6 ms·

I'm fairly anti-car myself, But factor in cycling is not practical transportation for most people. It targets a certain demographic, people who have the physica

I'm fairly anti-car myself, But factor in cycling is not practical transportation for most people. It targets a certain demographic, people who have the physical ability to actually cycle. What about those who cannot, what about disabled people? Even if you are fit, anything more that 10 miles a day is difficult. I'm a massive fan of public transit, however, as an American this means I can only live in a handful of cities, but it's worth it . When I lived in LA I was miserable, driving to work every single day, driving in a city is not enjoyable. So I moved, but it's impractical for someone like me to ride the bike to work. My office doesn't offer gyms, and I can't bike in sweating. As for safety, riding the Metro can't be beat. The worst of both worlds is our current system where bikes compete with cars for a limited set of roads. If I could build my own city from scratch, I would ban all cars completely. Design something like a 5 mile circle, and build upward. 24/7 slow metro lines allow for commutes within the city. Then have side walks and bike paths covering other commutes. Have every pathway so well lit, 3am is as safe as 3pm. Then have garages on the city outskirts if you need to own a car to commute out of town. I can imagine this already existing in Europe. Amsterdam felt very close.

Eric_WVGG 5y ago
> cycling is not practical transportation for most people. It targets a certain demographic, people who have the physical ability to actually cycle. That's… most people. Like I get it, we have an obesity epidemic, but fat people can ride bicycles. It's not unusual. And a lot of them start shedding pounds fast once you get them out of the automated wheeled easy-chairs we call "cars."
- 999900000999 5y ago
  For myself cycling takes about twice as long. Assuming a peak physical condition, then driving. Taking the metro is a bit faster than cycling, I consider myself to be an okay shape. I still need to lose about 20 lb to get to where I want to be, and I still don't think I'd be up to the challenge of hopping on a bike for all my commuting needs. If you want to propose something, you have to factor in what people are willing to actually do. The typical overweight American, it's not going to be open to biking 4 hours a day to get to and from work.
  - woah 5y ago
    Get an electric bike or scooter. The fact that the government is willing to offer thousands of dollars in subsidies for electric cars, when that amount could buy the best of the best electric bike or scooter is insane.
    - stefan_ 5y ago
      What are the subsidies up to now, $12,500 per car? I haven't spent that on bikes all my life, and it's been my primary transport. Paid retail for all of it, too, of course.
  - Eric_WVGG 5y ago
    I was referring to the assertion that "most people [cannot] ride a bicycle." Nobody, overweight or not, is going to bike 4 hours a day to get to and from work, that's outside the scope of what we were discussing.
  - fahrradflucht 5y ago
    This hits on an interesting fundamental that is often skipped when talking about bike infrastructure. Zoning. If you live in a country/area where living, working, recreational activities and shopping all happen in distinct areas, like it does in most cities built for cars, the distances traveled are often too far for the average person. In this case you are kind of right that investing in public transport might be more urgent. To become a true cycling city, municipalities also have to allow for more mixed use development to shorten distances.
    - 999900000999 5y ago
      Thank you ! This might be the only comment that address my point. Imagine if we had mixed use high rises, 1st floor is retail , 3-5 floors are apartments and 5-8 floors offices. I could live an elevator ride away from work, and still buy groceries without ever going outside! Unfortunately in America we have business zoning and residential zoning, ensuring we all have to commute miles to do anything. I want mixed zoning. I want to walk to work, and then walk to the bar afterwards. Hell, biking would only be for longer commutes in this dream.
- mdavis6890 5y ago
  It's not necessarily about physical disabilities. Think about 1 parent with 2 young children and 3 bags of groceries. And that roughly fits a LOT of folks. Maybe if both your house and the grocery store (or other destination) are within 1-2km of a mass-transit stop you can use that - otherwise it's pretty much personal car/bus. And if that's the case for one particular trip, you still need to have this option for the others.
  - ryan_lane 5y ago
    It's a norm to see mothers riding two children on a bike here in Tokyo. Grocery stores are typically in walking distance, so no need for the bike ride for that. Note that reliance on cars leads to grocery stores not being within walking/biking distance, and less cars (and denser cities) leads to more livable cities. The goal is to make it possible to bike places safely, which makes it easier to transition from reliance on cars to better forms of transportation. No one is suggesting that we switch everything over to bikes right now.
angio 5y ago
If more people cycle, then thoes with special needs that need a car will have less traffic and more parking space available, thus improving their experience. People using public transit like busses will also have less problems since busses won't be stuck in traffic as much.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
