Slashdot Mirror


NYPD To Replace Motor Fleet With Electric Scooters

XueCast writes "A few days ago, the New York Police Department, one of the largest police forces in the US, announced that they are planning to make New York greener by replacing their gasoline motorcycle fleet with the super-quiet and energy efficient electric scooters from Vectrix. NYPD said that they will first road test four electric scooters from the Rhode Island-based electric vehicle manufacturer next month, and if the road test is a success, NYPD said that they plan to order more electric scooters from Vectrix to replace their less-than-green motorcycle fleet."

235 comments

  1. misleading title by Jrabbit05 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Motor fleet = Car fleet Motorcycle?

    1. Re:misleading title by PortWineBoy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well the blog and the headline are all screwy...this is a trial, and they are not thinking about replacing their motorcycle fleet, but their gas scooter fleet. They have a ton of those things. original source (new window)

      --

      this sig deleted by another sig

    2. Re:misleading title by Mistlefoot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And electric vehicles are wonderfully silent. I'm not sure how often stealth would be helpful for a NY City cop but it's certainly likely to be an interesting side effect.

    3. Re:misleading title by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With 11000$ apiece for a Vectrix the city accountant will not be silent I guess.

    4. Re:misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are not thinking about replacing their motorcycle fleet
      Thank goodness for that, gay porn wouldn't be the same without.
    5. Re:misleading title by Gabrill · · Score: 4, Funny

      These new pipes aren't any louder than the stock ones! Doh!

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    6. Re:misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Another motherfuckin' minicity spam link. Minicity appears to be designed with just this spamming in mind. You guys need to get out of your fuckin' basements, get a fuckin' job, and go fuck some pussy.

    7. Re:misleading title by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 0, Troll

      I dunno if it will be an advantage to them, they can't use the sound of thier motorbike engine to hide the sounds of them beating up an innocent black guy now.

      Cue whiney pig appologists...

    8. Re:misleading title by johnlcallaway · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Those that whine will call just as fast when they need help. Freakin' hypocrite.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    9. Re:misleading title by aichpvee · · Score: 0

      Unless the silent scooters are sneaking the mayor to his affair in the Hamptons.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    10. Re:misleading title by gambolt · · Score: 2, Informative

      compared to a Goldwing that's a deal

    11. Re:misleading title by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Aside from stealth (the uuber-big-dick-mantra of many US fleets (stealth and raw, gas-guzzling horsepower and intimidating body lines...), why not go for civic-friendly color schemes and lines?

      http://www.police.gov.hk/offbeat/698/014_e.htm

      HK motorcycles are really cool-looking. Even their uniforms and helmets are cool. Even though they look like stormtroopers in some of the films.

      After watching some HK crimers and actioners I have long felt that most US police departments have odiously, conspicuously, and uninspired, bland paint schemes.

      See some of the PTU vehicles at:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Police_Force

      http://rides.webshots.com/album/554114263xHqZiV

      http://www.policecar.net/

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    12. Re:misleading title by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They aren't replacing Goldwings (which is good because a scooter that isn't even freeway legal is no replacement for a Goldwing). These scooters are replacing Piaggio and Yamaha scooters. In other words, they are spending $11K a pop to replace scooters that probably get between 60 and 80 mpg and they are trying to write it off as being "green" instead of just ridiculously wasteful.

      Electric vehicles just aren't terribly practical yet, and replacing the most fuel efficient part of the fleet with something that costs twice as much just so you can save a little gas money makes no sense at all.

    13. Re:misleading title by fyrewulff · · Score: 1

      Honestly, if I saw one of those pull me over, I would think I just won a pizza or something..

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
  2. Wow those are really intimidating by mrmeval · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm so scared!

    Yes it's sarcasm.

    They look so metrothexual.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    1. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since when were police supposed to be intimidating? They are supposed to be public servants that you can trust and feel comfortable around, not some militant force that will shoot you because you look at them wrong. Unfortunately this isn't the case in many places and your post validates how people (rightfully) perceive them.

    2. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are supposed to be public servants that you can trust and feel comfortable around, Very well said. But it is also worth noting that to be effective at their jobs, police must also be respected by the public. Unfortunately a (growing?) segment of the population has little respect for concepts such as law and order and societal stability. They do respect the force of a gun, however, and as such a certain amount of perceived intimidation is useful.
    3. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unfortunately a (growing?) segment of the population has little respect for concepts such as law and order and societal stability. They do respect the force of a gun, however, and as such a certain amount of perceived intimidation is useful. While I agree completely with the gist of what you're saying, I would phrase it a little differently.

      People are losing what little respect they once had for each other and for themselves, such respect being the foundation of law and order and societal stability; and they are now more and more turning to (and bowing to) the use of force instead, where in more civilized times their respect for each other or for themselves would have prevented them from turning to (or bowing to) such shows of force.
      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    4. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by SacredByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They are supposed to be public servants

      "In a mature society, 'civil servant' is semantically equal to 'civil master.'" - Lazarus Long
    5. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, are we going to step up to the plate and admit that the anti-family, pro-nanny-state, everyone-is-a-victim policies favored by the socialists are at the heart of this perceived societal decay?
      Sew infantilism, reap chaos.
      But hey, let's jack up them taxes and throw some federal programs and surveillance cameras to fix that for you.

    6. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expect there to be an increase in taser related incidents as the scooter-patrol tries to reassert their manliness.

    7. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People are losing what little respect they once had for each other and for themselves, such respect being the foundation of law and order and societal stability; and they are now more and more turning to (and bowing to) the use of force instead, where in more civilized times their respect for each other or for themselves would have prevented them from turning to (or bowing to) such shows of force. People have been repeating that mantra since time immemorial.

      When the USA turns into a failed state like Sudan or Chad, where warlords & tribal leaders are fighting for control, then maybe you'll have something to complain about.

      Crime rates have been trending downwards for quite some time now. The only thing that's been trending upwards are arrests for drug violations.

      P.S. When exactly are these "more civilized times" you're referring to?
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    8. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They do respect the force of a gun
      "Fear" is not the same as "respect".
    9. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say they can be very intimidating. That is why,
      "Cuff me, spank me, and then do me" was not exactly a Hollywood Blockbuster.

    10. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

      Trending downward...

      Isn't that crime in general that has been on the decrease and violent crime has been on an upward swing?

      Later,
      -Slashdot Junky

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    11. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pre-911 thinking. You are forgetting the harsh lessions of 911. We must never forget the lessons of 911. On 911 many great man and women lost their lives. Some people are saying that we should disrespect the memory of those who made the ultimate sacrifice on 911. Well, we're going to make sure that doesn't happen 911. We are funding programs that will hunt down the terror people of 911 and bring the 911 terror people to justice.

    12. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Very well said. But it is also worth noting that to be effective at their jobs, police must also be respected by the public. Unfortunately a (growing?) segment of the population has little respect for concepts such as law and order and societal stability. They do respect the force of a gun, however, and as such a certain amount of perceived intimidation is useful.

      If you want people to respect law and order, then, pass laws and define an order worth respecting. Some people think society sucks, and making them see things your way at the barrel of a gun isn't going to do anything. It didn't work in Iraq, and it certainly won't work in the United States.

      --
      This is my sig.
    13. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by timeOday · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ever driven in Manhattan? I can't imagine a faster way to cut through traffic. Good luck getting away in your macho SUV!

    14. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by wattrlz · · Score: 1

      Police are supposed to be intimidating to anyone who is disturbing or would disturb the public peace. Any other intimidation they create [should be] unintentional.

    15. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so scared!

      Yes it's sarcasm.


      Yeah, you won't be so cocky once they equip those things with on-board tazer banks.

      And before you know it, this will be a normal appearance in NYC.. mullet and all.
    16. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I imagine that for a cop, intimidation is like his service revolver. It's there for him to use, but he's not supposed to make a habit of it.

      By giving somebody a nightstick and a gun, you are presupposing there are circumstances in which he'll use them, rather than ordinary persuasion. If the moral imperative is to do your job with the least force possible, then intimidation fits right between reasoned persuasion and beating or shooting people. Saying cops should never intimidate members of the public is one of those things that sounds right, but you have to examine the alternatives in any particular situation.

      If the imperative is to protect the public safety with the least force, then using intimidation where a lesser alternative is available is like drawing and firing a gun when there isn't a life at stake, only to a lesser degree. It is true that the public should not live in continual fear of the police, but occasional fear is not so terrible, provided that the police remain servants of the public. It's one thing to feel fear when you are speeding and see a cop parked on the side of the highway; it's something that either you can live with, or which you should change by voting in politicians who will raise the speed limit. It's another thing to be afraid that every time you talk to a police officer you might be "disappeared". Just because the situations feel somewhat alike doesn't mean they are alike.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      I've done a demo ride on one of these scooters. It has a 27 hp motor and accelerates as quickly as a 400cc motor scooter like a Suzuki Burgman. It even felt like the electronics were limiting torque off the line to help with smooth starts. Range is still limited at about 45 mi in city driving, and it's not suited for patrolling highways with a 62 mph top speed. If the NYPD could live with the limited range, this scooter would work fine in Manhattan.

    18. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by mrbugjacobs · · Score: 1

      More civilized times = pre Bush and such.. Or the 40ies and 50ies .. Btw arent gangs really "warlords and tribal leaders" ? And there are plenty of gangs running the show in many US cities ? But I guess the Police does have the upper hand on most of them ..

    19. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People have been repeating that mantra since time immemorial.

      Agreed. Every generation thinks the next one will be the end of civilization. There are some great quotes from ancient Greeks to the affect.

      When the USA turns into a failed state like Sudan or Chad, where warlords & tribal leaders are fighting for control, then maybe you'll have something to complain about.

      This is crap. The "we're not as bad as China" has never eld any water. You can always point to someone worse, but that in no way mitigates how bad things are in a given place and we should always be looking to make things better by pointing out what is wrong and trying to correct it. Trying to excuse problems by pointing to others is a logical fallacy.

      Crime rates have been trending downwards for quite some time now. The only thing that's been trending upwards are arrests for drug violations.

      Crime statistics aren't too meaningful by themselves because so many things are crimes, including things we all do (speeding, swearing in public, having sex when not married). Laws are enforced or not and that can significantly influence the "crime rate." What I care more about are violent crime rates, since these are the real, serious offenses. Violent crime rates started going up in 2005, and have increased significantly in both 2006 and 2007 according to the FBI. It is disturbing as a societal trend but it actually fits with sociologists predictions. The strongest correlation with violent crime is wealth disparity. Wealth disparity has been increasing in the US, with the middle class shrinking, the upper class staying about the same size, but becoming richer, and the lower class growing. This trend boomed in about 2001, and after about the usual 5 year lag, violent crime rates have begun to boom as well.

      You know what I find really sad? One of the most effective programs to reduce wealth disparity is socialized healthcare. Health care costs are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US and costs of health care are a significant expense for the poor. Despite the clear statistical indications that this would lower crime rates, not a ingle politician on either side of the debate has had the balls to bring this topic up. They think anything that is a complex causality is beyond the comprehension of the voters, and they're probably right.

      P.S. When exactly are these "more civilized times" you're referring to?

      As to the original topic, respect for the police and the laws. Just the other day the cops started following a car I was in, then pulled us over when we tried to pull into our driveway. They claimed it was because our muffler sounded "a bit loud" but why then would they follow us around, through several turns before pulling us over? It was bullshit. They weren't trying to enforce a law, they were trying to pull people over in the hopes they could bust us for something. Previous to their following us, they were speeding, and changed lanes three times without using an indicator. When the police don't respect the laws or obey them, it erodes one's respect for both the police and the laws. When absurdly stupid laws are still on the books and occasionally enforced at the whim of those with power, it erodes one's respect for the laws.

      I know an old, retired officer who is proud of the fact that he never broke any laws the entire time he was a cop. I know a dozen people who are cops today and every one brags about abusing their authority in a "funny" way and the fact that they can get away with breaking the laws whenever they want. My brother used to be a cop. One day he was puled over for speeding in his private car and when the cop saw who it was, he just chatted wit him and let him go, with no mention of the speeding. I'd say their is a trend towards lack of respect for police and laws in the US, and it is very justified by our current laws, enforcement practices, and police hiring practices. 90% of

    20. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at sufficient distance appearance is indistinguishable from reality.

    21. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How one looks at that equipment is going to depend on how they perceive the police. When I'm near a cop, I trust that person in general to use the equipment in a manner consistent with my safety, so long as I'm not attacking him or someone else. It gives me a sense of protection.

      However, other people (including people in my own family) view cops as just looking for a reason to write them up, and see the equipment as a method of intimidation. Most cops that I talk to are happy to help and joined the force because they wanted to help. There are a few of them that are bad apples, but most are on the level.

