6 ms·
we need to also think of the fact that the vast mojority of people move alone in a vehicle of 1500kg, this doesn't make sense for the environment, we need to go
by 11235813213455 3y ago
we need to also think of the fact that the vast mojority of people move alone in a vehicle of 1500kg, this doesn't make sense for the environment, we need to go lighter and smaller
- brightball 3y ago> we need to also think of the fact that the vast majority of people move alone in a vehicle of 1500kg ...safely, at sustainable speeds 10-15x faster than they would be otherwise capable while solving the last mile efficiencies at the same time. Increasing the lifetime and repair/upgrade-ability of those vehicles would probably do more for the environment than anything else.
- bobthepanda 3y agoIf the built environment didn’t make them unsafe to use, e-bikes use a fraction of the battery and weight and cover most use cases, because most people are not doing things like moving a couch most of the time. The US has some of the most bonkers bike lanes I’ve ever seen; my favorite is a bike lane sandwiched between a main travel lane and a high-speed right-turn slip lane.
- monknomo 3y agothose are bonkers and yet, when there is no bike lane, it's usually even worse
- lostlogin 3y agoI’m not convinced it’s worse - I often bike on the road with a cycle lane next to me. Bins, rubbish, man holes, street signs, uneven surfaces etc etc ruin bike lanes.
- hibikir 3y agoIn large parts of the US, suburban distances and very bad biking weather make e-bikes cover relatively few use cases: When a shopping trip is a 15 minute car drive, and a typical commute to work is 40 minutes, the e-bike doesn't win at all. Perfect lanes don't cut bad distances, 100F summers or -10F winters. And often yes, what we see in US bike infrastructure is unsafe, leading to basically no cyclist using it. Bikes are great when your development pattern is Netherlands-like: Not dense enough for serious public transport to the home, or to do everything on foot, yet not so light that many trips go past 10 miles. I bet there's a few large metro areas that could support this, but in a lot of the country, it's not about unsafe lanes.
- bobthepanda 3y agoI think there is more here than meets the eye. The modern suburban arterial often has light cycles measured in a few minutes, which adds up if you're hitting a bunch of them. Dedicated bike infrastructure, even at high volumes, does not require coming to a full stop, so while the top speed might be lower, the average is more competitive than it appears. And grade separating a bike lane is a lot easier than a whole suburban road.
- campl3r 3y agoWeather is not a major factor in ridership given good infrastructure.
- devilbunny 3y agoOn what planet? Finns ride bikes in very cold weather, but what do you do about New Orleans, where it's 75 F at 4 AM with 100% humidity? You absolutely need showers at work for anyone who is going to bike in because they will be covered in sweat. A lot more people in this world live in the tropics than the frigid north.
- okr 3y agoFrigid north? What are you implying?
- dghlsakjg 3y agoSafely? Motor vehicles are the most dangerous things we interact with on a daily basis. The US doesn't even factor in safety of non-occupants in safety requirements. Modern cars are safer than older cars, but they are still very dangerous.
- Ma8ee 3y agoModern cars are safer for the occupants, but more dangerous for everyone else, not only pedestrians and bicyclists, but also occupants of other vehicles.
- trothamel 3y agoBicycles are more dangerous, from what I can tell - about 10x the risk when travelling the same distance. (Due to the lack of safety equipment and the inability to keep up with the prevailing flow of traffic.)
- uoaei 3y agoCars are the ones hitting bicycles, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here about what the statistics show.
- akira2501 3y agoFalls, in general, more commonly kill people than vehicles. It's not a perfect trade for safety. There's always factors that need to be actually measured.
- 11235813213455 3y ago"safely" because other people also have heavy vehicles (if we put aside transportation vehicles, that can be regulated) People do on average ver small distances, so speed isn't worth it
- scythe 3y agoOne of the first road advocacy organizations in the United States was started by a coalition of farmers and bicyclists, before the car became common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement >It started as a coalition between farmers' organizations groups and bicyclists' organizations, such as the League of American Wheelmen. Also: >the vast mojority of people move alone in a vehicle of 1500kg The total number of cars in the world is estimated at around 1.5 billion. The population is around 8 billion. In fact, the vast majority of people do not own a car. This article focuses largely on road construction in less developed countries, such as Nepal.
- kulahan 3y agoHe’s talking about the vast majority of people in the US, I assume. Not saying this is true either, but I doubt he simply forgot about the existence of heavily populated, undeveloped countries.
- kwhitefoot 3y agoNot in the places that this particular discussion is about.