A step in the wrong direction. Children should be riding bicycles. Adults should be too. But if you get them in cars at 14 it's never going to happen. Another enemy of other road users is born.
And I rode a bicycle at the same time - me and my friends used to cycle 2-3 times per week, 100-120km per day, just for fun. But that's not a good option to go with friends to a cinema, when the nearest one is 45 minute bicycle ride away along major roads. A scooter improved that ability immensly, and I'm sure a small car will as well.
45 minutes doesn't seem like a big deal, most people, especially in cities, probably live a lot closer to a cinema, and the main issue is dangerous main roads without sufficient cycle infrastructure.
Taming car traffic in cities and providing easy to use cycle infrastructure would be enormously more beneficial across the board that a competition for "fast as legally possible" mini cars and scooters, even electric ones.
I didn't get my drivers licence until I was 23 and I didn't miss out on anything, because I could (and did) travel the whole country via train and bus - despite growing up in the countryside. The train station was just under 2km away and that helped immensely and had regular service (2 times an hour) to the nearest cities.
Sure it did. What kind of power does a 15 year old have, exactly, to influence it though? A scooter has improved my mobility when I was 15. Going on the internet and saying that the lack of public transport is at fault would have not.
Besides, we do have really good public transport! It's just that even with buses running every 30 minutes it can still take a long time to get anywhere if you live couple towns over from where you need to be. So it's like.....45 minute bike ride, 15 minute scooter ride, or 1.5 hour bus ride because you have to swap buses twice? Not everything works for everyone, not everyone lives in the major cities. I didn't live out in the countryside either, but in a collection of smaller towns 4-5km apart, 10k population each.
True, of course.
But it's not about the individual 15 year old scooter owner who makes an individual decision to get a scooter, when they live outside the city, in a situation where it benefits them greatly, etc etc.
It's about the systemic impact of legalising a class of vehicles and thus adding hundreds of thousands more vehicles to the road network. People in situations where they could have happily stayed on public transport instead move to driving these small vehicles, which aren't as bad as full-sized cars but still consume resources and occupy valuable road and parking space. Fewer public transport users means fewer voters who care about public transport, and more who care about roads. That's not a step in the right direction.
(I grew up in rural Australia, I understand why you need private motorised transport to get around - but plenty of the customers who are going to be buying this Ami vehicle are going to be in extremely dense urban areas.)
If you want public transport adopted, make it effective and reasonably efficient and people will use it. Crimping people’s mobility in the meantime to garner support for better public transport at some time in the distant future is not likely to work well.
This is an extremely good point.
The city where I live, Milan (Italy) has truly exceptional public transport, accessed via a single cheap monthly pass (39€/month, includes all subways, trams and buses).
It's so good that my gf got her driving license at 27 and she didn't even had to do it, she got it "just in case", and to occasionally use the car sharing services available in the city.
Her mother has a driving license but never drives, and despite this has been going to work and has been doing her things without a car for the last 32 years (!!!)
Once your population density goes below a certain threshold, individual traffic isn't a problem anyway. This isn't the case, however, with most of Europe.
With the right roads and equipment it's not that bad, but you really have to be in shape for this.
People forget that bike riders, once its past a certain amount of distance will sweat + are exposed to the elements. Sure ebikes help with this. But nobody in my country is going to go to work in a full suit + on a bike.
When considering what the right direction is, you should consider convenience, but also environmental impact. It's a trade-off to be made.
Humans are terrible at turning food into energy, and only the most efficient (vegan) foods have a footprint below 1g CO2/kcal.
Your typical vegan on a bicycle has a footprint of 22g CO2/km and that's the best you can get with human-powered transport.
The Ami has a driving footprint of 7g / km in France, a 5.5kWh battery, which has a one-time impact of ~450kg, and seats two.
Long term it's the less impactful opttion really, especially if you take into account that only 2% of the population is vegan.
> Humans are terrible at turning food into energy
Electric bicycles come to mind. They would provide a more direct comparison with the Ami, but being 50 times lighter, I don't see how the Ami could compete.
> a one-time impact of ~450kg
This amounts to 20000km! That's a lot of cycling before the Ami becomes less impactful. Also a battery lifetime is about 5 years.
> Your typical vegan on a bicycle has a footprint of 22g CO2/km
I didn't find this number. "CO2 emissions from the average European diet, which is another 16g per kilometer cycled" [1]
With this number, that would be 30000km of cycling before you even drive one meter with the Ami.
> in France
France electricity production generates very little CO2. In most other countries, the footprint would be much higher making the Ami an even worse option.
It's hard to argue that a 500kg vehicle can be more efficient than a 10kg one (or even 20kg for an electric bicycle).
