7 ms·

True, but a lot of those marginal benefits (over say electric bikes) exist because our society ended up being designed around everyone having a car. This manif

True, but a lot of those marginal benefits (over say electric bikes) exist because our society ended up being designed around everyone having a car. This manifests itself in several ways: 1. Low-density sprawl. Without the auto, density would be higher and it'd be possible to get to wherever you need to be on alternate forms of transit (biking and public transit are much more viable) 2. Prioritization: Already in an urban (or higher density suburban) environment, at commute times, biking is barely slower than driving (in part due to congestion and parking overhead) on city streets. It'd actually be faster than driving is today if it weren't for infrastructure explicitly prioritizing cars (long signals, freeways and expressways blocking the shortest path, etc.) If you did a "do-over design", with high-capacity electric batteries and smartphones, you could probably achieve mostly car-less, higher density cities (barring delivery and emergency vehicles) around (e-)bikes and public transit, with cars more used for leisure/travel or folks lacking mobility. Population would also be a lot more physically fit.

s0rce 7y ago
I agree, cars are only more practical and efficient since we designed the infrastructure around them. We have immense highways, fairly available and relatively inexpensive parking, even in major cities. Without this infrastructure it would be extremely impractical to get around with a car, see for example some old European cities. For example, I remember being in Toledo, Spain and my rental car that I needed for the countryside was completely useless, I left it parked in an expensive lot the whole time and walked everywhere. Even the compact hatchback could barely fit down the narrow cobblestone streets and there was certainly no parking in the areas around the shops or restaurants. Compare that to Oakland, CA where I live now and there are massive freeways going right through the center of the city, in fact, I can use one for my 5mi commute to work when I drive, this is the only reason that its about 1-2min faster to drive than to bike. Many people also claim its not safe to bike in the city but this is also a symptom of designing the system around cars. If we simply dedicated all the roads to biking and only a few sporadic car-lanes it would be much safer to bike.
eMSF 7y ago
>True, but a lot of those marginal benefits (over say electric bikes) exist because our society ended up being designed around everyone having a car. I could say the most important benefit is fundamental: none of your propositions change the fact that a bike will not shelter its rider from the weather, which around here, by some standards, is at best lousy for approximately half of the year (cold, damp or both to various degree). When I look at homes, or offices, I see a pattern. Do you not?
- usaar333 7y ago
  I agree in areas with tough weather, cars make more sense. But in moderate places, e.g. the entire West coast of the US, I find it a non-issue to bike nearly every day

s0rce 7y ago

I agree, cars are only more practical and efficient since we designed the infrastructure around them. We have immense highways, fairly available and relatively inexpensive parking, even in major cities. Without this infrastructure it would be extremely impractical to get around with a car, see for example some old European cities. For example, I remember being in Toledo, Spain and my rental car that I needed for the countryside was completely useless, I left it parked in an expensive lot the whole time and walked everywhere. Even the compact hatchback could barely fit down the narrow cobblestone streets and there was certainly no parking in the areas around the shops or restaurants. Compare that to Oakland, CA where I live now and there are massive freeways going right through the center of the city, in fact, I can use one for my 5mi commute to work when I drive, this is the only reason that its about 1-2min faster to drive than to bike. Many people also claim its not safe to bike in the city but this is also a symptom of designing the system around cars. If we simply dedicated all the roads to biking and only a few sporadic car-lanes it would be much safer to bike.

eMSF 7y ago

>True, but a lot of those marginal benefits (over say electric bikes) exist because our society ended up being designed around everyone having a car. I could say the most important benefit is fundamental: none of your propositions change the fact that a bike will not shelter its rider from the weather, which around here, by some standards, is at best lousy for approximately half of the year (cold, damp or both to various degree). When I look at homes, or offices, I see a pattern. Do you not?

usaar333 7y ago
I agree in areas with tough weather, cars make more sense. But in moderate places, e.g. the entire West coast of the US, I find it a non-issue to bike nearly every day