cross-posted from: https://jlai.lu/post/17684914
I just want cheap and reliable mass transit.
Yes! Fuck this individualistic “you should cycle instead of taking the car” language. We need collective investment in mass transit, because not everyone can bike to work, and even less people want to do it in the rain.
I cycle almost every where, at every weather, but at distances above 30km, it’s just taking too long to be viable for every day tasks or visiting friends and family.
Public transport is neccessary.
I used to cycle out of necessity but after a while i just got sick of it from either not wearing enough and being too cold, wearing too much and being too hot, and having to guess correctly whether it’ll rain or not but be miserable even if I prepared for it.
I always have my rain poncho with me. I love when it rains because it feels like sitting in a tent where your head sticks out.
I always get too hot under anything waterproof no matter how cold it actually is outside, especially if I’m exercising. I hate how they eventually feel like they’re sticking to your skin
Where you can take your bike with you. The two modes of transportation combined is almost perfect.
The emission savings from replacing all those internal combustion engines with zero-carbon alternatives will **not **feed in **fast enough **to make the necessary difference in the time we can spare: the next five years. Tackling the climate and air pollution crises requires curbing all motorised transport, particularly private cars, as quickly as possible. Focusing solely on electric vehicles is slowing down the race to zero emissions.
Ah thank god we still have 5 years. Now the climate scientists just need to advise the general public to start shooting all the cars through the motorblock because it has been scientifically proven that is the one way we’ll make it.
Published: March 29, 2021 10.59am EDT
OH MY GOD!!! WE ONLY HAVE A YEAR LEFT TO MURDER ALL THE CARS??
@LarmyOfLone @grue Shooting the engine block draws too much attention. Home made spike strips and caltrops, on the other hand, can have a chilling effect on drivers. When you never know if the highway is going to be shut down because 30 cars all got flat tires in the same spot, and the devices that caused it are attached to the road with epoxy or JB Weld.
Haha well that could cause serious accidents. And I sort of expected like two decades ago in my naivete that we’d see “electric car conversion shops” spring up. Take out the motor block and tank and replace it with standardized electrical motors and special adapters and just put some lithium battery block in the trunk.
Actually a better idea is just dumping 2-3 cups of sugar in the gas tank. Will muck up the fuel injection system and put it out of commission pronto.
I think something that gets regularly overlooked is scooters. They can be gas or electric and they will drastically reduce emissions. ICE scooters can do 100 mpg and the manufacturing emissions are going to be a sliver of what a car or truck would be.
Make one that doesnt go BrrrrAAAP ! And I’m onboard:-D
On a serious note, electric; bikes, scooters, cargo bikes, small utilitarian vehicles, busses are the future of the city IMO.
There are some very cool electric ones now.
I recently bought one that does ~40km on a single charge and doesn’t go above 25km/h and honestly I don’t get why anyone would need more (people living in the hellscape distopya commonly referred to as “the US” need not reply).
Even if you need/prefer an ebike you get about 85 ebike batteries out of one Nissan leaf not even a powerful e-car the most pedestrian one.
I used to cycle 7 km to work, but now, after moving to suburban village, there is no way to go other way than car. Especially with small kid. Unless you are fit enough to do 25 km every day by bike and risk your life (and potentially kid’s) on the street between cars. So no, there is not realistic to “fuck cars”. I am speaking from European perspective, probably US has the car things much more fucked up.
risk your life (and potentially kid’s) on the street between cars
I dunno, boss, seems like a plenty good reason to say “fuck cars” to me.
Did the 2x12km for theee years, only got ran down once.
