GM and Segway plan electric two-wheeler

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electric gm Plan
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the announcement of a collaboration between General Motors and Segway to develop a new two-wheeled, two-seat electric vehicle intended for urban use. Participants explore various aspects of this vehicle, including its safety, practicality, and potential market reception, while also touching on broader themes of urban transportation and environmental impact.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the safety of operating a two-wheeled vehicle at speeds of up to 35 mph, particularly in urban environments with larger vehicles like SUVs.
  • Concerns are raised about the vehicle's visibility and recognition by other drivers, with comparisons made to motorcycles and their associated risks.
  • Several participants question the viability of the vehicle as a practical alternative to traditional cars, suggesting it may not appeal to a broad market.
  • There are discussions about the potential for dedicated lanes for such vehicles, with some arguing that existing bike lanes could accommodate them, while others highlight the lack of infrastructure in many areas.
  • Some participants advocate for the environmental benefits of cycling and alternative vehicles, while others argue that their impact will remain limited due to low commuter adoption rates.
  • Criticism is directed at GM's motivations for developing this vehicle, with suggestions that it may be a strategy to secure government funding rather than a genuine push for innovation.
  • Participants discuss the implications of transitioning to electric vehicles and the necessity of addressing oil dependence, while also acknowledging the challenges posed by current market conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the safety, practicality, or market potential of the proposed electric two-wheeler. Multiple competing views remain regarding its role in urban transportation and the environmental impact of alternative vehicles.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include varying assumptions about urban infrastructure, commuter behavior, and the environmental significance of cycling versus electric vehicles. The conversation reflects differing perspectives on the future of urban mobility and the challenges of integrating new vehicle types into existing traffic systems.

  • #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:
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #36
Regarding the issue of small electric vehicles, they seem like a good idea, but their utility is very limited. Others have noted some of the issues, but just consider that overgrown golf carts already exist, but don't have much of a demand.

-They aren't all that useful for city driving because people in cities who might use one don't own cars anyway.
-They aren't that useful for driving more than perhaps 15 miles to work (not at 35 mph, anyway), so you won't get many who buy it as a commuter car (a plug-in hybrid is much more expensive, but vastly superior in capabilities).

The only market I can see for it is the one already dominated by golf carts or similar vehicles: resort community transportation. This is a growing market, but it will never be a large one.

Here's one with a range of 35 miles and a top speed of 25 mph that you can buy right now: http://www.gemcar.com/models/details.asp?MID=3 At $10k, it is a little on the expensive side, but that might be because of the limited market.
 
  • #37
I confess... it looks cute. But it's a bad idea. What struck me most strongly on reading about this was remarks by Larry Burns (GM's vice president of research and development) as quoted in the Age newspaper here in Australia.


Ideally, the vehicles would also be part of a communications network that through the use of transponder and GPS technology would allow them to drive themselves. The vehicles would automatically avoid obstacles such as pedestrians and other cars and therefore never crash, Burns said.

As a result, the PUMA vehicles would not need air bags or other traditional safety devices and include safety belts for "comfort purposes" only, he said.
(-- Ditch the Hummer, here comes the PUMA, in the Age, April 7 2009 --)​

This reminds me of the joke about the new fully automated aircraft. As passengers arrived, the message came over the PA:
"Welcome aboard the new WTF500. This aircraft is fitted the best of modern technology, to ensure that nothing can possibly go wrong *click* go wrong *click* go wrong *click* go wrong"​

Boggle. -- Sylas
 
  • #38
sylas said:

Ideally, the vehicles would also be part of a communications network that through the use of transponder and GPS technology would allow them to drive themselves. The vehicles would automatically avoid obstacles such as pedestrians and other cars and therefore never crash, Burns said.​
:bugeye: GPS doesn't work that way. There is no way to get a GPS location of someone walking in front of you real time. What a moron.​
 
  • #39
Evo said:
:bugeye: GPS doesn't work that way. There is no way to get a GPS location of someone walking in front of you real time. What a moron.
You can broadcast your GPS position constantly over a low power mesh network in the
same way as an aircraft TCAS. There are a few countries looking at this for freeways - Mercedes have a prototype system that is linked to their anti collision radar so that when it breaks it tells any cars behind it that it is braking.
The idea is to ultimately have something like HOV lanes for cars equipped with this - with corresponding higher speed limits (an probably tolls!)
 
  • #40
russ_watters said:
Regarding the issue of small electric vehicles, they seem like a good idea, but their utility is very limited. Others have noted some of the issues, but just consider that overgrown golf carts already exist, but don't have much of a demand.

They may not have had much of a chance yet. Funny that you mention it though, it didn't even occur to me that my aunt drives one of these, or something similar, as a local commuter vehicle.

Here's one with a range of 35 miles and a top speed of 25 mph that you can buy right now: http://www.gemcar.com/models/details.asp?MID=3 At $10k, it is a little on the expensive side, but that might be because of the limited market.

Global Electric Motorcars, a Chrysler company, has been in operation for ten years. Located in Fargo, North Dakota, Global Electric Motorcars manufactured its first vehicle in April 1998, a 48-volt GEM car that accommodated two passengers and had a top speed of 20 mph. Less than two months later, a significant breakthrough occurred in the market as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) designated a new class of motor vehicle, the low-speed vehicle, also known as the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV). The low-speed vehicle class allowed GEM cars to be driven on public roads if they met certain safety criteria such as having safety belts, headlamps, windshield wipers, and safety glass. GEM cars always come equipped with these safety features making them a benchmark in the industry.
http://www.gemcar.com/company/

As for a market, who has ever seen one of these advertised? I have seen no marketing whatsoever. You can't sell a secret.

The other thing is that going from 25mph to 35mph takes you from residential streets, to Blvds. So we are not talking about the same class of vehicles.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
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.

Fubar. Why do you live in the suburbs? Let me guess, the cities are so polluted?
 
  • #42
turbo-1 said:
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.

We have rural villages, which have snow from September to June and even they have cycling roads.
 
  • #43
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?

Good luck there too. We don't have bike lanes or shoulders either... and many sidewalks in our town are too narrow (being blocked by power-line posts, tree-spots, etc. ... or messed up in regions. We often have a hard enough time getting our son's 1-seater electric wheelchair through.

I also think cities would be likely to put regulations on these regarding pedestrian/bike paths (usually this is done by allowing them... but with a speed restriction). Bike lanes they would perhaps allow. I agree that in general, it seems like a dangerous mode of transportation, turbo's right in that too often people don't even recognize motorcycles (or scooters... or bicycles for that matter).

I'm glad I usually walk to work or use the free trolley, and that we're presently a one-car family (be that unfortunately by necessity a huge honking wheel-chair-accessible gas-guzzling van).
 
  • #44
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?

Good luck there too. We don't have bike lanes or shoulders either... and many sidewalks in our town are too narrow (being blocked by power-line posts, tree-spots, etc. ... or messed up in regions. We often have a hard enough time getting our son's 1-seater electric wheelchair through.

I also think cities would be likely to put regulations on these regarding pedestrian/bike paths (usually this is done by allowing them... but with a speed restriction). Bike lanes they would perhaps allow. I agree that in general, it seems like a dangerous mode of transportation, turbo's right in that too often people don't even recognize motorcycles (or scooters... or bicycles for that matter).

I'm glad I usually walk to work or use the free trolley, and that we're presently a one-car family (be that unfortunately by necessity a huge honking wheel-chair-accessible gas-guzzling van... which fortunately does also come quite in handy for transporting science equipment when I do outreach to local schools, since the whole middle area is carved out and I can just wheel a cart in and lock it down!).