4 ms·

I simply can’t see cycling as the answer. Public transport, 100% yes. But when people suggesting cycling I feel like they’re asking for their hobby to be taxpay

by wepple 3y ago

I simply can’t see cycling as the answer. Public transport, 100% yes. But when people suggesting cycling I feel like they’re asking for their hobby to be taxpayer subsidized. How does it work for those who aren’t fully bodily abled? When it snows and rains? Traveling non-trivial distances? Hills?

matsemann 3y ago
We have lots of snow and hills here in Norway. I bike year around. Studded tires in the winter. I always find the argument a bit funny, because on the worst snow days the roads are littered with cars and accidents. While I bike happily past. Electric bikes solves the hills-problem for those that don't want to get sweaty. I see lots of parents shipping their kids around on cargo bikes. I hate the argument about "bodily abled". What about all those that cannot drive? Lots of conditions where that's the case. Or even factors as age (young, old), money (car is expensive). A car centric society is far more excluding than one made for active modes of transport and public transport. Additionally, one can of course make provisions for those that need a car because of handicaps. Would you be fine if we banned cars in the city centre, except for those not bodily abled? My experience is that those pushing HC as an argument doesn't do it in good faith.
- azherebtsov 3y ago
  I really think that cargo bikes should be banned forever as a huge threat for kids inside. I feel like this is invented for those who takes caring of environment as a religion and ready to sacrifice own kids for it. One could say that the danger for them is mainly from cars but you can say so about public transport. I.e bus or tram is dangerous for cargo bike occupants. I really do not get this when I see cargo bike with two kids inside, two kids bikes hanging on the sides and bags of groceries pulled by one cyclists. What is the point? Prove that you are strong enough?
  - matsemann 3y ago
    I follow all bicycle related accidents and deaths in my country (as a board member of our bike association), and I've never heard of any serious accidents related to this. It's a non-issue. And as you're saying, the main danger is cars. So having more people bike their kids around is safer for everybody, if they were to stop biking like that it would just be yet another dangerous car on the road.
    - azherebtsov 3y ago
      Well, it awesome and great that you live in such a safe place. That does not change the fact that this type of transport is not safe for occupants. And cars are not always the cause https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-bike-accident/four-children-killed-in-netherlands-as-train-hits-cargo-bicycle-idUSKCN1M00YL https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-bike-accident...
- wepple 3y ago
  You make some fairly reasonable points, but it’s very clear you’re talking explicitly about cities which is a small (but significant) part of the problem. Realistically if you’re trying to get rid of vehicles, most modern cities are already well set up to do that. I disagree that cars are more excluding than cycling; very few people of older age would be safe cycling compared to driving. Yes, bikes are far more affordable though. Electric bikes could be quite revolutionary (I’ve owned various modes of electric personal transport - which I’ve turned into a “net 0” project and entirely charged off solar), but when you said “cycling” I don’t consider them to be part of that: many cities exclude powered vehicles from cycling infrastructure
Mawr 3y ago
> How does it work for those who aren’t fully bodily abled? How does driving work for the many disabled people who can't drive? With cycling infra, their options are much, much better: mobility scooters, tricycles, ebikes, micro cars, all riding on cycle paths. Add public transport and the fact cars still remain an option and it's objectively better. https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo?t=42 https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo?t=42

by wepple 3y ago

matsemann 3y ago

We have lots of snow and hills here in Norway. I bike year around. Studded tires in the winter. I always find the argument a bit funny, because on the worst snow days the roads are littered with cars and accidents. While I bike happily past. Electric bikes solves the hills-problem for those that don't want to get sweaty. I see lots of parents shipping their kids around on cargo bikes. I hate the argument about "bodily abled". What about all those that cannot drive? Lots of conditions where that's the case. Or even factors as age (young, old), money (car is expensive). A car centric society is far more excluding than one made for active modes of transport and public transport. Additionally, one can of course make provisions for those that need a car because of handicaps. Would you be fine if we banned cars in the city centre, except for those not bodily abled? My experience is that those pushing HC as an argument doesn't do it in good faith.

azherebtsov 3y ago
I really think that cargo bikes should be banned forever as a huge threat for kids inside. I feel like this is invented for those who takes caring of environment as a religion and ready to sacrifice own kids for it. One could say that the danger for them is mainly from cars but you can say so about public transport. I.e bus or tram is dangerous for cargo bike occupants. I really do not get this when I see cargo bike with two kids inside, two kids bikes hanging on the sides and bags of groceries pulled by one cyclists. What is the point? Prove that you are strong enough?
- matsemann 3y ago
  I follow all bicycle related accidents and deaths in my country (as a board member of our bike association), and I've never heard of any serious accidents related to this. It's a non-issue. And as you're saying, the main danger is cars. So having more people bike their kids around is safer for everybody, if they were to stop biking like that it would just be yet another dangerous car on the road.
  - azherebtsov 3y ago
    Well, it awesome and great that you live in such a safe place. That does not change the fact that this type of transport is not safe for occupants. And cars are not always the cause https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-bike-accident/four-children-killed-in-netherlands-as-train-hits-cargo-bicycle-idUSKCN1M00YL https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-bike-accident...
wepple 3y ago
You make some fairly reasonable points, but it’s very clear you’re talking explicitly about cities which is a small (but significant) part of the problem. Realistically if you’re trying to get rid of vehicles, most modern cities are already well set up to do that. I disagree that cars are more excluding than cycling; very few people of older age would be safe cycling compared to driving. Yes, bikes are far more affordable though. Electric bikes could be quite revolutionary (I’ve owned various modes of electric personal transport - which I’ve turned into a “net 0” project and entirely charged off solar), but when you said “cycling” I don’t consider them to be part of that: many cities exclude powered vehicles from cycling infrastructure

Mawr 3y ago

> How does it work for those who aren’t fully bodily abled? How does driving work for the many disabled people who can't drive? With cycling infra, their options are much, much better: mobility scooters, tricycles, ebikes, micro cars, all riding on cycle paths. Add public transport and the fact cars still remain an option and it's objectively better. https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo?t=42 https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo?t=42