There's bicycles made with accessibility options; tricycles, arm-propelled bikes (sometimes in the form of clip-on accessories for wheelchairs), e-bikes in all shapes and sizes, scooters, etc. I mean that doesn't make it an option for everyone, and a large percentage of people will continue to depend on cars, but at least here in NL with a good bike infrastructure, you see plenty of people on adjusted bicycles getting around, retaining their independence, and reducing their dependence on e.g. reserved parking spaces (which may still be further away from their destination than they can reach with adjusted bikes). Anyway, e-bikes are great. My girlfriend (genetic joint issues) was able to join me doing ~20 kilometers on one of the islands thanks to being able to rent an e-bike for €25 for the day or thereabouts. I mean, there were even hills and the like there, she would not have been able to do even a quarter of the distance on a regular bike.
grst 5y ago
> It targets a certain demographic, people who have the physical ability to actually cycle. What about those who cannot, what about disabled people? So do cars! What about people who can't drive, because they are too young, too old, don't have a license, or don't own a car?
yohannparis 5y ago
This is such a weird argument. Many people can't drive (minors, elderly, handicapped, health issues, etc.), and we still shade a ton of money on car infrastructure. This is not a zero-sum game; more cyclist means fewer cars, which means better services/life for people who need to drive. And we are talking about $280 Million; that's a piss in a bucket for a city like Milan.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Right. There are American roading projects for a single interchange that cost more than $280 million.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > Many people can't drive (minors, elderly, handicapped, health issues, etc.), and we still shade a ton of money on car infrastructure. Most of those who can't drive also couldn't get very far on a bike on their own. They can, however, ride in a car (or bus) driven by someone else, making use of that same infrastructure. Bikes are not typically designed to carry passengers.
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    Most people between age 7 and 16/17/18 can ride a bike, but not drive a car. Younger children can be a passenger on a bike.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > Most people between age 7 and 16/17/18 can ride a bike, but not drive a car. In most of the US 16-year-olds can get a full driver's license and drive a car on their own, assuming they have access to one. Most parents these days wouldn't let a 7-year-old travel far without a chaperone by any mode of transportation even if they are physically capable. (Lack of "safe" biking infrastructure is far from the only risk factor.) But yes, in the very short window in the early teens between not being trusted to be out on your own safely and acquiring a driver's license and car a bike can be more accessible when traveling solo or with others of similar age and maturity. > Younger children can be a passenger on a bike. One younger child can be a passenger on a bike, at the expense of extra effort on the part of the rider providing the propulsion. Perhaps two if they are both small. (Don't forget that you'll need to bring extra cargo as well—especially if the passenger(s) are very young.) Beyond that you're going to want a larger vehicle with its own power supply, unless your goal has more to do with riding bikes than getting to your destination.
blamazon 5y ago
E-bikes and other electric personal conveyances disrupt various arguments you raised.
- 999900000999 5y ago
  Ok, Weather ? Say it's raining, this makes riding a bike much more dangerous. Or even just heat, if it's over 90 F out biking is going to be rough. American cities are spread out to the point you may need to drive 5 miles to buy some oat meal. Fix that first, I'd vastly prefer smaller cities.
  - owenwil 5y ago
    > Say it's raining, this makes riding a bike much more dangerous. Wait what, why? Because I'm going to get a bit wet? The rain is no more a threat to a cyclist's safety than it is to a car on a wet day. You just might need to wear a rain jacket, too. The Dutch certainly don't give a shit about rain, snow or shine, as the saying goes "there's no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothes."
    - 999900000999 5y ago
      You seriously think inexperienced cyclist should ride in bad weather? If you have a city of Lance Armstrongs , sure everyone could bike commute. That's not practical though. I'd argue for building more bike infrastructure just since cycling is fun. I'm planing on working remote forever anyway, so I think we'd agree on alot. But I recognize my privilege here, if you need to commute to an office biking won't work over a few miles. The average American is commuting 16 miles each way. Can you realistically do this on a bike , I know I can't. https://itstillruns.com/far-americans-drive-work-average-7446397.html https://itstillruns.com/far-americans-drive-work-average-744...
      - ghusbands 5y ago
        Rain does not make in-city cycling significantly more dangerous, and is definitely fine for inexperienced cyclists. But if people cycle regularly, they aren't inexperienced, anyway. In areas with frequent rain, people are practiced in carrying waterproof overclothes and such. Sub-zero temperatures, snow and ice can be a much bigger problem, of course, but good maintenance resolves a lot of that, too, as it does for cars. As noted by drakonka, you continue to argue the infeasibility of something that works well for many cities/countries, citing things that those with experience know aren't a big problem. Sure, you can't just suddenly start cycling when your life/city is built around driving tens of miles, but a city/country can work towards biking in a way that has worked well around the world.
pharmakom 5y ago
Disability comes in many forms. Many disabled people cannot legally drive but can cycle. Others cannot walk easily but can use a specialised bike. And yes, some can drive but not walk or cycle. But this idea that pro-bike = anti-disabled does not hold up. More generally, if we want to make life easier for those who can only drive, we should get the able-bodied out of their cars to ease congestion.

