NA’s geography does make it slightly less prone to cycling/walking based transportation, but it seems people use a predilection towards cars as an excuse not to evolve. Super interesting that the shift to biking in Amsterdam was a concerted effort rather than a natural shift.

I think there is also some outcome bias towards cars because they’re a comfortable/ known quantity for most people.

People just helplessly sit on so many things, telling incorrect excuse after another.

In the spring I remember watching countless corona experts on TV claiming it can't be stopped. Meanwhile it was very well stopped in places like Taiwan or South Korea. It's as if those countries didn't even exist.

This is a perpetual source of bemusement for myself, a non-American, seeing arguments why x will never work because y, when it has been working quite well in other places for a while.

The worst offenders are threads on universal healthcare, particularly when claims like "America is too diverse for universal healthcare" are made, and upvoted, with few people stopping to consider both the implication and even the basic truth of the statement.

Yeah, it's common in all countries.

During the second world war, when the Americans handed over aircraft carriers to the Brits, all the washing machines and ice cream machines had to be removed.

I'm sure there are some reasons to that. But it just makes one think what are the real reasons "why we can't have nice things"

> NA’s geography does make it slightly less prone to cycling/walking based transportation

How so? You mean the snowy towns or the hilly towns or...?

> I think there is also some outcome bias towards cars because they’re a comfortable/ known quantity for most people.

There's a bias toward cars since it's incentivized to drive cars. Our laws mean everything is far apart so trips are far and our transportation infrastructure is almost all fast or long roads. These are choices that prop up cars: if you could go to the grocery store with a short trip without a high risk of being hit by a car, more people would walk or ride a bike there. If transit was convenient, people would take it. People just want to get where they're going: cars are the best way to do that in the US because we have decided to incentivize car use over other options.

Less density, maybe?

Ah, I took the person to mean our physical geography. Our urban geography is of course the reason for our car use: we've put policy into place so that cars are incentivized and other forms of transportation are disincentivized, with density being a cornerstone of that.

Density is one factor but the complete separation of commercial and residential zoning is also a huge factor.

In a lot of walkable cities the first floor of most buildings is often reserved for low impact commercial uses like shops or restaurants.

I am in a car dependent city (I need the car to go to work) but the fact that there are 3 stores in walking distance helps cut down on the voluntary car trips significantly. Even the weekly trip to a far away store takes 10 minutes at most by car.

Correct. Was talking about the sheer size of many countries in NA makes it a much different situation than many countries in Europe. Could've been much clearer so I apologize.

I don't see what the size of the country has much to do with how we get around in town.

No pedestrians or bicyclists die on I-95, and few motorists do to boot. The issue is with cars inside cities, not the space between them. Of course you get between cities with cars, long-distance busses/trains, and flying.

The size of the country (relative to the population) means that land is relatively cheap. That leads to relatively less dense cities (at least most of them).

Land isn't cheap if you have to maintain infrastructure around it. Exclusive single family zoning is a pure loss. Single family housing should exist but it should be reserved for those who really want/need it. It's not something everyone should have because it doesn't match people's real needs.

Sprawl isn't a natural result of a large country, nor is US land unbelievably cheap (it's all over the place, with some expensive peaks in some high-sprawl areas).

Belize and Norway are extremely low density overall in their countries: they have very different house prices, but neither has much sprawl.

Sprawl is a result of policy decisions.

I would say the bay area is a pretty good counter argument.

As a former bike commuter, I fear driver negligence more than any amount of taxation.

It's amazing that they allow for streets to be built so narrow in new neighborhoods, that only one car can get through if there is on parked on the side. Lot's of complaints about people parking on the street in a neighborhood that still being built out. They also have one way streets that are hard to get through of anyone is parked on the street.

What amazes me is that some neighbourhoods in the US are constructed without sidewalks. I don't care about the street.

There are a lot of places around me (Texas) with no sidewalks or bike lanes. The road planing has been, is, and will probably be horrid forever.

Who is they in this context? NA? Amsterdam? Europe?

I'm in the US, Texas more specifically.

After some Googling of 2 letter country codes and USA state codes I eventually realised you probably meant NA = North America. Another case where abbreviating saved the writer some typing but added work for the reader.

In the Bay Area at least, there has been a movement toward walkable spaces and car-free boulevards as a reaction to COVID. A number of 'main streets' on the peninsula have been closed to cars, to provide space for struggling restaurants to have outdoor dining.

People are already talking about saving some of these arrangements post-COVID, but we'll see if it actually happens. I imagine the businesses will worry about parking.

As a frequent cyclist to my nearby (now car-free) mini-downtown-and-farmers-market, I'm all for it!