Frankly I find bikes stupid as a proposed method of transportation.
I would love to see cities designed around everything needed being in walking distance, with a supply of inexpensive rentable cars for the things that aren’t, like meeting friends that live elsewhere, so we can travel between walkable locations, but at no time do bikes seem a reasonable option.
They have so many inconveniences and problems attached, and don’t provide enough transportation utility to make up for it.
A car provides shelter, climate control, a comfortable and relaxing ride, and enough cargo space to transport most things we could need to transport on any sort of regular basis.
A bike meanwhile provides no shelter from the elements or outdoor temperature, an uncomfortable ride that digs into your ass, requires you to exert yourself significantly, and has between zero and very little cargo space; certainly not enough to do something like shopping for groceries.
Pushing for using bikes as primary transport is ridiculous; there’s a small number of people for which that would work, but for most it doesn’t and never will. For most people, things are either in walking distance, or you need a car, so it’d be a lot better to restructure our living spaces around walking.
Have you ever seen Amsterdam? About 60% of people ride a bike daily, and it accounts for about 40% of all traffic movements in the city.
If you replaced all of these bike journeys with cars, the yearly economic burden would be around €750,000,000 (~$785,000,000) from congestion alone. Are bikes good for all journeys, no. But it’s hard to say that most cities wouldn’t benefit from design that allows more short bike journeys.
If you’re willing to walk somewhere then the idea of the bike is to make that trip quicker and expand the range of the trip in the time you have. Not to replace all car journeys.
Frankly I find bikes stupid as a proposed method of transportation.
I would love to see cities designed around everything needed being in walking distance, with a supply of inexpensive rentable cars for the things that aren’t, like meeting friends that live elsewhere, so we can travel between walkable locations, but at no time do bikes seem a reasonable option.
They have so many inconveniences and problems attached, and don’t provide enough transportation utility to make up for it.
A car provides shelter, climate control, a comfortable and relaxing ride, and enough cargo space to transport most things we could need to transport on any sort of regular basis.
A bike meanwhile provides no shelter from the elements or outdoor temperature, an uncomfortable ride that digs into your ass, requires you to exert yourself significantly, and has between zero and very little cargo space; certainly not enough to do something like shopping for groceries.
Pushing for using bikes as primary transport is ridiculous; there’s a small number of people for which that would work, but for most it doesn’t and never will. For most people, things are either in walking distance, or you need a car, so it’d be a lot better to restructure our living spaces around walking.
Have you ever seen Amsterdam? About 60% of people ride a bike daily, and it accounts for about 40% of all traffic movements in the city.
If you replaced all of these bike journeys with cars, the yearly economic burden would be around €750,000,000 (~$785,000,000) from congestion alone. Are bikes good for all journeys, no. But it’s hard to say that most cities wouldn’t benefit from design that allows more short bike journeys.
If you’re willing to walk somewhere then the idea of the bike is to make that trip quicker and expand the range of the trip in the time you have. Not to replace all car journeys.
That’s a lot of words to say you’ve never been to Europe
Aren’t you late for your intravenous coca cola injection? Shhhh…don’t exert yourself.