Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This article and the IEA sources that they rely on assumes that an EV is a car. That’s not a good assumption: electric bicycles and trikes like the Aptera are much better direction for the vast majority of individual transport.

At that size, you can rely on smaller batteries and solar panels for many journeys (it isn’t fully sufficient for an Aptera but an e-bicycle with a small roof can ride as long as the Sun shines).

Using three tons vehicles for long-distance journeys or for the transport of goods isn’t efficient: trains (and last-mile delivery on cargo bikes) are a lot more economical in both energy, accident risk and individual time (or vehicle investment if you assume an autonomous future).

If we don’t use the energy transition to shift away from the domination of heavy, polluting, deadly cars, we would have lost an opportunity.



The form factor of a motorbike has been around and more affordable than a car for a century now. I don't think it's the type of engine that makes the majority of people in the developed world prefer to spend substantially more money on vehicles which are considerably more stable and crash resistant, enclosed from the weather and with room for passengers and cargo. If they get e-bikes, they tend to get them as well which might reduce electricity use but requires even more batteries.

And I say that as someone that's managed 18 years of adult life without owning a car or motorised bike living in a country with one of the densest (but still entirely unsuitable for most long distance journeys) rail networks around...


> living in a country with one of the densest (but still entirely unsuitable for most long distance journeys) rail networks

I'm very curious, what country has such a dense rail network that isn't very good for long distance journeys? Is it because it's in a hub-and-spoke system with the capital/largest city as the hub, and if you want to go from spoke to spoke it sucks?


The UK. Lines interconnect all over. But that doesn't mean connections are possible when you want them and don't involve time padding and risk of not making them and sometimes completely illogical routes, and even with one of the world's highest densities of stations many places people want to go to don't have a station particularly nearby or a last mile solution that isn't a taxi. And no matter how good the end-to-end connections are, they're not suited to any journey involving non-trivial amounts of luggage. Compromises you may have to make include adding extra hours or overnight stops to journeys, taxis for the last mile or twenty, not having more than one bag's worth of luggage, or spending a lot more money than the equivalent journey by car even without the taxi/hotel bills. And not travelling at all when the rail workers are on strike, like today

There are certain things train services are excellent at, like serving people's daily commute at predictable times into a congested city centre (with the caveat crowded trains aren't necessarily a pleasant experience) and letting you travel whilst drunk or putting the finishing touches to your presentation, but they're not going to eliminate many of the most common uses for cars.


Please don't conflate British Rail mismanagement with "trains are bad". Your trains are bad. America's trains are bad. They don't have to be.

There is a disconnect here with you replying to someone who was talking about the ideal, with your reality. No one is saying train systems in a lot of places, right now, are perfect. We can make them more perfect in addition to moving more freight onto rail, doing more last-mile deliveries on e-cargo bikes, and making it reasonable for people to replace more or most of their sub-5km car trips with a bicycle. Not only is that possible, but it's necessary to approach that ideal.


> There is a disconnect here with you replying to someone who was talking about the ideal, with your reality.

Their ideal is my reality, because I've never owned a vehicle with more than two wheels and live in a country whose rail density and usage is arguably exceeded only by Japan. So I think I'm pretty well placed to comment on the impracticality of most people forgoing the use of cars altogether in favour of ebikes and rail.

If you don't have any answers to points like trains being unsuited to carrying luggage, rail schedules being suboptimal for individual journeys outside peak use zones and times and most places not being close to a station even with a rail network as dense as the UK's, please don't resort to strawmanning it as "trains are bad" and insisting that everything I said about rail logistics boils down to British Rail[1] management...

I'm all in favour of people walking and cycling more and getting trains when that makes sense, but that isn't going to result in many of them not needing cars (and associated batteries) for other journeys.

[1]an organization with this name was wound up in 1997 and replaced with a succession of franchises - many with exprience running rail networks overseas - awarded by competitive tender. To the surprise of absolutely nobody, changing the management wasn't a panacea...


The UK rail network sucks. Try taking a train(or tram) in Switzerland.


> Your trains are bad. America's trains are bad. They don't have to be.

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. The odds of the US or Britain improving their rail systems in order for them to be more efficient/usable are vanishingly slim, to the point that we should likely bake their crappy nature into our assumptions of requirements.

We can't even figure out how (here in the US) to build subway tunnels as cheaply as ones in Europe, if I recall right. I am very skeptical that we will ever manage to approach the ideal here, for a variety of reasons (suburban / car-centric lifecycle being so deeply embedded here, etc) which I don't think can be addressed by science. It seems like an economic problem, where paying to rebuild everything is so expensive that no one will do it in the short term, even if the long term gains could be great.


> The odds of the US or Britain improving their rail systems in order for them to be more efficient/usable are vanishingly slim, to the point that we should likely bake their crappy nature into our assumptions of requirements.

It's a matter of time: the political polar-opposite states of Texas and California are both working on high-speed rail projects, though they are rather unambitious in scope.

I'm curious if the dysfunction of British Rail is also related to the patchwork privatization like it is in the US. Is that still a thing? last I read, parts of the network - and/or trains - were owned or operated by a Virgin subsidiary.


> I'm curious if the dysfunction of British Rail is also related to the patchwork privatization like it is in the US. Is that still a thing? last I read, parts of the network - and/or trains - were owned or operated by a Virgin subsidiary.

Patchwork privatization hasn't helped matters and allows some companies to extract a bit of monopoly profit from a subsidised industry (the infrastructure remains nationalised, franchises are awarded to private companies for running rolling stock in certain regions routes for fixed terms, some companies were really struggling and had their franchises taken over the government and there are other quirks of the franchising system like franchises being required to lease rather than own trains and some services being mandatory to run, and prices are regulated).

But the root cause is that running rail networks is a hard problem: demand fluctuates from hour to hour and decade to decade more than the infrastructure can, optimisations for network efficiency aren't necessarily going to align with individual passengers' demands, when stuff breaks down a well-used part of the network gets cascading problems, governments have lots of other things crying out for more subsidies (and a purely for-profit network would be smaller and thinner). The UK also has older than average infrastructure and very expensive and occupied land right where new lines are most needed, although other countries are cursed with geography which is more challenging in many other ways


> the infrastructure remains nationalised,

Slight correction. Renationalised, rather than remains nationalised.

The infrastructure was renationalised, because Railtrack preferred handing out dividends over maintaining tracks, eventually leading to a derailment that killed 4 people and injured 70, and led to trains being restricted to 20MPH across the country for months afterwards, because they had no idea how fucked any of the rest of the rails were.


I read the original post as questioning an assumption (the article assumes ev cars) and proposing a different assumption (ev bikes). The parent you replied to questioned the new assumption (most people won't feel that they can get by with ev bikes).

His experience in the UK seems like it would be relevant to most people in the US, and I assume Canada and Australia also. You can't sell this to people on just your terms, you have speak to them on their terms, too.

I agree with what you said that the problem needs to be attacked on multiple fronts (public transport, mining, zoning, doubling grid capacity, current subsidies and special interest groups, etc).

I assume we'll get there, but it's going to take a while, likely more than a couple decades to start making a good dent in countries with a lot of car-dependency.


In theory.

In practice the market has spoken as to what kind of a form-factor people find the most useful for personal transportation in different climates and economic development scenarios. There’s no reason why ICEs couldn’t have supported the kind of vehicles some people imagine other people need.

The market has spoken, EVs only started gaining traction when they started resembling actual cars in form and function. Think of it as parallel evolution. Dolphins and fish.


The market is profoundly distorted by single use zoning, parking minimums, density maximums, wide (and high speed) stroads, and other urban design choices that force long journeys. It's also not safe to be on an ebike surrounded by electric Hummers, F-350 super duties, and your normal "whole kindergarten class in the blind spot" Escalades.

