[nsl73]

I’d rather have a motorcycle. Motorcycles are faster, cheaper, can carry about the same amount of cargo, and 100 miles on a charge is enough to give me range anxiety.

I’d rather have a car. I often need to carry passengers, carry large or heavy things, and a new economy car is in the same ballpark price.

Who is this really for? I don’t see many people buying this as their only personal transportation if it only travels 100 miles on a charge and can’t take a passenger. It’s price too high and isn’t fun enough to be considered a recreational purchase.

[01100011]

I'd rather not have a motorcycle. I'd rather not have to suit up in special clothing to try and reduce the chances of injury from accidents which, from talking to motorcycle riding friends, seem to be strangely more common than accidents in cars.

I'd rather not have a car for my daily commute. Driving my large family vehicle for my job is wasteful and inefficient. I almost never need to carry anything large or heavy on my daily commute. I work less than 20 miles from home. I don't need a daily commuter vehicle with more than 2.5x this range.

I would love to buy a small electric vehicle, but the cost is prohibitive. A small vehicle, safer than a motorcycle and more idiot proof, would be perfect to augment my existing transportation options.

[AdrianB1]

I am on the third motorcycle in 15 years; I don't wear any special clothing when I commute and commuting with the motorcycle takes 1/3 of the time at rush hours versus car or public transportation. Most of the summer I just ride with a helmet and gloves, if it is colder I wear a jacket. For commuting, accidents in the city are less serious than on the highway or twisties.

Yes, for rainy days I have a pair of waterproof overpants in the top case and a pair of waterproof gloves. The jackets are all waterproof (Goretex or similar). I got soaked wet while commuting on the bicycle, never on the motorcycle.

[lazyjones]

> I would love to buy a small electric vehicle, but the cost is prohibitive. A small vehicle, safer than a motorcycle and more idiot proof,

Why don't you own a Twizy already?

[globular-toast]

> I'd rather not have a motorcycle. I'd rather not have to suit up in special clothing to try and reduce the chances of injury from accidents which, from talking to motorcycle riding friends, seem to be strangely more common than accidents in cars.

It shouldn't be a mystery why motorcycle accidents are more common. A superbike like a Yamaha R1 is capable of 0-100mph in less than 6 seconds, all in first gear. Ownership of an R1 is within the reach of many under 25s and most enthusiastic under 30s. Contrast that with a supercar which, for most people, will be out of reach until much later in life, if ever, and even then is such a big investment that most just sit around in air-conditioned garages rather than hitting the B-roads of England every Sunday morning.

None of that means that commuting on a more sensible motorcycle is particularly dangerous in the grand scheme of things.

[m-ee]

I ride, and know a lot of people who do, and the amount of injuries from road debris or cars turning left without looking dwarf the crashes from just going too fast. This might be regional though, most places don’t have Bay Area traffic.

[http-teapot]

That’s how I got my first and last accident. Double parked car made a U-turn in a commercial street without signaling. My front tire got caught under his car, bringing me to a complete stop and flipping me over. I was only doing 15mph.

That ended it for me, bike was totaled, wife decided I stopped and I had no intention in getting involved in a more serious accident. I miss riding, I miss the sensation of freedom.

[globular-toast]

> wife decided I stopped

> I miss the sensation of freedom

I'm not surprised.

[nsl73]

In the United States most motorcycle accidents involving more than one vehicle the motorcycle is not at fault. It’s really common for a car driver to not use a blinker, or not see a motorcycle and cause an accident with a motorcyclist.

[lstodd]

Same thing everywhere else. Cars not signalling, suddenly opening doors into traffic, idiots jumping out of bushes etc etc.

The distant second place is road condition - surprise potholes, open manholes, spits of concrete, pools of lubricant and cooling fluid after previous crashes is also nice.

And only then comes something that can be remotely called reckless riding.

[kiliantics]

Amen. Cagers on their phones instead of watching the road.

[trothamel]

I don't know why you're downvoted - I might disagree with part of what you wrote, but it's a reasonable point.

I will suggest that motorcycles are inherently more dangerous. A car has four points of contact, so like a table, there's some inherent stability to it. A motorcycle's two points of contact means that stability has to be in some sense active, which seems problematic.

[sudosysgen]

Not really, no. Motorcycles are inherently stable due to a combination of gyroscopic stability, wheel geometry and rake geometry.

They are so stable in fact, that at high speeds one needs to use a technique called counter-steering in order to induce a gyroscopic and geometric reaction that sends the motorcycle into the required position. This technique is also used by some bicycle riders, to a smaller extent and also partly subconsciously.

Motorcycles are very stable. In comparison, the steering and suspension dynamics of four wheeled vehicles have to be very finely tuned in order to avoid feedback effects, instabilities, and this tuning has to be balanced with phenomenons such as oversteer and understeer. Overconstraining is also the cost for many issues, as is the consumer demand for bad form factors that lead to loss of control, rolls, and sometimes even death-wobbles.

