11 ms·

This is a very naïve view. It's technically correct (the best kind of correct?) but it's also missing the point by a wide margin - the "spherical, frictionless

This is a very naïve view. It's technically correct (the best kind of correct?) but it's also missing the point by a wide margin - the "spherical, frictionless cow in a void" missing the point. You're correct in the sense that trains and bicycles are, true, more energy efficient. I'm not even looking for numbers here, because it's irrelevant. What you're missing is that real humans occasionally need to move a mattress. Or just bring home groceries once a week. Or have kids. Or that a full quarter of the population are seniors. Or that quite a few people live in places with hard winters. You think it's a coincidence that Netherlands is the country of bicycle riders? Gulfstream :) They hardly have any snow or ice - just walk around in the street there, and it'll hit you that most buildings have windows that take up half the wall. Cold is just not a concern there, the way it would be in a lot of other places. If you compare an EV with a train on an energy efficiency PoV, yes, the train may be twice as efficient (or less?). But an EV covers 80% of energy requirements (it's CLEAN, cheaper than gas, less carbon generating, less likely to subsidize oil-based dictatorships), while also not having you haul a toddler, an infant and 3 bags of groceries through snow from the train station half a mile away.

occz 4y ago
>You're correct in the sense that trains and bicycles are, true, more energy efficient. I'm not even looking for numbers here, because it's irrelevant. On the contrary, it's highly relevant in a world where we have a very pressing energy issue. >What you're missing is that real humans occasionally need to move a mattress. Cargo-bikes can cover many of the transportation use-cases the average person has, and the rest can be covered by utilizing shared transportation vehicles. No private vehicle ownership is necessary here, and private vehicle ownership and its use as the primary mode of transportation is >80% of the problem. >Or just bring home groceries once a week. Cargo-bikes, closer shops, public transportation, grocery delivery and/or higher frequency of shopping solves this >Or have kids. Cargo-bikes, public transportation solves this >Or that a full quarter of the population are seniors. Bicycles, public transportation solves this isse. Additionally, car infrastructure is more exclusionary to seniors than the alternatives - same with children, who are not allowed to operate a car. Not to mention people with disabilities. All more discriminated against by car infrastructure than the alternatives. >Or that quite a few people live in places with hard winters. You think it's a coincidence that Netherlands is the country of bicycle riders? Gulfstream :) They hardly have any snow or ice - just walk around in the street there, and it'll hit you that most buildings have windows that take up half the wall. Cold is just not a concern there, the way it would be in a lot of other places. Bicycle rates are not statistically correlated with neither local climate, nor topology for that matter. Infrastructure is more or less the sole deciding factor. >If you compare an EV with a train on an energy efficiency PoV, yes, the train may be twice as efficient (or less?). But an EV covers 80% of energy requirements (it's CLEAN, cheaper than gas, less carbon generating, less likely to subsidize oil-based dictatorships), while also not having you haul a toddler, an infant and 3 bags of groceries through snow from the train station half a mile away. Essentially all of these problems can be solved satisfactorily with alternatives. Note that clean is also relative - the alternatives are very significantly cleaner than car-oriented transportation. And we have barely even touched the subjects of transportation mode lethality nor economic discrimination, which are hugely significant - cars kill more than any other mode of transportation, and is more expensive both on the individual and societal level, making them a huge burden for poor people.
- radu_floricica 4y ago
  You're doing a lot of hand waving which basically boils down to equating "it can solve the problem in some scenarios" with "it's the optimal choice". Can you use a cargo bike to do groceries? Sure. Can you rent a car to carry a mattress? yes. Can you carry two children on a bicycle? Ehh, ok, let's pretend you can, or you just take the bus. But this is ignoring the fact that in the past hundred years, people have repeatedly chosen to own a car. Yes, including in places with good public transport. And surprising enough, even when the cost of a car + maintenance + repairs + financing + gas is a lot higher than just taking the bus, not to mention the comparatively trivial price of a bike. The very fact that you just don't see that many cargo bikes anywhere, but see cars everywhere is a pretty strong hint. That's the default hypothesis - that cars actually do bring value in people's lives. All you're offering to counter this is a list of "in specific contexts, bike may solve the same problem in shittier ways". I'm sorry, but I just don't see how freezing your ass off in winter on a bike is even remotely acceptable. In my youth I actually tried this. Spent a winter with a motorcycle, and another winter with a bike. Both were complete and utter failures. I actually burned a set of gloves when I left them on the engine to get warm. And biking on the snow and ice... ugh. The bruises. Plus small practical things. A cargo bike or a bike with a trailer basically take just as much parking space as a small car. And are a hellof a lot easier to steal. Cars may kill more people than bikes, but you can't snap your fingers Thanos-style and have all cars replaced with bikes. Dramatically increasing the number of bikes in the street means mixing bikes with cars, which means a lot more dead people. I know it's the car's fault, but such is life, the universe is not fair. Still means more dead people. > Bicycle rates are not statistically correlated with neither local climate, nor topology for that matter. Infrastructure is more or less the sole deciding factor. I call bullshit. Smelly, stinky bullshit. In the same city, with the same infrastructure, I see with my own eyes bikes and electric scooters disappearing in winter and reappearing in spring. That'd be just impossible if climate had no bearing and only infrastructure mattered.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    > In the same city, with the same infrastructure, I see with my own eyes bikes and electric scooters disappearing in winter and reappearing in spring. That'd be just impossible if climate had no bearing and only infrastructure mattered. They aren't saying weather doesn't matter. Just that people use weather as an excuse for bad infrastructure which matters much more, and is easier to change. Also, people may not be aware that e-bike cargo van deliveries are already a thing in urban areas. Being enclosed from the rain is not a unique advantage of cars and removing cars from urban areas as much as possible is a necessary first step. You might say, well that's just a small electric car and technically you'd be correct. A small, light, electric "car" that can intermix with pedestrians and cycles and wheelchairs and mobility scooters.