That being said, it'd be great if Ami could replace more polluting cars for people who dislike cycles
[1] https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/how-much-co2-does-cycli...
True, but the level
This amounts to 20000km! That's a lot of cycling before the Ami becomes less impactful. Also a battery lifetime is about 5 years.
A lot of cycling, but not a lot of commuting. Could be done in 4 years.
Also the most significant factor contributing to a battery's degradation is not age, but the number of cycles. Even at the low estimate of 500 cycles(consumer grade battery), it should be good for 35 000km. But since it's likely an automotive battery, one could expect for it to withstand 1000 cycles or 70 000km.
I didn't find this number. "CO2 emissions from the average European diet, which is another 16g per kilometer cycled" [1]
I've read the source and it says:
"at 16 km per hour, a cyclist is burning about 4 kilocalories per kilogram per hour, while the relative metabolic rate of “driving to work” requires no more energy than somebody going about their daily activities: 1,5 kilocalories per kilogram per hour8."
It takes this from * the Compendium of physical activities, 2003* where it's written that:
0101014.0Bicycling<10 MPH, to work or for pleasure
The updated source(2011 Compendium of Physical Activities) says:
01010 4.0 bicycling, <10 mph, leisure, to work or for pleasure (Taylor Code 115)
01011 6.8 bicycling, to/from work, self selected pace
01013 5.8 bicycling, on dirt or farm road, moderate pace
01015 7.5 bicycling, general
01018 3.5 bicycling, leisure, 5.5 mph
01019 5.8 bicycling, leisure, 9.4 mph
It's hard to argue that a 500kg vehicle can be more efficient than a 10kg one (or even 20kg for an electric bicycle).
Problem is, the 10kg one is powered by a ~70kg biological machine, which isn't very efficient - that's my entire point. Also the 500kg one seats two and can sustain 45km/h for probably 50km or so - not an easy feat for your average cyclist.
But I agree - pedelecs are the most efficient as personal transportation.
Driving home yesterday in a light rain I saw a gentleman in a bright yellow soccer shirt riding a bicycle slowly on the sidewalk. A wide stripe of dark brown mud ran up his back and onto his helmet! As I drove past I just had to laugh and wonder what the front wheel was doing to him!
No one owned a bicycle without fenders when I was young; today finding a bike with fenders is difficult. And some of today's aftermarket fenders are ridiculously flimsy.
I do not understand the absence of fenders on today's bicycles.
On a modern bicycle unless you're racing (and even then sometimes), fenders are a necessity, not an option.
For example, how many motorcycles don't have fenders? Cars?
I know not all offices have showers, but it was something I looked for when I was deciding on a coworking space a couple of years ago.
Don’t present your opinions as facts.
Not everyone is fit to ride a bicycle, and riding a bicycle where there's cars on the road is a lot more dangerous than being in a car.
And let's stop using the word "should" for every problem out there, people are free to make their own choices.
This is true. Nor is the climate suitable everywhere, etc. However:
> riding a bicycle where there's cars on the road is a lot more dangerous than being in a car.
This is a problem that absolutely can solved by more "should". The police should police more, and the courts should be strict about endangering others with deadly weapons, even if those deadly weapons are on wheels.
> people are free to make their own choices.
People are "free" to speed, or to drive drunk, or to otherwise endanger others "where there's cars on the road". Looks like these "own choices" aren't a terribly good fit to many of the problems posed by cars.
Taking my quote out of context? It's pretty clear I meant that they are free to decide to have a car if that is best for them. Nowhere did I encourage speeding.
As long as it doesn't impact too much the rest of society. For instance, people aren't free to drive a tank on the highway.
If we believe data on global warming, and if we consider it's an issue to be addressed (and most people believe both), some choices which are available now should be restricted in the future.
It will be easier to make people make these choices if they look attractive ways to go forward rather than blaming them about using what is available for them to live their lives.
[1] https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/...
I do not live on flat land and I live in a place with winters. I, in fact, live in a mountainous area. Riding a bike is not an easy feat here - I've been testing this summer. Short slight inclines aren't too bad: The occasional steep hill isn't so bad. 15-30 minutes uphill, however, is too much for me. All uphill one way isn't easy. I'm not the only person that struggles with this: Biking forums are full of folks that struggle with uphill, and it takes time to get fit enough for this.
I found it's easier to just walk (with the bike acting as support) :D
I've been commuting by bicycle for years, not for ecological reasons, but because it's convenient and healthy. That being said, I wouldn't do it if the roads weren't safe enough. To me, this is the main limitation. Bad weather and hills can be overcome, but I don't want to compromise with safety.