Tricycles, such as this one, at least aren't overconstrained, but they are a lot less stable as they have neither the inherent reactive stability of bicycles nor the balanced resistance to torque while maintaining stability. This is further compounded by demand for non-optimal geometries, such as the one in the article, that lead to even less stability. This obviously doesn't apply to vehicles such as the Yamaha Nikken.

[leetcrew]

motorcycles are very hard to tip over under normal circumstances. it's only when you start sliding that the vehicle becomes unstable. if you do this during a turn, it's much more difficult to recover than in a car.

still, unless you're driving at the limit, the main risk is probably hitting or getting hit by other vehicles. most of the "inherently more dangerous" comes from having essentially zero protection in a crash compared to a modern car.

[AdrianB1]

Stereotyping motorcycles is common; I never had a sport bike and none of my friends had one, so a Yamaha R1, the most useless bike on a street, is a bad argument in a discussion but fairly common.

That 3 wheeled vehicle is fine for commuting or small shopping, you never consider going there on a R1, but on a mid-range city bike or adv bike you can do it pretty well.

[sudosysgen]

I would rather get into an accident on a motorcycle than in this death trap.

[geddy]

> It’s price too high and isn’t fun enough to be considered a recreational purchase.

Basically my thoughts. Not nearly enough for the price. I think the same thing when I see those Crossbows ripping around. The (2) passengers both wearing helmets, probably unable to have a simple conversation due to the wind-blast (unless you put a Sena in there or something), and it just doesn't seem all that fun.

I also ride motorcycles and dirt bikes so I'm definitely pretty biased, but smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles make me happy either way, and I'd prefer for them to succeed. The (lack of) fun factor isn't a beef I have with them, but one that others might have who a) want a new vehicle, b) don't want a motorcycle, and c) want to save money on fuel and take up less space.

[m463]

> Who is this really for?

I agree.

The only way I could see things like this work is if there were some incentive, like 50 paid parking places turned into 250 free/cheap parking spaces for tiny vehicles. Or roads that permit only small vehicles.

I mean what if you took a 2-lane road designed for cars and split it into 4 lanes, two bike lanes and two tiny-car/golf-cart lanes?

[kevin_thibedeau]

Motorcycles and cars also don't tip over dangerously on curves. That alone relegates trikes to peculiarities that only some will tolerate.

[LilBytes]

Well, motorcycles don't 'tip' but low siding and high siding on roads or on a track. Either from debris or inexperience is not to be trifled with.

But in +100,000km of total riding time I've had very few injuries, just scrapes and bruises because I'm always wearing boots, helmet and gloves as a minimum.

I've high sided on a track twice (too fast into a corner, lost traction, immediately got traction back and flew me several metres in the air). And I've low sided from road debris twice on public roads (once on a round-a-bout at low speed) and private roads (oil slick in a private car park).

I imagine this vehicle for the average person who doesn't ride a lot with the view of safety first would be safer in this than a motorcycle. But I agree with your and the OP's point above yours. An economy budget car would be a safer and equally viable purchase.

[fest]

My anecdata in ~ 50,000km riding time on a motorcycle: a frontal crash I could do nothing about (oncoming car made a left turn, didn't see me).

Luckily it happened in a city and I was in full leather tracksuit. I got through with a few bruises and ruptured spleen (which thankfully healed on it's own and I now have two of them).

[LilBytes]

I'm lucky I've not had any vehicular crashes on my motorbike. Though I've been cleaned up by a car on my (analogue) bicycle. Came away relatively unscathed.

Am I reading your comment right? Your spleen ruptured, healed it's self, now you have two of them?

[fest]

Yes, at least that's what I've been told by ultrasound techs on two separate occasions (one tech even told she has seen cases where repeated damage has been done to one of the spleens, the damaged one was taken out and the other one has taken over the primary function).

Apparently this is the current medical consensus in my country- if the spleen is ruptured but not causing massive internal bleeding, the course of action is to monitor patient to see if it heals on it's own. In my case the ruptured part formed scar tissues around it, separating itself from the original spleen.

[gumby]

> Who is this really for? I don’t see many people buying this as their only personal transportation if it only travels 100 miles on a charge and can’t take a passenger. It’s price too high and isn’t fun enough to be considered a recreational purchase.

I had a sparrow which was almost identical to this -- $13K, in Y2000 dollars, plus a bicycle and it was great. I could park it anywhere, get around town, commute to work, and pick up a few groceries on the way home.

True, my wife had a Mercedes wagon (T-Klasse) so we also had the ability to transport large objects when needed.

[ajauntyshark]

> Who is this really for? People who commute a reasonable distance to jobs by themselves.