kinos 4y ago
Haha, yeah. I guess things like Cargo bikes don't exist. Nor does just bringing your stuff onto the train and putting it into it's cargo holds. Or bringing your cargo bike onto the train. Yup, private carriages are the only option for your occasional weekly or monthly tasks. I guess its also just outright impossible to just allow for mixed zoning that'd allow for daily grocery shopping as well.
- radu_floricica 4y ago
  I've written in another comment that I'm very much in favor of cheap, small city EVs without all the safety features mandated in a modern car. I don't think we need a ton of iron to go shopping. But I also don't think it's practical to go all the way down to bikes - biggest velo vehicle might at most carry an adult, a child and groceries, while offering zero protection from the weather and very little safety, compared with the smallest and flimsiest hard-shell EV. And I'm saying this while owning... let me count... 4 bikes, one of which is electric. And I absolutely love Uber electric scooters. But no matter how I try to get creative, I just can't think of a way where you can have bike infrastructure covering everything. Too many pieces missing. Where would you park all those cargo bikes near train stations? And again, what do you do in winter with two kids? Small city EVs on the other hand require no new infrastructure, zero major investments, are a fraction of the cost of a car, are non-polluting, and do 90% of what a normal car does. And when going on holiday - yes, you can take the train, which is what I'm actually doing btw. All they need is a very small regulatory change. Allow no-highway cars with speed limits and none of the safety features of modern cars. Just do that.
  - Swenrekcah 4y ago
    I don’t believe anybody has ever suggested that bikes should cover everything. People have pointed out that most people can use bikes for pretty much everything, but obviously there will be a need for the occasional car. Some people will need to use cars more, other less. But if you make the simple mindset change of first planning to bike there and then falling back to the car if you deem it infeasible, we’re already most of the way. Most of the safety concerns for bikes disappear as soon as a certain amount of bikers are in the streets and the infrastructure isn’t actively hostile to them.
danuker 4y ago
> real humans occasionally need to move a mattress And real humans can occasionally rent a car. Maybe it is not worth holding thousands of dollars' worth of rusting metal for that occasional odd job. As for snow and ice, Oulu, Finland is an example of how infrastructure defines the way people live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
- phtrivier 4y ago
  That still doesn't exactly solve the "30% of seniors thing", though. And quite a few of them have will have unplanned trips to do from very sparsely distributed locations (also known as "houses in the countryside") to other very sparsely distributed locations (aka "their doctor" or "their family"). Also, car loan is perfectly suitable for planned, long distance trips with lots of cargo, which unfortunately happen at the same time for everyone (they're also known as "vacations"). I would not want to be Hertz on the 15th of August in a world without personal cars - unless you ban people from traveling cross country to see their family twice a year, which might be required. I used to bet on "small scale on demand public transportation", but it requires either "communities paying drivers" or "engineers solving self-driving in rural roads", none of which is happening anytime soon. In the meantime, though, we have to invest in trains, bike lanes, and downsize cars at the same time as electrifying them.
  - aqme28 4y ago
    Mobility devices are great for bike lanes. What's funny about this comparison is that you're ignoring children, who absolutely cannot drive.
    - phtrivier 4y ago
      Well, they're part of the "cargo" during holidays, I suppose ;) ? But yes, of course children need a different kind of transportation. Though, arguably, it's easier to pedal with your toddler on your back than with your grandma !
  - fomine3 4y ago
bawolff 4y ago
> What you're missing is that real humans occasionally need to move a mattress. Or just bring home groceries once a week. People without cars also have to do that. Groceries can be walked home (i know because i do it) and they also fit on busses. Mattresses are a rare thing and you can rent a taxi.
- radu_floricica 4y ago
  Then why do people buy cars? You can also manage without running water, people did it for most of human existence, but it doesn't mean it's what we want to do. Money talks - when they afford it, a supermajority of people prefer to own a vehicle. And we're on the cusp of making it non-polluting, cheap and sustainable. Let's not blow it because "trains are marginally more energy efficient".
  - dopidopHN 4y ago
    I bought my first vehicule at 32, when I moved to the US. Prior to that I was relying on public transportation, renting something for vacation, and coordinating with others. In the US that was not sustainable.
    - aperson_hello 4y ago
      The US is absolutely massive - and in some places, this is absolutely not true and you can use public transport for everything AND it's better than driving. And in other places, the nearest public transport is hours away (by car!!).
      - dopidopHN 4y ago
        Yeah, we have cities too. It’s just that there is trains between them. Or buses that are not greyhound. By « we » I mean Europe. It’s small, but large enough. And yeah, density, yadada … It’s fine. Différents place, different organizations. You guys also have a massive army so you will end up being right.
coalteddy 4y ago
I suggest you watch this video[1] by the awesome channel "Not Just Bikes". Bakfiets are a dutch cargo bike you can literally use for 99% of all your errands. People in a city do not need personal cars. And even Cargo bikes are only useful for 10-20% of occasions, depending on if you have big shopping tours or kids. For the 1 or 2 occasions a year where a car is needed, car sharing is the way to go. [1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhzEnWCgHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhzEnWCgHA
migro23 4y ago
