8 ms·

I hate the anti car movement. I live in Oslo. The city has declared an all-out war against cars for the last 10 years at least. They have done some producti

I hate the anti car movement. I live in Oslo. The city has declared an all-out war against cars for the last 10 years at least. They have done some productive things, some annoying things and some downright sadistic things as far as driving. Removing damn near all city parking spaces. Regulating away even more. There is still some parking in garages and private lots but it is $$$$. Plus with the constant development in the city (Unrelated to the citys activities) you never know what roads will be closed temporarily and semi permanently (years) As one example: The national government decided that their safety required that an important underground car tunnel had to be closed to rebuild it 2 meters farther down. [1] That is going to take a while. If you live downtown and you have a bike it is kinda nice. Except we have winters (should not surprise many) when travelling by bike a good option. (Yes there is a tiny minority who risk life and limb by biking all year around) Most people dont ride a bike if the weather is bad even during the summer. Oslo is also far from flat. Riding around in Amsterdam or Denmark its pretty flat. Makes riding a lot easier. In Oslo we go up and down, up and down etc. This is mitigated in part by a sharp increase in bikes with electric engines. (Which I am not a huge fan of since it takes a near zero polluting vehicle and bang on a not ideally green battery) I think spending so many millions of dollars to make Oslo better for bikes is an unfortunate strategy. If they instead spent the money in improving and expanding public transit (something sorely needed) it would benefit a lot more people all year round. I have been a strong advocate for public transit most of my life and a staunch rider for most of my life. I dont live downtown. It is terribly expensive. I cant afford to. Until a few years ago where I was involved in an accident and I am no longer able to ride a bike, or use public transport. I am restricted to travelling by car. (or taxi if I could afford it). The nature of my injuries do not qualify me for the nationwide disabled person program where you get a sticker in your car that makes the city easier to handle by car). Due to the anti car movement, freedom/options has been severely downgraded. There are museums, cultural events, restaurants, and people to visit that I simply cannot do anymore in any practical sense. I miss that. I know it is selfish. But if you were in my shoes, you would find it annoying as well Believe me. Huge shopping malls outside downtown usually have a lot of parking and accessible but it's not at all interesting for em. Aside from myself, for my father and 10.000s of other senior citizens who are not in the best of health they suffer from the same issues. As do thousands of others who are in some way disabled but do not qualify for the national standard. (There are still a lot of senior citizens who benefit from it. It is not black or white) Anti car movement seems best for rich, healthy young people. Rich in that they can usually afford to live downtown or right next ot a subway station. Health because you do need to be in decent health to ride a bike. even ebikes. Young in that all physical activity is easier when you are young. (lets say less than 50) So from embracing it, I have gone on to hate it. It is not inclusive. As an ironic aside: The city wants to move towards 0 cars in the city or as close as they can get. HOWEVER, there are toll stations anywhere and the city has become dependent on the income from them. When Covid was in full effect and a lot less driving was taking place the city had budget problems. They do not have a plan on how to replace that income (yet). [1] https://www.bygg.no/vil-senke-ring-1-under-regjeringskvartalet/1250084!/ https://www.bygg.no/vil-senke-ring-1-under-regjeringskvartal... I dont live downtown because it is far too expensive.

occz 5y ago
>Removing damn near all city parking spaces. The absolute arrogance of thinking that the city should use some of their most valuable real estate so that you can cheaply store your personal property is baffling. >If you live downtown and you have a bike it is kinda nice. Except we have winters (should not surprise many) when travelling by bike a good option. (Yes there is a tiny minority who risk life and limb by biking all year around) Entirely a question of infrastructure maintenance and entirely not a question of geography. Cars only work in the winter because of the high amount of money spent on making roads accommodate winter driving, and the same is not done for bicycle infrastructure. >This is mitigated in part by a sharp increase in bikes with electric engines. (Which I am not a huge fan of since it takes a near zero polluting vehicle and bang on a not ideally green battery) If only someone told you about this other type of vehicle that has to run on fossil fuels, or be extremely heavy in order to carry around a decently-sized battery. >I think spending many millions of dollars to make Oslo better for bikes is an unfortunate strategy. If they instead spent the money in improving and expanding public transit (something sorely needed) it would benefit a lot more people all year round. False dichotomy - it's entirely possible to do both, in particular if you continue to divest in absurdly expensive car infrastructure. I'm sorry to hear about your injury. It's odd that you do not qualify for an exception if you are as restricted as you say. I wish you luck in getting that sorted out . That doesn't mean that we need to accommodate non-disabled car users in cities, though. >Anti car movement seems best for rich, healthy young people. Not at all. People with reduced mobility generally benefit from not having to risk being hit by cars when they traverse the built environment, plus public transportation is a great option for people who are not allowed to drive on account of their disability. Finally, those that do have a disability that requires them to move around using a car, they benefit from having streets with less car traffic on, so that they can efficiently move about the built environment.
- ThinkBeat 5y ago
  >Entirely a question of infrastructure maintenance and entirely not a question >of geography. Cars only work in the winter because of the high amount of money >spent on making roads accommodate winter driving, and the same is not done for >bicycle infrastructure. Have you ever lived in a place that has -real- winters? Show me a city that has real winters with real cold, real snow, real ice which lasts months where the city has accomplished what you mention. Even more fun when there are a lot of hills.

occz 5y ago

>Removing damn near all city parking spaces. The absolute arrogance of thinking that the city should use some of their most valuable real estate so that you can cheaply store your personal property is baffling. >If you live downtown and you have a bike it is kinda nice. Except we have winters (should not surprise many) when travelling by bike a good option. (Yes there is a tiny minority who risk life and limb by biking all year around) Entirely a question of infrastructure maintenance and entirely not a question of geography. Cars only work in the winter because of the high amount of money spent on making roads accommodate winter driving, and the same is not done for bicycle infrastructure. >This is mitigated in part by a sharp increase in bikes with electric engines. (Which I am not a huge fan of since it takes a near zero polluting vehicle and bang on a not ideally green battery) If only someone told you about this other type of vehicle that has to run on fossil fuels, or be extremely heavy in order to carry around a decently-sized battery. >I think spending many millions of dollars to make Oslo better for bikes is an unfortunate strategy. If they instead spent the money in improving and expanding public transit (something sorely needed) it would benefit a lot more people all year round. False dichotomy - it's entirely possible to do both, in particular if you continue to divest in absurdly expensive car infrastructure. I'm sorry to hear about your injury. It's odd that you do not qualify for an exception if you are as restricted as you say. I wish you luck in getting that sorted out . That doesn't mean that we need to accommodate non-disabled car users in cities, though. >Anti car movement seems best for rich, healthy young people. Not at all. People with reduced mobility generally benefit from not having to risk being hit by cars when they traverse the built environment, plus public transportation is a great option for people who are not allowed to drive on account of their disability. Finally, those that do have a disability that requires them to move around using a car, they benefit from having streets with less car traffic on, so that they can efficiently move about the built environment.

ThinkBeat 5y ago
>Entirely a question of infrastructure maintenance and entirely not a question >of geography. Cars only work in the winter because of the high amount of money >spent on making roads accommodate winter driving, and the same is not done for >bicycle infrastructure. Have you ever lived in a place that has -real- winters? Show me a city that has real winters with real cold, real snow, real ice which lasts months where the city has accomplished what you mention. Even more fun when there are a lot of hills.