I did have beast legs though :-)
I don’t think you realise how much you’ve been fucked by car. I presume you move out to the suburb not because the city council decided to exile you and never let you stay in the city, you move out because you have a car and can drive 20+km toward your destination, which then mean everything is so out of your way you have to use car to do everything. So no, you’re the one that got fucked by motonormativity and yell “cum inside”, you don’t get to then deny everyone a better solution.
but they’re not handicap friendly… public transport serves a purpose… edit: I’m not saying keep using cars, I’m saying get more trains and rail… and then free up space for more bike lanes whatever
They always ignore the rest of the world. Sure you can bike ride in yor little university town built from riches pillaged from the world but the rest of the world? You want India and Africa to ride bikes? Did they include the absolute infrastructure update in their calculations?
“Cars are more accessible for poor people” is certainly a take that someone could have.
Cycling and related infrastructure are orders of magnitude cheaper.
Ah yes cause there’s only cars and bicycling! /s
You know there are other forms of transportation right?
Feel free to make a point if you have one.
Sure I’m paraphrasing my other comment:
Bicycle is just a poor vehicle choice for these regions and I’d argue most of the world in general and I say that as a recreation e-bike lover - its just not a good transporation method for mass adoption.
Motorbikes for one are much more viable because the winters are easy and the terrain can be too difficult for muscle powered bicycles. Also Motorbikes can carry a lot compared to a bike just look up some photos like this one https://i.imgur.com/t4aWcFx.jpeg - that’s a 500-1000usd motorbike doing your job for years. Minimal maintenance and fuel use and relatively low polution. You couldn’t even get a decent e-bike in europe for this.
The rest is filled in by public transportation - busses, trains, rickshaws, converted pick up trucks, minibuses, ferries etc.
I’ve been living in Asia for almost 20 years now and bicycle is not it trust me. It’s only viable for rich compact well developed countries and anyone who says otherwise really needs to get out more.
Cool well this sub is called “fuck cars”, not “fuck everything that’s not a pedal-powered bicycle.”
Like sorry, but you’re arguing against something that just hasn’t been said.
Cars are bad for motorbikes too. Bikes are still way better than cars.
But also, walkability and bicycle friendly infrastructure isn’t out of the reach of south east asian countries. That’s not a feature of wealthy countries - like I said, it’s very cheap.
I don’t have the details to hand, but usually when poorer nations have bad infrastructure, it’s mainly down to structural adjustment policies stopping them from investing in their own people’s welfare to keep them more desparate and easier to exploit as cheap labour.
Anti-car people in general are going to want to end poverty in general, which means the squalid conditions of a lot of these places would change. It’s not a matter of changing one thing and leaving literally every other variable untouched. Anti-car advocacy is part of a wider a holistic change in society.
Like I’ve spent time in Ho Chi Minh City, and yeah, the place is a sea of motorbikes. It’s a health & aafety disaster. But it’s a flat city. There’s nothing to say bicycles couldn’t be used there.
Tbh I have no idea what you’re talking about so have a nice day I guess
Cool story, you’ve got loads to say but no ability to listen. Thanks for wasting my time.
It’s not like poor Chinese, Vietnamese or Indian people would ever use bicycles. The very idea, how ludicrous. Haha.
They use motorbikes 🤦♂️
Colonial extortion built the cycle infrastructure…
Oh, goodie. Lemmy always delivers, lmao.
Wat?
I’d guess they’re stating that the semi-developed countries with high density populations and high rates pollution may not consider cycling infrastructure on their list of city planning priorities
India’s cities are jammed up with car traffic. It’s one of the major sources of pollution. That’s what this professor is addressing. Africa is a whole, huge continent. containing many countries with greatly varying levels of economic development. The poorer ones don’t even have much of an infrastructure base. And lots of people there do ride bicycles. All that considered, my question stands.
Yes but cycling is not a valid option either. Public transportation and motorbikes is clearly the answer and all of these countries are moving towards them.
The article is giving “white man knows better”
Do indian and african not ride a bike?
Its not the optimal choice. Motorbikes for one are much more viable because the winters are easy and the terrain can be too difficult for muscle powered bicycles. Also Motorbikes can carry a lot compared to a bike. The rest is filled in by public transportation - busses, trains, rickshaw, converted pick up trucks.