I take your point(s) that the argument cant be "Everyone just use bikes and trains". That's obviously not practical but to be fair it's not what is being suggested either. But in relation to the point you made about bad or cold weather being a factor for bikes being an impractical mode of transport. Please take a few minutes to consider the points and examples provided in this video (1). TLDW: There is a town in Finland (Oulu) where cycling is a primary mode of transport (over a fifth of of all trips are by bike and 77% of people cycle occasionally) even in winter when it gets down to -20 Celsius. Weather is always spouted as a reason for not investing in bike infrastructure which is really annoying because that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It's the lack of safe and adequate bike infrastructure that stops people from cycling. Anyway, I thought it was worth adding that point of nuance to the discussion. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
- radu_floricica 4y ago
  From the video: in the winter cycling capital of the world, 22% of all trips are taken by bicycle (all year round). This leaves 78% of trips not taken by bicycle. Honestly, 20% is what I'd expect as an upper limit for bike trips, in a place with great infrastructure and solid biking culture. This is not an argument that (EV) cars can be replaced by trains+bikes. This is a solid argument, with which I agree, that bikes have a place in a transportation ecosystem and they should be encouraged. I was never disputing this - I own several bikes, and I actually prefer to rent uber electric scooters over uber cars.
  - migro23 4y ago
    We are in agreement so, in that bikes are an absolutely essential component of a more sustainable transport infrastructure. 20% by the way is a very large number in the context of the total number of trips taken by any given population and unlike you I do not believe this is an upper limit of what can be achieved with bikes but this is a separate discussion. I just wanted to clarify a bugbear with me which is the "people don't use bikes because the weather is crappy". I know nuance is lost in such a few amount of words and that's probably not what you are saying in totality but i just wanted to highlight this point. As an aside, I lived in a large city where amenities such as supermarkets were relatively far away. For a couple of years I got away with not owning a car and using a bike for all shopping needs. There are some examples of where a car would have been way more convenient but the fact of the matter is I made do without it. There are a large number of trips that I made with the bike that I wouldn't have done if I did have a car. Humans are creatures of convenience. There are some trips where a car (or something similar) is absolutely essential but for the vast majority it is not. In situations of necessity it is amazing what can be achieved. We are not living in an age of necessity with regards to means of transport but we really should be if the climate science is to be believed.
fooker 4y ago
> What you're missing is that real humans occasionally need to move a mattress. The corollary is that real human civilizations have to move goods over roads with ICE trucks for the foreseeable future unless batteries approach the energy density of diesel.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Trucks are already moving to electric. It not going to happen overnight, and currently bans on new sales only are scheduled for like 2040, but they're likely to be brought forward as people get more confortable with the idea. Starting with last mile delivery in urban areas, trucks are going electric today. And it's not initially about energy density, it's about the poisons and pollution they emit.
  - fooker 4y ago
    Semi trucks will move 'forward' to electric when the technology becomes available. So far it's not, the state of the art prototypes can not do the required job. Maybe it will be something like fuel cells instead, who knows.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      As I said, it's already happening. https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-stories/press-releases/2022/may/sales-start-for-volvos-heavy-duty-electric-trucks.html https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-stories/press-release... Green Hydrogen will be part of the answer in the next 5 years or so, but it's not a blocker right now. There's plenty of semi trucks that have tasks that are within the current battery limits.
      - LunaSea 4y ago
        Green hydrogen is not green besides washing.
        ZeroGravitas 4y ago
belorn 4y ago
The article put up a simplified view in order to reduce the topic down to a single number of energy in vs energy out. It is a technical definition of energy efficiency, but without all that messy context that define transportation. If we were to discussion energy in transportation the context is much richer and complex. The easiest way to see this is in weight. A EV car in general is much heavier than ICE cars, sometimes by a factor of 3x, which happens to cancel out the energy efficiency of the EV. We also have to consider reduce, reuse, repair and recycle aspect. EV car is generally more electronica complex and (according to what I have read), have worse reuse and repair aspect than ICE cars. EV might win on the recycle aspect, and train/bicycles obvious win on the reduce aspect. We also have to consider drive distance. The average trip for a car (using statistics form my country) is 5km, which most of those being commute to and from work, with a majority within biking distance. Of course, if people need a car to transport kids, participate in hobbies, regularly transporting large items, then they might simply use that same tool to travel to and from work as a convenience. Owning a car enables unnecessary travel with car as well as enabling the necessary travel. And finally we need to consider how stations for stores, buses and trains are designed. Train stations are not designed for a person to haul a toddler, an infant and 3 bags of groceries. Subways however are rather much designed to make transporting a toddler and a single bag of groceries a fairly acceptable experience, and since subway stations generally has good coverage, people don't need to have 3 bags of groceries. Supermarkets that focus on subway users tend to be located in the subway stations, while supermarkets that focus on car users that travel a few miles from the store tend to have large parking lots and be located at the outer edges of cities near big highways.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  > A EV car in general is much heavier than ICE cars, sometimes by a factor of 3x, which happens to cancel out the energy efficiency of the EV. This isn't true.
  - belorn 4y ago