Eric_WVGG 5y ago

> cycling is not practical transportation for most people. It targets a certain demographic, people who have the physical ability to actually cycle. That's… most people. Like I get it, we have an obesity epidemic, but fat people can ride bicycles. It's not unusual. And a lot of them start shedding pounds fast once you get them out of the automated wheeled easy-chairs we call "cars."

999900000999 5y ago
For myself cycling takes about twice as long. Assuming a peak physical condition, then driving. Taking the metro is a bit faster than cycling, I consider myself to be an okay shape. I still need to lose about 20 lb to get to where I want to be, and I still don't think I'd be up to the challenge of hopping on a bike for all my commuting needs. If you want to propose something, you have to factor in what people are willing to actually do. The typical overweight American, it's not going to be open to biking 4 hours a day to get to and from work.
- woah 5y ago
  Get an electric bike or scooter. The fact that the government is willing to offer thousands of dollars in subsidies for electric cars, when that amount could buy the best of the best electric bike or scooter is insane.
  - stefan_ 5y ago
    What are the subsidies up to now, $12,500 per car? I haven't spent that on bikes all my life, and it's been my primary transport. Paid retail for all of it, too, of course.
- Eric_WVGG 5y ago
  I was referring to the assertion that "most people [cannot] ride a bicycle." Nobody, overweight or not, is going to bike 4 hours a day to get to and from work, that's outside the scope of what we were discussing.
- fahrradflucht 5y ago
  This hits on an interesting fundamental that is often skipped when talking about bike infrastructure. Zoning. If you live in a country/area where living, working, recreational activities and shopping all happen in distinct areas, like it does in most cities built for cars, the distances traveled are often too far for the average person. In this case you are kind of right that investing in public transport might be more urgent. To become a true cycling city, municipalities also have to allow for more mixed use development to shorten distances.
  - 999900000999 5y ago
    Thank you ! This might be the only comment that address my point. Imagine if we had mixed use high rises, 1st floor is retail , 3-5 floors are apartments and 5-8 floors offices. I could live an elevator ride away from work, and still buy groceries without ever going outside! Unfortunately in America we have business zoning and residential zoning, ensuring we all have to commute miles to do anything. I want mixed zoning. I want to walk to work, and then walk to the bar afterwards. Hell, biking would only be for longer commutes in this dream.
mdavis6890 5y ago
It's not necessarily about physical disabilities. Think about 1 parent with 2 young children and 3 bags of groceries. And that roughly fits a LOT of folks. Maybe if both your house and the grocery store (or other destination) are within 1-2km of a mass-transit stop you can use that - otherwise it's pretty much personal car/bus. And if that's the case for one particular trip, you still need to have this option for the others.
- ryan_lane 5y ago
  It's a norm to see mothers riding two children on a bike here in Tokyo. Grocery stores are typically in walking distance, so no need for the bike ride for that. Note that reliance on cars leads to grocery stores not being within walking/biking distance, and less cars (and denser cities) leads to more livable cities. The goal is to make it possible to bike places safely, which makes it easier to transition from reliance on cars to better forms of transportation. No one is suggesting that we switch everything over to bikes right now.

angio 5y ago

If more people cycle, then thoes with special needs that need a car will have less traffic and more parking space available, thus improving their experience. People using public transit like busses will also have less problems since busses won't be stuck in traffic as much.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

There's bicycles made with accessibility options; tricycles, arm-propelled bikes (sometimes in the form of clip-on accessories for wheelchairs), e-bikes in all shapes and sizes, scooters, etc. I mean that doesn't make it an option for everyone, and a large percentage of people will continue to depend on cars, but at least here in NL with a good bike infrastructure, you see plenty of people on adjusted bicycles getting around, retaining their independence, and reducing their dependence on e.g. reserved parking spaces (which may still be further away from their destination than they can reach with adjusted bikes). Anyway, e-bikes are great. My girlfriend (genetic joint issues) was able to join me doing ~20 kilometers on one of the islands thanks to being able to rent an e-bike for €25 for the day or thereabouts. I mean, there were even hills and the like there, she would not have been able to do even a quarter of the distance on a regular bike.