      They do get insular, but most of us do when we have experiences that differ from the norm and we have some people around who understand. When a firewall has to be rebuilt from scratch, I don't call my friends who work in customer service, because they won't understand. I do talk to friends who are at least in IT, because they will. That group tends to also back each other a bit more than others because we understand what can go wrong, and why there are alternative explanations that don't seem likely to the outsider (read: non-technical management), but which are perfectly logical (or at least understandable) to those inside. Cops get like that because they deal up close with people that may shoot them just because they don't want to spend six months in jail, or even just get a speeding ticket. Soldiers involved in combat often do the same thing, commiserating with each other rather than with their spouses, because their spouses won't understand.

      I think both groups -- cops and civilians -- need to loosen up some and not be so suspicious. Relaxing the laws will help, as police won't have a long list to work from and civilians won't fear that there's something on the list that they don't know about.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    22. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This is crap. The "we're not as bad as China" has never eld any water. You can always point to someone worse, but that in no way mitigates how bad things are in a given place and we should always be looking to make things better by pointing out what is wrong and trying to correct it. Trying to excuse problems by pointing to others is a logical fallacy.

      Excellent point. I see "but Christians...!" and "but America...!" far too often on message boards when the topic is neither. It is called tu quoque.

    23. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by reidconti · · Score: 1

      People are losing what little respect they once had for each other and for themselves, such respect being the foundation of law and order and societal stability; and they are now more and more turning to (and bowing to) the use of force instead, where in more civilized times their respect for each other or for themselves would have prevented them from turning to (or bowing to) such shows of force. You forgot "get off my lawn."
    24. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Or the 40ies and 50ies

      You mean back in the good old days of racist lynch mobs and communist witch-hunts? Yeah, I miss those days too.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    25. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Crime rates have been trending downwards for quite some time now. The only thing that's been trending upwards are arrests for drug violations. I'm not talking about "crime", I'm talking about force, as in violence. Crime is doing something that the government deems impermissible, which may or may not involve the use of force. Force (in this context) is physically doing something to someone against their will, which may or may not be criminal. It is possible to use force, even unjust force (for not all force is unjust), to reduce crime, but that is not necessarily a good thing; it just means that the use of force by the government successfully coerces people to do what the government says. A successful totalitarian police state will have a very low crime rate, but a very high amount of force being used to achieve that.

      That is largely what I was talking about. When America was founded, it was founded on the principle that everyone's life is their own business except to the limited extent that we've got to make each others' lives each others' business in order for us all to survive and get along together. Granted, these principles may have existed nowhere but on paper and in the minds of the few people who wrote the words on that paper, but that was the standard that was set back then, whether it was met or not, and I get the impression that at least some notable portion of the populace backed those ideas back then. Nowadays, most everybody unabashedly believes that everybody else's business is their business and that "we" can get together and vote on matters that "we" have no rightful say over - say whether someone grows and consumes in his own back yard some particular plant that "we" disapprove of - and that "we" can use force to get "our" way in such matters. In a civil society, one based on respect and not the threat of force, those who wished others not to grow or consume such plants would try to convince them, maybe via reason or via emotion but not any presumed authority backed by the threat of force, for they would (by hypothesis) respect that person and his right to determine his own life. And if they did use the threat of force to try to coerce the person in question, that person would, if he had any respect for himself, stand up for his rights and not bow to threats like that. But today, since everyone thinks they've a right to meddle in everybody else's lives and send in men with guns to make sure things go their way, those same people all bow to whatever the majority (or at least most-vocal) will is, and look poorly upon anyone who dares stand up for themselves, calling them selfish, egotistical, violent, and dangerous - when really, it's the busybodies and their enforcers who are guilty of these accusations, not the victims of their organized violence.

      This focus on the government being a perpetrator of violent force is precisely why I rephrased the GGP to better capture what I gathered his notion to be. We got here in the conversation by way of the new police scooters not being intimidating enough; the GGP was noting that police should be approachable, not frightening, as they are here to serve and protect us, not to rule over us. Thus my point being that "law and society" deserve no inherent respect, for the law is just the command of the rulers; rather, justice inherently deserves respect, people inherently deserve respect, and a law deserves likewise only inasmuch as it is just (and society likewise only inasmuch as it is a mass of people). But "society" as some abstract collective entity, or "the law" as the command of such an entity (or its appointed delegates), deserve no respect in and of themselves.

      As to when exactly "more civilized times" were, I admit that I was intentionally vague there, since I'm not entirely convinced that any times have ever been properly civilized. But the principles which this country were founded upon would, if followed, make a more civilized society than we have today (though still not perfectly so); so if there ever was an era when those principles truly prevailed, then it would have been a more civilized time than now.
      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    26. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      For the most part, I agree with what you said, in principle if not point by point.
      What I don't agree with is your idea that 40 years ago was more civilized.
      http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/brief%20Civil%20Rights%20Time%20Line.htm
      See if any of that (1967 +/- a few years) sounds more civilized.

      As to the original topic, respect for the police and the laws. Just the other day the cops started following a car I was in, then pulled us over when we tried to pull into our driveway...
       
      I know an old, retired officer who is proud of the fact that he never broke any laws the entire time he was a cop. I know a dozen people who are cops today and every one brags about abusing their authority in a "funny" way ... My brother used to be a cop. One day he was puled over for speeding in his private car and when the cop saw who it was, he just chatted wit him and let him go, with no mention of the speeding. That's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence you're using to support your point.
      If you think police corruption &/or abuse of power is a new phenomenon...
      Well, I don't know you, but IMO, that is an incredibly naive position to have.

      If reading the link I gave you doesn't jog any memories, try finding someone who was black and had to deal with the police 40 years ago. They'll tell you all about abuse of power.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    27. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      With reported crime rates falling, does this mean people are reporting less crime like minor assaults and petty robberies because they want to avoid the police and it's rather pointless as the crimes are not really pursued because the police are too busy pursuing harmless drug users, attacking political demonstrations and breaking up labour strikes.

      Ignoring worsening trends because other countries are still worse, is not very wise and most people would say is really wrong headed, waiting till your country is the very worst is insanity. It would seem that the increasing violence and abuse by US law enforcement is resulting from officer who have served in the national guard returning from Iraq and bringing home some of the worst criminal abuses that they perpetrated on Iraqi civilians.

      Perhaps US law enforcement might consider it appropriate to give those officers some extended time off and retraining them in the proper respect for the law and citizens.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    28. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      What I don't agree with is your idea that 40 years ago was more civilized.

      You'll note I did not say it was more civilized. I postulated that there may have been more respect for both laws and police officers. I don't know that was the case, it is just a theory.

      See if any of that (1967 +/- a few years) sounds more civilized.

      There are always outrageous exceptions, but what about the general opinion of the populace. Did the average person 40 years ago have more respect for a police officer and for the law than today?

      If you think police corruption &/or abuse of power is a new phenomenon... Well, I don't know you, but IMO, that is an incredibly naive position to have. If reading the link I gave you doesn't jog any memories, try finding someone who was black and had to deal with the police 40 years ago. They'll tell you all about abuse of power.

      Power is always abused and police power has always been abused in this country. The thing is, 40 years ago, you could find police officers, both black and white who believed that breaking the law was betraying their sworn oath and who had strong objections to it. I've met quite a few police officers in my life and after 15 minutes of conversation it is obvious that none of them have held that belief, nor even thought it important to pretend they held that belief in casual conversation with strangers. I'm not saying abuse of power is worse than 40 years ago, I'm saying it is more widespread, although perhaps less severe in many of those cases.

    29. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Don't get smart with me there, sonny!

      Damn kids these days...

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    30. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1
      People are losing what little respect they once had for each other and for themselves, such respect being the foundation of law and order and societal stability; and they are now more and more turning to (and bowing to) the use of force instead, where in more civilized times their respect for each other or for themselves would have prevented them from turning to (or bowing to) such shows of force.

      Shall I remove myself from your lawn, Mr. Old Man River? Everyone has preached this doom and gloom business about younger folks for countless generations now. If everything had REALLY been getting soooo much worse every day, for 500 years or more now, shouldn't we be a lot worse off? Yeah, there are some bad people. There have always been some bad people. These generalizations kill me (much more so than have the marauding bands of baby-eating, puppy-shredding thugs that the next generation comprise.) DON'T PANIC!

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    31. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by ishpeck · · Score: 1

      You know what I find really sad? One of the most effective programs to reduce wealth disparity is socialized healthcare. Health care costs are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US and costs of health care are a significant expense for the poor. Despite the clear statistical indications that this would lower crime rates, not a ingle politician on either side of the debate has had the balls to bring this topic up. They think anything that is a complex causality is beyond the comprehension of the voters, and they're probably right.
      Or maybe they don't mention it because, like you, they can't cite any references to support these claims.
      --

      "If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"

    32. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by wkitchen · · Score: 1
    33. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Wow, a lot of "old man" responses here. For the record, I *am* this generation - I'm only 25, probably younger than most of you here. I'm not talking about this generation versus the last or even the one before that; and I'm not talking about people today versus people thousands of years ago, either. (I'm quite familiar with that famous Socrates/Plato quote about 'kids these days' from 2400 years ago). Nor am I talking about damn unruly kids on my lawn versus the well-mannered and orderly grown-ups. I'm talking specifically of rule by intimidation versus rule by respect - remember this conversation came from one about whether police are or should be intimidating - and contrasting the way things unabashedly are today (everybody legislating their way into everybody else's lives, slowly and gladly turning us into a police state) with the way things supposedly were in the early days of this country (with at least some true respect for individual liberty, not just the lip service it gets today).

      And, as I said in another post, I'm not even convinced that things really were so good, even in that one respect, "back then" - for all I know those lofty ideals only ever existed on paper. I wasn't around back then and I'm not a historian so I can't say for sure. But the layman's impression I get is that there was, once upon a time, some degree of popular respect for those ideals enshrined in great documents like the Declaration of Independence, a respect which is all but gone today; and if there's any truth to that notion, then those earlier times were, at least in that regard, more civilized than now.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    34. Re:Wow those are really intimidating by mrbugjacobs · · Score: 1

      Yeah I guess the fires have always been burning , like Billy Joels song .. :-) But the lynch mobs were mainly in the US south right ?

  3. Come on Editors by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Stop linking to blogs whose sole purpose is copy+pasting content from other sites and link to the source

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Come on Editors by MulluskO · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For all bloggers thump their chests about blogs being the new way to report the news, they are in my view just a new way to talk about the news.

      --

      Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
    2. Re:Come on Editors by coldcell · · Score: 2, Informative

      They should at least fix the damn spelling errors. "quite" is supposed to be "quiet".

      --
      Launchy.net changed my world.
    3. Re:Come on Editors by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For all bloggers thump their chests about blogs being the new way to report the news, they are in my view just a new way to talk about the news.

      What, you mean like slashdot?

    4. Re:Come on Editors by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While you're at it, stopping posting stories that read like adverts would be nice too. E.g. do we really need the company's name in there twice?

    5. Re:Come on Editors by rucs_hack · · Score: 2, Funny

      do you have some point or are you just running your mouth?

      Well, as a human I'm not especially pointed, in fact I'm rather rounded in places, and last I checked it was indeed me that ran my mouth. I'd hardly delegate the task to anyone else, all those nerve endings and all, it could get messy.

      Does this assist?

    6. Re:Come on Editors by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      You do realize that /. originated as "just" Cmdr Taco's blog, right?

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    7. Re:Come on Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faggot.

      Does that assist?

    8. Re:Come on Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point.

  4. Environmental cost by Assembler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why spend $11,000 on new motorcycles when that sort of investment in more efficient police cars would have a much greater environmental impact? (Not to mention savings at the pump) Traditional motorcycles don't use that much gas, and can easily get 2-3 times the mpg of a car. Halving the energy consumption of a motorcycle is nowhere near as interesting as halving the energy consumption of a car.

    1. Re:Environmental cost by VirexEye · · Score: 4, Informative
      The problem is not that motorcycles are not very efficient mpg wise, it's that they don't have catalytic converters. Even though they are very fuel efficient, they still manage to produce more toxins into the atmosphere than cars.

      It's generally not considered a huge deal since the ratio of motorcycles to cars on the road is rather low, but if a fleet of bikes can be replaced, it might make a difference.

    2. Re:Environmental cost by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      They *are* working on reducing the energy consumption of cars. But every bit counts.

    3. Re:Environmental cost by DeeQ · · Score: 1

      Okay you have fun catching up to the bad guys in another car while driving a prius.

    4. Re:Environmental cost by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I was thinking that if I went around the police departments and shot the transformers with something so they didn't work anymore, Would they have enough charge left on their super segway to chase me down after robbing a bank?

    5. Re:Environmental cost by dltaylor · · Score: 5, Informative

      New bikes DO have catalytic converters.

      Check the "ENGINE" tab here. for example:

      http://www.ducati.com/od/ducatinorthamerica/en/bikes/model.jhtml?model=2390

    6. Re:Environmental cost by Viol8 · · Score: 0

      They still have rubbish mpg. How can a vehicle that weighs only slighly more than a large man manage only about 40mpg?? Its farcical. If it did the same mpg per kilo as a car motorbikes should be hitting 300mpg easy.