I’ve been living in Asia for almost 20 years now and bicycle is not it trust me. It’s only viable for rich small diatance well developed countries and anyone who says otherwise really needs to get out more.
Its not the optimal choice.
It’s totally not for long distance, no one is claiming that.
Motorbikes for one are much more viable because the winters are easy and the terrain can be too difficult for muscle powered bicycles.
You speak like as if in winter country people doesn’t bike? Also bicycle maintenance is way cheaper though.
Also Motorbikes can carry a lot compared to a bike.
most of the time people doesn’t carry much anyway. Kinda like bicycle ehh.
The rest is filled in by public transportation - busses, trains, rickshaw, converted pick up trucks.
Bicycle is pretty good for last mile transport too, it’s free to boot.
I’ve been living in Asia for almost 20 years now
It’s not really a flex as you think it is, maybe you should listen to me because i’m here 35 years.
bicycle is not it trust me.
Because there never a good infrastructure for it? And people tend to ride motorcycle/car because it’s easy and they live far, and they live far because they have motorcycle/car. See the issue? Let’s not mention those who drive 500m just to buy something.
What about kids? In my time, kids bike to school, it gave us the sense of freedom and independence. They still do these day but less of them do now, you wanna know why? Cars, because there’s so much car on the road nowadays and 0 bicycle infrastructure for them to do it safely, and no one have the brain to build it 20 years ago, so now there’s even less people cycling there’s no reason for those elected to believe it’s helpful.
I’ve seen bus companies gone bankrupt because ridership is shrinking once economy is turning better for people, i’ve seen neighbourhood torn apart as highway cut through in the middle where you need to cycle/walk extra kilometers to get to the other side or play frogger. Are you really, truly sure bicycle is not it or is it because no one decided to develop the infrastructure for it to be safe to do so?
It’s only viable for rich small diatance well developed countries
China were once ruled by bicycle before and they’re not rich at the time. Once their economy advanced, they all turn to car. Guess where they’re slowly going now. Also are you saying everything is a sprawl in Asia? I don’t get your point, it seems like you’re insulting Asia just to proof your point, as if we doesn’t have a city/town with stuff in walkable/bikeable distance, which, in my life living here, isn’t the case.
anyone who says otherwise really needs to get out more.
Idk seems like you need to touch grass more.
U sound angry lol
Oof, where’s that “i liVE iN aSIa fOr AlmOSt 20 yEArS” confidence goes? It’s as empty as i guessed.
Cycling would also help to reduce the amount of dangerously fat people. Which is an ever increasing problem.
This reminds me of a story of a guy that lost his license due to an accident he caused, he was extremely overweight and had heart medication.
His coworker asked what he was going to do about it and if there was a possibility of him quitting or getting fired because he couldn’t drive to work anymore.
The guy asked his coworker for a spare bike and started going to and leaving from work in a bycicle from that point on and about a year (or maybe less than a year?) later, the guy is already off heart medications, lost something along the lines of 100kg, something crazy, and he was as fit as he could be.
He got his license back and decided to not drive anymore unless absolutely necessary. They guy was essentially unrecognizeable.
As inspiring as that sounds, I wonder about how easy it is for someone facing obesity to ease into cycling. Their own machine and their balance struggle will have an uphill battle against that weight, and it may be especially scary if they live in a car heavy area.
Curious about this story, since I may know people who would benefit from such experience, both in terms of fitness and extra transit options!
I got you (apologies for the Reddit link)
https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1jl1l7h/mate_lost_his_licence_for_dui_and_its_been_the/
Fk yeah Jeff
Increased exercise won’t reduce the number of fat people. Fat people are caused by hormone levels typically due to diet. If you increase calories burned and do not address the hormones, fat bodies will simply increase caloric intake to maintain the balance.
Cardiovascular health and strength improves with increased activity. And these are great health benefits. But diet is the way to reduce the amount of fat one is carrying.
And not just fat people. It helps prevent cardiovascular diseases.