Having just spent a week in Utrecht it's very clear that "the market" can certainly show a preference for ebikes over cars.


The situation in Utrecht isn’t a function of “the [free] market” though. It’s distorted by significant taxation of cars and subsidization of biking. It’s legislation on both sides, and American legislation can change, especially locally.

Look at bentonville Arkansas for an example.


But does "free market" mean you are free to pollute the air and cause a climate crisis? Is that the kind of freedom we want?


What's your justification for saying that it's the US with a profoundly distorted market and not places like Utrecht?


How about the fact that America's most walkable and transit-accessible neighborhoods are also the most expensive and highest demand?

People want this kind of development, they flock to it, and they are willing to pay astronomically high prices to get it. The government keeps the supply low with exclusionary zoning that makes all types of construction except car-centric single family housing illegal.


You have evidence of that claim? I took a look around me. The most expensive and highest demand areas are actually not transit accessible at all and walking is not really feasible as the houses have lots of land and are very spread out. I am in the Sacramento area for reference.


Well for starters Sacramento is just a really poor example. Most of CA isn't. It's a consequence of hyper aggressive SFH zoning (~80% of the SCAG area is SFH, used to be even higher) and the era in which CA grew being the mid century period.

There basically aren't any properly transit served and walkable areas in Sacramento. Closest would be Midtown and Richmond Grove, but they aren't really very good at all compared to neighborhoods in cities with actual infrastructure.

But despite that they are _still_ some of the most expensive neighborhoods in the area on a cost to sq foot basis. The trend of walkable transit served areas being in high demand is near universal across the US.


Again just like the other poster you are trying to move the goal posts. The comment did not say some. The comment said "the fact that America's most walkable and transit-accessible neighborhoods are also the most expensive and highest demand". I provided a single example that proves this statement is not a fact.

edit: comment not commit


To be fair, the comment didn't say "every expensive and high demand neighborhood in america is walkable and transit accessible" either.

Never forget that most statements, especially imprecise ones like the one you quoted can be interpreted in many ways. It is very easy to find an interpretation that is incorrect, especially if you disagree with/dislike the premise.

The reason I say this is that your single example didn't seem to disprove the statement in my eyes. I read the statement as meaning that walkable neighborhoods are in most cases in much higher demand than other neighborhoods in the same region.

I don't really think either of us is wrong, more that the imprecision of the statement and language in general can be unfortunate and cause disagreement.

Also note that nobody will ever respond well to being accused of a logical fallacy. They are useful to understand what is happening and to rile people up. Not so much to convince anyone (that doesn't already agree with you) about anything.


I don't have a metric for in-demand, but as I said, they are amongst the most expensive on a per-sq-ft basis, which is a much more useful metric for "expensive" than total cost. I didn't move the goalposts at all.


Again you are moving the goal posts.

I will break it down for you. The original poster said 'most expensive' not the 'most expensive on a per-sq-ft basis'. You are arbitrarily adding the words on a per-sq-ft basis because you FEEL like its much more useful. You provide 0 evidence to support this.

For example here is evidence that most people besides you feel that total cost is a much more important and useful metric. The follow sites selling homes list total cost as the main metric NOT the price per sq foot: https://www.zillow.com/ https://www.realtor.com/ https://www.movoto.com/ https://www.redfin.com/ https://www.trulia.com/ https://www.homes.com/

Edit: Here are the top three sites on google when you search "most expensive areas to live in the us". A three seems to use median home price not median price per sq ft. https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/most-expensive-cities-i... https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/most-expensive... https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/08091...


Yes, Granite Bay is a great place to keep your sports car collection, but places in Sacramento where you can walk and bike command a premium compared similar places without the same walkability.


But you are moving the goal posts here. The person I responded to didn't say compared to similar places without the same walkability. They said "the fact that America's most walkable and transit-accessible neighborhoods are also the most expensive and highest demand". Granite bay shows this to not be a fact.


I would add that the most expensive are the areas with biggest density, naturally with this kind of traffic a city council would create as many means of transportation as possible.


Which is why I'm always surprised by the makeup of the coalition of voters that support strict zoning. Personally, I don't understand how zoning isn't seen an impairment of property value requiring ongoing payments from the government to the owners, with the idea being that if the zoning is a benefit to the community then the community's taxes should be paying for that benefit. As it is, it's a hidden tax that prevents open discussion and accurate cost/benefit analysis.


That may be true in some places, but I'm skeptical of any causal relationship. To use Portland as a example familiar to me, the urban area is the least wealthy. The most expensive, exclusive neighborhoods are around the edges and have awful transit service. Looking at bigger cities, what's a better example? You certainly don't move to Manhattan just because it's walkable.


"You certainly don't move to Manhattan just because it's walkable."

depends on the person. People might move there because of the "vibe" or "excitement" and that tends to go hand in hand with places you can walk.

If it counts I emigrated in large part to be somewhere nicer to walk, but I am unusual. Not unique, though! Jason Slaughter (of NotJustBikes) moved to Amsterdam from Canada explicitly for its urban design.


Depends on what you mean by "wealthy". Cost per sq. ft. of housing in the urban area of Portland is much higher than the suburbs of Portland. That's indicative to me of higher market demand in the urban area.


> How about the fact that America's most walkable and transit-accessible neighborhoods are also the most expensive and highest demand?

I'm not entirely sure that correlation implies causation in this case.

Do most people move to cities specifically because they're somewhat walkable with good public transportation, or do people move to cities for other reasons such as more access to better paying jobs?

Would people in cities rather drive to work if it was possible rather than taking a chance every day that the people next to them on the bus/train weren't some strange/risky people?


There are as many reasons for moving as there are people. I lived in Berkeley even when my job was in Newark because I hated the idea of living in a parking lot with a mayor (credit to Ghost Ride the Volvo's apt description of Fremont)


The massive state, federal, and local bureaucracies shaping the public & private realm to always guarantee easy parking for automobiles & a network of high-throughput roadways between them yet only occasionally & reluctantly doing the same for other modes of transportation. Note that guaranteeing easy parking for automobiles also results in destinations being so far apart that other modes of transport usually become impractical.


In lots of the US it's illegal for developers to propose anything other than Single-Family Homes. They are codified to have large minimum size requirements and often have setback requirements forcing the house to be a certain feet away from the street. Businesses are legally required to be segregated from residential used, even corner stores. Lots of businesses in the US are zoned to mandate a minimum amount of parking.

The justification for a lot of these zoning laws is explicitly that developers and the market will not provide adequate home sizes or parking, so minimum requirements are forced on developers. When law forces huge houses, no mixed use, and huge minimum parking lots, the only built environment that emerges is a car dependent one. Older US suburban neighborhoods, like the post-WWII suburbs, had smaller (900-1200 sq ft.) homes because these minimum lot and floor area size requirements weren't in place yet.

If you're curious about areas with different land-use requirements, there are cities in the US like Boston, Berkeley, or Emeryville (just off the top of my head) with more permissive zoning laws that have much lower car modeshare than other parts of the US.


I don't think I said that. All places people live, aside from frontiers, have rules applied to them and those rules affect how people get around. The Netherlands has different rules than the US, and within that framework the market (I didn't say the word free) shows a preference for ebikes.

Similarly, when I lived in the US I had to go 1.1 miles to the nearest coffee shop (or shop of any sort), and opening a coffee shop in my neighbourhood would have been illegal, and shut down very quickly. And that wasn't even all that far from the downtown of a medium-sized city (Sacramento).


Everywhere is distorted. As such it's meaningless to insist one or the other is preferred - it's down to an environment heavily influenced by policy. As such, choices can change if policies change.


>The market is profoundly distorted by single use zoning, parking minimums, density maximums

None of which they have in the developing world yet those nations become wealthier people buy cars basically as soon as they can make the economics pencil out. People like to sit in expensive four wheeled air-conditioned boxes more than they like the alternatives.