    7. Re:Environmental cost by asliarun · · Score: 1

      As an interesting aside, check out the all-electric scooters sold by "Yo Bykes" (ugh!) in India.

      The Yo Smart model sells for about $800, and does ~75km/40mi per charge.
      While its performance is fairly anemic, it is cheap, small, and convenient enough for short distances. Imagine the benefit to the environment (and money saved!) if more people started using these electric bikes/scooters instead of their big-ass cars and SUVs for short errands.

    8. Re:Environmental cost by dwater · · Score: 1

      you're joking, right?

      how about comparing it with a car of similar performance?

      never mind that is uses less road space than a car (1/2?), and it needs to be on the road for less time because it doesn't get stuck in traffic (as much).

      Of course, some motorcycles can get mpgs that are around or even exceed 300mpg - though, AFAICT, not production and IMO not particularly interesting to buy - perhaps it wouldn't look out of place in California. Someone here claims 400mpg : http://www.suzukicycles.org/high_milage_suzuki.shtml

      --
      Max.
    9. Re:Environmental cost by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      New bikes DO have catalytic converters... ...for sufficiently high levels of police department Ducati-ownership.

    10. Re:Environmental cost by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "you're joking, right?"

      Err no , why would I be?

      "how about comparing it with a car of similar performance?"

      An average bike does 0-60 in about 5 seconds. My camaro could do that and still hit 30mpg on a good day and it weighed 1600kg. How can a 160kg bike of the same performance only get less than twice the mpg? Sorry , something doesn't add up.

      A vehicle such as a bike that is that light with a cross sectional area that small should have far far better mpg than perhaps 50% more than a car weighing 10 times more and 4 or 5 times the frontal area (and hence air resistance). The fact that bikes don't says a lot about their inefficient (and torque-free) engines.

    11. Re:Environmental cost by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      They still have rubbish mpg. How can a vehicle that weighs only slighly more than a large man manage only about 40mpg?? Its farcical. If it did the same mpg per kilo as a car motorbikes should be hitting 300mpg easy. Piaggio scooters get between 50-80mpg according to the website.
      While I'm sure the Harlies the NYPD uses are not the most efficient bikes, I'm sure they are more efficient than the Dodge Chargers (12-15mpg) or Ford Crown Victorias (15-18mpg IIRC).

      How can a vehicle that weighs only slighly more than a large man manage only about 40mpg?? Easily when the engine size is that of an average econobox. I can't imagine the need for a 1.8l bike, but still in contrast to their fleet autos, the full sized bikes are an improvement.
      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    12. Re:Environmental cost by Smidge204 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For internal combustion engines, efficiency scales with size. Bigger engines therefore tend to be more efficient than smaller engines of similar design. Then, of course, you run into the maximum theoretical efficiency of a gasoline engine which is quite low to begin with: About 30% or so if memory serves.

      =Smidge=

    13. Re:Environmental cost by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      And its max speed is quoted as >25Kmh/15mph. Still a good bit faster than walking, but take it out on anything but neighborhood back roads and expect to be flattened.

    14. Re:Environmental cost by dwater · · Score: 1

      OK, so I don't understand what you're trying to prove.

      You say that an average bike is as good performance as your camaro (not a particularly valid comparison, but it seems to be in the bike's favour, so never mind), and yet the bike gets much better efficiency (typically in excess of 40mpg, compared to your quoted 30mpg). I don't think the relationship is supposed to be arimetic but geometric, so that's somewhere near what I would expect.

      Are you trying to suggest that removing two wheels from your camaro would make it more efficient that the avarage bike? ;) I suspect not.

      ...or are you saying that they *should be* more efficient (ie it's your opinion)? I've already shown that they *can* be as (or more) efficient as what you seem to be expecting.

      Oh! Re-reading your post, I see that you *are* saying that. It is just your expectation that is not met.

      IMO, a more valid complaint is that the more efficient bikes aren't more popular; but that's the fault of the population who choose the bikes, not the bike tech per se.

      The fact is, there's a wide range of efficiencies for both bikes and cars. What people choose to drive is the issue; and I can't say I've been that impressed with the choices car drivers make (in CA, particularly).

      I mean some people drive *Camaros* that only get 30mpg under good conditions, where a Corolla would be much more efficient (even on a bad day).

      Heck, a Kawasaki ZX6 is much more efficient and uses up less road space, and is (therefore) quicker to get you to your destination in typical CA traffic, AND has higher performance to boot (apart from corners, of course), if that's your bag. Though, last time I looked, it doesn't have a cat, so probably polutes faster than a camaro, but I'm not sure about that either, esp for CA bikes which have special restrictions.

      Anyway....too many assertions without proof here, so it seems like a pointless argument.

      --
      Max.
    15. Re:Environmental cost by asliarun · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Interestingly, they've only artificially throttled the top speed so that according to Indian road regulations, this will not be considered a motor vehicle, and will not require a license, registration, or road tax.

      Yo has another model called Yo Speed that has much more sensible specifications. This one is a lot sturdier and heavier, has a top speed of 45kmh/30mph (again artificially throttled) with a payload capacity of 130kg, which is quite decent!

      An interesting hack would be to disable the artificial top speed cap.

    16. Re:Environmental cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Harley does have a catalytic conversor. If not, I couldn't buy it here in Spain (Europe).

    17. Re:Environmental cost by blinx_ · · Score: 1

      I don't know what "average" bikes you're talking about, sports bikes generally do 0-60 in under 3 seconds.

      --
      Resistance is not futile - www.gnu.org
    18. Re:Environmental cost by fprintf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Average bike does 0 - 60 somewhere closer to 4 seconds. Your average sportbike does it in 3.2 seconds, with some (traction limited) getting closer to 2.9 seconds. Most motorcycle magazines stopped using the 0 - 60 because the difference between motorcycles were so small in that range.

      The 1/4 mile is the current measurement for acceleration. Even a rather large Harley will do the 1/4 in 13 - 14 seconds. Most sport-tourers do it in 12 seconds, and your average sportbike will be anywhere from low 10s to 11s.

      So a stock POS (6 cyl or 8 cyl) camaro is no freakin' comparison to a bike acceleration wise, and it won't get 30 mpg on a good day either unless it is downhill and downwind all the way to your destination. Try an *average* of city/highway and I remember the cars getting more like 22/26. The day a camaro can accelerate faster than just about any motorcycle in production (except a few of the smaller displacement ones) is the day that owner decided to dump a bunch of money into the engine.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    19. Re:Environmental cost by j-turkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      "you're joking, right?"

      Err no , why would I be?

      "how about comparing it with a car of similar performance?"

      An average bike does 0-60 in about 5 seconds. My camaro could do that and still hit 30mpg on a good day and it weighed 1600kg. How can a 160kg bike of the same performance only get less than twice the mpg? Sorry , something doesn't add up.

      A vehicle such as a bike that is that light with a cross sectional area that small should have far far better mpg than perhaps 50% more than a car weighing 10 times more and 4 or 5 times the frontal area (and hence air resistance). The fact that bikes don't says a lot about their inefficient (and torque-free) engines.

      Have you been on a modern motorcycle? In any case, I disagree with your assessment -- it sounds like you're ignoring real math here. Where do you get your average 0-60 figures? I'd estimate that most 500-1000cc bikes get to 60 in closer to 3.5-4 seconds. My 25-year-old 500cc Honda cruiser can scoot to 60 in less than 5 seconds. Even modern power cruisers (yes, more than 1000 cc) tend to get up to the sixty-mark in under 5 seconds (according to this article, HD V Rod hits 60 in 4.26 seconds, Honda VTX does it in 4.45, Suzuki Boulevard M109 does 60 in 3.89 -- I could go on) -- and these bikes are significantly heavier than 160 kg.

      Regarding your perceived inefficiency of motorcycle engines, I have to disagree again...even on your torque jab. Let's look at the lowly Suzuki SV650, a commuter bike with an older 650cc v-twin motor (disclaimer: I ride one of these). According to Wikipedia, its 650cc motor outputs 47.2 lb-ft of torque. An econobox like the Suzuki Swift (again, according to wikipedia) has a 1300 cc motor and outputs 83 lb-ft of torque. SV650 outputs .073 Lb-ft per cc while econobox outputs .064 Lb-ft per cc. The torque figures on your LS1 motor don't fare any better against a motorcycle engine. Citing wikipedia (yet again) the 5.7L Camaro LS1 made 365 Lb-ft of torque in its final form - not too shabby. Similar to the Suzuki Swift, it makes .064 Lb-ft per cc. Motorcycles don't look so torque-free now, right? In a bhp/liter comparison, there is absolutely no comparison (mainly due to their ability to rev) - motorcycles even beat up on modern forced-induction bhp/liter numbers.

      At speed, motorcycles lose some of their efficiency due to wind resistance caused by the exposed rider and mechanical parts. Surface area doesn't matter as much in that case. I'd wager if we looked at fuel economy per weight or economy per passenger (in a car with 4-passengers) most cars on the road would win. However, when comparing a single rider to a single occupant in a car, motorcycles win the MPG equation hands-down.

      Don't get me wrong, I still love cars. In terms of performance, they tend to be able to out-corner and out-brake motorcycles. However, I'm under no illusion that most cars have an edge in acceleration or fuel economy over motorcycles. It just isn't so.

      --

      -Turkey

    20. Re:Environmental cost by fm6 · · Score: 1

      It's generally not considered a huge deal since the ratio of motorcycles to cars on the road is rather low
      It is a big deal if you're a city official trying to paint yourself green. Though to be fair, noise and maintenance costs are also factors.
    21. Re:Environmental cost by karnal · · Score: 1

      Another piece of anecdotal information.

      My 1995 Z28 did get 30mpg on the highway in sixth gear over the course of 400 miles. So yes, they can get that kind of milage. Of course, city-wise is a whole different story...

      Seems everyone here has to prove everyone else wrong because they think their (cars, computers, OSes) are pieces of shit. Lame.

      --
      Karnal
    22. Re:Environmental cost by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Theres more to torque than just the max amount. Its no use if it maxes at 10,000 rpm and is only a few hundred rpm wide. Car engines have a MUCH wider torque curve than almost all bike engines and they develop it lower down, especially diesels. Truck and bus engines take it even further.

    23. Re:Environmental cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why don't they just mount your camaro's engine on a motorcycle and call it a day? Oh yeah, motorcycles need to have extremely small engines that don't produce as much heat. Motorcycles are not just miniature cars, so why would you expect their fuel efficiency to be directly related to how much smaller they are then cars?

      Also, your camaro probably had less wind resistance than a bike because it's aerodynamic. Bikes don't enclose the driver, making aerodynamics a pretty much lost game from the start.

    24. Re:Environmental cost by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      My guess is that electric scooters maybe better vehicles for the police than a gas scooter or motorcycle.
      Think about the traffic situation in NYC. I know that in a lot of high traffic cities the police have been using bicycles because they are faster than cars in some situations. An Electric scooter will be faster then a bike and will probably be just as none intrusive.
      In other words a good solution.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    25. Re:Environmental cost by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      You do know that the Prius has better "off the line" accelerating capability than a conventional gasoline-powered car of the same size, don't you?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    26. Re:Environmental cost by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      What is this "less road space" business people keep throwing out here. Most states require bikes to occupy one full lane, just like a car. Very few allow side-by-side driving (it's really quite dangerous, you know. )

      NONE allow between-the-lanes driving that may bikers seem to be getting away with. And if they did, it wouldn't be very helpful as it forces the rest of the drivers to slow down, forming extremely inefficient traffic waves for miles behind.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    27. Re:Environmental cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, but motorbikes are awesome.
      I suppose you could get 90mpg if you rode a scooter, but if you're a dude you'll look like a dainty girly-boy, which is not a good thing in today's image-concious society. You of course can get away with it in the Philippines or something. But not anywhere in the anglosphere.

    28. Re:Environmental cost by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Theres more to torque than just the max amount. Its no use if it maxes at 10,000 rpm and is only a few hundred rpm wide. Car engines have a MUCH wider torque curve than almost all bike engines and they develop it lower down, especially diesels. Truck and bus engines take it even further.

      OK, let's look at another comparison:

      Yamaha YZF-R6 (600 CC Japanese supersport bike - very powerful, not particularly torquey relative to HP)
      Chevrolet LS1

      Is the LS1's torque curve flatter? Yes, definitely. It builds power in quite a linear fashion too. However, the R6 has a pretty flat torque curve for an I4 motorcycle. Also notice that the torque curve on the LS1 is really between 2200 RPM and 4600 RPM. The peak of the R6's torque curve is between 9500 and 13000 RPM, and it's arguable that the R6 makes significant torque starting at around 4250 RPM. So we're really talking about 2200 RPM power band on the LS1 versus a 3500 RPM peak powerband R6. The total power band on the R6 is about 8750 RPM. One way or the other, it's quite a bit wider than the V8, even though it doesn't make torque right off the line. I'd take a stock R6 any day over any stock Camaro in a drag race - no question. Shoot, I think that my lowly SV650 commuter bike can take your Camaro in a drag race. Ever see a stock LS1-powered car wheelie off the line?

