Re: EV digest 2184

[keith bierman <Keith.Bierman@Sun.COM>]

Electric Vehicle Discussion List wrote:
> 
> Subject: Narrow vehicles - partner with motorcycle groups?
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:27:36 -0400
> From: "Chris Tromley" <chris_t@microtrac.com>
> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> 
> The other side of this is that half-standard-width lanes might not be
> wide enough.  A motorcycle is typically under 3 ft. wide when vertical,
> but it's wider when banked over.  Depending on how hard you're turning,
> you might have to keep your wheels in a 2 ft. wide band in order to stay
> in your lane.  Doable, but some riders are sloppy.

At speed, narrow vehicles should (IMHO) like motorcyclists are
taught, drive staggered. Also, the roads which make the most sense
for these lanes are freeways, where there is generally little
turning and little leaning. 

> 
> The same issue comes up for tilting trikes and cars, depending on
> design.  Granted, tilters are far from popular, but they might be if
> there was a significant market for narrow vehicles.

Indeed, given the many advantages a sizable market ought to spark
some interesting innovation.

> 
> If narrow lanes are special-use only, you'd think they could be designed
> to maximize their use.  8 ft. narrow lanes (instead of 6 ft.
> half-standard) might make the whole concept more sellable.  Any
> thoughts?

yes, I'd argue  we'd be best off with two wide lanes, the furtherest
right lane (for trucks and such), regular sized lanes, and then the
"diamond" / "fast" lane which I'd open to all narrow vehicles
irrespective of motive power. I would leave the motorcycle "right to
lane split" alone, where it exists, but would not extend it to
sparrows and tangos and their ilk.


-- 
Keith H. Bierman    keith.bierman@Sun.COM| 
Sun Microsystems Laboratories            | kbierman@acm.org
15 Network Circle UMPK 15-224            | 650-352-4432 voice+fax 
Menlo Park, California  94025	         | sun internal 68207
<speaking for myself, not Sun*> Copyright 2002