For me the biggest benefit aside from generally increased fitness is how it helps with my mental health. It’s hardly a new revelation that exercising regularly is good for your mental health. But it’s so much easier to get yourself to move when you have to to get somewhere than it is if it’s purely for exercise. At least for me.
But it’s so much easier to get yourself to move when you have to to get somewhere than it is if it’s purely for exercise. At least for me.
That’s definitely not just in your case!!
We can keep going. Reducing the amount of fat people will ease the strain on hospital systems and health care expenses.
Removed by mod
Expenses was a broad statement by me. To elaborate, it would lower expenses by reducing those needed acute care. Even small things that would be otherwise seen as outpatient or phase 2 recovery post surgical procedure are suddenly inpatient because the patient was 200lbs overweight.
With less acute visits, insurance rates can go down because more people can opt into a federal health plan. Then more people are being seen for routine visits and preventative care. This would shift overall patient volume to outpatient freeing up EMS and acute services for more emergencies or when necessary.
Then there are the various links between homelessness, obesity, mental health, drug use, Etc. Then there are the links between these factors and capitalist society. Way more things are linked to this and it’s why staying healthy is SO important.
True story: I was just at presentation for cyclists… there were maybe 30 of us. Every single person, young and old, were trim and healthy looking.
Go to any car show, and let me know if you can say the same. LOL
I dated someone for a couple months who was really into cycling. Like, she’d ride from NYC up to Storm King (~75 miles) for funsies. She had the body of a greek god. (Was also super smart and pursuing an interesting career. I’m still sad she dumped me, but she was reasonably kind about it.)
It also help to just feel better in general.
dangerously fat people
This isn’t a particularly nice phrasing - I think the same meaning could easily be conveyed with some slightly kinder choice of words.
Threateningly chubby?
Problematically plus-sized?
suspiciously reddit-worded?
Venomously rotund?
Expensively not dangerously
In my country its not just expensive but also dangerous. Lots of health issues and lowered life expectancy
Removed by mod
That statement is just straight out false. Yes electric cars still represent a huge deal of energy needs for producing, but they are much, much more efficient at using energy than ICE cars. If I remember correctly it was something like 40% vs 90% energy efficiency? That’s why if you put several electric cars connected in a row, place them on tracks, externalize the power source, and you get the most efficient way of travelling - trains.
Yes, electric cars are just like trains
- They run on steel rails, just like trains
- They hold 50+ people per cabin, just like trains
- They have their own dedicated travel paths, only stopping at loading and unloading platforms, just like trains
- They have enormous, efficient engines and pull multiple passive trailers, just like trains
ngl you had me in the first half
It may help with the car pollution but car infrastructure is also miles and miles of lanes that add to the heat island effect and force homes and business further apart, reducing density. The secondary and third order effects of car culture are significant.
Not to mention that all that car infrastructure is bankrupting US cities/towns (maybe places outside the US too, but I wouldn’t know).
Yes, and electric cars still produce lots of tire and brake dust. But to say they are not an improvement over ICE cars, is a lie.
Tire dust, absolutely. Probably even more than ICE cars since EV’s are heavier.
But brakes? Yeah no. To get the most range out of your EV you always want to slow down by recuperating/regenerating. The classic brake only gets used at (near) standstill or the occasional hard braking for collision avoidance.
That makes sense. TIL
That’s why if you put several electric cars connected in a row, place them on tracks, externalize the power source, and you get the most efficient way of travelling - trains.
Sounds right when said like that, but I think very important factors are missing in that comparison. Maily: energy used per person & space used per person.
Most cars on the road are only transporting one person (the driver), which leaves a lot of wasted space. Trains on the other hand can carry way more people than cars can when using the space amount of space.
I don’t know energy used per passenger but it’s certainly less for train vs car (when both running on renewable energy).