    The Model 3 has around half a ton worth of battery and weights around 2 tons. the GMC Hummer EV weights over 9,000 pounds, around 4.5 tons, which is roughly three times the weight of a Honda Civic. The hummer has around 1.4 tons in just battery (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/07/business/electric-vehicles-weight/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/07/business/electric-vehicles-we...) The law in my country has a combined maximum weight limit (car + trailer) as part of their driving license, which has cause a bit of a problem with EVs. The extra weight from battery mean that there isn't much room to drive the car with a trailer, a problem which political is starting to gain some traction. The argument being put forth is that people are forced to use ICE car to pull things like boat trailer just because the law was designed for more lighter ICE cars. If there is no additional weight with EVs then the law doesn't need to change. Are you saying that the people arguing that EV is being hindered are wrong? Just as a small hint about that. EU has recently change their rules. The previous allowed max was 3.5 tons, but electric and gas powered cars has been given an exception to increase the max to 4.25 tons in acknowledgement that those cars tend to be heavier, and that the previous limit restricted the use of lower emission transportation. Source: Revision of the Directive on Driving Licences. Of course politicians could be wrong and there is nothing to make it physical impossible to build a light weight EV. Restricting weight reduces road maintenance and decreases the breaking distance and if there is no need for increasing the maximum then everyone is better off with the old maximum.
cycomanic 4y ago
This is the argument being made again and again, but if we look at the realities the average number of occupants was 1.6 in England [1] and is likely similar for other countries. Also have a look at cycling commutes in Finland on YouTube, lots of people. The argument that we can't change how we move is just an argument about not wanting change. I bet if we actually make cars cover all the direct and indirect costs (for both ICE and EV) instead of massively subsidising car travel, people would quickly change. Why do we need to subsidise the choice of a part of society to not want to change? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/314719/average-car-and-van-occupancy-in-england/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/314719/average-car-and-v...
Shorel 4y ago
When I move heavy stuff I don't use my car, I rent a truck, which was made for moving heavy stuff. I also don't see a reason to carry toddlers to grocery shops.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  You take toddlers with you because leaving them unsupervised is illegal. Whether you’re driving your own car or renting a truck doesn’t matter—rail doesn’t suffice in either case.
undersuit 4y ago
"We tried nothing and we're all out of ideas." It's funny you mention the Netherlands as your proof for your little list of gotchas. The Netherlands handles all your little gotchas fine, and so do more northern countries like Sweden. The problem is the convenience of a car makes it not worth just putting on a layer of clothing for the weather. Use a car if you're going to travel 100km, but don't be like the rest of the people in my Montana town and use a car to go pick up the groceries 3 miles away just because it's 42 degrees and you're cold. See by saying you need a car for these extremes you are actually just making excuses to use a car all the time.
- aperson_hello 4y ago
  But at least in my experience (and I suspect in others' as well), those shorts trips make up a miniscule percentage of overall miles (and therefore emissions). It's commuting and road trips that account for 90% of my mileage
  - undersuit 4y ago
    Well you should definitely be commuting by bike or public transportation. Don't know why you would think that wasn't in the cards. Road trips? Why are you taking them in a personal vehicle? Because there isn't competent public transportation. I'm against car ownership. Oh you can't get anywhere without a car? Maybe build another lane to a place where I care.
    - aperson_hello 4y ago
      There's a huge infrastructure and zoning problem that incentivizes some jobs to be in transit-friendly places (professional services - so they have easy access to their customers) and others to specifically not be in transit-friendly places (manufacturers - so they have easy highway access for shipping). If you're living with someone in the other category of work, at least one of you is necessarily living in a location that requires commuting where I am. I have the short end of that equation, so I'm commuting 20 minutes by car (vs. nearly 2 hours by bike or by bus). It just doesn't make sense to have transit go regularly enough or direct enough to where I'm commuting to (one rider buses are worse than cars!!).
JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Isn't that cultural? We don't even think about getting such things delivered. Why not? Because it's expensive? More expensive than owning a $20,000 vehicle? That's a kind of 'frictionless cow' blind spot as well. If personal ICE and electric cars disappeared from existence tomorrow, we'd adapt.
ryan_lane 4y ago
What you're missing is that many of the problems you're describing are due to building cities around cars. You can get the mattress delivered (and even if you don't, you usually can't fit a mattress in most vehicles and probably need to rent one). You go to the store more frequently, and buy fewer things, at a grocery store that's less than 5 minutes way by foot. People can and do transport their children by bike. Walkable cities with public transportation are considerably easier for seniors, because many of them can no longer drive. You're also leaving out folks with disabilities, for which walkable cities with good public transportation are life changing. You're also conveniently leaving out cost. Transportation costs in walkable cities with good public transportation is considerably cheaper. Cars, gas, insurance, maintenance, parking, etc. is extremely expensive. My current transportation costs are roughly $80 a month. When I had a car, they were roughly $800 a month (with averaged maintenance costs included). (Most) Folks aren't saying that cars shouldn't exist, just that in cities, they should not be what we design for, because their convenience for some people results in the inconvenience of most people. EVs should replace ICE cars, but we should restrict how cars can be brought in the city, and we should limit where and how they park (especially by eliminating free parking). The costs related to this should be progressive, based on income.
cdf 4y ago
Or in case of Singapore, your heat wave is our most days in 80% humidity. And on the days it isnt hot, it's probably pouring rain... you know 10 seconds of it is indistinguishable from jumping into a swimming pool rain.
mbrtn 4y ago
Yes, not only cold weather is a culprit, but also hot. I can't even imagine a cyclist riding from one part of Dubai to another. It is dangerous.
kderbyma 4y ago
bikes can carry and tow trailers to help with some of that. Also...groceries can be carried on the bars if a few bags

