4 ms·

> it's doable with the right gear and clothing It's doable, but it's also the most time consuming and impractical way of transportation, compared to the other

by jseban 4y ago

> it's doable with the right gear and clothing It's doable, but it's also the most time consuming and impractical way of transportation, compared to the other options, so therefor it's bad. Just because you can find a weird amish guys who insists that riding a horse is great, doesn't make that a good way of transportation, or something that we should start doing more.

piva00 4y ago
> It's doable, but it's also the most time consuming and impractical way of transportation, compared to the other options, so therefor it's bad. My connection to the center of Stockholm takes 45-60 minutes counting the time to-from stations, I bike the same distance in about 40-45 minutes. I get some exercise, I get to bike to any street I want to in more-or-less the same amount of time. It's bad for you, so just swallow that as a personal opinion but don't come with sweeping statements that "it's therefore bad", this is totally subjective to one's level of discomfort and/or laziness. I prefer the bike than the great public transportation here for any trip where I won't be carrying more than what my cargo backpack can carry. I don't agree with the logic of your statement ("it's not perfect for me so therefore bad"), also coming after biking infrastructure is a very weird hill to die on...
- jseban 4y ago
  > this is totally subjective to one's level of discomfort and/or laziness. Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad. The whole point of our society is to transcend this. There are a million ways to do exercise and sports, and to spend your life and time and energy. Just because someone doesn't like cycling like you, doesn't make them lazy. That's an unbelievably self centered and arrogant viewpoint. My logic is that cycling is bad because 1. it's not powerful and 2. it's sensitive to the weather, and 3. most people don't do it. Doesn't matter what you personally like.
  - piva00 4y ago
    > That's an unbelievably self centered and arrogant viewpoint. > My logic is that cycling is bad because 1. it's not powerful and 2. it's sensitive to the weather, and 3. most people don't do it. > Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad. The whole point of our society is to transcend this. Pretty self-centered I'd say.
  - sandos 4y ago
    "Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad" Think you might find that your biology disagrees somewhat, there. Try sitting in a bathtub 100% of your life and see what happens with your health. Yes, yes, being forced is bad. But it does help against laziness :)
  - abenga 4y ago
    This doesn't mean that we should construct infrastructure that actively discourages cycling. The argument isn't "let's force everyone to cycle". It's "let's make cycling so safe and convenient that the ones who would like to do it can do so without risking life and limb jostling in the same lanes as SUVs the size of Abrams tanks."
    - jseban 4y ago
      Let's prioritise what makes for actually efficient transport, and which most people will use, and not prioritise inefficient transports that only a few enthusiasts are using.

by jseban 4y ago

piva00 4y ago

> It's doable, but it's also the most time consuming and impractical way of transportation, compared to the other options, so therefor it's bad. My connection to the center of Stockholm takes 45-60 minutes counting the time to-from stations, I bike the same distance in about 40-45 minutes. I get some exercise, I get to bike to any street I want to in more-or-less the same amount of time. It's bad for you, so just swallow that as a personal opinion but don't come with sweeping statements that "it's therefore bad", this is totally subjective to one's level of discomfort and/or laziness. I prefer the bike than the great public transportation here for any trip where I won't be carrying more than what my cargo backpack can carry. I don't agree with the logic of your statement ("it's not perfect for me so therefore bad"), also coming after biking infrastructure is a very weird hill to die on...

jseban 4y ago
> this is totally subjective to one's level of discomfort and/or laziness. Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad. The whole point of our society is to transcend this. There are a million ways to do exercise and sports, and to spend your life and time and energy. Just because someone doesn't like cycling like you, doesn't make them lazy. That's an unbelievably self centered and arrogant viewpoint. My logic is that cycling is bad because 1. it's not powerful and 2. it's sensitive to the weather, and 3. most people don't do it. Doesn't matter what you personally like.
- piva00 4y ago
  > That's an unbelievably self centered and arrogant viewpoint. > My logic is that cycling is bad because 1. it's not powerful and 2. it's sensitive to the weather, and 3. most people don't do it. > Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad. The whole point of our society is to transcend this. Pretty self-centered I'd say.
- sandos 4y ago
  "Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad" Think you might find that your biology disagrees somewhat, there. Try sitting in a bathtub 100% of your life and see what happens with your health. Yes, yes, being forced is bad. But it does help against laziness :)
- abenga 4y ago
  This doesn't mean that we should construct infrastructure that actively discourages cycling. The argument isn't "let's force everyone to cycle". It's "let's make cycling so safe and convenient that the ones who would like to do it can do so without risking life and limb jostling in the same lanes as SUVs the size of Abrams tanks."
  - jseban 4y ago
    Let's prioritise what makes for actually efficient transport, and which most people will use, and not prioritise inefficient transports that only a few enthusiasts are using.