grst 5y ago

> It targets a certain demographic, people who have the physical ability to actually cycle. What about those who cannot, what about disabled people? So do cars! What about people who can't drive, because they are too young, too old, don't have a license, or don't own a car?

yohannparis 5y ago

This is such a weird argument. Many people can't drive (minors, elderly, handicapped, health issues, etc.), and we still shade a ton of money on car infrastructure. This is not a zero-sum game; more cyclist means fewer cars, which means better services/life for people who need to drive. And we are talking about $280 Million; that's a piss in a bucket for a city like Milan.

bobthepanda 5y ago
Right. There are American roading projects for a single interchange that cost more than $280 million.
nybble41 5y ago
> Many people can't drive (minors, elderly, handicapped, health issues, etc.), and we still shade a ton of money on car infrastructure. Most of those who can't drive also couldn't get very far on a bike on their own. They can, however, ride in a car (or bus) driven by someone else, making use of that same infrastructure. Bikes are not typically designed to carry passengers.
- Symbiote 5y ago
  Most people between age 7 and 16/17/18 can ride a bike, but not drive a car. Younger children can be a passenger on a bike.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > Most people between age 7 and 16/17/18 can ride a bike, but not drive a car. In most of the US 16-year-olds can get a full driver's license and drive a car on their own, assuming they have access to one. Most parents these days wouldn't let a 7-year-old travel far without a chaperone by any mode of transportation even if they are physically capable. (Lack of "safe" biking infrastructure is far from the only risk factor.) But yes, in the very short window in the early teens between not being trusted to be out on your own safely and acquiring a driver's license and car a bike can be more accessible when traveling solo or with others of similar age and maturity. > Younger children can be a passenger on a bike. One younger child can be a passenger on a bike, at the expense of extra effort on the part of the rider providing the propulsion. Perhaps two if they are both small. (Don't forget that you'll need to bring extra cargo as well—especially if the passenger(s) are very young.) Beyond that you're going to want a larger vehicle with its own power supply, unless your goal has more to do with riding bikes than getting to your destination.

blamazon 5y ago

E-bikes and other electric personal conveyances disrupt various arguments you raised.

999900000999 5y ago
Ok, Weather ? Say it's raining, this makes riding a bike much more dangerous. Or even just heat, if it's over 90 F out biking is going to be rough. American cities are spread out to the point you may need to drive 5 miles to buy some oat meal. Fix that first, I'd vastly prefer smaller cities.
- owenwil 5y ago
  > Say it's raining, this makes riding a bike much more dangerous. Wait what, why? Because I'm going to get a bit wet? The rain is no more a threat to a cyclist's safety than it is to a car on a wet day. You just might need to wear a rain jacket, too. The Dutch certainly don't give a shit about rain, snow or shine, as the saying goes "there's no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothes."
  - 999900000999 5y ago
    You seriously think inexperienced cyclist should ride in bad weather? If you have a city of Lance Armstrongs , sure everyone could bike commute. That's not practical though. I'd argue for building more bike infrastructure just since cycling is fun. I'm planing on working remote forever anyway, so I think we'd agree on alot. But I recognize my privilege here, if you need to commute to an office biking won't work over a few miles. The average American is commuting 16 miles each way. Can you realistically do this on a bike , I know I can't. https://itstillruns.com/far-americans-drive-work-average-7446397.html https://itstillruns.com/far-americans-drive-work-average-744...
    - ghusbands 5y ago
      Rain does not make in-city cycling significantly more dangerous, and is definitely fine for inexperienced cyclists. But if people cycle regularly, they aren't inexperienced, anyway. In areas with frequent rain, people are practiced in carrying waterproof overclothes and such. Sub-zero temperatures, snow and ice can be a much bigger problem, of course, but good maintenance resolves a lot of that, too, as it does for cars. As noted by drakonka, you continue to argue the infeasibility of something that works well for many cities/countries, citing things that those with experience know aren't a big problem. Sure, you can't just suddenly start cycling when your life/city is built around driving tens of miles, but a city/country can work towards biking in a way that has worked well around the world.

pharmakom 5y ago

Disability comes in many forms. Many disabled people cannot legally drive but can cycle. Others cannot walk easily but can use a specialised bike. And yes, some can drive but not walk or cycle. But this idea that pro-bike = anti-disabled does not hold up. More generally, if we want to make life easier for those who can only drive, we should get the able-bodied out of their cars to ease congestion.