5 ms·

This doesn't mean driving is useless. Cars are generally air conditioned, and have a greater capacity to carry luggage than walking. ...so cars should this be

This doesn't mean driving is useless. Cars are generally air conditioned, and have a greater capacity to carry luggage than walking. ...so cars should this be _slower_ than cars, given these benefits

dannyw 7y ago
On the other hand, there’s no need to find and pay for parking, and you can be drunk and take public transport.
- Shivetya 7y ago
  we are discussing uber here, parking is not generally a consideration here. as pointed out, the reason that cars being shown to be slower than walking in many cases is moot because cars provide benefits which more than offset. 1. Weather protection 2. Cargo transportation 3. Ease of movement for the disabled 4. Additional safety for those toting along small children 5. Some level of protection/isolation from others The argument in favor of bicycling in lieu of cars falls prey to the same reasons. There are pro and cons so we must always fairly assess them before standing up and declaring one method worse than another. In fact none ever are all the time
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zulln 7y ago
Driving cost more and then you have the parking problem. There are ups and downs to both alternatives.
pergadad 7y ago
The average commuter won't carry huge luggage around. But they might spend the time reading or working out they are sitting in a train/metro compartment. And they exercise when using the bicycle, meaning they will be healthier and have reduced health issues and cost. Bicycles are also much less costly and environmentally friendly, don't pollute, are less likely to have accidents (except with cars), ... But infrastructure is much cheaper and easier to maintain then that for cars. Cars on the other hand block the roads not just for each other, but also for public transport, trucks, emergency vehicles, ... They produce co2 and microparticles, take up valuable space when parked, etc. Overall cars have huge externalities. So no, cars are not the best means of transport just because you can carry lots of stuff which you usually don't carry...
- rayiner 7y ago
  Have you ever lived outside San Francisco or Portland? Here in DC, during the summer (which lasts six months out of the year), the heat and humidity will have people sweating with even mild exertion. So to the speed of walking or biking, you have to also account for the time to take a shower at either end. The CO2 and microparticles are definitely a problem. One which can be addressed by banning non-electric cars downtown.
  - liotier 7y ago
    > you have to also account for the time to take a shower at either end No need to shower: I just change _all_ of my clothes when I arrive... Cycling clothes on me, business clothes and dress shoes in a semi-rigid pouch in my panniers. Takes five minutes at each end and the total time is still half of what car or public transportation would take !
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      I guess that depends on how much if a sweat you work up. Personally, if I work up enough whereby I need to change my clothes at he end I am going to feel disgusting if I don't also shower.
      - liotier 7y ago
        A small towel is part of the kit. Very short haircut too... But yes, at some point it is a lifestyle choice: I quite happily sartorial sophistication (I forego tie and jacket: my office attire is dress pants, dress shoes and a nice shirt - sufficient social camouflage that packs neatly) but I understand that others might prefer the "delicate princess in an air-conditioned bubble" way of living, even though it is harmful to their health.
        eythian 7y ago
        It doesn't have to be a lifestyle choice. I bike every day, except when my bike is being serviced. I always dress for the destination, and that's what virtually everyone else in this city does.
megablast 7y ago
Cars also have the huge advantage of killing 40,000 every year in the USA. Yeah, go cars.
graeme 7y ago
You’re putting your preferences on others. Some people will drive for these benefits. Others prefer fresh air and exercise. Others prefer reading. A set of people will gravitate to each option. But as OP said, it is people at the margin who help equalize times.
jandrese 7y ago
Also, there's an assumption that the car is going from someplace in the city to some other place in the city. It almost certainly will not be faster to bike from a suburb 20 miles out of the city into the city than it would be to drive.
- Skunkleton 7y ago
  That isn't always true. I commute from a downtown to an office park in a suburb (against traffic when driving). On my bike, it takes about 40 mins (~11-12 miles). The same commute in reverse by car is about 45 mins due to traffic. If I instead lived in the suburb and worked downtown, it would be a tossup travel time wise between my bike and car.