      Bringing diesels into the equation is almost laughable when we're talking about a usable power band. To be fair, maybe I'm taking your statement out of context. Anyway, I'm a huge fan of diesels, and they've become quite a bit better lately (in passenger cars). They do make their torque quite low, but the power band on turbo-diesels is (historically) incredibly narrow. This is one of the reasons why large trucks have three ranges of gears (18 speeds). They have around 100 RPM of power, then they must shift.

      Is it just that these small displacement/high compression/high revving motors need to wind up before they can produce impressive torque figures that you don't like? If that's the case, you may be judging from paper alone without any real experience. It all happens so quickly that as a rider, I barely notice...and we haven't even begun to talk about throttle response (I'd put these bikes up against an LS1 in that department). Don't get me wrong, the LS1 is a great motor. There's definitely something to be said for the grin that a V8 can put on one's face. However, when you look at the facts, the opinions that you're laying down just don't add up against any kind of objective data.

      --

      -Turkey

    29. Re:Environmental cost by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      What is this "less road space" business people keep throwing out here. Most states require bikes to occupy one full lane, just like a car. Very few allow side-by-side driving (it's really quite dangerous, you know. )

      NONE allow between-the-lanes driving that may bikers seem to be getting away with. And if they did, it wouldn't be very helpful as it forces the rest of the drivers to slow down, forming extremely inefficient traffic waves for miles behind. Untrue. Lane splitting is legal in California.
      --

      -Turkey

    30. Re:Environmental cost by dwater · · Score: 1

      What is this "less road space" business people keep throwing out here. Most states require bikes to occupy one full lane, just like a car. Very few allow side-by-side driving (it's really quite dangerous, you know. )

      NONE allow between-the-lanes driving that may bikers seem to be getting away with. And if they did, it wouldn't be very helpful as it forces the rest of the drivers to slow down, forming extremely inefficient traffic waves for miles behind. Untrue. Lane splitting is legal in California. Right - IIRC, the rules in CA concern speed difference.

      Other points are :

      0) you say 'most' states - so that's not every state,
      1) there are more places than 'states' (other countries!) with different rules about sharing lanes, and
      2) there are more options about sharing lanes than 'a whole lane' and 'side-by-side' - for example, you can have, in the space of one car, one bike at the front left and one at the back right. IIRC, this is recommended practice in the UK,
      3) it's only significantly dangerous when the drivers aren't expecting it - in the UK, for example, they teach (shock!) drivers to look for bikes next to their cars before maneuvering,
      4) rules are artificial restrictions - the bikes still take up less space, even if nothing takes up the extra space, which has other benefits (visibility for cars, for one, which should reduce accidents).

      Furthermore, almost all bikes are just plain shorter than almost all cars, so they take up less road space in that respect too.
      --
      Max.
    31. Re:Environmental cost by socz · · Score: 0

      Well, my bike has a california exhaust, and only the ones in california have these because they meet california requirements. Now if you buy the same bike out of state, different exhaust!

      The thing i wonder about, is how safe are these scooters? Yes yes it's been said a million times by both sides, but loud pipes do help save lives. If you are electric quiet on a scooter, you're going to get hit. My stock pipes are medium loud, and only loud under load (acceleration and sustained high speeds). They're whisper quiet at low speed cruising speeds.

      the other thing is, considering electric vehicles don't hold up well to crazy constant fast acceleration, how are cops expected to be useful? They can't worry about running out of juice and riding economically. So, ??????????

      Somethings are good ideas, some are bad.

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    32. Re:Environmental cost by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Riding a bike, between two cars, ON THE DIVIDING LINE, is legal in California?? That is quite nutty.

      Or were you saying that bikes are allowed to ride two-to-a-lane in CA, thus countering my claim that very few states allow side-by-side driving?

      I've got news for you. FL is another state that allows it. That doesn't make it common. Nor a particularly bright idea. Now, a motorcycle highway certainly wouldn't need the same width as a standard highway, but two-to-a-standard-sized-lane is pretty close considering there's no metal frame surrounding the driver and the "sub"-lanes aren't marked.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    33. Re:Environmental cost by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Riding a bike, between two cars, ON THE DIVIDING LINE, is legal in California?? That is quite nutty.

      Or were you saying that bikes are allowed to ride two-to-a-lane in CA, thus countering my claim that very few states allow side-by-side driving?

      I've got news for you. FL is another state that allows it. That doesn't make it common. Nor a particularly bright idea. Now, a motorcycle highway certainly wouldn't need the same width as a standard highway, but two-to-a-standard-sized-lane is pretty close considering there's no metal frame surrounding the driver and the "sub"-lanes aren't marked.

      Yes, lane splitting is legal in CA (or more accurately; it isn't explicitly illegal, is common in heavy traffic, and is tolerated by police provided that it is done safely). The practice is actually considered quite safe when the rider is not exceeding traffic speed by more than 25-30 MPH and drivers expect it. I believe that it is not tolerated when traffic is moving faster than 35-40 MPH. The accident statistics for lane-splitters are surprisingly low.

      Riding 2-abreast is legal in a number of US states, but isn't such a great idea (IMO). When riding with others, I prefer to ride offset (that is, each rider alternating lane position rather than in a single-file line or two-abreast). It increases visibility and gives more room to maneuver.

      --

      -Turkey

    34. Re:Environmental cost by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

      You think lane sharing is nutty, but it's legal in much of the free world.
      In the UK, you will fail your license exam if you don't split lanes when it's necessary.
      What is the point of using a motorcycle, only to pretend it's the size of a bus?
      The fact is riding between lanes is no less safer. Cars have bumpers on the front and rear and not the sides for a reason.

    35. Re:Environmental cost by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      First of all, most police cars are not the size of a Prius, so your comparison is meaningless. Second, that's really only true if by "of the same size" you mean "with an engine of comparable power".

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    36. Re:Environmental cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well we ARE talking about F-bodies.

      Heavy, slow, pieces of shit they were. Seriously, there was more plastic on the front of a TA than there is on my entire GTI.

      Lame is right.

    37. Re:Environmental cost by karnal · · Score: 1

      Kids these days.

      --
      Karnal
    38. Re:Environmental cost by bareshiyth · · Score: 1

      OK. Now try doing a little systems analysis: Spend all the money on motorcycles, and have none left over for other ideas, like replacing (at least) cars used for non-emergency or "police" activities... Think of the energy & resourcee consumed in manufacturing the new electrics (and their batteries and power supplies), and in scrapping the old gas ones, as well as the batteries, etc. Costs of retraining cops, mechanics, etc Added to the other issues being raised in the posts here, are we realling doing anything effective or just knee-jerk/feel-good actions?

  5. Pull over.... pretty please! by zakezuke · · Score: 1

    A Vectrix electric scooter with a single charge can go as far as 68 miles at 25 mph speed, and has a top speed of 60 mph. --TFA


    This is NOT exactly the vehicle that one would really consider for any sort of high speed chase. Or hell, think of them on an interstate.

    But still I'm sure they have their practical uses.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    1. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by Jrabbit05 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its New York. You're not going anywhere.

    2. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by Osty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is NOT exactly the vehicle that one would really consider for any sort of high speed chase.

      If I were a motorcycle cop, I would not want to be involved in any high-speed chases. You want to be safe within a cage for that type of work.

      On the other hand, it seems silly to replace motorcycles (already quite fuel-efficient due to their light weight) while leaving gas-guzzling cars and SUVs in the fleet. Why not replace all patrol cars with hybrids? They can run on battery around town, and switch over to ICE for the high-speed chases (obviously you'd want something beefier than a Prius).

    3. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      But still I'm sure they have their practical uses.

      Other than being a scooter, I could only think of a big taser...
    4. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by jimdread · · Score: 1

      Surely with modern communications, police don't need to do high speed chases any more. They could just radio ahead to some cops ten kilometres away and ask them to set up a road block while the police helicopter follows the suspect vehicle from a distance. Chasing somebody with cars makes it more dangerous for everybody involved.

    5. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yep, you would think ...

      In my home town, it took a fatal collision between two police cars, both involved in the same chase, for the locals to decide that high-speed chases were now officially *not* department policy ... instead, as the PP notes, they use (doh) the modern comm equipment that the nice taxpayers bought for them ...

    6. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, it seems silly to replace motorcycles (already quite fuel-efficient due to their light weight) while leaving gas-guzzling cars and SUVs in the fleet. Why not replace all patrol cars with hybrids? They can run on battery around town, and switch over to ICE for the high-speed chases (obviously you'd want something beefier than a Prius).

      Somebody I work with recently bought a Prius. He says it uses less fuel than his motorbike.

    7. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Informative


      Maybe they should use pedal bikes. Quite a few UK police forces tried equipping their police officers with bicycles which seemed quite effective. No-one could get away from them on foot but it didn't stop them from going through pedestrian areas. And they were certainly more approachable than police officers in cars or on motorbikes.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    8. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Somebody I work with recently bought a Prius. He says it uses less fuel than his motorbike. Keep in mind that there are many size engines in motorbikes, even larger than a 1.5l prius engine. 1996 Kawasaki Vulcan is one.
      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    9. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by RadioElectric · · Score: 1

      Modern police are discouraged from engaging in high-speed chases for two reasons... 1) Danger to the police, the suspect and the general public. 2) The adrenaline rush of the chase makes everyone involved more likely to do something stupid (there was a case where after a policeman managed to stop somebody he was chasing he just walked up to the window of the car and shot the suspect outright due to how much the chase excited him).

    10. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by Detritus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Helicopters are insanely expensive to purchase and operate. On second thought, put one into service with a rack of Hellfire missiles and we could apply a little negative reinforcement to the idiots that endanger everyone by running from the police.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    11. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, it seems silly to replace motorcycles (already quite fuel-efficient due to their light weight) while leaving gas-guzzling cars and SUVs in the fleet. Why not replace all patrol cars with hybrids? They can run on battery around town, and switch over to ICE for the high-speed chases (obviously you'd want something beefier than a Prius). According to Piaggio their scooters get 50 to 80mpg rather than a Prius which according to toyota.com gets 46mpg. I can't say which Piaggio scooters the NYPD are using, for all I know they could be using the 2cycle version.

      I also read they are using 2006 Dodge Chargers which get 13/18mpg and mostly ye old Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor common among law enforcement and not much better on fuel.

      Why not replace all patrol cars with hybrids? So in terms of raw fuel use, you are likely correct that addressing the gas guzzlers would likely result in the greatest environmental benefit. But I'm sure the big issue is cost. Even so, I'm sure they could migrate much of their fleet to slightly more energy efficient autos.
      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    12. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by techpawn · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should use pedal bikes
      Yeah, then we'll equip them all with baseball cards too so they make the noise right?

      What happens if they arrest someone? "Okay buddy! In the basket!"?
      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    13. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should use pedal bikes.

      I think they do. Also horses.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    14. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by jackbird · · Score: 1

      They do have pedal bike cops, and they've been really effective patrolling the grounds of 1960's-era "tower-in-a-park" housing projects. I've seen NYPD motorcycles in two places - motorcade/parade route duty, and highway patrol (NYC has over 100 miles of limited-access highways within city limits - thanks, Mr. Moses!).

    15. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New York does have officers on bicycles. There is this strange thing in New York I have never quite figured out: if there is a way to move a cop, NY has some cops that use it.

    16. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's all well and good, but it leaves more or less two options: 1) helicopters with marksmen or 2) let any suspect who's prepared to go 1 mph above the speed limit go free.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      It's a shame UAVs are so expensive, they would excel in this role. Perhaps it's time someone developed a cheap alternative to the Predators for law enforcement. I know something like this is in the works in California but they are having problems getting around the FAA laws concerning toys versus tools.

    18. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by Blahgerton · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most beat officers don't take suspects to jail. They call a car from the district who picks up the suspect for processing. It gives another witness to the event and taking a beat officer off the road leaves a large gap in the police presence.

      You can always tell when there is real trouble by the number of cars. 1 police vehicle is normally a citation; 2+ vehicles is generally an arrest of one sort or another.

    19. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      What happens if they arrest someone? "Okay buddy! In the basket!"? I would "imagine" they hold the person at the scene until such time as a squad car can come their way. But someone from NYC might be more accurate.
      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    20. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      Kind of reminds me of a story my dad told me a few years ago. He was working with a state park on getting their budget set, and the park rangers wanted to get "high speed pursuit vehicles", and he said they were unnecessary. They asked, if we don't have high speed pursuit vehicles, how will we engage in high speed pursuits. His response, radio ahead and have the gate shut, it's not like there is another way out. From my experience, in NYC I don't think high speed pursuits are a huge concern.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    21. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by fprintf · · Score: 1

      Depending on the bike, this absolutely can be true. A 1000cc sportbike, like a GSXR1000 or Yamaha R1, is going to get 35 - 40 mpg, with significantly worse mileage when using lots of throttle. Your average 500 or 600 cc bike, however, will easily get 50 mpg when driven sensibly.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    22. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by bhsurfer · · Score: 1
      My mom's Prius uses less gas than my Harley does. I get between 40 & 45 mpg depending on how I ride and whether or not I have a passenger but she routinely gets upwards of 70 mpg in that thing.

