6 ms·

The truth is that cycling infrastructure is an unnecessary luxury. It's a "good thing" in principle because it's a way of transportation that's good for the env

by jseban 5y ago

The truth is that cycling infrastructure is an unnecessary luxury. It's a "good thing" in principle because it's a way of transportation that's good for the environment and gives people exercise, but it's redundant and expensive, you still need full capacity in public transport, because almost no one cycles when the weather is bad. It would only makes sense really if you could dynamically allocate space between cars/bikes basically on a day-by-day basis, and/or convert bike lanes to bus lanes, but I guess you'd need a full fleet of only self driving cars for that to be feasible. Then you could have the luxury of using a bike on days with nice weather, just because it's fun. Until then, it's at the expense of general mobility which is a really big downside in cities that are already crowded and transport is slow. Why should we cycle more? Only one reason is really valid: save the environment. But then again, we have a million comforts and luxuries at the expense of the environment, and people can generally choose, as long as they're not using absurd amount of energy. Why force cycling specifically, I don't understand, just take the bus if you don't want to drive.

minusf 5y ago
> unnecessary luxury as en expat living in amsterdam i couldnt disagree more. a city with a bike first infrastucture is incomparably safer, quieter and more pleasant for everyone in the city. when it takes 15 minutes to get anywhere in the city using the bike infrastructure, one would be crazy to pull out the car and look 30 minutes for parking places that cost north of 7 euros an hour. "people dont bike in bad weather and in winter" is nonsense garbage from people who dont live in biking places. if the infrastructure is there people will bike even in snow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU). > just take the bus if you don't want to drive i dont depend on any public transport if i have my bike. it's the exact reason why people choose cars over public transport.
- convolvatron 5y ago
  I live in a city center and used to walk/take public transport. which was fine. biking is alot more convenient. I can only carry about what I would walking, but its not a big deal to go two miles to get something. and I feel much better for the exercise. if zipcar hadn't been shut down after acquisition, I would still have the option to get something big from 20 miles away once or twice a year. I don't know why you feel the need to assert that the last 100 years status quo is some statement of natural law...I've always hated getting trapped in those smelly little boxes and now I have a choice!
- jseban 5y ago
  Not the car, take the bus. The reason cycling is unnecessary is that all use cases are already covered by public transport and/or driving. That's a fact. There's nothing that you specifically need to cycle for. That makes it unnecessary, that's just basic logic. And most people do not cycle when the weather is bad, that's also just a fact, and I grew up in an extremely bike friendly city and rode my bike all winter in the snow, in bike lanes that were completely empty and I just saw a whole bunch of money down the drain, just to pretend to be environmentally friendly when in reality 95% of people hop on the bus as soon as the weather is even slightly bad.
  - patall 5y ago
    A lorry is also not strictly necessary if you have a Smart or a wheelbarrow. There is plenty of use cases that are only reasonable thanks to having a bike. I for example went to work by a combination of bike and public transport. Car alone would have been 1h, public transport and walking as well, but bike and public transport was 45 min. (Car and public transport did not work together for lack of parking) By your logic, the bike was unnecessary and that is true but beside the point for the sake of 2*15min a day. Just because most people are doing something does not mean its sensible. Most people are also overweight, even though everyone knows that that is not healthy.
