She used it to carry four kids (her three and one of mine) when we visited. We took the rented car and she beat us there.
Moving any specific component of that system to another niche might help a little, and I'd welcome any progress, but is not a solution.
With that said, I'm a year around bike commuter. Cargo bikes, trailers, and baekfiets are gaining popularity in my locale, especially the electrics.
Actually, it would be my 6th bike, but that's its own problem. ;-)
I'm spoiled by where I live now, a 25 minute easy bike ride to my workplace, a similar ride for my spouse, and within walking distance of shops. It's really a lifestyle changer.
I bicycled everywhere with a two year old in a kiddie seat until I was eight months pregnant. In Germany, which was almost as cold as Kansas at times.
It is if your car isn't a junker.
Remote start is cheap compared to the price of a car anyway, if it makes a difference.
Also the sun isn't significantly hotter in summer than in winter; it's not going to make you overheat.
> The Vaalserberg is a hill with a height of 322.4 metres (1,058 ft) above NAP and is the highest point in mainland Netherlands
before anyone gets the wrong idea, the biggest problem is not going up, but going down (especially with kids, cargo or kids+cargo)
Imagine that you live in Italy, where only 24% of the population lives in cities with a population equal or larger than 250 thousand people.
Half of Italy is not flat and it's very hard using the bicycles to move, unless you are already expert and even for bikers (as in motorbikes) it's challenging going up and down the hills and mountains and usually they go in group.
Paradoxically around Milan (and in the city) they use bikes a lot, but it's also one of the most polluted areas in Italy because they also use cars a lot to move from or to Milan and other large cities, mainly to go to work or it's trucks moving goods.
You can't replace them with bikes.
You can't replace them with trains either, because regional trains are already at full capacity and Milan public transport already moves 800 million people/year (fun fact: the Milan public transport company ATM also operates the Copenhagen's subway).
Being on flat lands surrounded by high mountains also means that there are no regular winds cleaning up the air, so paradoxically biking is more dangerous for your health.
23% of the Italian population (13 million people) lives in cities with a population between 20 thousand and 59,999 people, the majority of towns in Italy (20% - 1,509 of them) have a population between 1,000 and 1,999 people and host 2.5 million people.
Those are the areas where they can't give up on cars, they have no alternatives, they have to use it daily for every activity: from groceries to work, school, church, etc.
They are usually near highways or heavy traffic roads, because many people move daily to go to larger cities for work, but also the areas where biking it's more of a challenge.
So it's a combination of long distances (people live away from cities because housing it's much cheaper), geography and older population.
I present you a sample of the area where my parents come from.
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=2681540&l=it
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=2510258&l=it
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=2510257&l=it
So while it's true that Siberia won't ever be bike-first, we should understand that each person we can get to transition to biking is worth 10x the carbon reduction of getting them to transition to an EV. It will also be harder! But the 10x heuristic should help us think about how to balance the increased difficulties against increased benefits.
Also, this is a transition that will eventually involve everyone. There will always be people who can't cycle and we need to maintain room for them to be full participants in a non-petrochemical-based economy. This makes low-carbon personal transport like cycling even more valuable in the context of needing to allow people with more limited mobility options access (they will need the parking spaces we increasingly hope to move away from).
as someone who almost completely abandoned the car, even though I live in Rome, one of the most car crowded cities in the West (and probably the World), if we care about taking cars off the road, we need to make cities walkable
Many areas of Rome already are and have been by design, because pedestrians and cars don't compete for the same space and there are large enough sidewalks
in the city centre where streets are narrow, cars usually drive very very slowly, because the road is occupied by people walking and have precedence
But when pedestrian share the space with other vehicles, like in car restricted areas, that's where things start to get unpleasant if not impossible
bikes, electric bikes, scooters they all make walking difficult to the point that pedestrian need to be careful about them more than with cars
in this covid times with virtually no cars for Rome standards, my biggest concern when I am around is avoiding riders and their bikes, they are everywhere and respect no rule.
I can be relatively sure that on a one way only street no car is gonna suddenly appear from the wrong direction, not so much with bikes (and other two wheeled vehicles) especially because they are extremely quiet
this is my experience after 45 years as a Roman citizen and 7 years without a car
I couldn't agree more! IMO increasing walkability will be key to both increasing density and decreasing carbon impact.
The point I was driving at when saying we don't care where we take cars off the streets is that taking 100 cars out of, say, Rome, has about the same impact as taking 10 cars out of 10 other cities. There are places which are more interested in moving away from cars today than others and, while we eventually want to get all of them, we can start where resistance is lowest.
