3 ms·
From the areas I've lived in, the same people pushing for limiting cars, more bikes are also anti-growth when it comes to housing. Like yeah I'd ride a bike if
by gedy 3y ago
From the areas I've lived in, the same people pushing for limiting cars, more bikes are also anti-growth when it comes to housing. Like yeah I'd ride a bike if I lived a mile or two from the office but I can't afford that so have some understanding on the less privileged.
- mvdtnz 3y agoA mile or two? A typical rider can comfortably cover 10km in 30 minutes without very much exertion if it's not particularly hilly.
- eesmith 3y agoIf you widen the number of people who can bike, you are more likely to include slower cyclists. A typical urban cyclist in the Netherlands ("not particularly hilly") averages about 15 km/hour. https://holland-cycling.com/blog/260-amsterdam-has-slowest-cyclists https://holland-cycling.com/blog/260-amsterdam-has-slowest-c... .
- gedy 3y agoOkay, in much of the US even 6 miles from office is still too expensive to live. Point being in the US, many bike and transit activists are also NIMBYs. Good for Europe that it's not that way.
- UtopiaPunk 3y agoIn the area I live, there's a lot of overlap between urbanists and cycling. Cycling is a great complement to to urban, car-free lifestyles. I can picture a spandex-wearing boomer that likes to hitch his bike to the back of a car and drive several miles away to a recreational bike trail for exercise, then drive home as being a NIMBY. I think that's a totally different kind of person, though, than someone who wants to commute to work and pick up groceries using their bike instead of a car, though. And to be fair, a lot cycling has historically been catering to the spandex recreational cyclists.