6 ms·

Bicycles are an amazing transportation tool. Why are they so unpopular everywhere else?

by Fricken 9y ago

jug5 9y ago
When you're 500lbs, cycling becomes a less viable/desirable option.
shmerl 9y ago
Car makers indoctrinated a lot of people.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  The (unconscious) ideology is so strong that publishing "Why aren't all cities optimized for public transport plus cycling?" would be considered too edgy.
  - shmerl 9y ago
    Not anymore though. Today cities are trying to push back.
    - chadgeidel 9y ago
      I wish that were true here in the Denver area. Unfortunately we have to deal with stuff like this: http://denver.streetsblog.org/2017/06/08/greenwood-village-voters-a-walkable-community-not-in-our-backyard/ http://denver.streetsblog.org/2017/06/08/greenwood-village-v... And this: http://denver.streetsblog.org/2017/06/05/broadway-redo-sidewalks-and-bike-network-take-hit-in-latest-project-list-for-bond-measure/ http://denver.streetsblog.org/2017/06/05/broadway-redo-sidew...
      - shmerl 9y ago
        That's just stupid. Looks like these people are paid by car makers.
TulliusCicero 9y ago
Bike infrastructure in most countries is generally very bad compared to car infrastructure, or even walking infrastructure. This leads to not many people cycling, which gives you a chicken and egg problem: few cyclists mean little political support for biking. For cars in the US it's the opposite: even when major cities get big enough to where cars clearly aren't scaling well anymore, cities are often reluctant to refactor car space for walking, biking, or transit, because a majority of current travelers go by car.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  No. The chicken and egg problem existed when cars where the new thing and roads where designed for people on feet, bikes, cable cars, trams and horses. Then car companies did a lot of lobbying.
  - ljf 9y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...
  - TulliusCicero 9y ago
    You are correct, but that doesn't mean we don't have also have a chicken and egg problem now. The thing is that there's a lot less of a bike lobby in 2017 than there was a car lobby back in those days.
- dghughes 9y ago
  >Bike infrastructure in most countries is generally very bad compared to car infrastructure... My city just created a law that motorists who don't leave a 1m gap between their vehicle and bike will be fined. The problem is the "bike lane" is just a picture of a bike on what used to be the paved shoulder, the 30cm wide paved shoulder. And the biked lane can narrow down to nothing in some places. And it often includes vehicle parking in the same bike lane. The roads here are very narrow here too so much that you have to drive into the other lane to get that 1m gap. If there is traffic coming the other way you as a driver of a vehicle have no choice but to crawl along behind a bike, even worse if it's two bikes side-by-side. I am a bike rider and a vehicle owner but I can't agree with the law there is just no room. It absolves the bicyclist of everything and blames vehicle drivers for everything.
hamstercat 9y ago
There are many factors, but IMO it has a lot to do with urban sprawl. I'd never consider living somewhere where I'd have to own a car to be able to do my groceries and to go work. In the same idea, I'd never take a job that requires me to do more than a 30 minutes commute by public transportation/biking distance. That makes me a perfect candidate for biking, unfortunately I'm more of an outlier. Most people, including my own family, would think that this way of thinking makes no sense. They all own a car (or two) and have an hour commute each way to be able to afford a bigger house/different lifestyle than they could in the city. Just look at any suburbs: the inhabitants clearly disagree with me.
- ashark 9y ago
  > Just look at any suburbs: the inhabitants clearly disagree with me. Some of us just have kids and have noticed that all the city housing is either incredibly expensive or in slums, and the schools in the city proper are dangerous and terrible so we'd also have to pay for private school[0]. And we're not made of money. I'd much rather live in the city—I hate the car-centric lifestyle—but living there if I have enough money not to but not enough money to also pay for private k-12 schooling would be irresponsible. Plus there's the issue of having to balance commutes for two people in a dual-income household—one of us would almost certainly need a car anyway. [0] This is true for my city at least. YMMV.
  - hamstercat 9y ago
    It's definitely a choice and I wasn't implying it's a bad one. Everyone has different priorities, like you said it could be kids or something else. All I'm saying is that it's those choices that make urban sprawl a thing and reduces the effectiveness of living car-free. I'd buy a car in an instant if I had to, and I consider myself lucky not to have to right now. Not all suburban cities are equal either, some makes it possible not to have to commute by car (at least near where I live).
  - InitialLastName 9y ago
    That's a chicken-and-egg problem too... inner-city schools suck because everyone with money took their taxes to the suburbs (for better schools).
runamok 9y ago
I live in the bay area and I mostly hesitate to use my bike more due to theft and/or some areas where there are many cars and stoplights. I have a big thick U lock which will probably keep it fairly safe at least in the suburbs. It takes some of the enjoyment out of it to carry the 5+ lb. thing though.
s73ver 9y ago
Search YouTube for "rolling coal", and see how many videos involve cyclists. Like many things in life, douchebags tend to ruin good things.
ocschwar 9y ago
In the US, the problem is nationalism. See, we have a national costume that happens to be a 2 ton motorized suit of armor. And if you aren't wearing it, your loyalty is suspect.