    - jseban 5y ago
      Yes there are cases when a bike will be faster, because your destination happens to be poorly covered by public transport, but on average it's not, and that's what's really important.
tjr225 5y ago
Uh. I doubt cycling infrastructure is even a minute fraction of the cost we put into automobile infrastructure. I have no proof but lol let’s call it a hunch. > Why should we cycle more? Only one reason is really valid: save the environment. It’s better for the environment, it’s cheaper, it’s more efficient(more bikes can occupy less space and move more people), it’s fun, it’s good for your body, it’s safer(if we don’t have to share the road with cars- for instance if the infrastructure for bikes were to actually exist), bikes are easier to maintain, bikes can access a variety of terrain most cars can not. I could probably go on and on. IMO the only reason bicycles are seen as an unnecessary luxury is cultural. We aren’t all Lycra clad snobs who ignore stop lights, but for some reason this perception persists.
- jseban 5y ago
  People also like to choose whatever they think is fun, if you want to play tennis instead of riding a bike, because you think that's more fun, you should be able to do so. Your fun is at the expense of other people's mobility, why can't you just use some of the other million ways of getting exercise and having fun, where you don't have to be in other people's way?
  - Fricken 5y ago
    It's better to be a driver. It's no fun. You don't get any exercise. It drives up infrastructure costs, kills and maims people, destroys the planet, and takes up even more space on the roads.
    - jseban 5y ago
      So, just use the subway then and your problems are solved. In a much better way than cycling.
      - tpm 5y ago
        It's solved when you live very close to subway station and it goes everywhere you need. So not a lot of times in many cities.
unglaublich 5y ago
A car in a city center, _that_ is the unnecessary luxury. > Until then, it's at the expense of general mobility which is a really big downside in cities that are already crowded and transport is slow. Automobiles are the sole reason why general mobility is so poor in cities that are crowded (with cars) and where transport is slow (due to cars). Please take a look at cities in Denmark or The Netherlands. Cycling is the primary mode of transportation in their city centers. Not only is it cheap, reliable, healthy and it doesn't take up much space... it's also _faster_ than driving a car. Yes, cars are practical for rural and long-distance travel, but not for use in city centers.
- jseban 5y ago
  A bike lane that's only used when the weather is nice, when you already have a subway? No _that_ is unnecessary luxury. Take the subway if you hate cars.
  - unglaublich 5y ago
    Why take the car if you already have a subway? What a strange statement. > Take the subway if you hate cars. Why do you think that preferring to ride a bike makes one hate cars? You can be both a cyclists _and_ a motorist. It's not a competition or a cult!
- jseban 5y ago
  > Cycling is the primary mode of transportation in their city centers. It's not when there's cold rain in the winter, guarantee it.
  - AlotOfReading 5y ago
    You should probably tell the Dutch that they don't cycle in the rain. Over 1/3rd of days are rainy in the Netherlands on average and yet they somehow manage to put on their ponchos.
    - jseban 5y ago
analog31 5y ago
As a thought experiment, take any American city, remove the bikes, and see if the congestion goes away. Now, remove the cars that are being used for unnecessary luxury, such as organizing your entire lifestyle and schedule around the availability of unlimited single-occupancy car use and generous parking.