Cars are a great way to show you've become wealthy until everyone has one and suddenly driving isn't as pleasant. The developing world (vague terminology there, though - would somewhere like Bangkok count?) tends to have mediocre transport and no infrastructure to stop drivers from killing people riding bikes or walking.


> Utrecht

is not representative of common reality.

It is also not much representative of "market forces", cars have to respect very strict "Urban Access Regulations" (similarly across Europe, but in Holland in particular)

Not that it is bad in general, but Utrecht is not a good example of what will happen around the World and actually make a difference.

China + India will soon be inhabited by 3 billion people combined, Utrecht has only 500 thousand residents. It's basically a glitch in the matrix.


Small note - Utrecht is not in Holland.


Right, I translated in my mind from Italian Olanda.


"Let's build bike lanes that are so scary only the bavest will dare to use them - and also subsidise cars in any way we can." - "The market has spoken, people want cars!"


Well, the market has also spoken as to what kind of councils get elected and what kind of plans those councils approve. Of course, that's in large part because car owners pay infrastructure taxes cyclists don't. But that's also precisely what the market is - the segment who's paying. If wishes built livable cities there'd probably be more of them.


The issue is that you have path dependence in what gets built and the resulting constituencies.

When everyone already drives cars (the US), there’s significant opposition to investment in other types of infrastructure/built in support for investments in car infrastructure. Whereas there are plenty of cities around the global where such constituencies exist for other modes.


Cyclists have cars too and pay the same taxes, since it’s basically unavoidable in the US.

But also bikes cause negligible damage to infrastructure and barely require any resources compared to cars, so the costs are usually much lower for bike infrastructure.


The problem is that it's not just the people who decide who gets elected. Like it or not, the chances of winning an election highly correlate with advertising budgets, and the fossil fuel and car industry has sunk dozens of billions of dollars in campaign contributions, (S)PAC donations and other legal and illegal forms of bribery to make sure their interests were taken care of.


>Like it or not, the chances of winning an election highly correlate with advertising budgets,

This is just BS/lies at the local level.

Moneyed PACs aren't fighting it out over councilor, selectman and planner positions for random suburbs.

Pretty much all the money these candidate dispense is either self raised or comes from an official political party who don't really doll out meaningful amounts to these elections


As one who has run for local office in a Seattle-area suburb, yeah, there's no oil industry money sloshing around. At best one might get a few local businesses (at best), and some individuals for small amounts. If you're the big swinging genitalia incumbent, you might even be able to afford yard signs without dipping into personal funds!

One would seem to win local elections by being the incumbent, and knocking on a lot of doors.


Slightly different angle than the parent post:

What about the state and federal subsidies for road infrastructure? A locality that wants to go a different (less car dependent) direction would be leaving that infrastructure money unspent, which isn't fair to the local voters who contributed tax money to the state/feds. They rigged it so that the locals paid for the roads via their tax money, their only choice is to take the money and build more roads, or kiss the money they sent to the state/feds goodbye.

Wouldn't the above kind of hamstring local politicians? Would it be safe to assume that the pro-car lobbyists at those higher level of government want to keep it this way?


The market is rigged by an industry(ies) (auto, oil) to develop society in its favor. Without a major 'refactor', the US doesn't have a chance at efficient urban design that would support individual use transport.


It is rigged because people want high speed climate controlled transportation. Prior to oil and autos, there were enclosed carriages pulled by horses.


The market was rigged by oil and auto before cars were climate controlled.


There are antique cast iron boxes that were filled with hot charcoal to keep carriages warm.


What if the market, often times a manifestation of social and cultural greed and ignorance (and acquiescence and conformity and manipulation), is wrong? What if the market, which has fundamentally brought us to the brink upon which we find our collective selves and is driven by short term profit motives, cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the sake of the future rather than the immediate or even near term? What if the market, the deity that capitaism worships, is only interested in self preservation and not at all concerned with sanctity of all life on the planet.

I do believe it is both interesting and frustrating that people (in general) fail to challenge the validity and utility of their own beliefs, even when those beliefs have been shown to not hold up under the scrutiny of others. Then, there is also normacy bias.


What's kind of silly is the adulation of "market" as some kind of God. Talking about, or implying that "markets are always right" is a diversion, a red herring by those who are served by such "markets". We need markets (super and other types) but just because we need them does not mean they are an intelligent being who is "always right". Is Greed good? Is Greed our next God? I think it was proven in a movie already that greed is not good.


Those other kinds of ICE vehicles are supported in poorer markets. In the Third World people use motorcycles and scooters and so on all the time, for all sorts of things.

If lithium becomes scarce, electric vehicles become more expensive. An increase in the price of vehicles produces a similar effect to a decrease in people's incomes, so the market would push people towards smaller vehicles just like in the Third World now.

As a concrete example, tiny electric cars are common in China. Amusingly, the government doesn't like tiny cars because they are hard to regulate. It really is the market that has spoken. https://restofworld.org/2021/tesla-vs-tiny-cars/


UK and USA have some of the lowest rates of motorcycle usage in the world, they're part of the transportation solution in almost every other nation more than they are here.

It's just never considered because the types of people working on policy in this area aren't motorcyclists.


Motorcycles are unavoidably far more dangerous than cars, that's the reason it's not seriously considered in nations that are rich enough to use cars. I used to ride. Had a major crash and got lucky. My relatives that rode lost organs. Several of our biker friends died or spent months in the hospital after their wrecks.


It would be interesting to see the ratio of deaths per 100 million miles driven in motorcycles vs all other motor vehicles across countries.


I wish the market did a better job of ensuring that car owners pay all the related infrastructure costs for their vehicles, as opposed to some things that are paid for by other taxpayers.

Gas might cost more without subsidies. Car ownership in cities would cost more to pay for parking. Roads outside of cities would be paid for from local taxes. Trucks would pay more because they damage roads much more than cars, which would encourage rail and boat transport. Etc.

It's not a free market if these things are being paid for by all taxpayers, including those who don't drive, or don't drive as much.


I don't think it follows from the fact that most people drive (buy) cars in the US that they actually prefer it. Corporate lobbying and politics have ensured that you can't function in the vast majority of the US without a car. People in cities in Europe that support and/or prioritize bike/pedestrian traffic see many to most people preferring it. I went through childhood, uni, and the first year of my professional life living in car-dependent (but still nice) places. I moved to a city where I can (and do) live without a car and I vastly prefer not having to drive. I suspect many who say they prefer cars haven't even had the opportunity to live somewhere where they aren't a necessity.


People that live nearby city center prefer them, get a few more KM radius away and sunddenly cycling to city center is no longer so much fun.


80.7%: Percent of the US population living within urban areas https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/g...

The fact that some US urban areas are less dense and more car dependent than most European urban areas is at least in part due to the reasons I mentioned already. Obviously people who live in rural areas will need and prefer cars but my point is that it is hard to say "Americans prefer cars" when most Americans have never had the opportunity to live somewhere where they don't need a car.


> In practice the market has spoken as to what kind of a form-factor people find the most useful for personal transportation

That market contains the heavy lobbying by oil firms and car industry to keep trains at the sorry state they are in.


Streetcars are "EV's". They've been gaining traction for a 100 years and more.


They also tend to carry more traditional batteries (lead-acid) as they tend to be connected often to the grid.


I guarantee you 100 percent that there are orders of magnitude more electric scooters in the world that electric car-shaped vehicles.

You are simply wrong.


Answering to my own comment to answer the broader discussion.

- I’m not from the US and I’m not talking about the US market;

- I don’t believe “the market” provides some value judgement. Rather, it’s just the aggregate behavior of people under their existing realities. We can and should aim to change those realities, but ignoring them because “they’re wrong” will not yield workable solutions.