      Someone above was dogging the performance of Harleys, and compared to sport bikes I'd say it's justified, but there are very few cars where I live that have anything even close in terms of acceleration, and not just from a stop - my bike will go from 60 to 80 mph in a startlingly short amount of time. My friend has a Ducati and it's even more noticeable with that thing (understatement). The Camero crew just *think* they have sporty vehicles...comparing the performance of cars to motorcycles is silly.

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
      Groucho Marx
    23. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by lukas84 · · Score: 1

      This might also have something to do with driving style (and of course the type of motorbike).

      If he uses the Prius for daily commuting and just drives around the blocks, and uses the motorbike for high-speed, full throttle tours in his free time, this could be perfectly reasonable.

    24. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Our Camry Hybrid gets about 37-40mpg, while my Yamaha Roadliner gets around 32-35mpg (1800cc engine).

    25. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by bhsurfer · · Score: 1
      It's quite possible that her real mileage is lower than what I stated as well - her mileage is all word-of-mouth - I personally have never tested her vehicle's mileage. Like Lou Reed says: "You can't always trust your mother." She's happy as a clam with it though and it definitely does better than her previous vehicles did, so that's a good thing.

      I'm going on a road trip this weekend with her actually so I'll go ahead and check it and reply back sunday or monday with what it did. I'm interested now...

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
      Groucho Marx
  6. Honest question by ndogg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What do motorcycle cops do that those in cars can't? Is it simply their ability to go down narrower spaces, or are the motorcycles useful for more than that? Is it simply space saving over cars?

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    1. Re:Honest question by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know about in NY but in the UK rush-hour a motorbike can travel through city-centre traffic at four times the speed of a car. Read 30mph average instead of 7. Don't underestimate the usefulness of going through narrow spaces either, many crimes have planned getaway routes that can only be negotiated by a small car, with a small clearance that you would only take at speed if you are not bothered about scraping the sides. I have also heard it said that if a motorcyclist refuses to stop it is almost impossible to give chase in a car, if there is no motorcycle available they just take the numberplate and call round later, when the bike is almost certainly "reported as stolen".

    2. Re:Honest question by thefirelane · · Score: 1

      Is it simply their ability to go down narrower spaces That's a huge "simply" When the cops aren't stuck in NYC traffic they can get there much much faster.

    3. Re:Honest question by ubuwalker31 · · Score: 1

      The same thing that NYC horse mounted cops can do - negotiate faster than cars in city traffic and go off road.

    4. Re:Honest question by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1
      What do motorcycle cops do that those in cars can't?

      Arrive first. There's really a big difference between the "get-there-ability" of motorcycle cops compared to four wheeled patrol units. In the time it takes a car to get turned around, a bike can be hundreds of yards down the road. Long before a cop can run in from the closest place he could stop his car, a motorcycle cop can be right on top of a crime scene. Seconds count. The maneuverability of bikes plus their smaller size and ability to get closer before a dismount means that motorcycle cops get there quicker.

      That's really a big deal. I can see how, in a very crowded urban environment, a small scooter could be highly useful. It may not be macho but that's not my concern.

    5. Re:Honest question by JustCallMeRich · · Score: 1

      > I have also heard it said that if a motorcyclist refuses to stop it is almost impossible to give chase in a car

      Go watch some TV - like Worlds Wildest Police Videos, COPS, and the like. They show cops in cars chasing motorcyles quite a bit. Even ending the pursuits with a low speed nudge to knock the bike over in the cases where the biker doesn't end up eating the side of a bus, dulley, tree, etc. And in the end the bikers who 'get stopped' (versus stop on their own) end up going to a hospital jail ward first.

      OK - maybe I should watch LESS TV.

      --
      http://Communityville.com - A free place for new and old neighborhood webmasters to hang out.
    6. Re:Honest question by FailedTheTuringTest · · Score: 1

      In addition to what others have said about cutting through traffic, motorcycles can get into parks and pedestrian areas much more easily than cars can. In the UK there are motorcycle-mounted paramedics (example). I once saw one who had attended a medical emergency in a shopping centre -- he had driven his motorcycle right inside the shopping centre to the scene of the incident. I've also seen one of these motorcycles parked inside a train station.

  7. Electric Scooters are great by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 1

    Electric scooters are great for taking out pedestrians Carmageddon style. Those pesky petrol based ones make too much noise and people don't step out in front of you. Helps too if you wear nice black leathers so as to reduce your visibility.

    --
    Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
  8. Come on Bypassers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Stop linking to blogs whose sole purpose is copy+pasting content from other sites and link to the source [cnn.com]"

    Yeah! Stop linking to slashdot. Oh wait!

  9. An opportunity by nfractal · · Score: 1

    They'd be discarding the old fleet of bikes then..wonder if I could get em' cheap..hmmm

    1. Re:An opportunity by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Police departments usually only sell a vehicle when it's worn out. A friend was interested in getting a police surplus Harley-Davidson, but he said that the bikes that he looked at were in pretty bad shape.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  10. Stupid by Lazarian · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This might be ok for parking meter cops and purposes like that, but for regular law enforcement this is stupid. Police need decent equipment to be able to do their jobs effectively, and the specs of the bike in the article are an absolute joke compared to a real motorcycle. If police have to respond to a situation where someones life may be in danger, I doubt that the victim really cares how "green" the cops vehicles are while they're waiting for them to show up.

    Public safety should never be something that gets compromised by poorly thought-out "green" initiatives.

    1. Re:Stupid by Mishra100 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Motorcycle police aren't there for high speed chases. It is too dangerous to the officer to do any kind of chase due to the instant death any wreck would bring.

      Getting around in New York is slow and takes a lot of corners so the specs on the bike seem to be on target to the top speed they would get on a regular motorcycle in that huge city. I think their testing will prove that the bikes will be just fine for the job.

    2. Re:Stupid by yt8znu35 · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Officer. This article has been misunderstood, but IF the NYPD was to try to replace all the motorcycles there would be a union revolt. Motorcycle cops are there to ride motorcycles first and serve the public second.

    3. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I'll tell the Bicycle cops that patrol neighborhoods that they are ineffective.

      bicycles or WALKING YOUR BEAT reduces crime far more than letting them ride around in Airconditioned comfort. This is NEW YORK, cops can get there far faster on a bike or scooter than a 700hp race car. the only way to makes them more effective is to make them fly.

    4. Re:Stupid by chmod+u+s · · Score: 1

      It is only their scooter fleet being replaced, not their cars or motorcycles. Also, motorcycles are used throughout the US almost exclusively for traffic control - not emergency responders. In NY, scooters are likely used just by the meter maids - not the SWAT team.

      Why not make their scooters green? They will likely save on maintenance costs as well considering that they are modular and *far* simpler than a real motorcycle (or gas powered scooter for that matter). Not to mention advancing the market and the state of the art for electric vehicles.

    5. Re:Stupid by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      heh, heh, It's funny 'cause...it's true.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  11. Headline is wrong by jamesl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "NYPD To Replace Motor Fleet With Electric Scooters" should read, "NYPD to Test Electric Scooters."

    1. Re:Headline is wrong by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Funny

      "NYPD To Replace Motor Fleet With Electric Scooters" should read, "NYPD to Test Electric Scooters." No no, see, this is Slashdot... the headline is just a typo. It was supposed to read:

      NYPD To Replace Motor Fleet With Electric Scooters?

      They just missed the question mark :-)
      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    2. Re:Headline is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be an editor.

  12. " Less than Green?" Say WHAT!? by gordguide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, they're big motorcycles. They only get 45 mpg in the city, and that's observed fuel economy, not some Science-Fiction EPA rating.

    So, let's replace the most fuel efficient motor vehicle the NYPD has in the fleet because it's "less than green" and let's keep those cars, trucks, vans, helicopters, and who-knows-what else. You know, for the children.

    1. Re:" Less than Green?" Say WHAT!? by DeeQ · · Score: 1

      READ THE POSTS ABOVE YOURS. It is not about how much MPG they get its about how much stuff they release into the ozone. They dont have a CatConv

    2. Re:" Less than Green?" Say WHAT!? by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, let's replace the most fuel efficient motor vehicle the NYPD has in the fleet because it's "less than green" and let's keep those cars, trucks, vans, helicopters, and who-knows-what else. You know, for the children.

      You have a plan for an electric helicopter we should know about?

      A patent on a very inexpensive yet high capacity battery that will out-range and out-perform gasoline in cars, trucks, and vans?

      So, you would prefer they do nothing to help, since they can't do EVERYTHING just yet? Always attack the highest hanging fruit first?

      They only get 45 mpg in the city,

      That sounds good compared to mid-size cars, but it's really not impressive at all for a motorcycle. What's more, motorcycles are all-too commonly two-stroke engines, which pollute far worse than the 4-stroke engines (with emission controls) in cars, trucks, and vans.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:" Less than Green?" Say WHAT!? by fprintf · · Score: 1

      Just one correction, in the U.S. almost all street driven motorcycles are 4 strokes. One of the last two strokes we had was the Suzuki RD350. Anyway, due to emissions regulations we have not had many street legal two strokes in many years.

      New motorcycles are being manufactured with catalytic converters to meet EU regulations. They are being sold here in the states with those converters in place. I am guessing here, but perhaps it is easier to design a motorcycle for both markets at once and keep the converter in place for the US with a corresponding bump in price (these are typically larger displacement, expensive bikes anyway) and marketability.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    4. Re:" Less than Green?" Say WHAT!? by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      Always attack the highest hanging fruit first?

      If you don't attack the highest hanging fruit first then it's behind you when you bend down to get the low hanging fruit.

    5. Re:" Less than Green?" Say WHAT!? by phoebusQ · · Score: 1

      So...your argument is that we replace helicopters with electric scooters?

      I don't necessarily agree with this idea either, but your argument makes little sense.

  13. May I suggest ? by Teisei · · Score: 3, Funny

    4 wheels, small size and running on electricity - Electric wheelchair !

    1. Re:May I suggest ? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1
      4 wheels, small size and running on electricity - Electric wheelchair !

      "Until I got my Jazzy, I felt left out of the fun, and had a hard time getting around. Now, I can chase down the elderly crooks who don't have power chairs, and I feel alive again."

      Thank You,

      Officer Crusty McPhaterson, NYPD

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  14. Honest question-Fun with two wheels. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "What do motorcycle cops do that those in cars can't?"

    Freeze to death in the middle of winter. Fly gracefully over the hood of a car in an accident. Be able to fart without one's partner commenting on it. Pop wheelies.

    1. Re:Honest question-Fun with two wheels. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are apt to win a Darwinism award if they eat Donuts at the same time.

  15. Curious what the intended use is? by edwardpickman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With a maxium speed of 60 and a range of 68 miles at 25 mph what's the point? Either they are for chasing pedestrians or motorcycle escorts. The speed is only adequate for city streets for short trips. I'm assuming they are intended for traffic and parking tickets and are more a replacement for for the old Cushman type vehicles. They are hardly a replacement for motorcycles. They could servie some of the purposes that mounted officers did but they lack the high visibility that was a benificial feature of being on horseback. I really wish the article had gone into the intended use because it is a puzzle.

    1. Re:Curious what the intended use is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really a puzzle? Its pretty obvious what their intent is. Motorcycles HAVE NEVER been used in high speed chases. There are many reasons for this.

    2. Re:Curious what the intended use is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lacks the high vantage point? That's where the attached periscope comes in handy!

      These will appeal to the macho officers, who want to look mean on their mopeds.

      I can see a special edition of, "Pimp my ride" coming up!

    3. Re:Curious what the intended use is? by sholden · · Score: 1

      Car chases isn't all that police do. And NYPD already uses scooters, just not electric ones, which aren't much faster, random internet pic: http://www.trevorcarpenter.com/images/nypd_scooters.jpg

      They use them for patrolling parks, traffic direction duties, bugging people at street marches, and so on.

    4. Re:Curious what the intended use is? by JerryLove · · Score: 1

      Obviously to replace existing scooters. But what is there intended / current use?

      My first guess would be to move officers more rapidly than feet. Doing patrols in areas like central park, moving to the scene of traffic accidents, etc. Things which don't require persuit, or apprehension... but merely getting bodies to a targeted location.

      It's also a decent way to get foot-patrol to and from their area of operations. Scooter out, get off and walk patrol, get on and return to station.

    5. Re:Curious what the intended use is? by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      The horses are also great at making the bridge at the Bethesda statue stink of piss. I'm always amazed the food vendor sets up near there.

