posted
Just looking at those things reminds me of my dad's old Cessna. Yeah, sure, it was a "two seater" but you couldn't fit my dad and my uncle in there at the same time...
Posts: 715 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's a rough day for traffic today on the beltway. We have reports of the right lane of the inner loop shut down near the Morman temple. Police are investigating an accident where witnesses report a 2017 Xiao was, as they put it, "Crushed like a beer can" when a tractor trailer was trying to merge off the highway. Apparently the tiny Xiao two-seater was hiding the in truck's blind spot. Police are looking for the truck, which did not stop at the scene.
"Police do not suspect foul play, however, as it's likely the truck driver was unaware that an accident had even occurred."
[This message has been edited by Rhaythe (edited March 29, 2010).]
posted
They certainly have their place. But anyone driving one on an American interstate would get killed in an accident.
Posts: 487 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it were possible to have separate roads (I don't think separate lanes would work) for really heavy vehicles like semis, and for massive gas-guzzlers like SUVs and those long "tanks" made by GM (Lincoln Continentals, etc), and for smaller, medium-sized vehicles, and then for the light-weights like these "future" cars, so that if they did get into accidents, they'd be impacting vehicles of similar masses, it could work.
As it is now, with all kinds of variation in weight and power on the road, the smaller and lighter your vehicle is, the scarier it would be to drive in one.
posted
It might be cheaper than creating separate roads to build those things out of something indestructible (like adamantium? yeah, right) or nearly so (like titanium?). Of course, that would make them gas-guzzlers, too, but at least they'd be safer.
The appeal of such a small car has got to be parking space, right? And making one out of titanium wouldn't affect that.
posted
Some of those cars you could drive underneath a Semi. I wonder how that would affect air dynamics?
Posts: 1201 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm thinking you never have to worry about parking, 'cause when you get out, you pick it up by its handle and carry it with you.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought they were called "Trabants." East Germany's solution to the car problem...after the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, you found them in dumpsters all over Europe...
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hard to believe, I know, but American roads (particular interstates) are not actually typical of car usage the world over, and particularly not typical of projected future car usage.
Population of America - 300,000,000 or so. Population of China and India combined - over 2,400,000,000. And even more urban-centred than the US, despite the size of the country. Many of these are aspirant people who want to be able to travel around their growing cities and, believe it or not, SUVs are really not an option. And even here in small-town New Mexico, I can see the value of having one of these vehicles as a useful get-you-round-town option, leaving the SUV for the long-distance road trips.
(As a data point: I have driven in the US, the UK, France, Spain, Morocco, Tunisia, and South Africa - in both urban and rural situations. I didn't drive in Japan, for two reasons - road signs would have been a significant issue as I don't read Japanese, and the public transport system there is pure bliss so there was very little incentive).
quote:Many of these are aspirant people who want to be able to travel around their growing cities and, believe it or not, SUVs are really not an option. And even here in small-town New Mexico, I can see the value of having one of these vehicles as a useful get-you-round-town option, leaving the SUV for the long-distance road trips.
That's great. And certainly smaller, more energy-efficient vehicles are the way to go. But the tractor trailers on I-81 where I live would absolutely destroy these tiny things, even with the most innocent of accidental nudges. As long as it's common to see such large vehicles on our highways, Americans are going to resist going into something this small that, literally, would put our lives in danger.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I am saying that I ain't gettin' into one of those things with the 18-wheelers that go roaring past me at 80 miles an hour every day.
posted
Of course in most locales besides the United States gasoline costs more, because of added taxes...
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's a difference between mocking and good humored fun, and I guess my mock-o-meter didn't go off on any of these posts. If I come across as mean-spirited I apologize.
My daily driver in Florida is a golf cart, and I wouldn't take it out on U.S. 1. Many of the roads in the Caribbean islands aren't fit for most SUVs let alone golf carts or wee cars.
Maybe I have an old-school idea of the future; one that envisions a life that is actually better than today. The idea of shoveling about in two-person death-traps seems more a vision of the past than of the future to me. I'd hope we could do better.