Bicycles are an amazing transportation tool. Why are they so unpopular everywhere else?

jug5 9y ago

When you're 500lbs, cycling becomes a less viable/desirable option.

shmerl 9y ago

Car makers indoctrinated a lot of people.

eeZah7Ux 9y ago
The (unconscious) ideology is so strong that publishing "Why aren't all cities optimized for public transport plus cycling?" would be considered too edgy.
- shmerl 9y ago
  Not anymore though. Today cities are trying to push back.
  - chadgeidel 9y ago
    I wish that were true here in the Denver area. Unfortunately we have to deal with stuff like this: http://denver.streetsblog.org/2017/06/08/greenwood-village-voters-a-walkable-community-not-in-our-backyard/ http://denver.streetsblog.org/2017/06/08/greenwood-village-v... And this: http://denver.streetsblog.org/2017/06/05/broadway-redo-sidewalks-and-bike-network-take-hit-in-latest-project-list-for-bond-measure/ http://denver.streetsblog.org/2017/06/05/broadway-redo-sidew...
    - shmerl 9y ago
      That's just stupid. Looks like these people are paid by car makers.

TulliusCicero 9y ago

Bike infrastructure in most countries is generally very bad compared to car infrastructure, or even walking infrastructure. This leads to not many people cycling, which gives you a chicken and egg problem: few cyclists mean little political support for biking. For cars in the US it's the opposite: even when major cities get big enough to where cars clearly aren't scaling well anymore, cities are often reluctant to refactor car space for walking, biking, or transit, because a majority of current travelers go by car.

eeZah7Ux 9y ago
No. The chicken and egg problem existed when cars where the new thing and roads where designed for people on feet, bikes, cable cars, trams and horses. Then car companies did a lot of lobbying.
- ljf 9y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  You are correct, but that doesn't mean we don't have also have a chicken and egg problem now. The thing is that there's a lot less of a bike lobby in 2017 than there was a car lobby back in those days.
dghughes 9y ago
>Bike infrastructure in most countries is generally very bad compared to car infrastructure... My city just created a law that motorists who don't leave a 1m gap between their vehicle and bike will be fined. The problem is the "bike lane" is just a picture of a bike on what used to be the paved shoulder, the 30cm wide paved shoulder. And the biked lane can narrow down to nothing in some places. And it often includes vehicle parking in the same bike lane. The roads here are very narrow here too so much that you have to drive into the other lane to get that 1m gap. If there is traffic coming the other way you as a driver of a vehicle have no choice but to crawl along behind a bike, even worse if it's two bikes side-by-side. I am a bike rider and a vehicle owner but I can't agree with the law there is just no room. It absolves the bicyclist of everything and blames vehicle drivers for everything.

hamstercat 9y ago

There are many factors, but IMO it has a lot to do with urban sprawl. I'd never consider living somewhere where I'd have to own a car to be able to do my groceries and to go work. In the same idea, I'd never take a job that requires me to do more than a 30 minutes commute by public transportation/biking distance. That makes me a perfect candidate for biking, unfortunately I'm more of an outlier. Most people, including my own family, would think that this way of thinking makes no sense. They all own a car (or two) and have an hour commute each way to be able to afford a bigger house/different lifestyle than they could in the city. Just look at any suburbs: the inhabitants clearly disagree with me.

ashark 9y ago
> Just look at any suburbs: the inhabitants clearly disagree with me. Some of us just have kids and have noticed that all the city housing is either incredibly expensive or in slums, and the schools in the city proper are dangerous and terrible so we'd also have to pay for private school[0]. And we're not made of money. I'd much rather live in the city—I hate the car-centric lifestyle—but living there if I have enough money not to but not enough money to also pay for private k-12 schooling would be irresponsible. Plus there's the issue of having to balance commutes for two people in a dual-income household—one of us would almost certainly need a car anyway. [0] This is true for my city at least. YMMV.
- hamstercat 9y ago
  It's definitely a choice and I wasn't implying it's a bad one. Everyone has different priorities, like you said it could be kids or something else. All I'm saying is that it's those choices that make urban sprawl a thing and reduces the effectiveness of living car-free. I'd buy a car in an instant if I had to, and I consider myself lucky not to have to right now. Not all suburban cities are equal either, some makes it possible not to have to commute by car (at least near where I live).
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  That's a chicken-and-egg problem too... inner-city schools suck because everyone with money took their taxes to the suburbs (for better schools).

runamok 9y ago

I live in the bay area and I mostly hesitate to use my bike more due to theft and/or some areas where there are many cars and stoplights. I have a big thick U lock which will probably keep it fairly safe at least in the suburbs. It takes some of the enjoyment out of it to carry the 5+ lb. thing though.

s73ver 9y ago

Search YouTube for "rolling coal", and see how many videos involve cyclists. Like many things in life, douchebags tend to ruin good things.

ocschwar 9y ago

In the US, the problem is nationalism. See, we have a national costume that happens to be a 2 ton motorized suit of armor. And if you aren't wearing it, your loyalty is suspect.