occz 4y ago

>You're correct in the sense that trains and bicycles are, true, more energy efficient. I'm not even looking for numbers here, because it's irrelevant. On the contrary, it's highly relevant in a world where we have a very pressing energy issue. >What you're missing is that real humans occasionally need to move a mattress. Cargo-bikes can cover many of the transportation use-cases the average person has, and the rest can be covered by utilizing shared transportation vehicles. No private vehicle ownership is necessary here, and private vehicle ownership and its use as the primary mode of transportation is >80% of the problem. >Or just bring home groceries once a week. Cargo-bikes, closer shops, public transportation, grocery delivery and/or higher frequency of shopping solves this >Or have kids. Cargo-bikes, public transportation solves this >Or that a full quarter of the population are seniors. Bicycles, public transportation solves this isse. Additionally, car infrastructure is more exclusionary to seniors than the alternatives - same with children, who are not allowed to operate a car. Not to mention people with disabilities. All more discriminated against by car infrastructure than the alternatives. >Or that quite a few people live in places with hard winters. You think it's a coincidence that Netherlands is the country of bicycle riders? Gulfstream :) They hardly have any snow or ice - just walk around in the street there, and it'll hit you that most buildings have windows that take up half the wall. Cold is just not a concern there, the way it would be in a lot of other places. Bicycle rates are not statistically correlated with neither local climate, nor topology for that matter. Infrastructure is more or less the sole deciding factor. >If you compare an EV with a train on an energy efficiency PoV, yes, the train may be twice as efficient (or less?). But an EV covers 80% of energy requirements (it's CLEAN, cheaper than gas, less carbon generating, less likely to subsidize oil-based dictatorships), while also not having you haul a toddler, an infant and 3 bags of groceries through snow from the train station half a mile away. Essentially all of these problems can be solved satisfactorily with alternatives. Note that clean is also relative - the alternatives are very significantly cleaner than car-oriented transportation. And we have barely even touched the subjects of transportation mode lethality nor economic discrimination, which are hugely significant - cars kill more than any other mode of transportation, and is more expensive both on the individual and societal level, making them a huge burden for poor people.

radu_floricica 4y ago
You're doing a lot of hand waving which basically boils down to equating "it can solve the problem in some scenarios" with "it's the optimal choice". Can you use a cargo bike to do groceries? Sure. Can you rent a car to carry a mattress? yes. Can you carry two children on a bicycle? Ehh, ok, let's pretend you can, or you just take the bus. But this is ignoring the fact that in the past hundred years, people have repeatedly chosen to own a car. Yes, including in places with good public transport. And surprising enough, even when the cost of a car + maintenance + repairs + financing + gas is a lot higher than just taking the bus, not to mention the comparatively trivial price of a bike. The very fact that you just don't see that many cargo bikes anywhere, but see cars everywhere is a pretty strong hint. That's the default hypothesis - that cars actually do bring value in people's lives. All you're offering to counter this is a list of "in specific contexts, bike may solve the same problem in shittier ways". I'm sorry, but I just don't see how freezing your ass off in winter on a bike is even remotely acceptable. In my youth I actually tried this. Spent a winter with a motorcycle, and another winter with a bike. Both were complete and utter failures. I actually burned a set of gloves when I left them on the engine to get warm. And biking on the snow and ice... ugh. The bruises. Plus small practical things. A cargo bike or a bike with a trailer basically take just as much parking space as a small car. And are a hellof a lot easier to steal. Cars may kill more people than bikes, but you can't snap your fingers Thanos-style and have all cars replaced with bikes. Dramatically increasing the number of bikes in the street means mixing bikes with cars, which means a lot more dead people. I know it's the car's fault, but such is life, the universe is not fair. Still means more dead people. > Bicycle rates are not statistically correlated with neither local climate, nor topology for that matter. Infrastructure is more or less the sole deciding factor. I call bullshit. Smelly, stinky bullshit. In the same city, with the same infrastructure, I see with my own eyes bikes and electric scooters disappearing in winter and reappearing in spring. That'd be just impossible if climate had no bearing and only infrastructure mattered.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  > In the same city, with the same infrastructure, I see with my own eyes bikes and electric scooters disappearing in winter and reappearing in spring. That'd be just impossible if climate had no bearing and only infrastructure mattered. They aren't saying weather doesn't matter. Just that people use weather as an excuse for bad infrastructure which matters much more, and is easier to change. Also, people may not be aware that e-bike cargo van deliveries are already a thing in urban areas. Being enclosed from the rain is not a unique advantage of cars and removing cars from urban areas as much as possible is a necessary first step. You might say, well that's just a small electric car and technically you'd be correct. A small, light, electric "car" that can intermix with pedestrians and cycles and wheelchairs and mobility scooters.