Apparently (I think C02 emissions should give us the same idea if we assume both use clean energy): Eurostar: 6g CO2e per passenger km Electric Car: 53g (one passenger) CO2e per passenger km (or 13g with 4 passengers)
Don’t think a lot of trains are as clean as the eurostar worldwide but it’s possible to be that clean.
Theres many more benefits to trains too such as: You don’t have to drive (browse lemmy while travelling), cheaper, 20x safer, a good train system can save you time, less waste (when your car eventually is scrapped, I’m sure a lot if recycled, but must still be a lot of waste, including energy spent recycling). Probably a lot of other stuff too.
p.s. sorry if i am wrong about stuff im trying to be right ;()
Why do we care much at all about energy consumption if it’s all renewable?
Come on nobody is that dense. You have to be trolling
Because the grid is not 100% renewable, and even renewables have some carbon cost. That line of thought is what crypto bros and AI idiots often use to justify wasting energy. It’s always better to reduce our energy consumption.
Renewable energy also requires mining, processing, production, waste management… It’s still a waste to use energy as if it is free, it never is and never can be, all energy usage has a footprint on the planet.
Norwegians and Icelanders need to stop showing off all their hydro and low population density.
Most countires won’t be able to scale up their electricity generation by like 20-50% or so (to accomodate a large switch of transportation energy) without burning a lot more fossil fuel. Or building many large nuclear plants. Or damming up and flooding several large valleys. Fossil fuel is still the cheapest fastest and easiest way to scale up electricity generation - and ramping up the duty cycle of existing power stations is the easiest in the short term.
Maybe if each EV came with enough additional solar and batteries to offset their electricity consumption (especially at peak). This’d increase the costs a fair bit but it’d make them much better for net greenhouse gas emissions.
Note that even in an era of fairly rapidly increasing renewables - from 1980s to now - the overall share of renewables in global electricity generation has not increased much, 25-30% ish last time I looked.
This is because new demand has always come along to offset the new renewable electricity generation. This will continue with electrification of transport, heating, plus all this ai and server farms and stuff, add in general population growth and economic development - I don’t believe the world is going to be able to grow renewables anywhere near fast enough to keep up with all that. Not without some cold fusion type technology leap.
I think we could do it with sufficient investment. But you make a good point, in the short term it will still be a bit before we’re fully renewable.
The (urban) issue is the space they require when not in use. Public transport and cycling require a lot less parking space. Shared (quick easy short term rental) electric vehicles are quite a good thing too.
But that’s neither better nor worse than ICEs, not really the point we’re discussing
Exactly part of OP’s point?
Electric cars just replace a car with another car. I’m not even convinced we need lots more public transport, at least not long-range public transport.
Removed by mod
We can replace a lot of existing cars in single digit years it will take decades to build out transit everywhere
This is the same argument that results in the majority of software created being slow stupid trash. “We don’t have time to fix those major architectural problems that are going to grind improvement to a halt later, we need to release this new stupid feature yesterday because line must go up.”
You actually always have to take care of near and long term in any real world situation.
Roads and highways would be perfectly fine cycling infrastructure, if we just got the giant motorized death machines off of them.
I liked your comment, but there is a lot more space that could be regained for pedestrians as well if we cyclists took only the space we needed. Car infrastructure is easily converted into one, but not into the other and asphalt causes heat islands.
Plus, roads are important for the people who can’t walk or cycle as well as for emergency services. Goods can’t all be transported by bike, either. Of course, that doesn’t require multiple lanes. Part should be kept, part turned into small green spaces to compensate for the environmental effect of the road, and part should be used for separate cycling and walking spaces. It becomes a bit more complex with streets that aren’t big enough for all that, of course.
And with decreased car use comes increased accesibility and speed for emergency vehicles and essential transport. And if we remove street parking, there will easily be enough space for cycling and walking space. Did you know all parking spaces in the US take up the same surface as the whole of connecticut?
Sure, but I was replying to a comment thread about replacing roads and highways with cycling infrastructure.
