Neighborhood Electric Vehicles

[Douglas the Intrepid]

Absolutely no motorized vehicles are legally allowed on the bike path regardless of street legality. Thank god.

 

[John R]

Absolutely no motorized vehicles are legally allowed on the bike path regardless of street legality. Thank god.

Yet you will still see some buffoon using the bike path as a cart path.

With regards to the Green argument, the buffoonery continues. The proponents would have us move from oil based fuel vehicles, to coal based electric fuel vehicles. Neither is green.

And the other argument regarding the price of fuel oil forcing a shift to LSV's because of how efficient they are. When the move away from gas powered vehicles actually happens, you can bet your bottom dollar that the golf carts will start to get heavier due to our coddled masses needing doors and windows, more seats, more trim, stereos, etc. They will be less efficient. A PV roof would sway me a bit though.

 

[Will B]

Independent of buying a 35K electric car (which, if I'm renting my place out, I'm not going to do for obvious reasons) or walking the distance and huffing groceries back on foot, what are my options for transportation independent of my car or the Tahoe my tenants drove down in?

Pretty much feet, pedals, skateboards, or inline skates...;-)

 

[Lake View Too]

Yet you will still see some buffoon using the bike path as a cart path.

With regards to the Green argument, the buffoonery continues. The proponents would have us move from oil based fuel vehicles, to coal based electric fuel vehicles. Neither is green.

And the other argument regarding the price of fuel oil forcing a shift to LSV's because of how efficient they are. When the move away from gas powered vehicles actually happens, you can bet your bottom dollar that the golf carts will start to get heavier due to our coddled masses needing doors and windows, more seats, more trim, stereos, etc. They will be less efficient. A PV roof would sway me a bit though.

I gots to have my AC and drink-holders too. And when I'm blasting out my Led Zeppelin I gots to be going over 25mph.(Just thought I would add to the buffoonery.)

 

[scooterbug44]

Legal on 30A or the path to the side? I don?t believe that?s the case. Here's a simple example: lets say I have a house in Gulf Trace. I or my tenants want to get to Grayton for groceries. Independent of buying a 35K electric car (which, if I'm renting my place out, I'm not going to do for obvious reasons) or walking the distance and huffing groceries back on foot, what are my options for transportation independent of my car or the Tahoe my tenants drove down in?

Let me get this straight - you want us to change the speed limits and reconfigure the roadways so the tenants who CHOOSE to drive an inefficient vehicle and/or the owner who REFUSES to provide an efficient vehicle option and has CHOSEN an inefficient vehicle can run to the corner store?

 

[robertsondavies]

I have NEVER driven a gas guzzling Tahoe down 30A. :roll:

It isn't a gas guzzler vs. LSV situation. Other options DO exist. Many locals (and some visitors) walk, bike, carpool, drive compact cars, drive hybrids, etc.

Don't have actual statistics, but my guess is that if you compare the vehicles driven by the people who live here full-time and those of visitors you will find a huge difference in vehicle size and gas consumption. (Partly because those vehicles work best for road trips and partly because of lifestyle differences.)

One thing I would like to see is a shuttle/trolley service along 30-A. There were plans to test it out a couple days a week during the high season last summer, but the spill/economic concerns put the kibosh on it.

THAT is much more practical than LSVs as a way to save gas and promote green practices.

It is a shame. 30A totally lends itself to more LSVs, more than many places. Having the couple of tiny stretches of 45MPH reduced by 10MPH are all that's needed to give much more range, and usability to the Sierra Clubs choice. What GEO says here, which i do not dispute (that some locals (and likely visitors too) use small cars and attend church, and volunteer time, and eat local yada yada yada).... doesn't change the fact that when you go to 30A, 90% of the cars you see are huge SUV's, with the odd sports car, or luxury sedan thrown in.... totally not necessary for the jaunt from say "Gulf Trace" into Grayton, or Watersound to Old Florida Fish House or similar... but no, everyone has to fire up the car/SUV instead. It's insanity. If the goal was to drive fast through Deer Lake state park, that could continue to be accommodated by just adopted a separate lane on that small stretch... It would finally join Rosemary/Alys?Seacrest/Watersound to the other side of the LSV abyss, Seagrove/Seaside/WC/Grayton. Two worlds now.