kinos 4y ago

Haha, yeah. I guess things like Cargo bikes don't exist. Nor does just bringing your stuff onto the train and putting it into it's cargo holds. Or bringing your cargo bike onto the train. Yup, private carriages are the only option for your occasional weekly or monthly tasks. I guess its also just outright impossible to just allow for mixed zoning that'd allow for daily grocery shopping as well.

radu_floricica 4y ago
I've written in another comment that I'm very much in favor of cheap, small city EVs without all the safety features mandated in a modern car. I don't think we need a ton of iron to go shopping. But I also don't think it's practical to go all the way down to bikes - biggest velo vehicle might at most carry an adult, a child and groceries, while offering zero protection from the weather and very little safety, compared with the smallest and flimsiest hard-shell EV. And I'm saying this while owning... let me count... 4 bikes, one of which is electric. And I absolutely love Uber electric scooters. But no matter how I try to get creative, I just can't think of a way where you can have bike infrastructure covering everything. Too many pieces missing. Where would you park all those cargo bikes near train stations? And again, what do you do in winter with two kids? Small city EVs on the other hand require no new infrastructure, zero major investments, are a fraction of the cost of a car, are non-polluting, and do 90% of what a normal car does. And when going on holiday - yes, you can take the train, which is what I'm actually doing btw. All they need is a very small regulatory change. Allow no-highway cars with speed limits and none of the safety features of modern cars. Just do that.
- Swenrekcah 4y ago
  I don’t believe anybody has ever suggested that bikes should cover everything. People have pointed out that most people can use bikes for pretty much everything, but obviously there will be a need for the occasional car. Some people will need to use cars more, other less. But if you make the simple mindset change of first planning to bike there and then falling back to the car if you deem it infeasible, we’re already most of the way. Most of the safety concerns for bikes disappear as soon as a certain amount of bikers are in the streets and the infrastructure isn’t actively hostile to them.

danuker 4y ago

> real humans occasionally need to move a mattress And real humans can occasionally rent a car. Maybe it is not worth holding thousands of dollars' worth of rusting metal for that occasional odd job. As for snow and ice, Oulu, Finland is an example of how infrastructure defines the way people live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU

phtrivier 4y ago
That still doesn't exactly solve the "30% of seniors thing", though. And quite a few of them have will have unplanned trips to do from very sparsely distributed locations (also known as "houses in the countryside") to other very sparsely distributed locations (aka "their doctor" or "their family"). Also, car loan is perfectly suitable for planned, long distance trips with lots of cargo, which unfortunately happen at the same time for everyone (they're also known as "vacations"). I would not want to be Hertz on the 15th of August in a world without personal cars - unless you ban people from traveling cross country to see their family twice a year, which might be required. I used to bet on "small scale on demand public transportation", but it requires either "communities paying drivers" or "engineers solving self-driving in rural roads", none of which is happening anytime soon. In the meantime, though, we have to invest in trains, bike lanes, and downsize cars at the same time as electrifying them.
- aqme28 4y ago
  Mobility devices are great for bike lanes. What's funny about this comparison is that you're ignoring children, who absolutely cannot drive.
  - phtrivier 4y ago
    Well, they're part of the "cargo" during holidays, I suppose ;) ? But yes, of course children need a different kind of transportation. Though, arguably, it's easier to pedal with your toddler on your back than with your grandma !
- fomine3 4y ago

bawolff 4y ago

> What you're missing is that real humans occasionally need to move a mattress. Or just bring home groceries once a week. People without cars also have to do that. Groceries can be walked home (i know because i do it) and they also fit on busses. Mattresses are a rare thing and you can rent a taxi.

radu_floricica 4y ago
Then why do people buy cars? You can also manage without running water, people did it for most of human existence, but it doesn't mean it's what we want to do. Money talks - when they afford it, a supermajority of people prefer to own a vehicle. And we're on the cusp of making it non-polluting, cheap and sustainable. Let's not blow it because "trains are marginally more energy efficient".
- dopidopHN 4y ago
  I bought my first vehicule at 32, when I moved to the US. Prior to that I was relying on public transportation, renting something for vacation, and coordinating with others. In the US that was not sustainable.
  - aperson_hello 4y ago
    The US is absolutely massive - and in some places, this is absolutely not true and you can use public transport for everything AND it's better than driving. And in other places, the nearest public transport is hours away (by car!!).
    - dopidopHN 4y ago
      Yeah, we have cities too. It’s just that there is trains between them. Or buses that are not greyhound. By « we » I mean Europe. It’s small, but large enough. And yeah, density, yadada … It’s fine. Différents place, different organizations. You guys also have a massive army so you will end up being right.