“The market” spoke twice, during the oil crisis of 1975. It was made very clear to said market that if oil was priced at competitive levels, people who made that decisions would be bombed out of existence and the memory of men. Horrors are committed every day, including today, in Yemen, in your name. Starvation, genocide, rapes…

There is nothing more shockingly unethical and disgusting to pretend that killing millions of people every year and destroying entire countries is somehow moral because of “the market”.


In theory, but that would also require changing how/where many people live (which would require a lot of construction which would require energy and concrete - both bad things for the environment). I’m thinking over my schedule today and needing to drive the kids places, often many miles away in different directions, plus going to work, running errands with multiple people, etc. Both a bike and a trike would be wildly inappropriate. Especially where I live where it rains steadily for 9 months of the year. A car is the only practical way to move around without somehow either having fewer people to move around, moving the places we need to go closer together, changing the weather or moving to a drier climate, etc.

Frankly I would love it if that was a reality and everything was within easy walking or biking distance, but it simply doesn’t match reality as things are currently built.


A cargo ebike is a game changer for all of this. I can bring 2 kids to school and do a full grocery trip without even breaking a sweat. I do 6 miles each way and since I avoid traffic it's just as fast as driving.

Plenty of people bike all 4 seasons, the Netherlands is the go-to example... it rains a lot there. Driving to work under-dressed in a heated box is a luxury that's kind of harmed a lot of people's ability to know how to dress for the weather. It's not particularly difficult.


Good for you!

My needs are:

- have place for a family of four, two of which are small children;

- be something I can use with said family in -15 Celsius;

- Be able to be used for a 200km trip weekly with said family;

I have an EV.


- two cargo bikes, each ridden by each adult

- layers, and canopies for aforementioned e-bikes

- train

Of course, speaking in the ideal. Just because the car has been the only option for so long doesn't mean it's replacement has to replace every trip either.


I'm a family of five, three kids and my wife and I and we commute around using this method all the time. I do on average 20-30km per day on week days and a little less on the weekend. My 12 year old son bikes along side me on his own bike. If it rains, we put on waterproof clothes. As the Dutch say "we're not made of sugar!". When we need to visit another city (or other parts of Europe) we jump on the train!


EVs might be less efficient, but not by multiple orders of magnitude. A google search indicates about 5.8 to 125 Wh/km per person. I don't think traveling with trains changes the overall travel time by much, even though they do go faster, and a Tesla with 2 people will probably use about 100Wh/km per person.

I think bicycles certainly have a place in the Netherlands, with actively car-hostile policy, a very high population density and hardly any distance longer than 300km; but any nationality that enjoys their personal space will probably be better of with something else.

I do wonder if rails or road are more efficient ecologically and economically. I've been wondering about smaller-and-slower-than-airliner planes or even eVTOLs, since they don't need a lot of infrastructure and the physics are surprisingly efficient. The technology isn't there yet but sooner or later I don't think flying is a bad idea. A small 4-seater airplane uses about 10-20 liters of fuel per 100km at faster speeds and more direct travel than a car, and if legislation allowed barrier-less mass-use and thus mass-production, planes wouldn't cost much more to the end user.


Hi! Do you live in The Netherlands or somewhere else? If the former, I have a question, though I guess anywhere in Europe is probably close enough.

I just moved here from the US. I live in the Noord Brabant in NL and currently own a car. The village I live in does not have a train station, not to mention that it is pretty pricey to take the train to work, both in time and money. My commute costs about €15 per day on public transport and up to 2 hours each way. I also have family that live in Belgium, about 150km away, also in a small village with no train station. Driving makes a lot of sense for me currently.

Sorry, to the actual question. When you travel abroad, what is your cutoff for taking the train versus flying? From where I live to Brussels, it's about half the price to take the train versus flying, but go out a bit further to Paris, and it's about 25% cheaper to fly. If I'm in NL, it seems like it would almost always be more economical to fly if the destination is more than 300km away. These are also cursory Google searches so the timeline is 3-4 weeks out. When planning a trip months in advance, I would assume the flights and train tickets will be cheaper, but likely still comparable in terms of percentages.

My car is also very efficient. A full tank to drive 600km costs about €60. I realize I would need to pay for parking at the destination, but if I'm staying at a hotel or outside the city center, I think it would still be cheaper. Another cursory train search, Eindhoven to Prague is €140 per person round trip. Traveling alone, probably worth it, but with a family, driving seems more economical.

I feel a bit ramble-y but hopefully that makes sense. I'm trying to figure out how this whole "European" thing works :)


"We're not made of sugar" - seems it is a popular proverb around the world.


Noone is going out alone, let alone with their kids, on a cargo bike at -15C


Trains are only useful within and between densely populated areas. The 200 km weekly trip might well be to a cabin in the mountains, definitely no train.


Going to a cabin in the mountains is a luxury few of us can afford. Even fewer of us can afford to buy such a cabin more likely you would rent it for a weekend or week. So if you're going to the mountains say twice a year we could assume that you also rent a car to get there, and back.


Even if they own a car, the aim is to reduce car ownership and drastically reduce car usage/need, not eliminate them entirely. There are 289MM cars in the US (.87 cars per person), in The Netherlands there are 8.7MM cars (0.5 cars per person).


People miss this so often when they respond to arguments to reduce car usage with "I need a car because of xyz reason" where that reason probably doesn't apply to most people, certainly doesn't apply to all people, or only applies to most people because whatever society they exist in (probably the US) is incredibly car-centric already. The Netherlands is clearly not car-centric but with 0.5 cars per person clearly people that need (or strongly want) cars still have them. Reducing car usage in the US can only have positive benefits for society imo.


You don't need to bike every trip to reduce your reliance on cars! Even if you replaced solo trips in the spring and summer with a bike, for many people this ends up being a big reduction in car use... which isn't only good for the environment and your health, but reduces car wear & tear.

If you're not interested enough to invest in an ebike, an escooter is a good way to try... though it removes the exercise element and restricts you to what can be carried in a backpack.


>A cargo ebike is a game changer for all of this

Not so long as a "never in a lifetime on average" crash remains an acceptable justification to spend tens of thousands of dollars it's not. And that's ignoring weather and convenience.


> "never in a lifetime on average" crash

That’s a strong argument against SUVs, a type of vehicle that is notoriously dangerous because drivers can’t see children in front of their hood. It also flips over and kills people inside at minor incidents.

Cargo bikes don’t have those issues.


>flips over and kills people inside at minor incidents.

>a strong argument against SUVs

This kind of hubris to think you can plan the exact details of the market for a product followed up by cognitive dissonance when it doesn't work out drives me up the wall.

The SUVs back in the day when they were becoming a thing had fine visibility, great even by modern standards. Then you people said they rolled over too much and were too unsafe so they grew wide to be stable and they got thick bodies and doors and strong pillars and high belt-lines to be strong and nobody could see out of them. And then you people backed over your kids. And then we got backup cameras and all sorts of tech. And now you people complain the screens are distracting and un-ergonomic. You see the pattern here?

Just stop trying to tell everyone else what's good for them and then force it on them and we wouldn't have this problem.

Want me to do zoning too? Because it's basically the same story.


Something tells me the intersection of the "you people" trying to reduce car dependence and the "you people" arguing to make cars bigger and heavier is not a large one.

Increasing car size (sometimes) increases safety for the driver at the expense of anyone in a smaller car or not in a car. Road deterioration also increases exponentially with vehicle weight so people that opt for no-car or smaller cars are effectively subsidizing the excessive vehicles of other people with their tax money. iirc a Hummer causes 21x more damage than an "average car."

https://www.gao.gov/products/109954


who is “you people” here


It's an arms race - cargo bikes might not have those issues, but for one of those types of crashes I'd sure rather not be on a bike.


That's why I only leave the house to step into my Marauder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDoRmT0iRic I think every other vehicle should be banned.


