Comments on: GM/Segway Joint Venture Is a Step in the Right Direction

By: gantrants

gantrants — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:15:03 +0000

This video: http://www.newsy.com/videos/puma_balances_function_and_future/ was the first time I ever even heard about the PUMA, and ever since I saw it I’ve been wondering who is going to buy one of these. I realize it is a prototype, and that it has function in cities such as New York, but with top speed at only 35 mph, this seems like it could be dangerous to have these things on the road with taxi drivers.

By: Day Boss

Day Boss — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:14:37 +0000

The right-wing wackos think this thing is a leftist plot to force people into tiny cars. It’s so prevalent that I almost think GM is putting this out there to take the piss. Kind of like the “people mover” they built in Detroit which is so useless it makes a mockery of public transit to the point where it scares people away.
I’m not saying this segway thing is useless, it actualy might work in a dense city like new york, but in the sprawl of modern america, we have to walk carefully introducing things that might scare the natives.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:34:20 +0000

I agree that we are way behind…which is why I like an idea like this one because it seems to build upon existing infrastructure, much like bus rapid transit (BRT) does.
But…I also agree that the balancing technology is probably overkill. The only real reason for having 2 wheels instead of four is extra-high maneuverability (like maneuvering indoors) and the ability to go up stairs or cross uneven terrain. All these things are good for wheelchairs (Kamen’s specialty) but not so much for a vehicle designed to work on paved streets.
On the other hand, I disagree that we are ever going to get completely off of vehicles designed to carry one-or two passengers instead of 50. As long as there is a demand for this kind of transportation, there will be vehicles sold which are made to fulfill that need. There will always be taxis, rickshaws, etc. The question is whether or not those modes of transportation pollute the environment, waste resources and take up space better used for human enrichment.
The personal rapid transport idea, not necessarily, the one pictures here, could be a good replacement for cars in a city like New York, especially if it was coupled with heavy restrictions on cars, or even a ban. Because these “pods” can move in ad-hoc groups, almost like trains, they are a very flexible replacement for busse and a higher-capacity replacement for taxis. And they take up much less space than either.

By: mcoc

mcoc — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:06:53 +0000

I like the intelligent, sensor-based navigation system, but I’m with Makower: let’s use advanced navigation on mass transit, not personal vehicles.
Plus, I’d reaaallly rather not share the bike lane with this thing, even if it is supposedly intelligent enough not to hit me.
I’m all for GM being creative and looking at different transport options, but I don’t think the PUMA is gonna fly (or roll). GM should think about making bikes with fancy navigation systems instead.

By: steve

steve — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:26:52 +0000

The most difficult part is not the vehicle - many tiny vehicles that might be appropriate have been designed and most of them might be less expensive to build that something with artificial stability. Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands have worked out full infrastructures that mix low momentum traffic (bikes and people) with high momentum traffic (cars). It took two to three decades and was a non-trivial task. notes here also there is an issue of health - not many obese people in these countries. The Segway, bike, ebike, microcar or whatever (or all of the above) are the easy pieces. We are decades behind.