They were piggybacking off you, saying there’s even more space to be gained once the usage of cars goes down
I’m autistic and always grateful for comments like this, thanks! Sometimes I genuinely don’t get it.
Yeah, but bicycles don’t have the same profit margins as cars
Edit: just gonna add that I was being snarky with this comment. I’m for walkable cities with quality public transportation infrastructure.
Bikes really are a downward spiral. First people don’t need to spend 20% of your annual salary into their car so they have all this extra money that they can use.
Worse! Since they are now traveling through their city in open air rather in a glass and steel prison they might start noticing local businesses and spend their money there rather than the billionaire’s owned giant box store.
And now that they arrive home on their bike they will stay to notice their neighbors, maybe even say hi and start building local communities. It’s also much easier to build a local community when you don’t have deadly machines that you need to avoid passing in front of your house all the time.
My $4k piece of carbon and $3k hunk of titanium would like to have a word…
I would bet just about anything that the only reason profit margins could possibly be higher for a car is due to volume — which, if everyone rode bikes, wouldn’t be an issue at all.
Absolute profit, sure — cars are more expensive, so they’ll win out.
$7k doesn’t get you much of a car. That’s the beauty of bikes, getting something that is basically professional-tier is still quite within reason to be purchased by an average consumer.
and yet people will be shocked that a decent everyday bike can cost as little as £500. For some reason they expect them to be practically free. For much less you can only buy a BSO (Bicycle-Shaped Object)
You can definitely get a good daily-driver for less than that if you buy used and aren’t scared of learning a bit of bike maintenance.
Alternatively, people should look into cycling co-ops. There’s one in my town that refurbishes old bikes and sells them for around $100 (Canadian)
I think maybe in total I’ve sunk ~$2k into my road bike, and that’s with upgrades for more than half of that figure. By being strategic (i.e making liberal use of AliExpress), you can get a very high quality bicycle for shockingly little money.
Lol $7K doesn’t get you much of a bike these days, at least if you’re trying to keep up with the lycra warriors. Meanwhile you can still get a top-shelf '90s era bike for $50.
Idk, I’ve built a very respectable bike for $2k. Sure, if you want to top spec absolutely everything, that will cost you, but you really, really don’t need it.
Might be less of a difference than we would think since every shared car would presumably become multiple bikes.
Eg: Family of 4 that have 1 car, turns into 4 bikes?
Of course big oil wouldn’t like that very much. Screw you big oil, you are a turd.
Around here families of four probably have at least two cars. I didn’t realise what ‘car-dependency’ looked like until I moved out of London. People tell me, “You don’t have transport,” but I walk, I have a bike, I get the bus or the train.
It’s worse for the economy if people have to buy and run cars because that’s money that could have spent elsewhere. It’s “lost opportunity cost” to have to have cars.
Bicycles also help reduce health costs. As does walking and good public transport.
have you seen the latest price of the most expensive bikes? Maybe not a car price of the last couple years, but the most expensive bikes are the same price of small car in the 90’s and 00’s.
And please also note, that people have more than 1 bike (but not the expensive ones)
People don’t buy carbon fiber bicycles for commuting and those who do tend to have them stolen unless the have a closed and locked place to but them at both ends of the commute.
If there’s one thing I learned from living in The Netherlands is that you want a bicycle for day to day commute which is impeccably maintained whilst looking like crap (which explains why most bicycles outside Amsterdam Central Station look shabby).
Fancy bicycles are for Sunday Cyclists.
Also park your shitty looking bike next to one of those fancy bikes.
👍
Modern bikes are beyond insane. Like, $10K to $15K is considered normal and appropriate - just to get disc brakes, electronic shifting, internally-routed cabling etc. Meanwhile I look for '90s era hybrids on Craigslist for $50 or thereabouts and get thousands of miles out of them - and somehow I’m still able to shift gears and stop when necessary.
