5 ms·

It's been entertaining to read the discussions (below) about how to make this practical. So far, it looks like the only way to make this work is to a) live in

by ColanR 7y ago

It's been entertaining to read the discussions (below) about how to make this practical. So far, it looks like the only way to make this work is to a) live in a city, or rebuild your suburbia into a city, and b) construct your entire life around riding that bike - choose a job with a tolerant boss, spend extra hours every day showering and changing clothes after biking, etc. I'd rather drive an air-conditioned car, sit in traffic for that hour or two, and enjoy my private backyard (however small it may be).

zanny 7y ago
Instead of constructing your life around a bike you construct it around a car. You can't commute to work any other way, if it breaks down you are bound to mostly Uber as a backup strategy to get anywhere. Except those car-centric environments you live and work in are a more effective gate to keep the poor out than the grandest gated community. Almost no where else on the planet is the idea of a city being a tiny urban core surrounded by hundreds of miles of single family houses in spiraling one lane streets of sprawl the norm. Its a purely American fixation on centering all human activity around cars. And for your benefit, even - the world would be alight in a raging inferno if we ever tried to globally house everyone in quarter acre single family houses with 4 hour single-occupancy car commutes every day.
- baggy_trough 7y ago
  It's more accurate to say that life has been optimized for convenience and net happiness, and that ain't a bike.
- ColanR 7y ago
  > construct it around a car I don't, actually - it's that a car is far more useful than a bike. I drive 25 minutes to work; I haul (5 bike-ride-loads of) groceries several miles to my house; I visit friends anywhere from 1-5 hours away; I casually drive into the city and back. Even if I felt like riding 10 miles each way, rain or shine, or using public transit, it takes so much less time to drive my car, and I have to either find multiple clever solutions to each of the other activities I use the car for, or just go without. My car gives me freedom from limitations; bicycle dependency only adds to them. To use a bike instead of a car, I have to fundamentally adjust my life, in every way for the worse.
  - esoterica 7y ago
    You don’t seem to able to wrap your ahead around the fact that driving appears to give you more freedoms only because you live in a city that was designed around cars, not because cars are inherently faster or more convenient. The convenience of the car is an artifact of city planning decisions, not a universal truth. Example: do you realize how preposterous the idea of driving several miles to get groceries is to someone who lives in a real city? If I want to get groceries I walk to the grocery store two blocks away. If I don’t like that grocery store I walk to the other one four blocks away. Or the other other one five blocks away. It takes me less time to walk to the grocery store than it takes you to drive to yours. The counterfactual to a 10 mile drive is not a 10 mile public transit ride, because without car-induced sprawl everything would be much closer and you would have to travel much shorter distances to have access to the same amenities and see your friends. Public transit is also not slower than driving in a city with proper transit. I don’t own a car and almost every single journey I take is either short enough to walk, or faster on transit than in a car. It takes me 10 minutes to get to work on the train, the same drive would take half an hour due to traffic.
    - jmpman 7y ago
      A car enables cities in less hospitable environments to be inexpensively populated. Where I live it’s regularly above 110. You’re not cycling in that. Population density is too low for light rail, and only the mentally deranged and hopelessly poor ride the bus, making a greater disincentive for anyone else who wants to bear a 15 minute wait in 110 degrees. For actual numbers, my commute is 20min by car, 2.5hr by public transportation, or 1.2hr by bike. Public transportation would need to be no more than 40min for me to consider it, and I’d only consider it because I wouldn’t have to drive. Once self driving cars arrive, I’d never consider public transit, even if driving were twice as long.
    - ColanR 7y ago
      > driving appears to give you more freedoms only because you live in a city I don't live in a city, just like half the population of the US. You assumed that, and now the rest of what you wrote is irrelevant.
- majormajor 7y ago
  The detached home is much more the centerpiece than the car. The car is the currently most convenient way of enabling the detached home, but I think you'd have an easier fight of providing transportation alternativers there than of convincing everyone to give up the yard and privacy and everything else there. It's not the only possible way, and most vehicle trips are still relatively short (https://nhts.ornl.gov/vehicle-trips https://nhts.ornl.gov/vehicle-trips) so I sure hope we can do it with last mile + transit vs self-driving cars.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
acchow 7y ago
Yes, sustainable population growth is based around a fairly high population density and dropping a car-centric lifestyle.
icebraining 7y ago
> enjoy my private backyard This is a misconception I see all the time. Living in a city, and even in an apartment, does not preclude having a private backyard. The choices are simply not just "detached house" or "skyscraper". I live in an apartment, don't own a car, yet I have a private backyard large enough to grow trees or build a decent DIY shop.
throw0101a 7y ago
You can have high density, with front and backyards, with a garage (connected to a lane way), that supports public transit. Toronto was built this way in the pre-WW2 days (see Street View): * https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Westminster+Ave,+Toronto,+ON https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Westminster+Ave,+Toront... These houses are a bit pricey now, but that's because urban living has become fashionable again. From the 1950s to 1990s prices were a lot cheaper because all of the demand was for white picket fences in the suburbs. You can reasonable build reasonable density, where public transit is possible, without going to Manhattan- or Tokyo-like densities. Perhaps put some mid-rise (5-10 stories) buildings on the main arteries, but the side streets can be quite smaller-scale.