  16. information overload, or overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    while the 'mainstream' media spews terabytes of trivia, minutia & mindphuking pr ?firm? scriptdead propaganda, we're being 'cautioned' to decrease our diet of information intake? what a surprise?

    maybe if inf. that was relevant/useful was available ahead of/instead of the crap regarding commercial bait & blunders, we would have less trouble staying focused on 'stuff that matters'. it all reads like some bad geogewellian paperback to us, as we're informed that the next 'glorious victory' is at hand. does anyone recall who hitler's favorite 'enemy' was? eye gas it's really relative to what does matter/is of value for many of US. almost nothing for some.

    better days ahead. see you there?

  17. Why not replace cars with conveyor belts? by ghoul · · Score: 4, Funny

    Given the population density of New York isnt it time to setup city wide (or at least the financial district wide) people mover belts like you find at the nicer International Airports (Dubai and Frankfurt spring to mind). These would be hyper efficient as only the thing which needs to be moved i.e. a person weighing 200 pounds instead of moving a big iron box weighing tons aka a car.
    These used to be a staple of futuristic SF stories - wonder why it never caught on - the technology is definitely there(in airports)

    On a side note if people are using conveyor belts the cops dont need motorcycles to catch perps - just get on the hyperfast conveyor belt lane reserved for emergencies.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
    1. Re:Why not replace cars with conveyor belts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theres a reason these are all inside.

    2. Re:Why not replace cars with conveyor belts? by pryoplasm · · Score: 1

      Hyperfast emergency lanes?

      Wouldn't the ability to stop the belts be able to do pretty much the same thing.

      Though those belts probably would not help an already overweight population go out for a "walk"

      --
      Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who live by the gun...
    3. Re:Why not replace cars with conveyor belts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those moving walkways are really slow. International airports are fairly big, but people don't need to travel ten miles to work in them every morning. Also, why would you reserve a faster lane for emergencies? People with actual emergencies aren't inconvenienced by others being on the walkway, as long as they're given preference in getting on the track. I suppose your police thing would work, assuming criminals obey the shouts of "hey, you're not supposed to be on that track! Get on the slow one so I can catch up to and arrest you!"

      When you notice that an idea that many people have had isn't getting anywhere, think for at least five minutes about possible reasons that it hasn't caught on before stating publicly that its a great solution.

    4. Re:Why not replace cars with conveyor belts? by Kopretinka · · Score: 1

      You're not only carrying the 200lb person, but also the belt. Great many moving parts. Weather. Multiple-speed belts (from those SF stories) have bigger safety issues. I'd love to see the multi-belt highways where you cross a few belts and accelerate yourself to 40mph, but it's just not an efficient mode of transport outside. Yet?

      --
      Yesterday was the time to do it right. Are we having a REVOLUTION yet?
    5. Re:Why not replace cars with conveyor belts? by vikstar · · Score: 1

      Sweet, then we can play "running the strips".

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    6. Re:Why not replace cars with conveyor belts? by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Regarding speed 40mph is more than enough in fact you would be lucky to maintain that speed on the road in downtown New York. Thats the reason I mentioned the population density as this only makes sense where a lot of people live close together and work pretty close to where they work. While this description also applies to third world slums the exception about New York is that while it may have the population density of a slum it is extremely rich as a city (mostly because of the financial industry being headquartered in New York and London) so New York is the perfect test case - it has the density to justify people mover belts as well as the money to build them. Obviously a place like Texas which is wide open and spread out this would not make sense but for east coast cities especially where the downtown is still viable and everyone has not fled to the suburbs this makes sense. And as gas becomes more expensive it will make more and more sense.

      The only challenge I see is to harden the existing belts for outdoor usage. Alternatively the belts could be covered with clear plastic walkways which would protect both the machinery and the people moving on them from the weather.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    7. Re:Why not replace cars with conveyor belts? by ghoul · · Score: 1

      And you could be arrested for drunken striping. (note the single p)

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    8. Re:Why not replace cars with conveyor belts? by Kopretinka · · Score: 1

      Outdoor-hardening is only one problem. Second is the interaction of multi-speed belts. A slow belt ends in firm ground, no problem, but how do you end the faster belt next to it, and the further faster belts? And you can't have a solid wall next to the fastest belt for risk of injury. And you can't easily do crossings without over/underpasses, which would increase the cost. One could probably have just block-long belts, but then you wouldn't have useful speeds over more than a few blocks. And even with passes, sometimes belts would have to split (one going down under the crossing, the slow other one staying level to the cross-roads), and the barrier between them would be a risk of injury.

      Then the maintenance - a section of a belt goes down, the whole belt goes down. If it's one long belt, all the faster belts next to it go down as well because you can't access them. If it isn't one long belt, you suddenly have a belt ending, big injury risk.

      If people were willing to accept injuries out of stupidity and a few injuries due to maintenance problems, belts could be feasible. And there's still the cost of moving the belt...

      In summary, I don't think that moving the road on a larger scale is such a viable alternative to a stationary road and moving vehicles.

      --
      Yesterday was the time to do it right. Are we having a REVOLUTION yet?
  18. I want my NYPD to have mean-ass cars. by DJ+Katty · · Score: 0

    Seriously, NYPD. Scooty Puff Juniors suuuuucckkkk~~~

  19. Perhaps they should follow the OK police dept lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't try running from the Oklahoma police. Perhaps the cops should switch to these:
    http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2006/05/25/suzuki-hayabusa-police-interceptor/

  20. Re:Stupid is as stupid does by JerryLove · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The electric scooters are replacing non-electric scooters. They are not replacing non-electric motorcycles.

    There are police on foot, police on segways, police on bicycles, police on horseback, police on motor-cycles, police in patrol cars, police in interceptor cars, police in trucks, and, yes, police on scooters.

    What I think is stupid, is being assumptive of the role involved and the needs without doing so much as actually even reading the article first.

    Personlly, in my experience with law-enforcement, there is too often the purchase of too much vehicle... usually with the "that's what we normally get". There's really no need for a V8 in a Manhattan patrol car (or taxi, which are also generally Crown Vics with V8s that spend most of their time at a near-stand-still), no one goes that fast there. If you are highway patrol out here in FL, then you do need a large engine because 120mpg chases can happen.

  21. Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by burni · · Score: 1

    No, No, No and NO.

    There is a difference beetween over-greenish-actions and real "green" actions.

    1.)
    these Motorcycles are not "green", as long as the power to charge them
    is generated by non-green powerplants.

    2.)
    the emission is just placed somewhere outside N.Y., looking at the overall emission
    of NY, these Motorcylces are the minor part.

    3.)
    while it's a good idea(*) to use these E-Cycles in high traffic areas
    it's not a good idea to use them for patrol, because of their limited
    range

    25mph -> Range ~68miles
    65mph -> Range ~ .. not mentioned ?

    they need to be charged to often.

    (*) Electric Systems have a nearly zero-time power-up and are more efficient than
    their gasoline brothers, in short, "good for Stop-And-Go"

    1. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by stewbacca · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1.) these Motorcycles are not "green", as long as the power to charge them is generated by non-green powerplants.
      You've exposed the most fraudulent part of the greenies' movement. Recharging batteries requires electricity, which in the US, is derived primarily from burning coal, which is worse ecologically than burning gasoline. As long as the Greenies keep pushing fake green agendas on us like electric cars but at the SAME TIME keep protesting nuclear power, this will never be a good solution.
    2. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by Dan+Ost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Recharging batteries requires electricity, which in the US, is derived primarily from burning coal, which is worse ecologically than burning gasoline.

      I bet you can't back that up with any facts. A modern coal burning power plant is probably 50% efficient or better and cleans its exhaust. A gas engine in a vehicle is about 20% efficient (ignoring the transportation costs of getting the fuel to the vehicle) and does very little cleaning of the exhaust.

      The only reason coal is considered such an ecological threat is that we use so much of it. If we tried to produce the same amount of energy using gasoline (assuming we could build the refineries to make it all), that would be a true ecological disaster.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    3. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I bet you can't back that up with any facts.
      Here's something to chew on, and this is just in the context of powering hydrogen cells, which is arguably more efficient than plugging a car straight into an AC outlet.

      According to Southern California Edison, the electricity needed per mile for passenger cars is at least 0.46 kilowatt-hour. For the whole U.S. vehicle fleet, that works out to 1.16 trillion kilowatt-hours. You'll need 32 quads of coal, which is twice the energy actually consumed in 2000 with gasoline.

      As for global-warming implications, the use of hydrogen from coal instead of gasoline would produce a 2.7-fold increase in carbon emissions.

      Of course, all of today's electricity doesn't come from coal. But even with the current mix of sources, including natural gas, nuclear, hydro, solar, and wind, that much hydrogen would raise our carbon output to about twice the 2000 level.

      This is a 2005 article, but this has been pretty common knowledge to anyone who can see past the Green Agenda as far back as I can remember reading about it (ca. 1988?)

      There is no magic bullet for clean cars unless you invent a new type of energy altogether, or if you don't mind driving around with a nuclear reactor under the hood. It is mind boggling how many people think electricity just comes from nothing and is "clean energy".

      link: http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/9978/the-case-for-nuke-cars-its-called-hydrogen-page2.html

    4. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by MrTester · · Score: 1

      Apparently you havent been paying attention...

      Many of the "Greenies" have been switching their stance on nuclear power over the past decade because they are realizing that the threat from nuclear power is nothing compared to the reality of global warming.

      Look around. Their are many plans for nuclear power plants on the books now and the protests are NOTHING compared with what they were in the 70's and 80's. Oh sure, there are some who wont come around, but thats always the case.

      Nuclear power is going to grow significantly, and most of the greenies are in full support.

    5. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      They'll all wait until Bush is out of office, so they don't appear to be in agreement with him.

    6. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by luther349 · · Score: 0

      also note yes we still have coal burning plants. but something like 60% of the usa is hydro electric. hover dam can handle that much on is own. i wont disagree the other 40% thats not hydro and coal burning is very bad. nuclear power on the other hand back in the 60 and 70s was rushed out despite the people who made it warned of the dangers of meltdown and the unsafe reactor desines. we knew it when we built them but we wanted another large power source like are hydro plant to badly to care. protesters then had a real reason to protest and we paid the price for it as well. but this is today not 40 years ago the newer reactors that have been thought up are alot safer and friendly then the ones from 40 years ago.

    7. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by loshwomp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Disclaimer: IAAEVE (I am an eletric vehicle engineer). It sounds like you've never even driven an EV.

      You've exposed the most fraudulent part of the greenies' movement. Recharging batteries requires electricity, which in the US, is derived primarily from burning coal, which is worse ecologically than burning gasoline.

      Burning coal to power EVs is a pretty stupid solution, and I don't think anyone is actually advocating that, but it is absolutely an improvement over burning gasoline. Your assertion is well documented as totally false, yet it's constantly repeated. You really should do your own research on this, but here's a whitepaper from Tesla Motors for starters. It's a pretty fair analysis of the relative efficiencies of various propulsion systems. It does cheat a little by assuming natural gas generation for electricity, but it's obvious from the numbers that--even from coal--EVs are a significant win in terms of reducing pollution and CO2 emissions.

      You can substitute just about any EV for Tesla's Roadster -- they're all exceptionally efficient, at under 300 AC watthours per mile. Yes, I'm an electric vehicle engineer.

      As long as the Greenies keep pushing fake green agendas on us like electric cars but at the SAME TIME keep protesting nuclear power, this will never be a good solution.

      Nuclear power is a fantastic option. Between nuclear, wind, and hydro, more than half of California's energy is pollution- and CO2-free. Electricity is the ultimate flex fuel -- you can generate it from coal, nuclear, or solar panels on your roof.

      You spewed some further misinformation further down -- I'll reply to that later on.

    8. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by burni · · Score: 1

      NOPE NO NO

      1.) 50% efficiency only on combined cycle -> heat + electricity
      without it you get 32% at best operating with high steam temperature and preasure,
      for which it is necessary to use modern and expensive materials.

      2.) NY has a steam conducting system to deliver heat, but the powerplants
      which deliver the heat and electricity to NY are old ( 30+ years ) and
      from a modern point view they are inefficient

      3.) we use coal for generating energy because we have much of it.

    9. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by loshwomp · · Score: 1

      Here's something to chew on, and this is just in the context of powering hydrogen cells, which is arguably more efficient than plugging a car straight into an AC outlet.

      Such a claim is only arguable by someone woefully ignorant of the facts (and the laws of thermodynamics).

      The fuel cycle in that case (electricity -> electrolysis -> hydrogen -> fuel cell -> electricity) is only about 25% efficient. Did you really think that the fuel cycle would have efficiency greater than 100%, and how else would you claim that it is "arguably more efficient than plugging a car straight into an AC outlet"?