coalteddy 4y ago

I suggest you watch this video[1] by the awesome channel "Not Just Bikes". Bakfiets are a dutch cargo bike you can literally use for 99% of all your errands. People in a city do not need personal cars. And even Cargo bikes are only useful for 10-20% of occasions, depending on if you have big shopping tours or kids. For the 1 or 2 occasions a year where a car is needed, car sharing is the way to go. [1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhzEnWCgHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhzEnWCgHA

migro23 4y ago

I take your point(s) that the argument cant be "Everyone just use bikes and trains". That's obviously not practical but to be fair it's not what is being suggested either. But in relation to the point you made about bad or cold weather being a factor for bikes being an impractical mode of transport. Please take a few minutes to consider the points and examples provided in this video (1). TLDW: There is a town in Finland (Oulu) where cycling is a primary mode of transport (over a fifth of of all trips are by bike and 77% of people cycle occasionally) even in winter when it gets down to -20 Celsius. Weather is always spouted as a reason for not investing in bike infrastructure which is really annoying because that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It's the lack of safe and adequate bike infrastructure that stops people from cycling. Anyway, I thought it was worth adding that point of nuance to the discussion. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU

radu_floricica 4y ago
From the video: in the winter cycling capital of the world, 22% of all trips are taken by bicycle (all year round). This leaves 78% of trips not taken by bicycle. Honestly, 20% is what I'd expect as an upper limit for bike trips, in a place with great infrastructure and solid biking culture. This is not an argument that (EV) cars can be replaced by trains+bikes. This is a solid argument, with which I agree, that bikes have a place in a transportation ecosystem and they should be encouraged. I was never disputing this - I own several bikes, and I actually prefer to rent uber electric scooters over uber cars.
- migro23 4y ago
  We are in agreement so, in that bikes are an absolutely essential component of a more sustainable transport infrastructure. 20% by the way is a very large number in the context of the total number of trips taken by any given population and unlike you I do not believe this is an upper limit of what can be achieved with bikes but this is a separate discussion. I just wanted to clarify a bugbear with me which is the "people don't use bikes because the weather is crappy". I know nuance is lost in such a few amount of words and that's probably not what you are saying in totality but i just wanted to highlight this point. As an aside, I lived in a large city where amenities such as supermarkets were relatively far away. For a couple of years I got away with not owning a car and using a bike for all shopping needs. There are some examples of where a car would have been way more convenient but the fact of the matter is I made do without it. There are a large number of trips that I made with the bike that I wouldn't have done if I did have a car. Humans are creatures of convenience. There are some trips where a car (or something similar) is absolutely essential but for the vast majority it is not. In situations of necessity it is amazing what can be achieved. We are not living in an age of necessity with regards to means of transport but we really should be if the climate science is to be believed.

fooker 4y ago

> What you're missing is that real humans occasionally need to move a mattress. The corollary is that real human civilizations have to move goods over roads with ICE trucks for the foreseeable future unless batteries approach the energy density of diesel.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Trucks are already moving to electric. It not going to happen overnight, and currently bans on new sales only are scheduled for like 2040, but they're likely to be brought forward as people get more confortable with the idea. Starting with last mile delivery in urban areas, trucks are going electric today. And it's not initially about energy density, it's about the poisons and pollution they emit.
- fooker 4y ago
  Semi trucks will move 'forward' to electric when the technology becomes available. So far it's not, the state of the art prototypes can not do the required job. Maybe it will be something like fuel cells instead, who knows.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    As I said, it's already happening. https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-stories/press-releases/2022/may/sales-start-for-volvos-heavy-duty-electric-trucks.html https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-stories/press-release... Green Hydrogen will be part of the answer in the next 5 years or so, but it's not a blocker right now. There's plenty of semi trucks that have tasks that are within the current battery limits.
    - LunaSea 4y ago
      Green hydrogen is not green besides washing.
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago

belorn 4y ago

The article put up a simplified view in order to reduce the topic down to a single number of energy in vs energy out. It is a technical definition of energy efficiency, but without all that messy context that define transportation. If we were to discussion energy in transportation the context is much richer and complex. The easiest way to see this is in weight. A EV car in general is much heavier than ICE cars, sometimes by a factor of 3x, which happens to cancel out the energy efficiency of the EV. We also have to consider reduce, reuse, repair and recycle aspect. EV car is generally more electronica complex and (according to what I have read), have worse reuse and repair aspect than ICE cars. EV might win on the recycle aspect, and train/bicycles obvious win on the reduce aspect. We also have to consider drive distance. The average trip for a car (using statistics form my country) is 5km, which most of those being commute to and from work, with a majority within biking distance. Of course, if people need a car to transport kids, participate in hobbies, regularly transporting large items, then they might simply use that same tool to travel to and from work as a convenience. Owning a car enables unnecessary travel with car as well as enabling the necessary travel. And finally we need to consider how stations for stores, buses and trains are designed. Train stations are not designed for a person to haul a toddler, an infant and 3 bags of groceries. Subways however are rather much designed to make transporting a toddler and a single bag of groceries a fairly acceptable experience, and since subway stations generally has good coverage, people don't need to have 3 bags of groceries. Supermarkets that focus on subway users tend to be located in the subway stations, while supermarkets that focus on car users that travel a few miles from the store tend to have large parking lots and be located at the outer edges of cities near big highways.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> A EV car in general is much heavier than ICE cars, sometimes by a factor of 3x, which happens to cancel out the energy efficiency of the EV. This isn't true.
- belorn 4y ago
  The Model 3 has around half a ton worth of battery and weights around 2 tons. the GMC Hummer EV weights over 9,000 pounds, around 4.5 tons, which is roughly three times the weight of a Honda Civic. The hummer has around 1.4 tons in just battery (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/07/business/electric-vehicles-weight/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/07/business/electric-vehicles-we...) The law in my country has a combined maximum weight limit (car + trailer) as part of their driving license, which has cause a bit of a problem with EVs. The extra weight from battery mean that there isn't much room to drive the car with a trailer, a problem which political is starting to gain some traction. The argument being put forth is that people are forced to use ICE car to pull things like boat trailer just because the law was designed for more lighter ICE cars. If there is no additional weight with EVs then the law doesn't need to change. Are you saying that the people arguing that EV is being hindered are wrong? Just as a small hint about that. EU has recently change their rules. The previous allowed max was 3.5 tons, but electric and gas powered cars has been given an exception to increase the max to 4.25 tons in acknowledgement that those cars tend to be heavier, and that the previous limit restricted the use of lower emission transportation. Source: Revision of the Directive on Driving Licences. Of course politicians could be wrong and there is nothing to make it physical impossible to build a light weight EV. Restricting weight reduces road maintenance and decreases the breaking distance and if there is no need for increasing the maximum then everyone is better off with the old maximum.

