3 ms·

But you still need a car for the other amount of time. Until that problem is solved, "we bike on a nice day" and it works 50% of the time is not really a counte

by dcow 3y ago

But you still need a car for the other amount of time. Until that problem is solved, "we bike on a nice day" and it works 50% of the time is not really a counter argument...

tantar1 3y ago
I live in a rural-ish area. School is a solid 15min drive, there are many steep hills and the nearest store is more than a mile away. My kid is at the end of pre-teen years and I bought an ebike, carful to get one that is legal for children to ride in my state. I also bought MotoCross-level safety gear(helmet, gloves, upper body armor, eye pro) The child takes the bike to school, practice, activities and friends houses when the North East weather cooperates. For me, the closest dropoff event is 4 miles. 1mile to drop off, 1 mile to get home, and the same to pick up. This milage increases rapidly as the base distance increases. I havent gotten rid of either of our two SUVs (NorthEast Winter sucks), but I have a remarkable reduction in gas usage. Selfishly, I dont have to stop what Im doing to transport the child. I didnt do this for ecological reasons, but to give my child some freedom and the ability to get out on their own. The ebike is 3 months old and has 350 miles on it already. Those are all miles that didnt come out of my gas tank or go into the environment.
adave 3y ago
It is as that replaces 1 car, imagine if every family did that instead of 4 people buying 4 separate cars like crazy people.
dgacmu 3y ago
Sure it is - it's less CO2, I'm in better shape, it's less wear on the roads, I don't take up parking spaces as much, and it lets us avoid buying a second car. (And it's a lot cheaper per mile) The perfect is the enemy of the good. E-bikes are good. They're not perfect on their own and that's ok. Edited to add: and I left off: they're WAY more fun! It's delightful riding around on it compared to being stuck in a car in rush hour traffic. :-) the bike is almost never stopped. and we get to say hi to more people we know as we pass by. Much better experience, even if a big rainstorm sends us back into the car.
- dcow 3y ago
  I never said it’s not awesome that you cut your car usage in half. I’m saying you didn't eliminate it so it’s not like you could go carless, which was the strong assertion a few comments up.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    How is going from 2 cars to 1 car not a positive? And using that single car only when absolutely necessary also not a positive? Nobody is claiming cars should be banned outright. We’re only claiming cars are overused in the US.
    - dcow 3y ago
      ??? I didn't say it isn't positive. ??? I said reducing your car usage by half doesn't eliminate your need for a car. You still have to buy the car. You still have the need for the car. We’re in a thread under “most people don’t need a car”. No. At best most people use a car more than necessary, unless you live in a dense city, maybe then you don't need a car. But then you aren't most people.
      - whaleofatw2022 3y ago
        It technically did eliminate their need for -a- car, although they do still need a car. And frankly that -is- a point worth remembering. I know lots of couples that could be able to get by with a single vehicle instead of two at a significant financial benefit to them as well as an environmental benefit. I know in my late 20s I was able to ride my -normal- bike to and from Meijer and get 40-80$ of groceries (2008 dollars mind you) in a trip. Back then that lasted the two of us a week, although yes I had to hoof it back for the sake of perishables. And yes I balanced triple bagged items along the handlebars. But, frankly, if I had the money for even a small 'trailer' that wouldn't have even been an issue. It's amazing how much volume a child trailer has for groceries/etc when there isn't an actual child involved. Edited to add: maybe the bigger questions are why we have economic and social pressures for single folks to have a car and DINKs (ESPECIALLY SINKs) to have two cars.
Teever 3y ago
> "we bike on a nice day" and it works 50% of the time is not really a counter argument... Exactly, it's half of a counter argument. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
- dcow 3y ago
  I mean the challenge was that “most people don't need a car”. I’m not saying don't ride a bike and reduce your car dependence… that’s awesome. I’m saying that cutting usage in half doesn't support the “most people don't need a car” angle. Most people still need a car.
  - seadan83 3y ago
    I think that is a touchy angle. The statement is probably better as "most people shouldn't need a car" The touchy part is be ause the logic often goes, because 100% can't get off cars, the necessary infrastructure to allow the 20% who could, won't be built. It's like public transit, it sucks due to shoe string funding, ridership is low because it sucks, funding is then reduced because ridership is low.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Fine, most people don’t need a car for a significant number of the trips they make by car.
  - midasuni 3y ago
    There are about 1.1 billion passenger cars in the work and over 8 billion people. Thus most people don’t need a car. The requirement for “most people need a car” depends on the definition of most people. Live in a small town in Arizona? Sure you need a car. Live in TriBeCa? You don’t need a car.