30A, they claim, is not a cohesive enough community to justify this small modification. They say, take a bike. Well, so far, folks aren't taking bikes.

 

[Geo]

Shopper,
Scooty makes a good point. But let me answer. LSV's are legal in all those places I mentioned. They were designed to be driven within those communities- but not between them unless the speed limit is 35MPH or below. They are illegal on the bike paths anywhere on 30a.

For the Gulf Trace/Grayton example u mentioned, I don't believe it is legal because 30a's speed limit is 45MPH outside of Gulf Trace and the grocery store is in Grayton.

 

[robertsondavies]

Ask the cop who stops you for driving drunk on your golf cart. I'm sure you'll talk your way out of an arrest with that line.

driving while impaired is dangerous and illegal. driving while slightly intoxicated with a huge SUV is not. that's my point. Maybe I should have said 2 martinis, or over the course of 2 hours.

sure, I don't support driving drunk, nor can I support the beating of women, or texting while driving for that matter.

I was asking a question, which you chose not to answer. That's ok, perhaps you think the large SUV is safer, with a slightly distracted driver. (**** happens yes) I say, consult the NHTSA statistics. If you don't trust the government statistics, fine then. Go to for profit sources - ask an insurance company what liability coverage costs for an SUV, vs. a licensed golf cart / LSV, I'm pretty sure they've consulted the statistics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[scooterbug44]

I think THE #1 way we are going to see a reduction in the number of large SUVs on 30-A is higher gas prices.

People drive those vehicles because they want to - and the gas pump price is the main reason they change.

Every other incentive and argument pales in comparison to fuel prices.

And more and more folks do take bikes - just look around.

It is not an issue of "driving fast past Deer Lake" - it's an issue of people's overall dumbarse behavior and lack of safety.

If I had $100 for every time I saw someone in a car drive on the bike path or every golf cart I see driving past the signs saying "no motorized vehicles" I could buy a LSV.

Add $100 for everyone over capacity in a golf cart, kid driving, non-street legal on the street, and no seat belts and I could buy a Nissan Leaf.

 

[robertsondavies]

The issue isn't are LSV's safe or dangerous, are they green or not, etc. etc.

The issue is that people want to change the law so they can drive LSV's where they weren't intended to be driven- because they want to. That's about it. If they are safe and green and fun- super. Enjoy. But...

There is absolutely no need to change the speed limit to accomodate a few golf cart enthusiasts. Same goes for horse and buggies and antique vehicles.

PCH in California- A long coastal scenic highway. In populated areas where communities exist the speed limit is low and people drive golf carts. In rural areas in between the speed limit is high. No golf carts. And no need to lower the speed limit in those areas to accomodate golf carts- because they were NOT designed to be driven in those areas.

Same with 30A- A long coastal scenic highway. In populated areas where communities exist the speed limit is low and people drive golf carts. In rural areas in between the speed limit is high. No golf carts. And no need to lower the speed limit in those areas to accomodate golf carts- because they were NOT designed to be driven in those areas.

What is so hard to understand?

It's a very dismissive tone you take regarding the expansion of LSV usage. Obviously you've made your mind up [understatement], as you state you won't listen to the conclusions from the Sierra Club on total environmental impact, or Insurance comapnies or authorities on safety records. To you, it's about stopping folks from having 'fun'.

that's a shame, b/c making one little change at Deer Lake state park, would connect SO MANY of the mini-communities of 30A for the purposes of LSVs... that's the only 1.5 Mile piece of road, that needs one slight change to accommodate this. I want to see it, because I want to see more LSV's to the extent people won't walk or bike. All I see are huge SUV's, and your stance, helps perpetuate that "picture" of South Walton, as a resort area, filled with Suburbans with a big dusty W sticker on the back still, rather than what it could be.

LSV's are Safer - to me, that's not an insignificant factor in lowering the speed limit on a less than 2 mile stretch.
LSV's are Greener - ok, let's toss that out as irrelevant (not sure why though)
LSV's are FUNN - ok, so that's the sticking point??? I just don't get it.

How fast do people really have to drive through Deer Lake, with families and kids on a bicycle path not eve 2 feet from the roadway in some of that stretch ?

30A is unique, if you need to drive 70MPH, use US Hwy 98 is my suggestion. Barring that, leave 8 seconds earlier, to account for tiny stretch of pavement, where you'll now drive 10 MPH slower.