4 ms·

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 u

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.
- radu_floricica 4y ago
  They're literally saying weather doesn't matter. I mean, you can hardly be more clear than "Infrastructure is more or less the sole deciding factor." I'm sorry for appearing confrontational, but the original comment was pretty much "we should ignore EVs and just skip to trains+bikes because they're better". I'm not disputing that bikes are ok, and as it happens I own several and love riding scooters. But taking "bikes are ok" and using it as a stick with which to hit EVs has just one result: later adoption of EVs, more people dying early because pollution, more carbon in the air. I didn't say that we need to chose just one solution. OP did, quite clearly. And then followed up with arguments which are rather weak, to which I'm responding a bit less politely than I otherwise would.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    You're a lot more polite than I would be :-)

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.

radu_floricica 4y ago
They're literally saying weather doesn't matter. I mean, you can hardly be more clear than "Infrastructure is more or less the sole deciding factor." I'm sorry for appearing confrontational, but the original comment was pretty much "we should ignore EVs and just skip to trains+bikes because they're better". I'm not disputing that bikes are ok, and as it happens I own several and love riding scooters. But taking "bikes are ok" and using it as a stick with which to hit EVs has just one result: later adoption of EVs, more people dying early because pollution, more carbon in the air. I didn't say that we need to chose just one solution. OP did, quite clearly. And then followed up with arguments which are rather weak, to which I'm responding a bit less politely than I otherwise would.
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  You're a lot more polite than I would be :-)