My wife was recently in low speed accident just as others imagined in their posts. Sitting in her Mini Cooper, stuck in a backup on an exit ramp a tractor/trailer combo low-speed merged into her car, crushing the rear of it, but leaving the passenger compartment intact. His excuse? He couldn't see it, a stationary car far larger than those depicted here. In my experience this could have happened in any country where vehicles of vastly different sizes share the road.
Horses for courses. I just can't imagine the course this horse is made for today or in a _better_ future. Again, just my opinion.
[This message has been edited by posulliv (edited March 31, 2010).]
posted
By the way, this car has come and gone. You can see something like the "future car" in the movie, Bedazzled (the Peter Cook/Dudley Moore original). The waitress's boyfriend picks her up in one. He opens the FRONT of the car as she sits down next to him.
posted
I've got some neighbors who drive around in a car that looks just like that...it's got a paint-job advertising their tile business but it might be the same kind of car. We've always wondered if it were street-legal here in the USA...
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tchern I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish to begin with, but complaining about people making jokes about a funny looking "car" is kind of an odd hill to choose to die on. (Especially one that looks like a death-mobile, of course motorcycles are death-mobiles as well.)
China right now is really pushing for a car infrastructure. It makes me think of all those pictures I've seen of Chinese roads filled with bicycles. I wonder if in the middle of those if you could stop pedaling and balancing and the group would hold you up and keep moving.
You know the very first edition of Popular Mechanics (1901 I think) had a flying car in it. It's been possible for a long time
But if you want serious...there are those that see the car as a pollutant, as something that clogs the streets, something that guzzles gas, that isn't ecologically sound...and they see that the world would be better served by developing mass transit, and banning the car.
But there are those who see the car as more than that...they see the car as freedom. You can get in a car in the United States and go anywhere in a few days. It might cost you, but you'll be able to do it. You can't do that with mass transit.
posted
Mass transit can work to get you anywhere- or so my European friends swear to me. The train takes you wherever you want to go and fairly quickly.
Posts: 303 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pyre, I can only presume that neither you nor anyone else read what I was actually trying to say.
The obvious possibility, in such circumstances, is that I didn't make my point terribly well. although re-reading my previous posts I can't see where the confusion would lie.
Let's try again.
These cars are not designed for American freeways, or even for American cities like LA. These cars are designed for growing 21st century cities, predominantly in Asia. They are designed to try and find a workable compromise between the aspirations of millions - perhaps billions - who currently down't own a car, and the horrendous infrastructure problems that would ensue if these people were to take the attitude of pretty much everyone on this board (which can broadly if harshly be paraphrased as "the bigger the car the better it is" - an argument whose logical extension is that we should all end up driving Hummers, and yet Hummer has just ceased to be, so clearly something's wrong with that model - also note, as KDW pointed out, that big vehicles are precisely what creates the "danger" for smaller ones).
The American market is not, and has not for some time, been the be-all and end-all of automobile manufacture (which may explain why US auto manufactrers have been in such trouble in recent years - I fear they have shown pretty much the same attitude that I see being expressed here, that the American perspective on things is the only one that matters or even exists). The US market is basically saturated; it can maintain, because of vehicle turnover, but it can't realistically expend. That is not the case in: x - Central America x - South America x - Asia x - Africa All growth markets, and I for one would FAR rather see these "laughable" tiny cars being the main option for personal transportation than SUVs.
posted
I think you glossed over my post too, then:
quote:That's great. And certainly smaller, more energy-efficient vehicles are the way to go.
I'm not saying one way is better than any other. I am saying that for every job, you use the right tool. And, as you said:
quote:These cars are not designed for American freeways, or even for American cities like LA.
I'm really not certain what we're disagreeing with, because as near as I can tell, I agree with you 100%... with the exception of this comment:
quote:I fear they have shown pretty much the same attitude that I see being expressed here, that the American perspective on things is the only one that matters or even exists.
I believe the general sentiment on this board is that things are they way they are. Americans would get killed driving smaller cars. Ergo, they won't drive tiny cars. It's not the ideal solution to drive larger vehicles, but until smaller vehicles are either safer and more comfortable when driving 3 hours cross-country... or until we have a dedicated avenue by which to use said unsafe vehicles... we will continue to drive what we drive.
posted
I have nothing against the car. I do think it's a reasonable idea against rising costs and wasting fuel and I do hope people aren't discouraged to use it...