by jseban 5y ago

minusf 5y ago

> unnecessary luxury as en expat living in amsterdam i couldnt disagree more. a city with a bike first infrastucture is incomparably safer, quieter and more pleasant for everyone in the city. when it takes 15 minutes to get anywhere in the city using the bike infrastructure, one would be crazy to pull out the car and look 30 minutes for parking places that cost north of 7 euros an hour. "people dont bike in bad weather and in winter" is nonsense garbage from people who dont live in biking places. if the infrastructure is there people will bike even in snow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU). > just take the bus if you don't want to drive i dont depend on any public transport if i have my bike. it's the exact reason why people choose cars over public transport.

convolvatron 5y ago
I live in a city center and used to walk/take public transport. which was fine. biking is alot more convenient. I can only carry about what I would walking, but its not a big deal to go two miles to get something. and I feel much better for the exercise. if zipcar hadn't been shut down after acquisition, I would still have the option to get something big from 20 miles away once or twice a year. I don't know why you feel the need to assert that the last 100 years status quo is some statement of natural law...I've always hated getting trapped in those smelly little boxes and now I have a choice!
jseban 5y ago
Not the car, take the bus. The reason cycling is unnecessary is that all use cases are already covered by public transport and/or driving. That's a fact. There's nothing that you specifically need to cycle for. That makes it unnecessary, that's just basic logic. And most people do not cycle when the weather is bad, that's also just a fact, and I grew up in an extremely bike friendly city and rode my bike all winter in the snow, in bike lanes that were completely empty and I just saw a whole bunch of money down the drain, just to pretend to be environmentally friendly when in reality 95% of people hop on the bus as soon as the weather is even slightly bad.
- patall 5y ago
  A lorry is also not strictly necessary if you have a Smart or a wheelbarrow. There is plenty of use cases that are only reasonable thanks to having a bike. I for example went to work by a combination of bike and public transport. Car alone would have been 1h, public transport and walking as well, but bike and public transport was 45 min. (Car and public transport did not work together for lack of parking) By your logic, the bike was unnecessary and that is true but beside the point for the sake of 2*15min a day. Just because most people are doing something does not mean its sensible. Most people are also overweight, even though everyone knows that that is not healthy.
  - jseban 5y ago
    Yes there are cases when a bike will be faster, because your destination happens to be poorly covered by public transport, but on average it's not, and that's what's really important.

tjr225 5y ago

Uh. I doubt cycling infrastructure is even a minute fraction of the cost we put into automobile infrastructure. I have no proof but lol let’s call it a hunch. > Why should we cycle more? Only one reason is really valid: save the environment. It’s better for the environment, it’s cheaper, it’s more efficient(more bikes can occupy less space and move more people), it’s fun, it’s good for your body, it’s safer(if we don’t have to share the road with cars- for instance if the infrastructure for bikes were to actually exist), bikes are easier to maintain, bikes can access a variety of terrain most cars can not. I could probably go on and on. IMO the only reason bicycles are seen as an unnecessary luxury is cultural. We aren’t all Lycra clad snobs who ignore stop lights, but for some reason this perception persists.

jseban 5y ago
People also like to choose whatever they think is fun, if you want to play tennis instead of riding a bike, because you think that's more fun, you should be able to do so. Your fun is at the expense of other people's mobility, why can't you just use some of the other million ways of getting exercise and having fun, where you don't have to be in other people's way?
- Fricken 5y ago
  It's better to be a driver. It's no fun. You don't get any exercise. It drives up infrastructure costs, kills and maims people, destroys the planet, and takes up even more space on the roads.
  - jseban 5y ago
    So, just use the subway then and your problems are solved. In a much better way than cycling.
    - tpm 5y ago
      It's solved when you live very close to subway station and it goes everywhere you need. So not a lot of times in many cities.

unglaublich 5y ago

A car in a city center, _that_ is the unnecessary luxury. > Until then, it's at the expense of general mobility which is a really big downside in cities that are already crowded and transport is slow. Automobiles are the sole reason why general mobility is so poor in cities that are crowded (with cars) and where transport is slow (due to cars). Please take a look at cities in Denmark or The Netherlands. Cycling is the primary mode of transportation in their city centers. Not only is it cheap, reliable, healthy and it doesn't take up much space... it's also _faster_ than driving a car. Yes, cars are practical for rural and long-distance travel, but not for use in city centers.

jseban 5y ago
A bike lane that's only used when the weather is nice, when you already have a subway? No _that_ is unnecessary luxury. Take the subway if you hate cars.
- unglaublich 5y ago
  Why take the car if you already have a subway? What a strange statement. > Take the subway if you hate cars. Why do you think that preferring to ride a bike makes one hate cars? You can be both a cyclists _and_ a motorist. It's not a competition or a cult!
jseban 5y ago
> Cycling is the primary mode of transportation in their city centers. It's not when there's cold rain in the winter, guarantee it.
- AlotOfReading 5y ago
  You should probably tell the Dutch that they don't cycle in the rain. Over 1/3rd of days are rainy in the Netherlands on average and yet they somehow manage to put on their ponchos.
  - jseban 5y ago

analog31 5y ago

As a thought experiment, take any American city, remove the bikes, and see if the congestion goes away. Now, remove the cars that are being used for unnecessary luxury, such as organizing your entire lifestyle and schedule around the availability of unlimited single-occupancy car use and generous parking.