> Not so long as a "never in a lifetime on average" crash

What does this mean?


People justify purchasing large vehicles with their fear of being hit by one.


You can't be serious. It's great it works for you. An ebike isn't a serious replacement for cars used by families in most of the world.


> An ebike isn't a serious replacement for cars used by families in most of the world.

"Most of the world" is a big place.

Are there more cars or mopeds in the world? I assume that the typical family in Asia has either a scooter or no vehicle, so an ebike would be an improvement for them. Probably the same for Africa and a lot of South America. I'm confident that numerically there are more families without cars in the world than with.

I mention this to demonstrate that most of the world doesn't have cars, and they get along ok. Such a thing is not impossible.


It's understandable that you're having a hard time imagining it because you live in a car-centric society, but "most of the world" is objectively wrong here.

There are roughly 1.4bn cars in the world for 7.8bn people... so most people get around without one.

You can see it if you travel a bit, in India and China you'll see families getting around on bikes and scooters. Over 1/3 of the Dutch use a bike as their primary means of transportation. People often cite weather as a reason not to, but if the Finnish can regularly use bikes to get around (another European country with high bike use)... nearly anyone can.


> e-bicycle with a small roof can ride as long as the Sun shines

Is this true? I can go through a 630Wh battery in 2-3 hours of riding and I can't imagine current solar being able to keep up with that. I think you might get an extra ~30 minutes of riding, but not ~forever~ unless you mean pedal power.


Your mileage will vary, but the order of magnitude works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EyRqQhuwio


I think you just confirmed for me that you don't know what you're talking about.


Related, recent Electrek video discussing the next moves for countries that have phased out ICE for EV, such as Norway:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F6Bz-0EKA0


> the next moves for countries that have phased out ICE for EV, such as Norway

"Phasing", perhaps. "Phased", not yet...

Approximately 19% of passenger cars in use in Norway are (pure) EV, with 7% plug-in hybrid and 5% conventional hybrid. That leaves 40% diesel and 30% petrol.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_N...


Norway has the luxury of exporting pollution the rest of the planet as a means of financing their pivot to green technology at home. Not every country can do that.

Taken in isolation, it's an interesting case study in EVs, but I'd be careful about extrapolating too much.


The Aptera is going to cost $30,000 (more than entry-level cars) and will only seat two people. I'm not really sure the appeal over an electric bike or motorcycle for an individual given the huge gulf in cost. This is not a good solution for most people who do not earn enough to justify an expense like that, even more so given the product is new and has a higher potential for being unreliable.

There is also the problem of solving family transport, which has no good answer other than EVs. Although, for a lot of people, work-from-home has reduced their annual mileage several fold.


I think this is wishful thinking. People's preferences aren't going to change overnight (I don't see a reason this one would change at all), and manufacturers are already making a tough sell with EVs themselves, so they'll cater extra hard to other familiar things people already want

The only way I see this changing is regulation, and that would be political suicide for whoever pushed it in the US (the main place where it would be relevant)


Put people on an e-bike and tell me how they react.


"I'm getting rained on from the front, either driving OR a long walk OR waiting for a bus are better". And I live in a city with no real winter


No, cars plus planes are much more convenient for travel than bikes and trains.

That is definitely not to say that there is no place for bikes and trains. US certainly needs more of both.

But please stop pretending that a family of 4 can go anywhere on bikes in the weather. Or even going to the beach with all gear in perfect weather. Just not going to happen.


I can assure that anyone in a traffic jam disagrees with you–violently so.

More roads aren’t a solution.


I lived in European capital and I live in Bay Area, California now.

I would take sitting in traffic jam in my car in comfort with audiobook and AC anytime over being in freaking people jam in subway.

Especially during flu and covid waves.


More roads are the only solution, and have been for at least 4000 years.

For those 4 millenia, people have gravitated to a 30 minute each way commute, on average.

More roads implies bigger cities and more amenities / economic growth. If bikes mean more people can commute to the city, then they will eventually win.


I agree with anything you said. At this point I'm already happy when the media doesn't try to praise drones (Volocopter, Lilium, Joby, ...) as the ultimate solution to our traffic problems, unfortunately.


> Using three tons vehicles for long-distance journeys or for the transport of goods isn’t efficient: trains (and last-mile delivery on cargo bikes) are a lot more economical

That sounds intuitive to me but the fact that train tickets are so expensive on long distances (more than twice than if you travel alone in a car) makes me think it's not the case.


Train tickets include track maintenace, but if you travel by car, you usually don't include road maintenance, car purchase, etc in the travel price (as they're often hidden and include many subsidies and tax breaks).

Additionally, a train always costs the same amount to run, no matter the number of passengers, so in countries where trains don't see much use (like the US), they'll be much more expensive than they should be.

If you look at how DB sells the vast majority of their tickets (Sparpreis and Super Sparpreis) in the 9,90 / 14,90 to 49,90 price range (including for 1000km long distance journeys), train travel can be relatively affordable (but obviously still more expensive than car travel if you travel short journeys, fill the car with 7 adults and don't include the road maintenance paid for by regular taxes)


vast majority of their tickets (Sparpreis and Super Sparpreis) in the 9,90 / 14,90 to 49,90

If you are flexible and plan ahead. If I decide now to go visit my sister tomorrow (~4 hours by the fastest train route), want to get there not much slower than by car, and travel at a time that is convenient for me, then I'll end up paying a lot more if I go by train, even if I'm traveling alone.


Yes, that's necessary to provide incentives for people to spread the load over the whole day. Otherwise everyone would pile into the same trains during the middle of the day instead.


Nobody is saying it’s unreasonable. Just that there remains a valid justification for owning a car. Not driving it everywhere, all the time. But having one.


I don’t really agree with that. If driving 7+ people is something you do every day, sure. But for the vast majority of people, there is no valid reason whatsoever.

I’ve never owned a car, and stopped during the middle of my driving lessons because I didn’t see the purpose in it. That was 10 years ago, and I’ve moved halfway across the country, traveled a lot, never had a car, and overall I spend significantly less on travel than the friends who do own cars (while traveling more comfortably)


Passenger rail in the US, like Amtrak, is spectacularly subsidized.


Because of unprofitable long-haul routes through the middle of nowhere that no one in their right mind would use instead of flying but that are kept for political reasons.

The northeast corridor, which is basically the only Amtrak route that is actually focused on being a useful route for passengers, runs at a profit.


Amtrak is receiving $19.26B over the years of 2022 to 2026. $4.8B a year. That is an increase from the $1.7B/year it received from FY17 to FY19

The FHWA is handing out $52B in FY22. Now, you might say, oh, well, more people drive, so the FHWA is clearly a more sensible place to invest. But Americans spent $743B on their cars, including payments, interest, and insurance.

It's a scam.


I wouldn't call it a scam. The subsidy per rider is, in fact, a relevant number. As others have pointed out, commuting by rail in America largely sucks, particularly in an age of COVID and rampant crime in many metro areas. In Portland a dude literally had his face and ear bitten off the other day at a light rail station. People will pay more for cars because everything about the experience is better.


In Portland a guy had his ear bitten, and ~100 people died in their cars in crashes.


Not in one day, and there's been a lot more violence than that on Metro, including shootings and stabbings. I'm much more comfortable with the risk on the highway, which is in many ways contingent on my own behaviors. Rational or not, I suspect many, many people agree with me. Likewise, buses were hilarious during the pandemic. Nobody wanted anything to do with them, and that's increasingly true every cold and flu season. How many people do communicable viruses contracted by mass transit kill every year? These are not flip comments. I'm just making the case that there's a reason people prefer cars, and it's not just because of some failure to build sufficient mass transit.


The price difference is because the vast majority of costs for car transport (direct, like road maintenance and indirect, like millions of people dying because of pollution) are handled by the state. Trains can easily be much cheaper as most costs are fixed and they can handle orders of magnitude more traffic without congestion.


