4 ms·

You can have my downvote. People need transport now, not in some hypothetical ideal future world. Bikes are dangerous, even in places with good infrastructure.

You can have my downvote. People need transport now, not in some hypothetical ideal future world. Bikes are dangerous, even in places with good infrastructure. Bikes are no good for carrying your shopping, or your kids, or taking your partner to dinner, or when the weather is inclement, or if your physical condition doesn’t permit it. At best they’re an auxiliary option for when circumstances permit. In economics terms they’re not a substitute good for cars. I love cycling and wish my city had better infrastructure. But let’s keep it real.

rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
>Bikes are no good for carrying your shopping, or your kids, or taking your partner to dinner, or when the weather is inclement, or if your physical condition doesn’t permit it. I've been biking for everything for over about 15 years (we don't have a car). With two bags on the back, enough to shop. With kids. Taking my partners for dinner. For works, vacation, errands, everything. When there's rain and when there's snow. My physical condition improved thanks to biking. Idem for my finances. Do you even ride a bike?!
- slashdev 3y ago
  I wouldn’t do any of those things you listed on a bike, except a small shop, not a Costco shop. And I cycle in the rain sometimes, but not by choice. I love cycling, but I use a car when it’s the tool for the job.
- lostmsu 3y ago
  > Taking my partnerS for dinner. Am I reading too much subtle failure here?
  - buffington 3y ago
    Yes.
  - hkt 3y ago
    Or subtle success, depending on whether that's sequence or simultaneity..
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
>Bikes are no good for carrying your shopping, or your kids, or taking your partner to dinner, or when the weather is inclement, or if your physical condition doesn’t permit it. I've been biking for everything for over about 15 years. With two bags on the back, enough to shop. With kids. Taking my partners for dinner. When there's rain and when there's snow. My physical condition improved thanks to biking. Have you tried riding a bike?
paddim8 3y ago
Bikes are not dangerous in places with good infrastructure. Why would you think that? Statistics in countries like Sweden are quite good. Biking is safe. Where I live, I'm nowhere near cars most of the time even.
- paddim8 3y ago
  Further more, it's completely normal for kids to bike. And if they're too young (<5 years old normally), it's completely normal for parents to have a seat on the bike for the kid. It's statistically safe.
- slashdev 3y ago
  I’ve never seen a city where you can stay in safe areas, not even in cities I’ve visited in Europe. Unless you’re very limited in where you go, you usually end up sharing the road with cars at some point, and that’s quite dangerous. Even if it’s just crossing an intersection from a bike lane. I almost got erased challenging a left turning car to a yellow light in Vancouver (I don’t remember if he indicated or not). After that I learned that yellow should mean stop for bikes. I don’t want “he had the right of way” to be my epitaph on my tombstone.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Even in shared areas, bikes and pedestrians can be prioritized. Continuous sidewalks (at sidewalk grade) give the mental impression the road is crossing the sidewalk (instead of the other way around in the US). Plus, cycling is normalized - drivers are cyclists and more aware of the damage they can do by texting or driving dangerously.
  - paddim8 3y ago
    Where I live cyclists rarely need to share the road with cars. Sidewalks are a bit wider so that cyclists can use half and pedestrians the other half. Almost all sidewalks I have seen here are shared pedestrian/cyclist ones.
alistairSH 3y ago
Amsterdam has joined the chat. /s Bikes are only dangerous when they are mixed with high-speed auto traffic. On dedicated paths, they're pretty safe. More so when the bikes are lower-speed townie bikes (dutch style or similar, vs a "TdF race bike") and helmets are worn. Cargo bikes exist. Racks and bags are available for most normal bikes. Some cargo bikes have platforms that can be used as a seat (similar to a motorcycle). No such thing as poor weather, only poor clothing choices. Yes, there are people who will never be able to ride a bike and we need to build with them in mind as well. The US, in general, is terrible at building for an array of transportation alternatives. It's basically cars, cars, cars. Are bikes (or scooters or buses) a 100% substitute for cars today? No. Could they be for a large portion of the population? Absolutely, we just need to push for it. In the long run, we'll be better for it. Cars have massive costs - not just buying the car, but maintaining it, fueling it, building roads, opportunity costs related to parking spaces, environmental impacts, etc. Even if we get to the point where a typical 3-4 person family has one car instead of 2-3, we'll be better off.
- slashdev 3y ago
  Canada entering the chat. There is definitely poor weather. I know people will cycle in the snow and ice, but I don’t recommend it. I agree that bikes are great, when the infrastructure supports them, and reducing usage of petrol cars is sensible for the planet. But they still can only supplement a car for most families in most places.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Oulu, Finland manages to keep bike transit viable over winter (20% of trips most of the year, 12% of trips through winter). https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/01/22/meet-the-bike-loving-finnish-city-that-keeps-pedalling-even-in-the-snow https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/01/22/meet-the-bike-... Like I said, even if we get from 2-3 cars/family to 1 car/family, we're WAY ahead in resource use, health, space usage, etc.
    - concordDance 3y ago
buffington 3y ago
> People need transport now, not in some hypothetical ideal future world. This is the only part of your comment that I can really agree with. Aside from weather and physical conditions the rest is simply not true. I used to live in San Francisco and had both a pickup truck and an electric assist cargo bike. I could get anywhere in the city on that bike, and typically was able to get door to door even quicker than I could by car because I didn't need to spend an extra 10 minutes finding a place to park a motor vehicle. The bike served as the mini-van. I'd drop my kids off at their two different schools, each in different parts of the city, and then head to work, doing all of that in less time than I could in a car. I also used it to help people move households. It's carried a full size refrigerator from the top of Potrero Hill (one of the steepest in SF) across town to Outer Sunset. It wasn't even difficult, and probably took less time getting it from one house to another because it was easier to load (the "deck" of the bike is less than a foot off the ground) and moved just as quick as a loaded truck through the city. I've used it to tow a friend's broken Honda Accord a similar distance as well. Getting rolling was challenging, but only because the bike tires lacked the traction needed and would do burnouts unless the bike had a lot of weight, so we solved that by also moving a small motor cycle at the same time. I don't have data to back this, but it's safe to say that I've moved more cargo (in weight) with that bike than the pickup truck I'd owned for 10 years prior to getting the cargo bike. My experience may be unique, but it's totally within the ability of anyone who can afford even a cheap used car to do today with ready built models shipped overnight via Amazon Prime. In other words, the people who need transport now can have it in a very non-hypothetical world. All this coming from someone who does not believe simply advocating for people to use public transit is a fix-all solution. Use it when the weather isn't great, or when you sprain your ankle, or when you don't want to fuss with finding parking.
- slashdev 3y ago
  I’m frankly amazed at how much you do on a bike. I’m not sure the average person could do as much, but color me impressed.

rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago

>Bikes are no good for carrying your shopping, or your kids, or taking your partner to dinner, or when the weather is inclement, or if your physical condition doesn’t permit it. I've been biking for everything for over about 15 years (we don't have a car). With two bags on the back, enough to shop. With kids. Taking my partners for dinner. For works, vacation, errands, everything. When there's rain and when there's snow. My physical condition improved thanks to biking. Idem for my finances. Do you even ride a bike?!

slashdev 3y ago
I wouldn’t do any of those things you listed on a bike, except a small shop, not a Costco shop. And I cycle in the rain sometimes, but not by choice. I love cycling, but I use a car when it’s the tool for the job.
lostmsu 3y ago
> Taking my partnerS for dinner. Am I reading too much subtle failure here?
- buffington 3y ago
  Yes.
- hkt 3y ago
  Or subtle success, depending on whether that's sequence or simultaneity..
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago

>Bikes are no good for carrying your shopping, or your kids, or taking your partner to dinner, or when the weather is inclement, or if your physical condition doesn’t permit it. I've been biking for everything for over about 15 years. With two bags on the back, enough to shop. With kids. Taking my partners for dinner. When there's rain and when there's snow. My physical condition improved thanks to biking. Have you tried riding a bike?

paddim8 3y ago

Bikes are not dangerous in places with good infrastructure. Why would you think that? Statistics in countries like Sweden are quite good. Biking is safe. Where I live, I'm nowhere near cars most of the time even.