This doesn't mean driving is useless. Cars are generally air conditioned, and have a greater capacity to carry luggage than walking. ...so cars should this be _slower_ than cars, given these benefits

dannyw 7y ago

On the other hand, there’s no need to find and pay for parking, and you can be drunk and take public transport.

Shivetya 7y ago
we are discussing uber here, parking is not generally a consideration here. as pointed out, the reason that cars being shown to be slower than walking in many cases is moot because cars provide benefits which more than offset. 1. Weather protection 2. Cargo transportation 3. Ease of movement for the disabled 4. Additional safety for those toting along small children 5. Some level of protection/isolation from others The argument in favor of bicycling in lieu of cars falls prey to the same reasons. There are pro and cons so we must always fairly assess them before standing up and declaring one method worse than another. In fact none ever are all the time

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

zulln 7y ago

Driving cost more and then you have the parking problem. There are ups and downs to both alternatives.

pergadad 7y ago

The average commuter won't carry huge luggage around. But they might spend the time reading or working out they are sitting in a train/metro compartment. And they exercise when using the bicycle, meaning they will be healthier and have reduced health issues and cost. Bicycles are also much less costly and environmentally friendly, don't pollute, are less likely to have accidents (except with cars), ... But infrastructure is much cheaper and easier to maintain then that for cars. Cars on the other hand block the roads not just for each other, but also for public transport, trucks, emergency vehicles, ... They produce co2 and microparticles, take up valuable space when parked, etc. Overall cars have huge externalities. So no, cars are not the best means of transport just because you can carry lots of stuff which you usually don't carry...

rayiner 7y ago
Have you ever lived outside San Francisco or Portland? Here in DC, during the summer (which lasts six months out of the year), the heat and humidity will have people sweating with even mild exertion. So to the speed of walking or biking, you have to also account for the time to take a shower at either end. The CO2 and microparticles are definitely a problem. One which can be addressed by banning non-electric cars downtown.
- liotier 7y ago
  > you have to also account for the time to take a shower at either end No need to shower: I just change _all_ of my clothes when I arrive... Cycling clothes on me, business clothes and dress shoes in a semi-rigid pouch in my panniers. Takes five minutes at each end and the total time is still half of what car or public transportation would take !
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    I guess that depends on how much if a sweat you work up. Personally, if I work up enough whereby I need to change my clothes at he end I am going to feel disgusting if I don't also shower.
    - liotier 7y ago
      A small towel is part of the kit. Very short haircut too... But yes, at some point it is a lifestyle choice: I quite happily sartorial sophistication (I forego tie and jacket: my office attire is dress pants, dress shoes and a nice shirt - sufficient social camouflage that packs neatly) but I understand that others might prefer the "delicate princess in an air-conditioned bubble" way of living, even though it is harmful to their health.
      - eythian 7y ago
        It doesn't have to be a lifestyle choice. I bike every day, except when my bike is being serviced. I always dress for the destination, and that's what virtually everyone else in this city does.

megablast 7y ago

Cars also have the huge advantage of killing 40,000 every year in the USA. Yeah, go cars.

graeme 7y ago

You’re putting your preferences on others. Some people will drive for these benefits. Others prefer fresh air and exercise. Others prefer reading. A set of people will gravitate to each option. But as OP said, it is people at the margin who help equalize times.

jandrese 7y ago

Also, there's an assumption that the car is going from someplace in the city to some other place in the city. It almost certainly will not be faster to bike from a suburb 20 miles out of the city into the city than it would be to drive.

Skunkleton 7y ago
That isn't always true. I commute from a downtown to an office park in a suburb (against traffic when driving). On my bike, it takes about 40 mins (~11-12 miles). The same commute in reverse by car is about 45 mins due to traffic. If I instead lived in the suburb and worked downtown, it would be a tossup travel time wise between my bike and car.