I’m an avid cyclist and I would never spend 10k on a bike. For my nice favorite bike it was $2500. I commute on a vintage road bike and it works great, it was $200 on fb marketplace.
vintage road bike
Like, with downtube shifters? I obviously like to poo-poo advanced bike technology, but indexed shifting is one thing I’m hugely in favor of.
Yeah it’s a Bianchi Europa. I guess the downtube shifters are bearable for me if I’m not racing. Especially since if it gets stolen I only lose $200. And I guess the $200 of work I put into it for funsies lol.
Agree. I saw a review of an e-bike that could ring using an alarm if you didn’t find it or something. Why?!
We need to develop e-bike and cargo-bike vehicules to be fully inclusive to people who can use regular mecanical bike but why make it full of electronics and computer? They only needs lightings and a motor, that’s not rocket-science.Wow. I bought my city ebike for about $2K and it’s served me fine. I’ve maybe spent $50 in maintenance in the year since, and $200 in cycling gear.
Electronic shifting?
Yeah, like the derailleur is moved by a little electric motor instead of by cable. So you can control it with your phone - which is considered important for some reason.
As I understand it, the gears always being perfectly indexed is the big selling point for electronic gears.
I wouldn’t know since I run mechanical, but this is what I’ve heard.
I mean, in 40+ years of bike riding (always mechanical) I’ve never had a problem with the indexing on shifters. At most I occasionally have to click a lever twice instead of once, or twist the handlebar a bit more. It just seems like a (very expensive) solution in search of a problem.
You’ve never used the barrel adjuster in 40 years of riding?
Oh my god
Cycling and walking are also far healthier options since they count for the whole “if you walk at least 30 minutes a day your chances of heart conditions drop by 70%” thing.
Even better, the fewer the cars around, the better it gets for everybody who walks and cycles (due to decreased pollution and less danger on the road).
Even electric cars and even if 100% of our electricity was from renewables still pollute due to the micro-particles produced by the tires when rolling on the road (and heavier vehicles make this worse).
I think cardiovascular disease risk drops more than 70% if you dont eat meat, which is another critical requirement for softening climate catastrophe too
You can eat meat and stay perfectly healthy
I have an EV and I still agree with this. An EV is better than an ICE vehicle but it is no substitute for designing cities around people - footpaths, cycle lanes, recreation, public transport etc.
what do you use your car for? like piano transportation?
Smh I put my piano on my bike racks. It’s the timpani that go in the car - the rain ruins the skins.
To do things. Drove my kid to school 8km at 0610 today for a school trip, then a 20km drive to work, then later to get groceries etc. I wish I could cycle but my personal circumstances don’t allow for it. Doesn’t mean that my situation applies to everyone or that towns & cities shouldn’t be designed with cyclists & pedestrians first, cars second to lessen the need for cars because I think they should.
I am actually considering getting an EV for transporting my Cello :/
It’s unfortunately not possible to reliably transport it by bike (strong winds, icy conditions on my rather hilly ride to the city). Makes me miss out on re-joining an orchestra.
Everything else (groceries, work,…) would still be by bike, just… That.
What you need is a trailer that you can attach to your bike when you need to haul something large. It works great. I use one that even folds and doesn’t take much room when not in use (it can also be used by hand by adding a little wheel at the front).
to be honest; a factor of 10 seems a bit low
who do I need to kill to get the infrastructure going?
You can start with politicians like Doug Ford in Ontario, Canada. He passed bills letting him rip out fairly new bike lanes from Ontario’s largest city’s downtown, banning the entire province from building new bike lanes without his approval, and hidden in his bill is legislation that lets him build highways without doing any environmental assessments.
All while Canada is in a economic and housing crisis, a time where bicycles and bike lanes can lower cost of living and support denser housing developments.
he’s been on my list since that wind farm thing
Whoever rules Prague. I travel to a lot of European cities and that one is continuously throwing a middle finger at pedestrians, especially given the size and planning of the city center.
I was surprised to see even Berlin and Munich doing much better.