> That sounds intuitive to me but the fact that train tickets are so expensive on long distances (more than twice than if you travel alone in a car) makes me think it's not the case.

Have you factored in all the costs associated with owning a vehicle (e.g. cost of purchase, maintenance, etc)?


Yep, train travel in the UK is more expensive than driving under any circumstances by at least a factor of two or three other than when commuting into London, where parking charges make the economics work.


You don’t include the health cost of pollution and the cost of accidents: healthcare and loss of life make driving far more expensive. That cost is not paid for by the drivers at the moment.


I'll give you the health costs and climate costs but the costs of accidents are paid by drivers through their insurance premiums.


> Using three tons vehicles for long-distance journeys or for the transport of goods isn’t efficient: trains (and last-mile delivery on cargo bikes) are a lot more economical

You are right - Rail freight is extremely expensive (typically more expensive than road except for very long routes) and cargo bikes have a tiny payload.

Think about container ships - massive vehicle and much lower cost vs rail freight (dependent on distance).


Surprisingly not that much lower, which is why Transsiberian Railway is still a main transit hub.

What matters is large volume per ride, which trains can definitely pull off.


> bicycles and trikes like the <who cares> are much better direction for the vast majority of individual transport

in your opinion? Better in what way? Does everyone think like you?

Between your and their assumption, I personally think theirs sounds more realistic, they just assume the norm continues to be the norm.


Thank you so much for your helpful contribution to a debate about how the world is changing its transport infrastructure.


Not as helpful as wishful thinking and being unrealistic, so, thank you.


Sure, if one likes to enjoy cold, snow and arrive wet at work during Winter, or sharing body odors during Summertime, also assuming healthy enough to stay on a bicycles or trikes.

And yes I know plenty of people do endure weather conditions for their two wheel drive, most never will unless forced to do so.


There are enclosed pedal assist vehicles out there that can keep you dry. A bit harder to park than regular bikes but that's not a hard problem to solve, just convert some car parking spots into something smaller.


At that point it is no better than using a car.


I live in Umeå, Sweden. Most people here bike.

I’m not entirely sure what your point is.


Between the age of 10 and 18 years old, biking was the only way to get anywhere, there were hardly any buses available, didn't had parents to drive me around at the pleasure of my wishes, and no money for taxi.

I know pretty well what it means to cycle everywhere, regardless of weather conditions or not having a place to exchange clothes.


Only thing they I would counteract is that at least for those living in cities you aren’t necessary right.

I used to own a car. More then a year ago we moved to a cargo bike (electric) which is enough for most of our needs. It can even have an extra trailer, so we can do all groceries and bring our kids with us, in safety and all weather conditions. Even visits to the recycling park are possible with it.

When we do need a car we use a car sharing service for which i have a subscription and can take any type of car available at any time within walk or cycle distance from my house.

As such i think city families probably are fine just owning a cargo bike (or two) and for long distance trips make use of a shared car (or train).


Good luck selling that idea (in America, at least).


There isn't any reason people in America couldn't choose such things. They just don't. If the selling of the idea is failing, maybe the idea is the problem and not the people you're selling it to.


Our cities are designed for cars. Hell, most of our society is designed around owning a car. It is horrendously impractical in a lot of places to go without a car.

Our public transit systems are largely garbage, if they exist at all. Bike lanes are extremely rare, and are really just used as free car parking.

Take my commute to work for instance. It's about 3 miles, but it would be impossible to bike, as there are huge and dangerous hills. Likewise, walking would be very difficult. It takes about 10 minutes to drive to work, and a bus would be over 40 minutes.

We have major infrastructural failures that make it very impractical to exist without a car in most cases.


Our suburbs are designed for cars. Our cities are retrofitted for cars.

That might seem pedantic but I’m not trying to be. The point is that we do actually have significant areas of population which are ready to be reworked to prioritize cycling without completely changing the way we live.

Suburbs can also prioritize safe cycling. Take a look at bentonville Arkansas. It has a tiny downtown but most of it looks and functions like a suburb. They’ve made it safe for everyone to ride their bikes to commute and for pleasure. It’s not a blueprint by any means, it’s a passion project by some rich folks, but it’s proof that the suburbs can be retrofitted with a vision and will.


Bentonville's core is vastly different from the surrounding suburb/exurb/metro area which is mostly 0.5+ acre lots built in confined subdivisions connected via 4-8 lane arterial stroads - typical American car style suburban planning. The damage is done, retrofitting this development pattern to suit cycling over F150 throughput is just not something that will be achievable in the Bentonville, or the greater US.

I live in Kansas City and there is a valiant effort happening here to put in meaningful cycling infrastructure. There are bollard protected lanes from downtown out to the inner ring suburbs, additionally we have a residential grid that would allow safe cycling around town, but the new lanes are going completely unused. Visit the KC reddit and look at the vitriol being spewed - 'why are my tax dollars being wasted on this', 'i cant park', 'it ruins business'... These are the people coming from our outer ring suburbs where cycling is just not an option - they can't even fathom a place without cars.


Have you looked at what's happened in Bentonville in the last few years? The cycling infrastructure that's been built extends well beyond the core and does a remarkable job connecting the suburban style development with the downtown core.

They've built miles and miles of greenways and off street bike paths. I was there three months ago and rode all over town without once feeling threatened by auto traffic. Is it perfect? No, absolutely not. But I defy anyone to go there, ride their bike to commute around, and walk away thinking "getting around by bike in in the US is impossible."

I don't think Bentonville is repeatable everywhere, and it may even be a fluke, but it's certainly proof that it can be done.


I'll admit it has been 3 years since we considered moving there (we tried living for a month to get the feel of it), but I wonder how well suburban style development is going to scale for utilitarian cycling to occur. The population is what, maybe 100k now? What about when its 10x that? (think DFW)


I don't think it does, and I don't think bentonville is the ideal. I just think it's proof that it's possible to start mitigating and designing toward a better future with what we have.


Eh, they will change their minds pretty quickly once they can't afford fuel for their car any more.


That is nice, but I wonder what the ratio of driving to riding bicycles is in Bentonville. I assume the residents still own cars.


Is improving cycling infrastructure thereby increasing miles traveled by bike a success? Or does this need to be completely binary?


This morning I would have had to bike in the dark, in a 35f rainstorm. Not going to happen.


I've done such things. It is surprisingly not bad if you spend ~$500 on fluorescent breathable rain gear and lights.

The biggest problems are leaves on the stupid green paint they coat the bike lanes with, and increased stopping distance / driver fatigue for the cars.

Storing the rain gear at your destination in a way that lets it dry out is also a big concern.

Being cold is not an issue at all. If anything, you will be too hot while rising.


Realistically speaking, what percent of the commuting population could do this on a daily basis? Many people have additional limitations that also need to be considered. E.g. Have to pick up the kids after work, have to shop after work, age/health constraints, etc.


> isn't any reason people in America couldn't choose such things

I mean, sure. I don’t want to. I lived without a car in New York and it was great. I live with a car in a low-density area and it’s also great. There should be a carbon tax, but that’s a fancy way of saying some people get cars and some don’t.

(Specifically: I don’t want to walk or bike when it’s -20° F. I don’t want to load up my skis every time on a bus, I literally can’t with a snowmobile, and I enjoy doing those things.)


To be sure many Americans will worry about the danger of being in the smallest vehicle on the road — having to contend with SUVs, full-size pickup trucks.

But just as the Japanese found a foothold in the U.S. auto market in the 70's, if there were an electric car for under $10K I suspect a lot of people would find that their fears could be somewhat tempered.


> if there were an electric car for under $10K

Somebody should make a concept car that is electric but without any electronics (apart from battery and the motors, obviously). Apart from the battery, what's expensive in a modern electric car is that you are essentially sitting in a giant smartphone with 4 wheels.

