4 ms·

Cars have heaters. Bikes don’t. Transporting a baby in freezing rain on a bike is a non-starter. I’m sure it could be done, but why? Cars represent progress. Bi

Cars have heaters. Bikes don’t. Transporting a baby in freezing rain on a bike is a non-starter. I’m sure it could be done, but why? Cars represent progress. Bikes as a primary form of transportation is a regression.

skyyler 3y ago
To some people, cars represent consumerism, not progress. Most normal people take public transit into consideration when moving to a new place.
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  Consumerism sounds like progress to me. It’s the reason I don’t wake up and farm my land or sew my own clothes. Sure, there is a lot of shit products nowadays but that seems caused by corporate profit seeking and globalism.
  - skyyler 3y ago
    Exactly! Corporate profit seeking is why most cities in the US don't have functional transit systems. Car ownership is forced upon us here. Some of us would prefer a functional system of busses and trains.
snarfy 3y ago
Cars externalize their problems. If cars internalized their problems the tailpipe would come out of the dashboard.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  While I enjoy the imagery, the same is true for buses.
  - pja 3y ago
    The metaphor doesn't work all well for tailpipe emissions, but the reality that cars externalise their impact is obviously true for things like congestion, the cost of road maintenance & so on.
Aeolun 3y ago
> Transporting a baby in freezing rain on a bike is a non-starter. My reaction is the opposite. You’d stick a baby in a car to go a distance you could travel by bike? If you’re going to the next town over, by all mean, go with the car. But I wouldn’t drive to the store with the car when the bike would do (or I’m particularly lazy that day)
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  Of course I would. My trip would be 2 minutes each way instead of 20, I wouldn’t be considered about weather, and I’m far less limited in what I can purchase on this trip. Now sure if I want to spend a nice leisurely Saturday afternoon riding a back then maybe I’d take a bike but that would make my intent the bike ride rather than shopping.
  - guitarbill 3y ago
    Until everybody insists like you on driving. Because of the increased traffic, it now takes longer. Not to mention trying to find parking. And with the extra traffic, it's dangerous to bike now. Oh well.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      It depends on the density. If it is a desirable place to live, that will definitely happen. If it isn't, you can still drive and more people won't necessarily join you in driving. The secret is to just live in a so-so place.
      - estebank 3y ago
        This conversation always goes: - "there should be fewer cars in cities" - "I need my car in my rural area, there's no-one close by" - 200 pages of back and forth talking over each other If you're not in a city or city adjacent, any infraatructure change won't affect you at all.
  - InSteady 3y ago
breuleux 3y ago
A car is progress for the car's driver, but it is a regression for everybody else: cars are loud, dangerous and they take insane amounts of space. In sparsely populated regions, sure, that is not a big deal compared to the upsides, but in dense cities, cars are basically a public nuisance.

skyyler 3y ago

To some people, cars represent consumerism, not progress. Most normal people take public transit into consideration when moving to a new place.

lotsoweiners 3y ago
Consumerism sounds like progress to me. It’s the reason I don’t wake up and farm my land or sew my own clothes. Sure, there is a lot of shit products nowadays but that seems caused by corporate profit seeking and globalism.
- skyyler 3y ago
  Exactly! Corporate profit seeking is why most cities in the US don't have functional transit systems. Car ownership is forced upon us here. Some of us would prefer a functional system of busses and trains.

snarfy 3y ago

Cars externalize their problems. If cars internalized their problems the tailpipe would come out of the dashboard.

Aeolun 3y ago
While I enjoy the imagery, the same is true for buses.
- pja 3y ago
  The metaphor doesn't work all well for tailpipe emissions, but the reality that cars externalise their impact is obviously true for things like congestion, the cost of road maintenance & so on.

Aeolun 3y ago

> Transporting a baby in freezing rain on a bike is a non-starter. My reaction is the opposite. You’d stick a baby in a car to go a distance you could travel by bike? If you’re going to the next town over, by all mean, go with the car. But I wouldn’t drive to the store with the car when the bike would do (or I’m particularly lazy that day)

lotsoweiners 3y ago
Of course I would. My trip would be 2 minutes each way instead of 20, I wouldn’t be considered about weather, and I’m far less limited in what I can purchase on this trip. Now sure if I want to spend a nice leisurely Saturday afternoon riding a back then maybe I’d take a bike but that would make my intent the bike ride rather than shopping.
- guitarbill 3y ago
  Until everybody insists like you on driving. Because of the increased traffic, it now takes longer. Not to mention trying to find parking. And with the extra traffic, it's dangerous to bike now. Oh well.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    It depends on the density. If it is a desirable place to live, that will definitely happen. If it isn't, you can still drive and more people won't necessarily join you in driving. The secret is to just live in a so-so place.
    - estebank 3y ago
      This conversation always goes: - "there should be fewer cars in cities" - "I need my car in my rural area, there's no-one close by" - 200 pages of back and forth talking over each other If you're not in a city or city adjacent, any infraatructure change won't affect you at all.
- InSteady 3y ago

breuleux 3y ago

A car is progress for the car's driver, but it is a regression for everybody else: cars are loud, dangerous and they take insane amounts of space. In sparsely populated regions, sure, that is not a big deal compared to the upsides, but in dense cities, cars are basically a public nuisance.