cycomanic 4y ago

This is the argument being made again and again, but if we look at the realities the average number of occupants was 1.6 in England [1] and is likely similar for other countries. Also have a look at cycling commutes in Finland on YouTube, lots of people. The argument that we can't change how we move is just an argument about not wanting change. I bet if we actually make cars cover all the direct and indirect costs (for both ICE and EV) instead of massively subsidising car travel, people would quickly change. Why do we need to subsidise the choice of a part of society to not want to change? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/314719/average-car-and-van-occupancy-in-england/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/314719/average-car-and-v...

Shorel 4y ago

When I move heavy stuff I don't use my car, I rent a truck, which was made for moving heavy stuff. I also don't see a reason to carry toddlers to grocery shops.

throwaway894345 4y ago
You take toddlers with you because leaving them unsupervised is illegal. Whether you’re driving your own car or renting a truck doesn’t matter—rail doesn’t suffice in either case.

undersuit 4y ago

"We tried nothing and we're all out of ideas." It's funny you mention the Netherlands as your proof for your little list of gotchas. The Netherlands handles all your little gotchas fine, and so do more northern countries like Sweden. The problem is the convenience of a car makes it not worth just putting on a layer of clothing for the weather. Use a car if you're going to travel 100km, but don't be like the rest of the people in my Montana town and use a car to go pick up the groceries 3 miles away just because it's 42 degrees and you're cold. See by saying you need a car for these extremes you are actually just making excuses to use a car all the time.

aperson_hello 4y ago
But at least in my experience (and I suspect in others' as well), those shorts trips make up a miniscule percentage of overall miles (and therefore emissions). It's commuting and road trips that account for 90% of my mileage
- undersuit 4y ago
  Well you should definitely be commuting by bike or public transportation. Don't know why you would think that wasn't in the cards. Road trips? Why are you taking them in a personal vehicle? Because there isn't competent public transportation. I'm against car ownership. Oh you can't get anywhere without a car? Maybe build another lane to a place where I care.
  - aperson_hello 4y ago
    There's a huge infrastructure and zoning problem that incentivizes some jobs to be in transit-friendly places (professional services - so they have easy access to their customers) and others to specifically not be in transit-friendly places (manufacturers - so they have easy highway access for shipping). If you're living with someone in the other category of work, at least one of you is necessarily living in a location that requires commuting where I am. I have the short end of that equation, so I'm commuting 20 minutes by car (vs. nearly 2 hours by bike or by bus). It just doesn't make sense to have transit go regularly enough or direct enough to where I'm commuting to (one rider buses are worse than cars!!).

JoeAltmaier 4y ago

Isn't that cultural? We don't even think about getting such things delivered. Why not? Because it's expensive? More expensive than owning a $20,000 vehicle? That's a kind of 'frictionless cow' blind spot as well. If personal ICE and electric cars disappeared from existence tomorrow, we'd adapt.

ryan_lane 4y ago

What you're missing is that many of the problems you're describing are due to building cities around cars. You can get the mattress delivered (and even if you don't, you usually can't fit a mattress in most vehicles and probably need to rent one). You go to the store more frequently, and buy fewer things, at a grocery store that's less than 5 minutes way by foot. People can and do transport their children by bike. Walkable cities with public transportation are considerably easier for seniors, because many of them can no longer drive. You're also leaving out folks with disabilities, for which walkable cities with good public transportation are life changing. You're also conveniently leaving out cost. Transportation costs in walkable cities with good public transportation is considerably cheaper. Cars, gas, insurance, maintenance, parking, etc. is extremely expensive. My current transportation costs are roughly $80 a month. When I had a car, they were roughly $800 a month (with averaged maintenance costs included). (Most) Folks aren't saying that cars shouldn't exist, just that in cities, they should not be what we design for, because their convenience for some people results in the inconvenience of most people. EVs should replace ICE cars, but we should restrict how cars can be brought in the city, and we should limit where and how they park (especially by eliminating free parking). The costs related to this should be progressive, based on income.

cdf 4y ago

Or in case of Singapore, your heat wave is our most days in 80% humidity. And on the days it isnt hot, it's probably pouring rain... you know 10 seconds of it is indistinguishable from jumping into a swimming pool rain.

mbrtn 4y ago

Yes, not only cold weather is a culprit, but also hot. I can't even imagine a cyclist riding from one part of Dubai to another. It is dangerous.

kderbyma 4y ago

bikes can carry and tow trailers to help with some of that. Also...groceries can be carried on the bars if a few bags