      What you've actually done is to expose the insanity of the "hydrogen economy" -- also well documented as totally impractical. Most of the smart money realizes this, now. The hydrogen is just an extremely inefficient and expensive battery. We already have much better batteries, with efficiencies better than 90%.

      There is no magic bullet for clean cars unless you invent a new type of energy altogether, or if you don't mind driving around with a nuclear reactor under the hood.

      Don't be silly. You don't put the nuclear reactor under the hood. You put it at the generation plant, and use the already-existing infrastructure to charge your vehicle. Your Car-and-Driver link is filled with so much misinformation that it's not worth spending much time on. (E.g. PV modules requiring 8 years to reach an energy breakeven point: The well-documented actual figure is closer to 2 years, and even at 8, it's a fantastic win, because PV modules last >40 years.)

    10. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      Since you are an electrical engineering, I'm undoubtedly not qualified to discuss the finer details with you. However, we all carry personal interests and biases directly related to our chosen professions. I like Macs and Flash because that's how I make my living, when according to common slashdot knowledge, I shouldn't like either.

      Also, I'm not against EVs at all. I'm actually just anti-coal. I grew up in the Pacific NW with mostly hydro and nuclear power and I see what natural beauty looks like. I've been to the North East and have seen what ravaging the Earth for coal does to the scenery and what burning coal does to the air quality.

      As for the misinformation, I picked one of the more credible looking ones out of hundreds. Granted, Bedard is an auto-enthusiast and editor of a major Car magazine, he has a long track-record of good reporting and insightful discussions on the topics of alternative fuel cars and the environment. He's not in with Big Oil, and he's not Anti-Hippy. He, more than most people, advocates alternative fuel sources, but like myself, doesn't like the fact that switching from one evil to another (hidden) evil is no solution.

      I personally love the idea of alternate fuels, but I'm not hypocritical enough think that a Hybrid is actually doing anything to save the environment (as long as we keep burning coal to make electricity).

      I would be interested to know if you can disprove the facts that powering hydrogen cells by coal (and all other sources combined) would require roughly twice the amount of power as is burned by gas powered cars in 2000, as cited in the article. I find it to be an interesting claim, from a seemingly credible source, but can't really find any proof beyond that.

    11. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      You don't put the nuclear reactor under the hood.
      Oops, my bad, I forgot my /hyperbole tags.
    12. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      We also use oil because we have "much of it" as well. Doesn't that make buring gas in cars a good thing, or am I missing the point of your third point?

    13. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by burni · · Score: 1

      1.) you are right electric driven motors are more efficient than gasoline powered ones

      but you make a missconception, it's either the way you define efficiency,
      or better where you apply it and what is in the todays use for generating your AC-Power.

      (in the NY case, the E-Cycles will be charged by "coal",
      that is what I wanted to point out)

      Where does the "Tesla Roadster" get it's electricity ?
      - from the AC-Line from your power plant  (bad)

      ( than you mostly use coal to power your EV )
      and you have to change 300 Wh into 300 / 0.3 [Wh] = 1000 Wh
      0.3 -> 30% efficiency, and well this is normal for coal fired power plants,

      more is possible but it's better to use the common value than using possibly achieveable
      values.

      - from your roof mounted solar panels     (good)

      than you can say nearly CO2-zero, the efficiency nearly doesn't matter

      and there are further losses to look at,
      - transmission
      - gears
      - bearing

      2.) Battery vs. Fuel

      how much does the Battery weigh and how much does an energy equivalent amount
      of gas or diesel weigh,

      energy equivalent means applying the engines efficiency, and not using the raw value.

      3.) "special cars" vs. "common cars"

      The "Tesla Roadster" as any pure electric driven car today is a special car

      a.) limited weight ( it uses special materials )
      b.) limited space  ( it's a fun car )
      c.) limited range  ( limited by driving style,(they say) it's a roadster ;) )

      if you would remove the e-motor and the battery pack by a three/four cylinder
      turbo charged diesel engine, and fill in the amount of fuel you need to reach
      a range similar, it's likely that you could achieve, an efficiency very very
      near to the electric ones, but to be honest not with such an acceleration ;)

      But you will agree when I say

      a.) many people don't have the money to buy a home solar power system

      b.) most electric energy produced and consumed in the U.S. comes from
          coal, nuclear and gas (*)

      so anytime you will have to apply the production efficiency to the consuming
      systems one, so you can now clearly see I left out the raffineries one
      to produce gasoline/diesel :)

      4.) I have a question, "What does your car run off ?"

      5.) if (4.noelectric) -> why not ?

    14. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by loshwomp · · Score: 1

      Also, I'm not against EVs at all. I'm actually just anti-coal.

      As am I. Is anyone pro-coal? I mean that seriously. Coal is only part of the power mix (on the order of 50% in the US, I believe) and I'm doing everything I can to make it smaller, but it's pretty well documented that EVs are a step in the right direction even when powered by coal.

      I personally love the idea of alternate fuels, but I'm not hypocritical enough think that a Hybrid is actually doing anything to save the environment (as long as we keep burning coal to make electricity).

      I would be interested to know if you can disprove the facts that powering hydrogen cells by coal (and all other sources combined) would require roughly twice the amount of power as is burned by gas powered cars in 2000, as cited in the article. I find it to be an interesting claim, from a seemingly credible source, but can't really find any proof beyond that.


      I'm definitely not going to defend hybrids or hydrogen. As you probably know, today's conventional hybrid vehicles are 100% gasoline-powered; they're basically gas cars with regenerative braking. They do get some points for being more efficient. Plug-in hybrids (with some electric-only range) are in vogue now, but suffer from some fundamental problems that are non-intuitive to armchair engineers. (They're the worst of both worlds, less efficient than an EV for the first 200 miles, and less efficient than a gas car beyond 200 miles.)

      Hydrogen is a total scam -- it's hopelessly inefficient to make the hydrogen[1]. Your 2x figure seems a bit high -- most fair wells-to-wheels analyses I've seen put a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle at roughly the same efficiency as a gasoline car -- but I don't care, because you'd be crazy not to replace that 25% efficient fuel cell with a battery that's 90% efficient.

      [1] If you make hydrogen from natural gas, you'd have been better off burning it in a combustion engine instead. If you make it via electrolysis, you'd be far better off putting that electrical energy into a battery.

    15. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by loshwomp · · Score: 1

      but you make a missconception, it's either the way you define efficiency, or better where you apply it and what is in the todays use for generating your AC-Power.

      No, I'm talking about a fair, wells-to-wheels energy comparison. EVs are substantially more efficient, even when powered by coal (and coal represents only approximately 50% of the US power mix).

      and there are further losses to look at,
      - transmission
      - gears
      - bearing


      No, all of those are present in both vehicles, and thus factor out. And this is a red herring anyway, because the 300 watthours/mile figure includes all of the above.


      The "Tesla Roadster" as any pure electric driven car today is a special car

      a.) limited weight ( it uses special materials )
      b.) limited space ( it's a fun car )
      c.) limited range ( limited by driving style,(they say) it's a roadster ;) )


      The Roadster also suffers from non-optimal gearing and "performance" tires. There is nothing remarkable about the Roadster's efficiency. Other EVs (e.g. AC Propulsion's eBox, and Toyota's RAV4 EV) both achieve similar efficiencies.

      if you would remove the e-motor and the battery pack by a three/four cylinder turbo charged diesel engine, and fill in the amount of fuel you need to reach a range similar, it's likely that you could achieve, an efficiency very very near to the electric ones, but to be honest not with such an acceleration ;)

      This is absolutely false. Most EVs achieve a completely fair energy equivalent of over 100 miles per US gallon of gasoline. You will never achieve anywhere near that level of efficiency with a gasoline engine and a 2600 pound car.

      many people don't have the money to buy a home solar power system

      I don't agree. If you can afford energy, you can afford solar (or other non-polluting) energy. The amortized cost of PV solar is between 16 and 20 cents per kWh -- it doesn't have to be on your own house. Wind energy is feasible at merely 5 cents/kWh, and is well suited to charging EVs.

      I have a question, "What does your car run off ?"

      Most of the time I bicycle or walk. My car uses 100% pure solar energy.

    16. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      You are such a twit. Well to wheel efficiencies show that even if you burn coal to run electric cars, it's far cleaner then an equivalent number of internal combustion engines. I know this is Slashdot, but you could at least do a little research before you decide to ignore fact and spout bullshit in a public forum?

    17. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      Hey, at least I posted a link! And, surprise, I haven't stooped to calling complete strangers who disagree with me "twits". Would you care to follow your own self-imposed rules and post some of your findings for "well to wheel efficiencies" (whatever that is)? I'm open minded enough that I at least have listened to the Electrical Engineer guy and have expanded my research a bit more.

      What I'm not (in addition to not being some random nerd on the net calling other random nerds a twit) is smart enough to know that coal might be dirtier to burn than gas, so I DID do some research. Or in your mind, I just made the figures up, then hacked Car-and-Driver, then wrote a phony article and back dated it to 2005? What I've found is two different sides of the argument citing the same findings to support their own agenda. Car-and-Driver cites the big Southern California energy company to say how much extra coal burning it would take to power up hydrogen cells (my mistake, for diverting the conversation to hydrogen from electric). Yet a white paper from "Green Car Journal" used the same figures from the same company to show that, even with 50% of energy coming from coal plants, EVs would require less energy from coal plants than the equivalent gas powered engines. You be the judge.

      There are plenty of stupid myths out there, such as a hybrid battery costs $15,000 to replace (quick Internet search returns a more believable $1500-$3000 range), or that Hybrids take 10 years to recoup the extra cost of the hybrid drive. Equally stupid are myths perpetuated by the other side (my hybrid is saving the world!). All I'm waiting for is an electric car that can drive all day long without a recharge and is 100% electric; no hybrid gimmicks required, thanks. Battery technology might be there (as some others suggest in this thread), but they sure are doing a poor job of advertising their presence.

    18. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1
      The common view is that energy from a coal plant is cleaner than having tens of thousands of gasoline engines, and the energy source is domestic, i.e. not requiring a $.75 trillion military to occupy the Middle East. A single auto may make less pollution than a single coal plant, but that single coal plant is easier to make clean than are the tens of thousands of gasoline-powered cars it could power via the plug. This issue has been heavily talked about, so stop pretending that it's a conspiracy of silence. You might disagree with "the greenies" and that's fine, but you make yourself look like a moron by pretending that none of the greenies have looked into the issue.

      The issue isn't whether to pollute or not pollute. The issue is how to pollute less.

    19. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1
      Did you not post this?

      You've exposed the most fraudulent part of the greenies' movement. Recharging batteries requires electricity, which in the US, is derived primarily from burning coal, which is worse ecologically than burning gasoline. As long as the Greenies keep pushing fake green agendas on us like electric cars but at the SAME TIME keep protesting nuclear power, this will never be a good solution.

      And did you not back it up with any sort of link? If it was accurate, I could forgive the lack of citation, but for blatantly false information it's not tolerable.

      Comparing Apples to Apples: Well-to-Wheel Analysis of Current ICE and Fuel Cell Vehicle Technologies
      http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/HV/300.pdf

      Tesla Motors Well To Wheel Comparison
      http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php

      AskPablo: Well to Wheel Efficiency Tutorial
      http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/askpablo-well-to-wheel-efficie-002461.php And let's be honest. Car and Driver? Not the most intelligently written rag out there.

    20. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Well you are inferring that one side is right (the greenies) and the other is wrong, when it is obvious, that this is still a point of contention. The "common view" you point to is not so common, because the "common view" I'm seeing in a lot of the articles is that the needed increase in power plant output would be worse for the environment than the same amount of gas engines. Like I said, read the research, and make up your own mind. Quit preaching at me, just because you THINK you are right. I am merely opening up the floor for a contrarian point of view, and am far from convinced that I am correct. I was humbly put in my place by a real electrical engineer, after all. You also gain no credibility by trying to tie the military to oil interests. That's a tired and inaccurate assessment. As for a conspiracy of silence -- I just don't see that in my posts.

    21. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      What you cited was my editorial comment, hardly disguised as fact. As a matter of fact, I think it is pretty satirical in tone and pretty obvious that it was my comments on the whole topic and not to be taken as truth. The link I posted was at the bottom.

      If you want to rip on Car and Driver, that's fine, but you obviously know nothing of Patrick Bedard's lifelong journalistic accomplishments.

    22. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by chez69 · · Score: 1

      nuke power has the problem of having to store dangerous waste products long term.

      that's a crappy problem too.

      --
      PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
    23. Re:Normal vs. Headless vs. GREEN_BY_ELECTRIC by raddan · · Score: 1

      Right. It's a conspiracy of environmentalists. Don't you think it's much more likely that this is just a company trying to cash in on the hot "green" market?

  22. That's not the most fuel efficient by JerryLove · · Score: 1

    The most fuel efficient vehicle, depending on how you want to define it, is either the footman, the officer on bicycle (vehicle), or the office on the Segway (powered vehicle).