by ColanR 7y ago

zanny 7y ago

Instead of constructing your life around a bike you construct it around a car. You can't commute to work any other way, if it breaks down you are bound to mostly Uber as a backup strategy to get anywhere. Except those car-centric environments you live and work in are a more effective gate to keep the poor out than the grandest gated community. Almost no where else on the planet is the idea of a city being a tiny urban core surrounded by hundreds of miles of single family houses in spiraling one lane streets of sprawl the norm. Its a purely American fixation on centering all human activity around cars. And for your benefit, even - the world would be alight in a raging inferno if we ever tried to globally house everyone in quarter acre single family houses with 4 hour single-occupancy car commutes every day.

baggy_trough 7y ago
It's more accurate to say that life has been optimized for convenience and net happiness, and that ain't a bike.
ColanR 7y ago
> construct it around a car I don't, actually - it's that a car is far more useful than a bike. I drive 25 minutes to work; I haul (5 bike-ride-loads of) groceries several miles to my house; I visit friends anywhere from 1-5 hours away; I casually drive into the city and back. Even if I felt like riding 10 miles each way, rain or shine, or using public transit, it takes so much less time to drive my car, and I have to either find multiple clever solutions to each of the other activities I use the car for, or just go without. My car gives me freedom from limitations; bicycle dependency only adds to them. To use a bike instead of a car, I have to fundamentally adjust my life, in every way for the worse.
- esoterica 7y ago
  You don’t seem to able to wrap your ahead around the fact that driving appears to give you more freedoms only because you live in a city that was designed around cars, not because cars are inherently faster or more convenient. The convenience of the car is an artifact of city planning decisions, not a universal truth. Example: do you realize how preposterous the idea of driving several miles to get groceries is to someone who lives in a real city? If I want to get groceries I walk to the grocery store two blocks away. If I don’t like that grocery store I walk to the other one four blocks away. Or the other other one five blocks away. It takes me less time to walk to the grocery store than it takes you to drive to yours. The counterfactual to a 10 mile drive is not a 10 mile public transit ride, because without car-induced sprawl everything would be much closer and you would have to travel much shorter distances to have access to the same amenities and see your friends. Public transit is also not slower than driving in a city with proper transit. I don’t own a car and almost every single journey I take is either short enough to walk, or faster on transit than in a car. It takes me 10 minutes to get to work on the train, the same drive would take half an hour due to traffic.
  - jmpman 7y ago
    A car enables cities in less hospitable environments to be inexpensively populated. Where I live it’s regularly above 110. You’re not cycling in that. Population density is too low for light rail, and only the mentally deranged and hopelessly poor ride the bus, making a greater disincentive for anyone else who wants to bear a 15 minute wait in 110 degrees. For actual numbers, my commute is 20min by car, 2.5hr by public transportation, or 1.2hr by bike. Public transportation would need to be no more than 40min for me to consider it, and I’d only consider it because I wouldn’t have to drive. Once self driving cars arrive, I’d never consider public transit, even if driving were twice as long.
  - ColanR 7y ago
    > driving appears to give you more freedoms only because you live in a city I don't live in a city, just like half the population of the US. You assumed that, and now the rest of what you wrote is irrelevant.
majormajor 7y ago
The detached home is much more the centerpiece than the car. The car is the currently most convenient way of enabling the detached home, but I think you'd have an easier fight of providing transportation alternativers there than of convincing everyone to give up the yard and privacy and everything else there. It's not the only possible way, and most vehicle trips are still relatively short (https://nhts.ornl.gov/vehicle-trips https://nhts.ornl.gov/vehicle-trips) so I sure hope we can do it with last mile + transit vs self-driving cars.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

acchow 7y ago

Yes, sustainable population growth is based around a fairly high population density and dropping a car-centric lifestyle.

icebraining 7y ago

> enjoy my private backyard This is a misconception I see all the time. Living in a city, and even in an apartment, does not preclude having a private backyard. The choices are simply not just "detached house" or "skyscraper". I live in an apartment, don't own a car, yet I have a private backyard large enough to grow trees or build a decent DIY shop.

throw0101a 7y ago

You can have high density, with front and backyards, with a garage (connected to a lane way), that supports public transit. Toronto was built this way in the pre-WW2 days (see Street View): * https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Westminster+Ave,+Toronto,+ON https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Westminster+Ave,+Toront... These houses are a bit pricey now, but that's because urban living has become fashionable again. From the 1950s to 1990s prices were a lot cheaper because all of the demand was for white picket fences in the suburbs. You can reasonable build reasonable density, where public transit is possible, without going to Manhattan- or Tokyo-like densities. Perhaps put some mid-rise (5-10 stories) buildings on the main arteries, but the side streets can be quite smaller-scale.