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."

32 of 235 comments (clear)

  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 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.
  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 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!
    5. 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!

    6. 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.
    7. 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

  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 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. 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 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

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
  5. Re:Pull over.... pretty please! by Jrabbit05 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its New York. You're not going anywhere.

  6. 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".

  7. 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."
  8. 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.
  9. " 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.

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

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

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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**
  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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.