...BUT... if it's funny looking, and if just imagining people stuffed inside it riding along the freeway is funny to me - I'm gonna laugh. C'mon, it may have practical functionality but it's hilarious. It looks like a cartoon car come to life or a mini-clown car. It just does. Maybe it's cause I grew up in Texas and most I knew had at least a truck or a minivan.
I couldn't stop laughing at the volkswagon bug either - they're all just funny-quirky looking.
posted
I personally like the idea. Having said that, since most of my commuting is on the freeway, I wouldn't get one, for the above stated reasons. Once I am out of school and working a real job, I think getting one of the smaller cars for city street driving would be great.
If the US really wants to cut emissions and dependency on foreign oil, and make roads safer for pedestrians and drivers, then we really need to work on urban sprawl. If more people could live where they work (within walking distance) just think of how many cars would be taken off the road, how much emissions wouldn't get emitted, how many car wrecks wouldn't happen and how much oil we wouldn't need to import. I might be staggered again (someone catch me )
As an example, there is a Wal-mart near where I live. Right next to it is an apartment complex. There is no way to get to Wal-mart from the apt complex without going onto the major road, which is dangerous and just plain ridiculous. Why can't they build the apartment complex on top of the Wal-mart and use the land where the apt complex is for something else (like a park)? I think it would be a big win-win scenario. Wal-mart makes more money renting apartments (or leasing the space to a management company who then does it), Wal-mart get a bunch of dedicated shoppers, let's face it, people aren't going to get in their cars and go down to Target or Albertson's when they can just go downstairs. The people who rent the apartments have amazing convenience to a popular store, they can do all their shopping without having to get in their car. Some people would probably work at wal-mart, so they wouldn't even have to have a car for their day to day activities. And since the land is being co-used by Wal-mart and the apt complex, rent could be less expensive (I don't know this would ever really happen, but one can dream). Now couple in the small cars, it's almost a perfect set-up. Expand this idea to a whole city, you could even have houses with yards interspersed in various locations, and you have a society that doesn't have to depend on their cars for their day to day living, freeway driving could be special occasions and for the larger transportation trucks. Just think, cleaner air, actually walking around and getting exercise, interacting with people you see on the street instead of cursing at them for cutting you off, more land available, smaller square miles of city.... it just sounds pretty good to me.
Nothing wrong with a joke or two (or, three...), and I don't think anyone disagrees with you, tchernabyelo so I'm not sure what the "give up" is about, or "what [you] were actually trying to say."
Personally, I wouldn't mind getting rid of all the cars, and everyone is forced to ride a bike.
What if the "city" is spread out over several hundred square miles? That limits your range if you're confined to, what's the phrase, Shanks' mares? I couldn't get to where I work if I didn't use a car.
By the way, a lot of the original planning for the "freeway" or the "superhighway" involved having no trucks on them at all. Look up some of the stuff done for the 1939 World's Fair (New York City, the one with the Trylon and Perispheres). There's still some of that lingering---you can't drive trucks on the Taconic State Parkway in New York State, also known as "Rockefeller's Driveway." Cars only.
posted
Sorry Tchern, I understood what you were saying and I agree with you. I thought I made that clear with my comment about the history of bicycles in china. (Which reading back I didn't really connect sorry.) A car like this is definitely a big step forward.(But I don't think it needs to look like a headless plastic Telletubby.) Actually my dream is teleportation, then we can fill our streets with grass like on Big Fish.
What I didn't understand is why you were getting so exasperated. (To the point of saying "I give up".) Was it that no one was actively agreeing with you? Because no one was actively disagreeing with you, they were just posting their own thoughts on how this car would fit into their lives. Not one of them said "This is the American way, hence the only way." As you think they did. (Just because someone gives their point of view doesn't mean they are discounting all others.) All they said was there was a safety issue. (A similar issue as with motorcycles, Americans drive those.) Also that it was funny looking, which it is. And it's not funny looking because it's small, it's funny looking because it looks like one of those squeezey guys with the pop out eyes. (At first look I only saw the Xiao, I'd rather take the Miao or the Jiao.)
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
)
