RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
And in the car you commute in, how many people are typically in it?
Zero.
So, do you mean that you work from home, walk/bike/use transit, or are retired?
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Depending on the year of the survey, somewhere between 75 and 85% of all car commutes in the U.S. are single occupant.
So in your ideal "New Urbanism," you don't eliminate commuting, you just move it into single-occupant cars? If not, then what role does the "Arcimoto SRK" serve?
You move commuting into walking, biking, transit, virtual, plus cars sized to take up only as much road and parking space as their actual occupancy or a bit more.
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Obviously, if you have kids and need to haul them around regularly, you might need one car with more capacity.
Yep. No use for a single- or dual-occupant vehicle.
Of course, depending on how far you have to haul them, you don't necessarily require a car: https://www.google.com/search?q=bakfiets+with+kids+in+snow&rlz=1CASMAD_enUS691US691&biw=1280&bih=689&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6yvin0sHMAhUM0mMKHYB7CJMQsAQIGw#imgrc=_
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
And if you live somewhere where everything's close enough that your kids can walk or bike on their errands or take convenient public transit (which is one of the primary goals of New Urbanism), there's no need to chauffeur them around.
The goals of "New Urbanism" do not match my goals.
That's fine. The number of people whose goal it does match is increasing, and they are the ones who will reap the benefits of those changes. For those who wish to live in car-dependent suburbs, they will (probably) still be able to do so, albeit it will likely be more expensive as higher energy and other resource costs necessary to support their lifestyles get distributed between fewer people.
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Of course, this goes against the trend of helicopter parents, terrified that something might happen to little Johnny or Jill if they aren't constantly there to protect them from the world's evils.
One of the primary roles of parents is to protect their children.
Certainly. But it's also necessary to protect them by preparing them for life on their own as adults, and IME a lot of them seem to be doing a poor job of that. See below.
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Somehow, I and most kids in my generation managed to survive on our own with no more constraint than the need to be home for dinner or by dark. I do worry that kids today have no opportunity to learn self-reliance, because their parents won't let them.
You must not have children.
Not of my own, no. OTOH, I was a scoutmaster for many years, and got to see just how sheltered and lacking in self-reliance and self-confidence many kids were. While I did my best, it's hard to overcome a lifetime's worth of over-protectiveness in 1.5 hours a week and maybe one weekend away from the parents a month. And those were the parents who were at least willing to let their kids out of their sight for 48 hours or even as much as two whole weeks (a week at summer camp immediately followed by a week-long backpack). The differences between them and my generation of free-range kids was pretty stark. http://www.freerangekids.com/faq/
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Anyway, in my case I live within easy walking distance (<= .5 miles) of a grocery store and every other routine errand, and bike distance of work and most other errands and entertainments, requirements I set when choosing where to live 15 years ago, and the reason my car sits on my parking pad all week long and on many weekends - even if I chose to drive the 8.4 miles round trip to work instead of riding my bike, I'd still have no need for a four or five passenger vehicle capable of freeway speeds to do it in. If I need to go further afield in the region for any of those reasons, I'm also within walking distance of a rapid transit stop than can take me up to 30-50 miles in most directions, continuing on foot or bike as needed.
Sharing resources is more efficient than providing separate resources for each individual. As such, living alone is not as efficient as living with others.
Certainly true, and having lived with others all the rest of my life, I figure I've earned some time to myself. OTOH, most of the people I've lived with have been far more wasteful of resources than I am, and unwilling to take the more extreme measures I will. I mean, how many people unplug their microwaves when they aren't being used, to save the miniscule amount of energy the display draws? Living by myself, I can go apeshit with energy and resource efficiency measures to my heart's content (such as choosing to live in a small, well insulated studio within walking distance of everything instead of a 3 bedroom house that required me to drive everywhere) without having to argue about it or compromise.
RegGuheert said:
BTW, if we build society around individuals, we only need it to last for one generation.
While no one's suggesting that we do so, considering the damage we've done to the earth and each other, in my more pessimistic moments I'm not at all sure that's a bad idea as far as humans are concerned.
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
If I hadn't bought my car for cash in 2003 (when my need for one was somewhat greater than it is now), and I had convenient car-sharing for the occasional local trip in bad weather or emergency, I could easily do without owning a car at all - I have a rent-a-car agency 1.5 miles away that will pick up and drop off for longer-term rental needs. My hope is that by the time AFVs get to the point that they can completely replace fossil-fueled ICEs, It will make more sense for me to give up car ownership.
So, again, there is no role for this vehicle in your nirvana.
For me, no. If I lived somewhere a bit less convenient, I might need something like this to haul groceries or the occasional friend, and as I get older and lose mobility something like this may move from being a convenience to a need. But everyone isn't me, and there's room for vehicles with a variety of carrying capacities, as well as a variety of transportation modes.
The problem at the moment is that many people size cars for their most extreme capability because they might someday, somehow have a use for it. I remember reading a stat some years ago that of all the people buying big truck-based 4WD SUVs, only 6% of them had ever put the car
in 4WD. Ever. I have a friend who's used 4WD on his Pathfinder precisely once in 15 years, to get out of a muddy parking lot. He and his wife have one child, but both drive 5 passenger vehicles in spite of the fact that one and usually both of them is always commuting solo. Clearly, downsizing of at least one of their vehicles is possible.
Realistically, given where I live I could certainly do without AWD in my cars; it's there solely for convenience/to save me from irritation/expensive replacements/fines. I encounter snow often enough on my ski trips that I either need to chain up or else have AWD w/snow tires. I've never had any issue with putting chains on when _I_ think I need them, the problem is that the authorities have to consider the lowest common denominator (i.e. the tourist with no experience on snow) when setting chain controls. Having wrecked a set of tires and chains many years ago driving around on almost entirely bare pavement for much of a week, merely because of a couple of small patches of ice that could easily be safely driven by anyone paying the slightest attention and driving accordingly, I'm not willing to repeat the experience again in conditions which are trivial. Having AWD has probably cost me 2-4 mpg over the years, so I counter balance that by driving as little as possible, and trip chain whenever possible for those times I have to drive.
RegGuheert said:
Bottom line: It appears this vehicle has no role in the "New Urbanism." It seems like a commuter-only vehicle designed for "Old Urbanism." Unfortunately, it is a one-trick pony and nearly anyone purchasing such a vehicle will ALSO need to purchase another one. That includes the author of the article you linked.
I'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusion. There are plenty of singles and childless couples in the U.S. and elsewhere; in fact, single-person households now make up the largest U.S. demographic group. Whether people choose to buy/lease such a car or get one when they need it via car share is up to them. Cars aren't going away, but in New Urbanism they are more balanced with other modes of transportation. If you want a car you can have one. But if you don't, you can get around just fine.