Why is that necessary? Electric motors provide the unique opportunity to create vastly simpler (and thus cheaper) cars than ICE versions. This could over-compensate for the battery costs. But seems car manufacturers fill it with more electronics. I'm sure there are market opportunities for cars that just bring you safely from A to B without having some semi-self-driving-but-not-really Twitter client on board that opens the doors with an app on your mobile. I'm fine using a key, thank you very much.


> Why is that necessary? Electric motors provide the unique opportunity to create vastly simpler (and thus cheaper) cars than ICE versions.

The majority of the market (dollars-wise, at least) doesn't want a vastly simpler car though. They like having heated leather seats, heated steering wheels, comfortable interiors with good AC and heat, and a decent stereo.

Also, its not like you're realistically going to cut the price in half taking out the stereo. The actual car thing is the vast majority of the price.


Heated seating doesn't need to turn my car into a smartphone. A reasonably simple stereo neither. Bascially what you could have in a car in the 70s.

It would be interesting to know how much cost it would cut to leave out the hundreds of sensors and CAN bus stuff and phone-home interactive NFC magic. Less dev costs, less certification, less maintenance, less licensing.


A brand new with markup replacement of the head unit/smart stuff guts of an ICE car I had was ~$1,500 including labor. That core essentially ran Android with a lot of custom skinning and applications, so essentially a cheap Android tablet slightly hardened to handle the heat of a car parked in the sun. What does a set of 19" wheels cost? A set of tires to put on those wheels? The full brake assemblies? The ABS system? We're easily now past a multiple of that cost of the smart stuff guts/head unit and we' don't actually even have a way to spin those wheels or change their direction much less seats or seatbelts or airbags or, you know, a frame.

The screen and radios are usually pretty darn cheap BOM-wise. You really think a computer with less compute capacity as a cheap modern cell phone makes up a significant portion of the cost of a new car?


You seem to be completely ignoring the rest of the iceberg that this glorified screen rests on.

And no, not every car needs to have top-end leather heated fake-racing shaped seats. Some people just want to get from A to B and not everybody has a SWE salary/compensation like the slightly-detached-from-normal-people's-reality crowd here at HN.

Of course when I discuss this with a tech crowd I need to expect a tech-focused attitude. See it as a challenge .. I mean, some people write compilers that output only move instructions (still Turing complete) or build websites entirely running on solar power. Minimizing electronics in an electric car could just be another creativity-inducing restriction. Just saying "it can't be done" does not sound like real Hacker spirit to me..


> You seem to be completely ignoring the rest of the iceberg that this glorified screen rests on.

Yeah the stuff it rests on such as the frame, the suspension, the wheels... That's the vast majority of the cost of a car. What sensors are you thinking about that add supposedly many many thousands of dollars to the cost of a car? Backup sensors aftermarket, at retail, can be had for $20. Mobileye sells aftermarket ADAS kits for <$1k installed, at retail. What do you think an automaker moving a million of those a year pays per unit?

Tear out a all of those computers and sensors from a $35k car and....now you're at a $33k with a lot of the comfort options removed.

Which part of the iceberg do you imagine makes up the majority of this cost? Which seems to be the most expensive part: the Android tablet, the $200 worth of sensors, or the couple thousand pounds of metal called the frame?

Could you ship a car without many computers on it? Sure, maybe. You'd have a hard time meeting emissions requirements without some kind of EFI though, so instantly there's a computer there. Same goes with needing to have some kind of EGR system to once again meet emissions and fuel economy standards. Then, you're going to have a hard time having a purely mechanical ABS, which without you'll get incredibly poor safety scores. These days a backup camera is required in the US, so you'll need some kind of display and a camera.

Like, sure, one could make a car without many computers in it. It wouldn't be radically cheaper than cars with computers in it, it will probably perform worse and have fewer comfort features. The only real selling point would be "hey, its a basic car!"

You probably wouldn't sell nearly as many units as the big auto makers, as I really doubt it would be as popular (for example, why isn't the Mirage the most popular car in the US?). This means your per unit manufacturing costs would be higher. In the end I imagine such a vehicle would actually cost more in the market than less as some of the big costs like safety testing would amortize over a much smaller fleet of vehicles.

Even the Aptera, an incredibly stripped down car, is estimating ~$25k base.

Lets take the Mirage for an example. ~$16kUSD for the extreme base tier. Tear out the computers, the motor, the transmission, we're probably at like $11k. Now add in a 45kWh battery pack at ~$151/kWh so ~$7k, and we're at ~$18k. Add a drive unit/charging system for another few grand, and we're at ~21k. Starting price for the Bolt, $27k, and that comes with all those fancy "make the car a smartphone" features. And if we price it with the Bolt's battery size (60kWh) it gets even closer.


> You'd have a hard time meeting emissions requirements

Not sure what emissions you are thinking about from an electric car that needs regulation circuits. You know, the thing I'm talking about. (And that I'm still claiming could end up vastly simpler than ICE cars if we only tried).

But in any case, in absence of a good faith basis to a discussion, it doesn't seem worthwhile for either of us to continue it.


> But in any case, in absence of a good faith basis to a discussion

I do agree to the absence of good faith in this discussion. My comments have real experiences and cost estimations directly pointing to statements made by the other side. The other side of the conversation makes accusations of being disconnected from reality without actually giving examples, never actually addresses any questions, never actually gives any counter examples, etc. Perhaps we can both learn to be better communicators?

I did go a bit off topic talking about EGR systems, I kind of lost focus on EVs for a second there and talked cars in general. But either way, an EV is going to have computers to actually drive the electric motor effectively, a BMS, etc. Otherwise you're going to have some bad range, you're driving experience is probably going to be pretty poor, and you're not going to be able to really interface with any public chargers.

If you'd answer even one question, can you actually estimate how much an average car would save if they went without the "make a car a phone" stack? What kind of equipment do you propose they actually remove, and what do you think that equipment costs? I'd truly like to understand where you're coming from with that, because from what I see its <10% of the cost of a car.

And maybe I'm disconnected from reality, but the average new car sold today is now $40k, despite the Mirage still being sold for ~$16k. If there was really a massive market for cheap cars and I'm just too disconnected to notice, wouldn't Mitsubishi be moving a lot more Mirages?


> if there were an electric car for under $10K

We are very close to finding out, at least for the moment. In Oregon the combined federal & state tax incentives make a Chevy Bolt a $10.6K car.


You mean like the Citroen Ami (2020), from 7k€ ?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/electriccars/article-114...


how exactly would this work if you have multiple small children, or are disabled, or a variety of other things.

Why is there this insistence that Americans are just 'big dumb'


I find the city to be better for small children and for disabled people than car focused suburbs to be honest. It means stuff is closer to get to and both groups of people are not completely reliant on other people driving them around to get to places. I do not believe the only way a world can be livable for disabled people, small children, and elderly people, is to pave the entire country in tens of millions of miles of roads and drive on them with heavy and dangerous polluting machines.


city downtowns are filled with criminals, homeless, and drug addicts. not very kid friendly env


What fraction of the driving population do you assume drive because it's their only mobility option?

Do the blind, seizure prone, or folks otherwise unable to drive a car due to health reasons count too?


You're replying to the wrong person.


You'll have great trouble selling that idea in many parts of Europe as well.


At least in large cities, lots of (mostly young) people are already fully on board with a largely car-free future. It's increasingly common to dream of not owning a car at all, instead of having a dream car. All of my american friends my age have some resentment that they're practically forced to own a car even in dense cities. So urban planners just need to enable a car-free lifestyle, and the shift will happen on its own.