For example, driving a car is necessary to be a full member of society in most places in the US. If you can't drive basic things like going to work, buying food, visiting family, seeing a doctor aren't possible or take 2-3x more time without a car. As a result people are very hesitant to take away people's licenses, even if they really shouldn't be driving.
> - Your commute is sufficiently short
This is the most important one. Most people would be happy biking 2mi/3.25km to work. I like biking a lot so I would bike up to 10mi/16km.
> - You have facilities to shower and dress at work
I commuted by bike for years in hot, humid climate without showering at work. Consider all of the remarkable achievements of humanity. You could figure out something that could work for your situation.
> - You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo
Places where cycling is normal have various solutions for this.
> I commuted by bike for years in hot, humid climate without showering at work. Consider all of the remarkable achievements of humanity. You could figure out something that could work for your situation.
It's called a shower. I weigh 300lbs. Trust me, I am going to be sweating like I was sprayed by the grossest stink hose of all time. Sure, I'd love to believe I'd be closer to 200lbs than 300lbs after a year or two of riding, but that's a year or two smelling like a rank asshole. On behalf of myself and everyone around me, hard pass.
But I really don't blame anybody for not wanting to cycle in the US. It's legitimately dangerous and unpleasant in a lot of areas. It doesn't have to be that way but that's the world we have.
2 miles is around the lower end of what I would consider bikeable, much less than that and I'd just walk.
Cycling is roughly 2x as dangerous as driving (1) to the person themselves per mile travelled and motorcycling is 35 times as dangerous (2).
Electric bikes are probably somewhere in the middle.
I am hoping once we get humans off the road, cycling can be safe and I would love to cycle places.
(1) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221414051... (2) https://www.askadamskutner.com/motorcycle-accident/how-do-ca...
For what it's worth, your risk from diseases of inactivity (diabetes, heart disease, etc) are far greater than the risk of cycling, even with poor infrastructure. Most people who take up cycling to work see an increase in life expectancy.
The solution is to separate cyclists from motor traffic on all major roads and introduce 30kmph limits on quiet roads. The Netherlands did this and has far lower accident rates, despite having more children and elderly people cycling. They don't wear helmets either!
(knock on wood)
However, I also feel that one should think about the safety of other road users when choosing one's transport method.
Your first reference notes that "over half of the deaths in car crashes were to road users other than the drivers themselves". Looking at Fig 1., fatal cycling accidents that didn't involve cars were almost all (~92%) fatal to the cyclist rather than to other road users.
EDIT: And then there's the contribution to air pollution-related deaths to think about as well, see e.g. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nearly-9-500... (2015), and I guess more broadly the contribution to climate-change related fatalities. I appreciate these are difficult to measure.
> - You have facilities to shower and dress at work
> - You have sufficient time to shower and dress at work
You can address these by planning where you live and work to make it so. These are not immutable facts of nature you have no control over. If your work doesn't have a shower, maybe a nearby gym does.
> - You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo
There are solutions for transporting kids on bikes. Unless your job is to transport cargo, how often do you need to transport sizeable cargo? Most people are not bringing a refrigerator or something with them on their daily commute.
If the switch to biking only works for the 95% of people whose job doesn't require hauling around large pieces of equipment with them everywhere all the time, then that is still a huge win.
> - Weather is sufficiently good
Or your clothes are sufficiently good
> - You're sufficiently healthy
Bike every day and you will become healthy
Not too many people can make that decision on the sole basis of their preferred mode of transport.
The rational decision for most people is "live where you live because you have things keeping you there" - good, bad, job, family, friends, responsibilities, or otherwise. Given the choice between a) driving 25 miles for work everyday and keeping the status quo versus b) uprooting your family, changing jobs, and risking your savings to move to a new city ... so you can have the benefit of riding or walking to work?
These decisions don't happen in a bubble, there are tradeoffs. Sadly transport is rarely considered as one of them. The car is a convenient default. And while many people might consider riding or walking to work, they aren't going to unless systematic changes are in place to really tip that balance towards an urban/cycling lifestyle that's viable for more people.
Infrastructure, bike lanes, shower and bike lock facilities, etc. sure those might help.
But the real issue is that most adults (in America at least) are stretched so thin on time, forced by economic realities to take on multiple jobs and responsibilities that effectively makes owning a car a requirement to navigate the suburban hellscape safely and quickly.
To recap, things that have an impact and will help cities become vibrant net-zero communities - Economic reform so people can afford decent bike gear or a few extra hours for riding and maintenance - Cycling infrastructure so people feel safe and don't stink at work - Rebuilding entire city centers so people can do life without a car - Empathy towards people who still need to rely on a car because the transition to the above will take time
Things that will be completely counter-productive and discourage people from engaging with cities - Shaming everyone into your particular brand of urban cycling lifestyle because you think it would be good for them and they should just "make it so".
