shared mobility principles for livable cities

LockH

LockH

1 PW
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
17,579
Location
Ummm.. Started out in Victoria BC Canada, then sta
Hehe... Dunno if they know it yet, but smells like ebikes? :)

Seen in the news...

network-logo.jpg

(Wiki:)
VCCircle, founded in 2005, is an Indian information services group with presence in online business news, data, events and training for private equity and venture capital fund managers, entrepreneurs, investment bankers, corporate executives and lawyers. It currently employs about 100 people and is owned by the New Delhi-headquartered Mosaic Media Ventures Private Limited with offices in Noida in Delhi-National Capital Region, Mumbai and Bangalore. The company was acquired in 2015 by News Corp.
Click to expand...

Uber, Ola and others sign shared mobility principles for livable cities:
https://www.vccircle.com/uber-ola-and-others-sign-shared-mobility-principles-for-livable-cities/

Starts:
Fifteen of the world’s leading tech-enabled transportation services companies, including Indian cab aggregator Ola and its US-based rival Uber, have signed the ‘Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities,’ a media statement said.

Other firms that also signed up include Chinese taxi hailing major Didi Chuxing, French carpooling company BlaBlaCar, Chinese bike sharing firms Ofo and Mobikes. By signing the pledge, the companies have committed to lower emissions, adopt an equitable approach and prioritise people over vehicles, the statement added.
Click to expand...

"Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities"? Turns out they have a web site...:
https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/

... where they state: Sustainable, inclusive, prosperous, and resilient cities depend on transportation that facilitates the safe, efficient, and pollution-free flow of people and goods, while also providing affordable, healthy, and integrated mobility for all people.

"safe, efficient, and pollution-free"? Sorta sounds like "little" and "light weight" and "slow"(er... hehe) vehicles? ... and "pollution-free"... Guess not having a tailpipe might count. :mrgreen:

Hehe... "tech-enabled transportation services"... Code phrase for bettery-electric assisted bikes. :D
 
I agree with all but slower.

Smaller and lighter is faster, in a city designed for big vehicles. Even at similar speed, travels will be faster without the heavy trafic. Then, because the flow will be better, faster speed limitations will be possible.

Here we have regulations coming that will forbid big delivery trucks in the city. The goals are better trafic flow, lesser damages to the streets, faster supply network.
 
^^ Hehe... I SAID "slow"(ER... hehe) vehicles...

:lol: EVen at a road-legal 32 kmh aka 20mph I'm passing hundreds and thousands trapped in "bumper-to-bumper traffic".

:mrgreen:
 
MadRhino said:
I agree with all but slower.

Smaller and lighter is faster, in a city designed for big vehicles.
Click to expand...

unless of course they (p)ass their special little law saying slower, as they are apt to do. They are GOVERMENT, afterall. Slower is what they're all about.
 
Dauntless said:
unless of course they (p)ass their special little law saying slower, as they are apt to do. They are GOVERMENT, afterall. Slower is what they're all about.
Click to expand...

Hehe... Just to clarify, by "slower", suspect you meant "safer"? Already accepted wisdom, to be "perfectly safe" is to just stay in bed? OTOH... the vehicle with the thousand mile an hour top speed is still considered "suspect"... in urban environments, at least...
 
Slower as in unable to get out of the way does NOT mean safer. Slower so you can't really get anywhere is only safer because people won't ride them.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/31/technology/uber-bikeshare/index.html?iid=ob_article_hotListpool
 
The history of mankind is full of people who believed that they were safe. Safety is an illusion at best, a dangerous state of mind at worse.

Our cities need to be clean and efficient. That would be better for the people than any safety laws.
 
"Slower" as in MUCH less kinetic energy when getting whacked...

Chemists divide energy into two classes. Kinetic energy is energy possessed by an object in motion. The earth revolving around the sun, you walking down the street, and molecules moving in space all have kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy is directly proportional to the mass of the object and to the square of its velocity: K.E. = 1/2 m v2. If the mass has units of kilograms and the velocity of meters per second, the kinetic energy has units of kilograms-meters squared per second squared. Kinetic energy is usually measured in units of Joules (J); one Joule is equal to 1 kg m2 / s2.
Click to expand...
 
MadRhino said:
Our cities need to be clean and efficient. That would be better for the people than any safety laws.
Click to expand...

So. "Efficient" means spending less money per capita? (and less energy per mile for transportation...) Like, less spent dealing with property damages and the injuries and early deaths caused by collisions?

:wink:
 
If cities were clean and efficient, people would have a better life. Everything else, any other advantage is only a consequence of it.

We care a lot about death, but our reality is that death has no importance since it is destiny for all of us, and we can’t change that. Life is the only important matter, and what good we are making of it.

For every life there is a death, the ratio is a perfect 1:1 and death is only a moment, not better nor worse than birth. Don’t let fear of death, take off anything from living.
 
Hehe...well re "shared principles for cities" as it relates to vehicles... MY vote is for vehicles watt consume less energy and carry less energy when they whack something. :wink:
 
LockH said:
Hehe...well re "shared principles for cities" as it relates to vehicles... MY vote is for vehicles watt consume less energy and carry less energy when they whack something. :wink:
Click to expand...

Our vehicle, the one we all travel on, is speeding 67,000 mph while spinning 1000 mph. We shouldn't worry moving 100 mph on it, as long as we are not leaving a trail of sh*t behind. :mrgreen:
 
^^ Hehe... Gets a bit... "awkward" though, when every so often we get whacked by some comet,etc though not as large still moving MUCH faster. Leaves one heck of a mess. :mrgreen:
 
MadRhino said:
I agree with all but slower.

Smaller and lighter is faster, in a city designed for big vehicles. Even at similar speed, travels will be faster without the heavy trafic. Then, because the flow will be better, faster speed limitations will be possible.
Click to expand...

The problem with speed in the city is it takes up too much space. Anybody who can break the speed limit with impunity thinks he has a natural right to reserve several hundred feet of roadway in front of him, just because he chose to do something dangerous.

It's an idea we all need to let go of.
 
Chalo said:
MadRhino said:
I agree with all but slower.

Smaller and lighter is faster, in a city designed for big vehicles. Even at similar speed, travels will be faster without the heavy trafic. Then, because the flow will be better, faster speed limitations will be possible.
Click to expand...

The problem with speed in the city is it takes up too much space. Anybody who can break the speed limit with impunity thinks he has a natural right to reserve several hundred feet of roadway in front of him, just because he chose to do something dangerous.

It's an idea we all need to let go of.
Click to expand...

If one does need several hundred feet to stop in a city, I agree that he is going way too fast for the vehicle that he is using. We are not on a highway. In a city, needing 100 ft safe ahead is very fast already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top