by dcow 3y ago

But you still need a car for the other amount of time. Until that problem is solved, "we bike on a nice day" and it works 50% of the time is not really a counter argument...

tantar1 3y ago

I live in a rural-ish area. School is a solid 15min drive, there are many steep hills and the nearest store is more than a mile away. My kid is at the end of pre-teen years and I bought an ebike, carful to get one that is legal for children to ride in my state. I also bought MotoCross-level safety gear(helmet, gloves, upper body armor, eye pro) The child takes the bike to school, practice, activities and friends houses when the North East weather cooperates. For me, the closest dropoff event is 4 miles. 1mile to drop off, 1 mile to get home, and the same to pick up. This milage increases rapidly as the base distance increases. I havent gotten rid of either of our two SUVs (NorthEast Winter sucks), but I have a remarkable reduction in gas usage. Selfishly, I dont have to stop what Im doing to transport the child. I didnt do this for ecological reasons, but to give my child some freedom and the ability to get out on their own. The ebike is 3 months old and has 350 miles on it already. Those are all miles that didnt come out of my gas tank or go into the environment.

adave 3y ago

It is as that replaces 1 car, imagine if every family did that instead of 4 people buying 4 separate cars like crazy people.

dgacmu 3y ago

Sure it is - it's less CO2, I'm in better shape, it's less wear on the roads, I don't take up parking spaces as much, and it lets us avoid buying a second car. (And it's a lot cheaper per mile) The perfect is the enemy of the good. E-bikes are good. They're not perfect on their own and that's ok. Edited to add: and I left off: they're WAY more fun! It's delightful riding around on it compared to being stuck in a car in rush hour traffic. :-) the bike is almost never stopped. and we get to say hi to more people we know as we pass by. Much better experience, even if a big rainstorm sends us back into the car.

dcow 3y ago
I never said it’s not awesome that you cut your car usage in half. I’m saying you didn't eliminate it so it’s not like you could go carless, which was the strong assertion a few comments up.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  How is going from 2 cars to 1 car not a positive? And using that single car only when absolutely necessary also not a positive? Nobody is claiming cars should be banned outright. We’re only claiming cars are overused in the US.
  - dcow 3y ago
    ??? I didn't say it isn't positive. ??? I said reducing your car usage by half doesn't eliminate your need for a car. You still have to buy the car. You still have the need for the car. We’re in a thread under “most people don’t need a car”. No. At best most people use a car more than necessary, unless you live in a dense city, maybe then you don't need a car. But then you aren't most people.
    - whaleofatw2022 3y ago
      It technically did eliminate their need for -a- car, although they do still need a car. And frankly that -is- a point worth remembering. I know lots of couples that could be able to get by with a single vehicle instead of two at a significant financial benefit to them as well as an environmental benefit. I know in my late 20s I was able to ride my -normal- bike to and from Meijer and get 40-80$ of groceries (2008 dollars mind you) in a trip. Back then that lasted the two of us a week, although yes I had to hoof it back for the sake of perishables. And yes I balanced triple bagged items along the handlebars. But, frankly, if I had the money for even a small 'trailer' that wouldn't have even been an issue. It's amazing how much volume a child trailer has for groceries/etc when there isn't an actual child involved. Edited to add: maybe the bigger questions are why we have economic and social pressures for single folks to have a car and DINKs (ESPECIALLY SINKs) to have two cars.

Teever 3y ago

> "we bike on a nice day" and it works 50% of the time is not really a counter argument... Exactly, it's half of a counter argument. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

dcow 3y ago
I mean the challenge was that “most people don't need a car”. I’m not saying don't ride a bike and reduce your car dependence… that’s awesome. I’m saying that cutting usage in half doesn't support the “most people don't need a car” angle. Most people still need a car.
- seadan83 3y ago
  I think that is a touchy angle. The statement is probably better as "most people shouldn't need a car" The touchy part is be ause the logic often goes, because 100% can't get off cars, the necessary infrastructure to allow the 20% who could, won't be built. It's like public transit, it sucks due to shoe string funding, ridership is low because it sucks, funding is then reduced because ridership is low.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Fine, most people don’t need a car for a significant number of the trips they make by car.
- midasuni 3y ago
  There are about 1.1 billion passenger cars in the work and over 8 billion people. Thus most people don’t need a car. The requirement for “most people need a car” depends on the definition of most people. Live in a small town in Arizona? Sure you need a car. Live in TriBeCa? You don’t need a car.