2 ms·
My whole life I've struggled with the need for cars in the places I've lived. Very few US cities have the right infrastructure to go car-free, and the places I
by ubermonkey 3y ago
My whole life I've struggled with the need for cars in the places I've lived. Very few US cities have the right infrastructure to go car-free, and the places I personally have lived feature such unrelentingly hot summers that going anywhere without AC is pretty much a nonstarter.
But it exists as a low-grade "well this sucks, but I can't do much about it" fact of existence, like hangnails or tax audits. Then, last year, I bought a motorcycle in lieu of us getting a second car, and I found that EVEN WITH the hassles of weather and limited cargo, and EVEN WITH factoring in the need to wear protective gear, the dead solid CERTAINTY that I can park in seconds without being far from my destination makes the bike my preference 80% of the time.
Only 100F or driving rain will make me PICK the car if the logistics of the trip don't demand it for other reasons. The agility, ease of parking, and absurd fuel economy are all huge wins, plus it's always more fun that driving.
- abdullahkhalids 3y agoThe problem with bikes is that you are subjecting yourself to a 6x higher deathrate. Thanks partially to the cars next to you on the road.
- ubermonkey 3y agoIt's definitely more dangerous, but so is bicycling on those roads, which I do far more frequently. It's worth noting, too, that motorcycle casualty rates are somewhat distorted by the 19-year-old dumbass factor. Anybody with money can get a moto license and buy a used liter bike with WAY WAY WAY more power than anyone should realistically have on public roads. An astonishing number of motorcycle fatalities and injuries are solo accidents due to misadventure. I'm old. I did all my stupid stuff already, and have a healthy respect for being effectively naked in traffic (ie, from cycling). It's still more dangerous than being in a car, but the overall stats mislead about HOW much more dangerous.