    You speak as though it's an either/or propisition. We should not replace the scooters because the existing ones are more efficient than the motor-cycles. Then I suppose we should not replace the motor-cycles as they are more efficient than the cars, which are more efficient than the trucks, which are more efficient than the helicoptors, which are more efficient than some of the large boats/small ships the NYPD uses.

    So we can't do anything unless we do the worst first? That's silly.

    If electric scooters prove appropriate for the job, let's applaud the improvement and use it as an example to encourage more. If they prove inappropriate in testing, let's applaud the attempt but do something else for this instance.

    1. Re:That's not the most fuel efficient by gordguide · · Score: 1

      " ... The most fuel efficient vehicle, depending on how you want to define it, is either the footman, the officer on bicycle (vehicle), or the office on the Segway (powered vehicle). ..."

      That's why I wrote, and you failed to either read, or failed to comprehend, ... motor vehicle ....

      " ... You speak as though it's an either/or propisition [sic]. ..."

      No, you read it that way. Unlike the author of the /. topic, I feel we should not label a pretty fuel efficient mode of transport with a bona fide law enforcement pedigree "less than green", and that was the gist of my post.

      Police need boats; they get maybe 4 MPG (or less). Police need helicopters; a low-power turbine engine (eg a PT6A with 750 (S)HP ) burns 1.5 gallons of Jet fuel a minute, and a helicopter needs 10 minutes of run-up before it can move, period. From where I sit, that's "less than green".

      " ... So we can't do anything unless we do the worst first? That's silly. ..."

      Nope. Test this, check out that. Whatever. The NYPD are welcome, in fact I encourage them, to think about the whole environmental impact thing, and what they can do about it. Someone else implies I think we should be using Electric Helicopters, another suggests that I suggested we replace 'copters with scooters. Well, just throw those ideas out there, kids, as soon as it comes into your heads; that's how this Brain-Storming thing works. Just don't call a pretty efficient tool "less than green". That's all I meant, and that's all I said.

  23. Criminals are kindly requested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to slow down a little bit, pretty please! vroom vroom

  24. Law & Order by rossdee · · Score: 1

    So will we be seeing Detectives: Green, Stabler, Benson, Munch, Tutuola, Goren, Eames and Logan riding around on these?

    1. Re:Law & Order by dschuetz · · Score: 1

      So will we be seeing Detectives: Green, Stabler, Benson, Munch, Tutuola, Goren, Eames and Logan riding around on these? I doubt it. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Goren owned a Segway. :)
    2. Re:Law & Order by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      My question is: When am I going to see CSI: Miami using a hybrid instead of an H2?

  25. Re:RTFA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But... This is slashdot.

    Not reading the article, then anonymously posting stupid and offtopic comments is what you're supposed to do!

  26. What? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    An average bike does 0-60 in about 5 seconds. WTF?

    No. An average bike does 0-60 in about 2.5 seconds. A Harley takes 5, but Harleys are shite bikes, not average ones.

    How can a 160kg bike of the same performance 160kg? You must be kidding. Harleys weigh closer to 300kg.

    Sorry , something doesn't add up. Yeah, you're talking shite.
    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:What? by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      well, while 2.5 is a tad faster than avg... Sport bikes vs. street bikes do have some differences.

      I have driven a Hyabusa, and I can tell you that without knkowing the bike, or really trying, 0-70-0 is achievable in 6.0 seconds.

      Wether or not fuel efficiency is a major issue here, there is the mobility factor, that cars just can't beat even with big fat fuel guzzling harleys.

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    2. Re:What? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Sorry pal , even a road sports bike will have trouble doing 0-60 in 2.5 because they can't put the power down. Doing wheelies looks great but its no use in a drag race.

    3. Re:What? by llefler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're talking shite.

      So are you. Although I have no interest in owning one, Harley makes a quality bike these days. You must be stuck in the 70's.

      Kawasaki Vulcan 500 LTD (smallest) 439lbs dry weight (199 kg)
      Kawasaki Vulcan 2000 Classic LT (largest) 796lbs dry weight (361 kg)
      Kawasaki crotch rocket Ninja ZX-14 485lbs dry weight (220 kg)

      Now the little Ninja ZX-6 does hit the 160kg range, at 368lbs dry weight (166 kg)

      I could have looked up other brands, but I'm too lazy. There won't be much difference in comparable bikes between Kawasaki, Honda, Yamaha, or Suzuki.

      Harley Sportster 883 XL 563lbs dry weight (255 kg)

      None of the cruisers will be as light as the sport bikes, and Harley doesn't make sport bikes. Since the markets don't cross over, it's not fair to compare something like a Harley V-ROD to a Kawasaki Ninja. So that puts Harley's in the same range as a Kawasaki cruiser.

      Harley doesn't post 0-60 performance on their bikes, it's a bogus measurement for that class of motorcycle anyway. But I've seen people report 4 second 0-60 on a larger V-ROD, so I doubt the difference in a similar sized bike from a competitor would be measurable without going to the track. An 'average' bike isn't going to get 2.5 seconds, not when a Ninja ZX-10 is 3.12 seconds. Unless you have a completely different idea of what average is, I would expect an average around 4 seconds.

      And FWIW, when I read the summary I pictured cops on Vespas. That's almost as bad as bikers in B movies riding dirt bikes.

      --
      It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
    4. Re:What? by mcmaddog · · Score: 1

      While Harley doesn't make sport bikes under the Harley brand name, they first partnered and then bought the Buell Motorcycle Company to sell to the market that wanted a sport bike.

  27. MOD PARENT UP by michaelfellis · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's funny because it's true. ;-)

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by radl33t · · Score: 1

      yes funny, because the opposite philosophy is such an airtight plan for global utopia. get a grip.

  28. Elegant weapon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    More civilized times? You know, when there were Jedi! And lightsabers!

  29. ObXKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  30. You will... by dl_zero · · Score: 1

    You will respect my authorati. Oh, wait, its an electric scooter, not a tricycle (close enough).

  31. Police model? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    Presumably they'll be building a police-spec model with extra batteries, crash protection (crash bars and maybe even a good back pad), etc?

    And I can't see this replacing highway patrol bikes, not enough speed.

    I just hate to think they'd replace bicycle patrols too :/

  32. Re:Stupid is as stupid does by fprintf · · Score: 1

    Two corrections.

    1. Have you ever been in NY City before? Saying that the Taxi and Police Car doesn't need to be that fast since they don't go that fast ignores the reality. A Taxi ride is generally a very fast, high acceleration game. The light turns green and it is a race to get through as many lights as possible before they all go red again. Many times it is a full on acceleration, pedal to the floor type event.

    2. FL officers need vehicles that go 120 miles per hour, not miles per gallon. :-)

    --
    This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
  33. Re:Stupid is as stupid does by JerryLove · · Score: 1

    1) Sounds exceedingly dangerous. What's the top speed limit on the island? Even 45 sounds pretty fast for those streets (downtown here is 35-40), and a 4-cyl Honda Accord is going to manage that in about 5 seconds.

    Are there really a lot of high-speed chases through the middle of the city where apprehension is the result of running down the suspect? It seems the traffic and police density are far to high for there to be a need for every officer with a car to be in an interceptor-type vehicle.

    2) Both would be nice, but you are correct. :-)

  34. The police model needs a built-in donut holder... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    and a special modification for the NYPD, a special rack to carry the toilet plunger.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  35. BMW has had catalytic converters for over 10 years by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    its on all their street bikes.

    The issue in NY is that you cannot use bikes year round.

    If you want them to be really environmentally considerate let them bring horses back to the whole city!

    My only beef with being friendly to the environment, if these vehicles truly are from manufacturing to disposal, is that they make it seem all so nice. The key is that city officials are the ones raking in the glory for their actions while its the tax payers who should get credit. It is very easy to be magnanimous on someone else's dime

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  36. Mod parent down by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    PPL are losing respect for the police, not for law and order. They would very much like to see it. The problem is that we have too many corrupt police, combined with police brutality. Even in the gangs, they know that they can buy more and more cops. And half of those that they can not buy, will beat them if given a chance.

    As to the gun, the vast majority do not respect it. They fear it. That is two very different concepts. It is also part of the reason why more and more criminals are getting bigger guns.

    Want ppl to respect the police? Then the police need to enforce the laws on themselves.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      PPL are losing respect for the police, not for law and order.
      I disagree. I think people have lost quite a bit of respect for law and order. And I think you can pinpoint the moment when that respect started to degrade. I believe that it started in 1970 when Nixon made a sizable portion of the population serious criminals (the Controlled Substances Act). At that point, many people saw that an activity that they engaged in (and didn't want to stop engaging in) now made them eligible for a significant prison sentence. At that point, why respect the rule of law if the rule of law has lost respect for you?

      And it's only continuing now with the current copyright situation where acts that are almost completely innocuous carry heavy fines and even prison sentences.

      As the old saying goes...Nothing breeds greater contempt of law than crime without punishment and punishment without crime.

      When we start criminalizing reasonable behaviors, there's only two reactions that people can take. Either they stop doing the prohibited act or they stop respecting the law that prohibited it.
    2. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tend to disagree.

      Because I DO NOT respect the controlled substances act and continue to smoke whatever the hell I want DOES NOT mean that I suddenly have given up on respecting laws against murder, rape, and theft. Give me a break.

      GP was correct, we've lost respect for the violent, law-breaking police force as a whole. When we see them bragging about brutality and breaking laws left and right with no remorse, we lose our respect for them. When people are being raped or killed by drunk drivers and cops are too busy out generating revenue for their county or city (read: busting speeders), there's a serious problem with the state of affairs.

      Then again, we've lost respect for a lot of things, not just our police force. When people realise that the police are the hired thugs of the socioeconomic structures that are designed against them, all hell breaks loose; nothing will ever stop that other than making it right.

      It's not that people aren't respecting "The Law" as an ideal, they don't respect the laws themselves, the people who create and benefit from them, or the people who enforce them. (Rightfully so)

  37. Green weapons by drewm1980 · · Score: 1

    Great, now they will burn less gas as they arrest cyclists engaged in LEGAL peaceful protest. I think a sentence mentioning the NYPD's violent attacks on critical mass every month since the RNC would add a bit of perspective. I wonder if the tasers they use run on rechargeable batteries too.

  38. Re:Stupid is as stupid does by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    What I think is stupid, is being assumptive of the role involved and the needs without doing so much as actually even reading the article first.

    C'mon - this is Slashdot. Folks don't need to read the articles! Regardless of the topic, they know more than anyone about any subject.
  39. Reminds me of a saying... by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 1

    ...I once heard: Mopeds are like fat chicks. They're fun, but you wouldn't ever want your buddies to see you riding one.

    --
    What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
  40. NYPD has used scooters for years by Animats · · Score: 1

    The NYPD has used scooters for years; they're great in congested areas. They probably like this thing because it's quiet.

    The NYPD doesn't do many car chases. NYC is too crowded. They prefer to get a few units into position ahead of the vehicle being pursued.

  41. Re:BMW has had catalytic converters for over 10 ye by darkshadow · · Score: 1

    Horses? What about all the crap?

    --
    -Darkshadow (There was a thing called Heaven; but all the same they used to drink enormous quantities of alcohol.)
  42. Re:The police model needs a built-in donut holder. by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    The more the merrier, if that's what it takes to keep crime down. Chemotherapy may kill many healthy cells, but if it saves the organism, so be it.

  43. Pure capacitance jel by infonography · · Score: 1

    Simon Phoenix unavailable for comment.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  44. Judge Dread by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

    Motorcycle fleet => electric motorcycle fleet => Judge Dread!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Dredd_(film)

    I can see it now - Judge Judy on one of these motorcycles spreading justice in the NY badlands.

  45. Interesting by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I am not certain that I agree with the bit about the Controlled Substance Act, but I can see where our copyright actions are going to backfire. All in all, both these acts took away liberties and made them criminal, in the same fashion that anti-alcohol did. The prohibition era lead to some very wild actions by otherwise very normal citizens.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  46. Why is electric = scooter by dindi · · Score: 1

    Scooters suck. That is a fact. If you ride a bike, you know how unstable a scooter is combined to a real bike. Just how you sit on a scooter makes it 10x less drivable.

    In fact, for city and countryside use, the most useful layout is the one similar to an Enduro bike. You sit straight up, so you can see the traffic, and over cars, and if needed (police does) you can go down and up on stairs, and even take it offroad.

    Actually in many Latin American countries the police uses enduros exactly for this reason, and use the bigger bikes for the highway patrols. Notice that the cruisers used as highway bikes also give the rider a better view of the whole situation.

    So if I might ask: why the hell are they giving these small wheeled instable things to the police. Also why does electric always automatically mean: ugly ergonomic wannabe plastic bubble?

    I can imagine an electric enduro/supermoto bike. Could look awesome, be fast and stable. You can also put a plexi glass on it (think KTM enduros) if that does anything good in police use. I personally never missed a plastic/plexiglass shield between me and the road, but I do not spend the whole day on a bike either.