So from what I gather and the various photos in the article, you are put into a 'low slung' vehicle weighing only 35kg and drive along with other road users in their 1-2000kg vehicles. Sounds fun. I give you two weeks on a highway.
My daily commute (3km by bicycle) includes 100m of main road (and optionally an amazing two tunnels (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltsADGmrjVQ). The rest is a shared use path. I now take the lane on this section because so many cars/vans have tried to pass me dangerously. I was seriously thinking of buying a head cam.
If you really want to make a change and get people out of cars you need to make the infrastructure you provide safe enough for a 10 year old to cycle it. This means not putting different types of transport in conflict. Have segregated car/cycle/pedestrian lanes. Prioritise cycling over all other forms of transport. Recognise it as a transport 'service' and make it core to government transport policy.
This stuff is beginning to happen in the UK. (See London.) Studies are showing the massive benefits to a city (financially) putting in segregated cycling lanes and the long term benefits these bring to companies (cyclists don't have as many days sick). There are also the obvious health benefits.
The problem with America is that it loves the car (as does the UK) and is only just beginning to wake up to the fact that converting your city into a massive parking lot just doesn't work and is socially/financially a bad thing.
So make it safe enough for a 10 year old to use, design out conflict (seperate out cars/cycles/pedestrians) and put cycling as a priority above everything else. Do not give me a 35kg vehicle where I am forced to queue with all the rest of the cars.
I mostly agree with you about segregated infrastructure. But something going over 50KM/h belongs on the highway with cars and not in the bicycle lane.
Sure, it's dangerous, but how much worse is a velomobile with a flag than a motorcycle or scooter? Lots of people drive those. (And lots of people die on them too...)
First, my head is typically above the level of cars on my motorcycle and can easily see, with peripheral vision, around 300 degrees, meaning I can have a broader view of what's happening. Situational awareness is critical to staying alive around cages...err...cars.
Second, my cross-section for a car next to me is much thicker than a flag. It is at least the depth of my body and the depth of my fairing.
Finally, a flick of the wrist puts me far in front of the idiot trying to kill me. Acceleration is a crucial tool to staying alive on the streets around cars.
All of those are impacted by a velomobile. It's unfortunate, too, because I'd love to ride on.
On the other hand, on a motorcycle your head hits that car/wall first. On a velomobile, your feet do.
Also, the protection may be flimsy relative to that of a car, but it probably is a lot better than that of a motorcycle, for instance if you flip over and slide over the Tarmac for a few meters.
Your concerns are valid, though. The best way to cater for them probably is through a culture change. Having separate bike paths _and_ car drivers who are always on the lookout for cyclists because they always are there (example: www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlQYP4WN-5w) will help a lot.
Totally with you here. I'll play amongst the cars on my motorcycle, because I have superior acceleration, maneuverability, and awareness. I can see a problem coming and get out of the way before the driver even realizes they are putting me at risk. On a bicycle, I'd lose the advantage of acceleration; inside a velomobile, I'd further sacrifice the advantages of awareness and maneuverability. That sounds... scary.
I think the problem is going to be visibility. You're going to be really low to the ground and somebody looking over their shoulder/looking in the mirror might miss seeing you. At which point you are sideswiped and dead.
There are (relatively) lots of recumbent bikes around here, and it's a wonder those guys do not get crushed under a bus more often. When cars are stuck at a crossing they tend to slalom around them, and they're impossible to see since they are too low.
So these beasts have the same issue and they can go even faster. I don't think that's a good idea.
My daily commute (3km by bicycle) includes 100m of main road (and optionally an amazing two tunnels (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltsADGmrjVQ). The rest is a shared use path. I now take the lane on this section because so many cars/vans have tried to pass me dangerously. I was seriously thinking of buying a head cam.
If you really want to make a change and get people out of cars you need to make the infrastructure you provide safe enough for a 10 year old to cycle it. This means not putting different types of transport in conflict. Have segregated car/cycle/pedestrian lanes. Prioritise cycling over all other forms of transport. Recognise it as a transport 'service' and make it core to government transport policy.
This stuff is beginning to happen in the UK. (See London.) Studies are showing the massive benefits to a city (financially) putting in segregated cycling lanes and the long term benefits these bring to companies (cyclists don't have as many days sick). There are also the obvious health benefits.
The problem with America is that it loves the car (as does the UK) and is only just beginning to wake up to the fact that converting your city into a massive parking lot just doesn't work and is socially/financially a bad thing.
So make it safe enough for a 10 year old to use, design out conflict (seperate out cars/cycles/pedestrians) and put cycling as a priority above everything else. Do not give me a 35kg vehicle where I am forced to queue with all the rest of the cars.