Contrast in European and Asian cities, it is already extremely common to not own a car. In my city, even the people I know who own cars only use them for long journeys or when public transit is insufficient. And these bike/trike EVs are the dominant method for deliveries (mail, packages, food, etc... all use electric bikes) since they're cheaper to drive and maintain, drivers don't need a special commercial license, and they can be faster than traffic a lot of the time.

It's a lifestyle shift, but it's definitely doable to sell this idea.


>electric bicycles and trikes like the Aptera are much better direction for the vast majority of individual transport.

I think a vast majority of people in the United States that choose to drive cars, suvs and pickups would disagree your assumption.


I don’t think we should focus on 4% of the world.


Fair enough. You focus on where you think is important and I’ll focus on where I choose to. In my case the United States is 100% of my world.


With that logic you could also argue that much more will be needed for trucks and heavy equipment. I don’t know if it averages out, but I don’t think you can assume that less is needed not more, or the same as the article.


Aptera is a thing again? I remember reading about it when I was in high school over a decade ago. I thought they smashed their prototypes and went bankrupt?


The original Aptera went bankrupt a decade ago. However couple of the original cofounders managed to get some funding to buy back the name and some of the original IP and restarted the company a couple of years ago.


Their homepage is claiming up to "40 miles of solar powered driving per day" and "1,000 miles on a single charge". Even given the size and layout of the vehicle, that seems impressive as heck if true. It's in reservation stages for ~$26k, which is also not bad.


When I was in college, the car was being advertised as 100 MPG. The car looks virtually the same, if you can get 100MPG you can probably get insane ranges without huge batteries.

It's basically a motorcycle on three wheels, those things have great milage.


> It's basically a motorcycle on three wheels, those things have great milage.

The mileage really varies on a lot of things. Cruising on the highway with some side cases and a little bit of gear I usually only get like 35ish MPG on my 1050cc bike, into the low 40s without any cases and with my windshield fully down/off. Fully loaded with camping stuff I'd only get like 30mpg. My 650cc bike with some cases as well got like 40ish, mid 40s without any cases, but really didn't have enough power to feel great when needing to overtake on highways with big trucks.

Some really small motorcycles will get into the 80s, but its really not a given that motorcycles have high mileage numbers.


I agree that on highways motorcycles' horrible drag (easily 2x of cars) results in terrible fuel economy considering their size.

Around town at low speeds (therefore drag is negligible), size becomes an asset, and a small motorcycle or scooter can get very good fuel economy, assuming it doesn't have an insanely overpowered engine.

An electric motorcycle or scooter around town is extremely efficient.

For example, the Arcimoto (https://www.arcimoto.com/) gets 5.5 miles/kWh.

The Aptera (which blurs the line between motorcycle and car) gets 10 miles/kWh! By comparison the Model 3 (the most efficient current mass market EV) gets 4 miles/kWh.


The electric bike people really need to shut up with the activism.

Electric bikes are more unsafe than motorcycles ! This is irregardless of infrastructure (eg. I checked stats in Netherlands which is cyclist utopia according to HN).

I used to ride a motorcycle but I would never actively encourage someone to start it - it's just irresponsibly risky. If you chose to do it regardless (like I did) that's your choice - but me advocating it is like promoting smoking or alcoholism/drug abuse.


The unsafe part of an e-bike is the cars running people over.

I agree with you: we should get rid of that part.


That's not true at all - driving on two wheels is inherently more dangerous, increasingly so the faster you go.

Not to mention that the older/less fit you get the harder it is to react to these situations (tire slipping, hitting holes, stuff hitting you in the face, pedestrians jumping in front of you)

I've said this before - if I put a child seat on a motorcycle I would get social services called instantly. Puting it on an e-bike and I'm a progressive hipster caring about the environment.

The biking propaganda is getting ridiculous.


E-bikes have a top speed where crashes are rarely dangerous unless they involve a car.


>Overall, the report concludes that the main culprit in all bicycle (regular and electric) injuries was the rider’s own behavior (44 percent) — a steering error, for example — while 32 percent was road conditions. And the majority of these accidents affected only the rider. Two-thirds of the 110,000 traffic victims treated in Dutch hospitals last year were cyclists, VeiligheidNL says. The survey was conducted with hospitalized riders between July 2020 and June 2021.

https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/13/23023361/e-bike-injuries-...

This is in Netherlands - Mecca of bicycle infrastructure.

I mean how is this even controversial - riding on two wheels vs driving on 4 between a steel cage is inherently more dangerous - you have to be a zealot to deny that.


Which part of your quote disputes that bike crashes at bike speeds are generally safer than motorcycle crashes at motorcycle speeds?


How does that change the fact that biking is order of magnitude more dangerous compared to driving a car ?

It's like saying "cocaine isn't that bad, look at what heroin does to people".


> electric bicycles and trikes like the Aptera are much better direction for the vast majority of individual transport.

If it doesn't ever get hot or cold where you live, or ever really rain, then yes. If an ebike works 90% of the time, then I'm getting the car. Might still get the bike, but I also have to have the car, and that will take just as much battery material as if I drive it 100% of the time.


I live in Umeå, Sweden.

It was -15ºC today. Most people I saw outside were on bicycles.


Out of curiosity, do ebikes work at all this time of year, or do the batteries freeze? (like they do in inferior EVs)


People like cars and find them useful. Otherwise they wouldn’t spend inordinate amounts of money on them.


People find the car they are in great because they are isolated from the people outside. People outside typically aren’t fans of the noise, the pollution, the million and a half deaths per year, the entitlement, and having most of our shared habitat dedicated to parking.

It’s a classic case of not taking into account enormous externalities.


People also like when they can go to a coffee shop and the barista shows up, even when it's raining, and that the bags of coffee are delivered on time, and that their Amazon packages are delivered and that their local grocery is staffed by workers who may live far away and can commute to work and sell them tomatoes grown in South America delivered right to their local neighborhood, which were carried on trucks to the local port in Brazil before loaded onto ship, sailing to a nearby port, loaded onto a train, and then shipped by a truck to the grocery. They take it for granted that when their plumbing goes out, someone can quickly drive to their location and provide the necessary work to restore service. They take it all for granted that they are living in a modern industrial economy that is made possible by cars and trucks (and yes, also trains, ships, and planes).

It's a classic case of not taking into account enormous externalities.


> trains (and last-mile delivery on cargo bikes) are a lot more economical in both energy, accident risk and individual time

This works if you live in a perfectly flat country with completely contiguous landmass and no islands.


I use Norwegian trains whenever I try to go to a different city.


Great if all you ever need to do is go to cities.


As I like to point out in most of these threads, not everyone live in a Californian-like climate.


Bicycles are the most common form of transport where I live in Umeå, and in the two nearest cities, Oulu and Vaasa. I’ll let you check what the weather is like today.

I’m not advocating bicycles to transport wood (the most common industry here) to the train.


Heat and rain are bigger barriers to bicycles than cold. You could make a case for ice, but you can address that at the infrastructure level. You can make a case for hills, but again, infrastructure (namely, minimizing grade and going around whenever possible). It's a lot easier to wear a coat than it is to wear an air conditioner; if Tw > 30, you are risking heat stroke by pedaling. California, except the far southeast, has generally cooler and much drier summers than most of the United States.

Also, it's +2 in Umeå right now, which is warmer than I thought.


Heat can be mitigated too, to a certain extent. Shade from trees, reducing the urban heat island effect, and infrastructure to minimizing stop-and-go.


The biggest barrier to bikes is deadly cars.


Hah! I've been to Oulu. These people are hardy. Riding bikes in winter near the Arctic Circle is tough work. Yet the bike racks were full in January when I visited a few years ago.


It's not tougher than dressing up for going outside.


Oslo was so littered with ebikes they had to put a limit on them and introduce a licensing system, pushing huge numbers further out.

Even if they're not as useful during winter, they're still everywhere.


Wait until you discover the dutch.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: