding because I never saw him coming." I have locked up the brakes and dodged to avoid a woman running a red-light only to have her flip ME the bird, as if I had no right being on the road. I was running a decommisioned Road King Police Special at the time. How I wish I'd had the lights and siren.
 
  • #15
Ivan Seeking said:
Perhaps it is time to claim the bike lanes for alternative vehicles? I could see a lot of commuters using these if they are cheap, keep you dry, and perform as claimed. Barring national economic collapse, we will never see bicycles as a commuter vehicle in the mainstream. While I applaud the cyclists, it will always be a fringe mode of transport.

NO. Cycling saves my health and yours (and the environment).

Ivan Seeking said:
In the same light, there is no way that I would be caught in one of these in normal traffic. There would have to be a dedicated lane.

So give a car lane to these. Cars don't belong to cities.
 
  • #16
Ivan Seeking said:
Perhaps it is time to claim the bike lanes for alternative vehicles?
Bike lanes, you have bike lanes? Most of our roads don't even have shoulders. You're in the car lane. But it looks like the little two wheeler in the OP is for sidewalk use?
 
  • #17
misgfool said:
NO. Cycling saves my health and yours (and the environment).

While I'm not knocking cycling, any contribution to the environment is relatively insignificant, as will always be the number of cyclists who actually commute by bicycle every day.

So give a car lane to these. Cars don't belong to cities.

I do think we should start driving that direction, so to speak. For years I have been arguing that we should go a step further: Any vehicle with a GVW > 4000 Lbs is limited to using the right-most lane of the freeway, just as large trucks are often required to do.
 
  • #18
Evo said:
Bike lanes, you have bike lanes? Most of our roads don't even have shoulders. You're in the car lane. But it looks like the little two wheeler in the OP is for sidewalk use?

In many parts of the country, bike-only lanes are common and could easily be opened for use by alternative vehicles, as could alternative bicycle paths that avoid the main roads. It does happen to be true that Portland is the most bicycle-friendly city in the country.
 
  • #19
Ivan Seeking said:
While I'm not knocking cycling, any contribution to the environment is relatively insignificant, as will always be the number of cyclists who actually commute by bicycle every day.

Cycling saves your health, because it doesn't produce NOX or COX (well maybe CO2, but that is only greenhouse gas and not relevant) and other undesired byproducts of combustion. In fact, I should be allowed to sue you for shortening my average life span.
 
  • #20
Evo said:
Bike lanes, you have bike lanes? Most of our roads don't even have shoulders.

I think I just saw a tear in my eye.
 
  • #21
Our roads don't have bike lanes, either, misgfool. Maine is a very rural state, and only the major roads have breakdown lanes so that cars and trucks can pull out of the travel-lane in the case of trouble. Those make OK unofficial bike lanes, but since we have snow from November through April (and spring months are plagued with huge pot-holes and frost heaves) there is not a lot of cycling going on in those months. Also, it can take until sometime in May for sand and gravel to be swept off the roads, making cycling pretty treacherous if you're using a road-bike.
 
  • #22
Keep in mind that given a range of 35 miles and 35 mph, these would be intended for city commuters - an option to a second car in many cases.
 
  • #23
misgfool said:
Cycling saves your health, because it doesn't produce NOX or COX (well maybe CO2, but that is only greenhouse gas and not relevant) and other undesired byproducts of combustion. In fact, I should be allowed to sue you for shortening my average life span.

You keep missing the essential point: It will never amount to more than a fringe mode of transportation - there will never be a large percentage of commuters doing so by bike - so the contribution to the environment will always be insignificant. Any practical option to a second car must be self-powered, dry [maybe heated], and capable of carrying a small cargo.

For the forseeable future, bikes and alternative vehicles could probably safely share the same lane space.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Ivan Seeking said:
You keep missing the essential point: It will never amount to more than a fringe mode of transportation - there will never be a large percentage of commuters doing so by bike - so the contribution to the environment will always be insignificant. Any practical option to a second car must be self-powered, dry [maybe heated], and capable of carrying a small cargo.

I don't get it. Using a car in a city produces local pollution, which for instance increases the risk of cancer. All commuters, residents etc are exposed to this pollution and it is created mostly by "the carpeople". Which is why cars should be banned inside cities and instead priority should be given to pedestrians, cyclists and the clean mass transit system. If "the carpeople" want to destroy their own health they are free to do so, but they don't have the right to destroy the health of others. Not to mention the risk of physical impact injury they create for others.
 
  • #25
Well, bikes have had what, 150 years to catch-on? How long should we wait?

Also, we have to adapt to the market, not the other way around. The bottom line is always this: Sales. Ultimately, sales are based on need. Obviously bikes don't answer to the needs of most commuters.
 
  • #26
Ivan Seeking said:
Well, bikes have had what, 150 years to catch-on? How long should we wait?

Also, we have to adapt to the market, not the other way around. The bottom line is always this: Sales. Ultimately, sales are based on need.

Wow. Congratulations. My arguments have never been so dismissed.
 
  • #27
waht said:
yea but there isn't that many people riding motorcycles.

BMW did a very good attempt at this coming from the other direction.
A motorbike designed to appeal to car owners - you were safe, dry and didn't have to wear helmet/leathers.

220px-BMW_C1_FF_200_(frontale).jpg


Unfortunately it was expensive (BMW!) and hit various legal problems - some countries still required you to wear a helmet, others didn't allow seatbelts on a bike. Some allowed you to ride it on a moped license others wanted a full bike license (which meant also buying a smaller bike to learn on first)
 
  • #28
I found it some what amusing that the photo showed it in use in a walking area. Or maybe your just suposta park it on the walk ways?
 
  • #29
hypatia said:
Or maybe your just suposta park it on the walk ways?
Yes, and then walk on the parkways.
 
  • #30
When you think about it, something like this is highly compatible with mass transit. In many areas here in the US, one practical problem with mass transit is getting to the transit station. Heck, you could almost ride them onto the transit car.
 
  • #31
Evo said:
Bike lanes, you have bike lanes? Most of our roads don't even have shoulders. You're in the car lane.

But at least they warn you !

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/watch-for-bikes.jpg

For fun examples of the UK's attempts at bike lanes, the famous http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
misgfool said:
Wow. Congratulations. My arguments have never been so dismissed.

Sorry, I'm not known for being diplomatic, but your argument has been around for as long as I can remember. Beyond that, there are basic concepts that are already known. One concept is that the market determines what sells. No matter how much we might like an idea, we have to answer to the needs of the market. I don't mean to be a jerk, but we have to be practical.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
misgfool said:
I don't get it. Using a car in a city produces local pollution, which for instance increases the risk of cancer. All commuters, residents etc are exposed to this pollution and it is created mostly by "the carpeople". Which is why cars should be banned inside cities and instead priority should be given to pedestrians, cyclists and the clean mass transit system. If "the carpeople" want to destroy their own health they are free to do so, but they don't have the right to destroy the health of others. Not to mention the risk of physical impact injury they create for others.
misg, in the US, people often have to drive 30-70 or more miles from their home in the suburbs to get "downtown" and many cities, like mine, do not have mass transit.
 
  • #34
Evo said:
misg, in the US, people often have to drive 30-70 or more miles from their home in the suburbs to get "downtown" and many cities, like mine, do not have mass transit.
Also, in rural areas, like where I live, the manufacturing jobs are concentrated in population centers. My wife has to drive 30 miles round trip to her manufacturing job, and the decent wages and benefits draw people from as far as 40 miles away or more. Except when gas goes sky-high, it is often more economical to live in a small town with a stable tax base than to live in built-up areas where the jobs are. It's not quite the same as a city/suburb scenario, but there are similarities. There is nothing around here that deserves to be called a city within probably 75 miles, and even those are small compared to towns in other states and other countries. If you don't drive, you don't survive.
 
  • #35
Topher925 said:
What a stupid and useless vehicle. Honestly, who the hell is going to buy one of these things?
I can't imagine such a vehicle would pass any kind of safety test. It is guaranteed to pitch over (like a rollover, but in the pitch axis) in virtually any conceivable type of accident. This isn't a Segue (sp?), which only goes at a light jogging speed, making serious injury unlikely. At 35 mph, this thing is a deathtrap.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top