“It doesn’t work if you have an emergency during a blizzard, so therefore you should never bike”
“It doesn’t work for a single mother with three jobs so nobody should do it”
“We haven’t completely rebuilt the entire urban infrastructure into a biking utopia and achieved perfect economic justice so therefore nobody can bike”
Nonsense. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Not every single person needs to bike and even those that do don’t need to bike all the time for every trip. That doesn’t mean there isn’t tons of low-hanging fruit to turn lots of bike trips into car trips.
Yes. We can all afford to move to a dense urban center such that we'll never have to carry a few week's worth of groceries, or enough clothes for the next school year, or anything else which is hard to transport on a bike. Roads (streets, really) are always in good condition, and never icy or that special condition where there's a layer of ice with a thin layer of loose snow on top. Winds never gust to 70 mph, because it would be unseemly for a proud cyclist to fight a headwind on badly-plowed streets.
> Or your clothes are sufficiently good
I still idly wonder what clothing is equal to the task of a whiteout blizzard.
> whiteout blizzard
Why the hell are you driving anywhere in a whiteout blizzard? Stay home. You don’t need to go into the office and update the TPS report during a blizzard.
A blizzard happens maybe once every one or two years. You need to drive on a sunny day in May because sometimes a blizzard happens? That makes no sense.
If you live somewhere that whiteout blizzards are a year-round everyday occurrence, maybe consider a dogsled as an alternative to driving.
This thread is about giving up the car. Entirely.
> Why the hell are you driving anywhere in a whiteout blizzard?
Shit. Happens.
Ideally, emergencies would never happen. Still have to prepare for the less-than-ideal.
No, it's not. I never claimed that. Having biking as an option doesn't mean you're never allowed to touch a car again. This may shock and dismay you, but it is possible to have multiple viable alternatives for transportation. Bike when it's convenient. You'll probably get to enjoy it and seek out more ways to bike once you discover how good it feels and how nice it is to not have to worry about parking.
If a situation arises where a car is truly necessary, then use a car. I'd estimate for most people probably 90% of car trips could be replaced if they lived somewhere more bike and pedestrian friendly. That would be a huge win for the environment. The other upshot is that if everyone does that, then when you do need to use a car, or for people who are, say, disabled and really can't bike, then the roads are much emptier and driving is more pleasant.
If you live in a place where you don't need a car, then sure, I guess that might work, but the VAST majority of Americans do not. They would have to move somewhere else. There isn't enough housing in such places, so new apartments (and schools and stores) would need to be built. That takes time and emits a bunch itself. We don't have the time to empty the suburbs (and no chance it'd happen politically). So the fastest solution BY FAR is electric cars as we can decarbonize people where they are.
A lot of cycling advocates massively underestimate just how good electric cars are. (They also last at least 10 times longer than bikes, in terms of number of miles... including tires, etc.)
People want climate change to force solutions to other problems. But we didn't solve ozone depletion by getting rid of refrigeration or air conditioning. We did it by developing and using non-ozone-depleting refrigerants. There's no political will to do much else, except around the edges.
Absolutely, build better biking infrastructure. There are good reasons to do it. But electric cars and trucks are WAY more relevant to actually getting most of America off of fossil fuels in a politically and economically feasible way than telling everyone they have to bike, now. Technological solutions are more feasible than social ones.
(Also, all the inputs to an electric car CAN be decarbonized as well.)
What? By what metric?
Car tires last 30,000 to 50,000 miles. Really good ones are 80,000 to 100,000 miles.
Similar for the mechanisms.
The Netherlands is nearly a perfect place for biking, which is why they bike.
Just as driving a car in Venice, in a jungle, or up to the summit of Mount Everest is not optimal.
That said, biking in Swedish winter works just fine. We plow our bike paths as well as roads, and get on with our lives.
They are quite fast, require very little physical effort, and have a small fraction of the energy consumption of a car.
And you can still get the health benefit by investing as much muscle work as you want to.
~$1000 gets you basically a slow, mini-motorcycle.
It’s dramatically cheaper than a car, longer range than a bike, and wonderful in cities.
You could get an ebike, insure it, and come out well ahead just from fuel savings.
And as far as "longer range than a bike" that's more than likely untrue. The largest batteries, best motors, and most efficient mode might make it to 100 miles on a charge, but more realistic on more common models is 30-40 miles in a middle power mode. A 40 mile limit is less than you can acomplish on a non electric bike.
Most people can easily go 20 miles on an electric bike, but have difficulty going 20 miles on a normal bike.
Also Rad power bikes are in the ~$1000 range and are great!
For people who want a bicycle for a bicycle and are going to use it, you may want to save up for a mid drive bike.