paddim8 3y ago
Further more, it's completely normal for kids to bike. And if they're too young (<5 years old normally), it's completely normal for parents to have a seat on the bike for the kid. It's statistically safe.
slashdev 3y ago
I’ve never seen a city where you can stay in safe areas, not even in cities I’ve visited in Europe. Unless you’re very limited in where you go, you usually end up sharing the road with cars at some point, and that’s quite dangerous. Even if it’s just crossing an intersection from a bike lane. I almost got erased challenging a left turning car to a yellow light in Vancouver (I don’t remember if he indicated or not). After that I learned that yellow should mean stop for bikes. I don’t want “he had the right of way” to be my epitaph on my tombstone.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Even in shared areas, bikes and pedestrians can be prioritized. Continuous sidewalks (at sidewalk grade) give the mental impression the road is crossing the sidewalk (instead of the other way around in the US). Plus, cycling is normalized - drivers are cyclists and more aware of the damage they can do by texting or driving dangerously.
- paddim8 3y ago
  Where I live cyclists rarely need to share the road with cars. Sidewalks are a bit wider so that cyclists can use half and pedestrians the other half. Almost all sidewalks I have seen here are shared pedestrian/cyclist ones.

alistairSH 3y ago

Amsterdam has joined the chat. /s Bikes are only dangerous when they are mixed with high-speed auto traffic. On dedicated paths, they're pretty safe. More so when the bikes are lower-speed townie bikes (dutch style or similar, vs a "TdF race bike") and helmets are worn. Cargo bikes exist. Racks and bags are available for most normal bikes. Some cargo bikes have platforms that can be used as a seat (similar to a motorcycle). No such thing as poor weather, only poor clothing choices. Yes, there are people who will never be able to ride a bike and we need to build with them in mind as well. The US, in general, is terrible at building for an array of transportation alternatives. It's basically cars, cars, cars. Are bikes (or scooters or buses) a 100% substitute for cars today? No. Could they be for a large portion of the population? Absolutely, we just need to push for it. In the long run, we'll be better for it. Cars have massive costs - not just buying the car, but maintaining it, fueling it, building roads, opportunity costs related to parking spaces, environmental impacts, etc. Even if we get to the point where a typical 3-4 person family has one car instead of 2-3, we'll be better off.

slashdev 3y ago
Canada entering the chat. There is definitely poor weather. I know people will cycle in the snow and ice, but I don’t recommend it. I agree that bikes are great, when the infrastructure supports them, and reducing usage of petrol cars is sensible for the planet. But they still can only supplement a car for most families in most places.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Oulu, Finland manages to keep bike transit viable over winter (20% of trips most of the year, 12% of trips through winter). https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/01/22/meet-the-bike-loving-finnish-city-that-keeps-pedalling-even-in-the-snow https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/01/22/meet-the-bike-... Like I said, even if we get from 2-3 cars/family to 1 car/family, we're WAY ahead in resource use, health, space usage, etc.
  - concordDance 3y ago

buffington 3y ago

> People need transport now, not in some hypothetical ideal future world. This is the only part of your comment that I can really agree with. Aside from weather and physical conditions the rest is simply not true. I used to live in San Francisco and had both a pickup truck and an electric assist cargo bike. I could get anywhere in the city on that bike, and typically was able to get door to door even quicker than I could by car because I didn't need to spend an extra 10 minutes finding a place to park a motor vehicle. The bike served as the mini-van. I'd drop my kids off at their two different schools, each in different parts of the city, and then head to work, doing all of that in less time than I could in a car. I also used it to help people move households. It's carried a full size refrigerator from the top of Potrero Hill (one of the steepest in SF) across town to Outer Sunset. It wasn't even difficult, and probably took less time getting it from one house to another because it was easier to load (the "deck" of the bike is less than a foot off the ground) and moved just as quick as a loaded truck through the city. I've used it to tow a friend's broken Honda Accord a similar distance as well. Getting rolling was challenging, but only because the bike tires lacked the traction needed and would do burnouts unless the bike had a lot of weight, so we solved that by also moving a small motor cycle at the same time. I don't have data to back this, but it's safe to say that I've moved more cargo (in weight) with that bike than the pickup truck I'd owned for 10 years prior to getting the cargo bike. My experience may be unique, but it's totally within the ability of anyone who can afford even a cheap used car to do today with ready built models shipped overnight via Amazon Prime. In other words, the people who need transport now can have it in a very non-hypothetical world. All this coming from someone who does not believe simply advocating for people to use public transit is a fix-all solution. Use it when the weather isn't great, or when you sprain your ankle, or when you don't want to fuss with finding parking.

slashdev 3y ago
I’m frankly amazed at how much you do on a bike. I’m not sure the average person could do as much, but color me impressed.