I came here to post this. I hadn't ridden a bicycle in almost 30 years when I bought my eBike back in January. 2500W Luna, having a blast with it.
Cities are usually quite small in area. USA is an exception to this but that is due to car dependency. We can't reverse care dependency if we continue to pander to it. In London, the average speed of traffic is much lower than a gentle cycle. For longer distances, municipalities should focus on rail infrastructure. You might also consider an e-bike, which can double or triple your range as a cyclist.
> You have facilities to shower and dress at work
Cycling at a moderate pace does not make you any sweatier than public transport . With adequate infrastructure, cycling in a city can be leisurely, rather than a battle against motor traffic. Riding a bike is not the same as racing a bike, much like how walking is not the same as running.
> You have sufficient time to shower and dress at work
Presumably you have to shower somewhere. What difference does it make if it is before or after your commute?
> You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo
Cargo bikes are remarkably efficient and can carry two small children. They are cheaper than a car too. Older children can cycle. Did you know 75% of dutch teenagers cycle to school? However, we need infrastructure where people feel safe to do this. For occasional journeys a car may still be required, but that's fine, we are targeting the 90% case here.
> Weather is sufficiently good
Cycling away from traffic in the rain with fenders and a jacket is no worse than walking. Toughen up?
> You're sufficiently healthy
In The Netherlands, disabled and elderly people can use powered scooters and wheel chairs on the cycle paths. This gives them independence even after losing their driving license. In other countries, they would likely end up in a home. For those who must use a car, that is still an option. Traffic is actually reduced since cycle lanes have much greater carrying capacity in terms of _people_.
It's telling that the most of the examples in the article and in the comments are about tiny shrinking European towns (lol, Copenhagen).
Author from Canada, and he has seen all the problems described in the thread. He is not bike promoter, just a person who wants comfortable and safe commute. So he moved to Netherlands where even commute by car is better because of the way city is organized. He describes in details how and why, and it is amazing.
Now I want to visit Netherlands.
- Your commute is sufficiently short (I managed a 30k round trip every day at my last job. Took about 45 minutes each way.)
- You have facilities to shower and dress at work (I was lucky enough to have this, but some people who don't use e-bikes to avoid arriving as a sweaty mess)
- You have sufficient time to shower and dress at work (Say 15 minutes? Is that really a major issue? Just think of all the time you're saving by exercising and commuting at the same time.)
- You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo (I've got a kid's bike trailer and a kid's bike seat to take my kids to Kindergarten on the way to work)
- Weather is sufficiently good (I live in Germany. I get by. When there's deep fresh snow I don't cycle, the rest of the time it's fine.)
- You're sufficiently healthy (Cycling's a great way to get sufficiently healthy.)
- physically separated bicycle/automobile traffic ( safety like the netherlands )
- cycling support infrastructure ( to quickly address flats / part breakage when out and about )
- reliable backup transportation ( when all else fails )
But I agree, weather and disability issues definitely require some kind of supplemental modes of transportation. Even then I’d rather we invested in public transportation instead of cars.
A okish video about winter biking https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU
Basically the temperature does not really matter much. It has more to do with the maintenance. If the cycling paths exist and are in good condition people will use them. Actually I think properly cold weather (stays below freezing most of the winter) is better then when weather is going above and below freezing point all the time.
edit: And cycling in the rain is much worse then riding in the winter in my opinion.
Another problem with cycling in the snow is that it's way harder. You need much wider and softer tires, but this also means that you need to put in more energy. Going uphill is a pain. Add a little soft snow and/or ice to it and it's awful. You'll also sweat in the coat. Batteries for ebikes don't work as well in the cold either.
I think you pretty much need an alternative transportation system for winter. Or maybe we should all start using electric tricycles or quads.
> I have a hard time seeing there being much cycling in winter.
And yet we got schools with 1000 out of the 1200 students cycling to school in -17c weather in Oulu. Out of the rest 100 to 150 walked and a couple took kicksleds.
https://twitter.com/pekkatahkola/status/1093297261604265985
> Icy conditions are scary on a bicycle.
Me (and a few million other Finns and Swedes and Norwegians and ...) would disagree.
> All it takes is for snow to cover some ice and the bicycle can simply slip out from under you.
This is why we maintain the roads. Also studded tires exist for bikes too but are rarely used here (Finland)
> It's also possible for temperature to be above 0 during the day, but drop to below freezing in the evening/at night.
Does happen. But again maintain your roads. Not really a problem on its own. Only if you let cars drive on the hard packed snow that has now melted which creates huge grooves that then freeze. Solved by not allowing cars on the bike paths.
> Another problem with cycling in the snow is that it's way harder. You need much wider and softer tires, but this also means that you need to put in more energy.
I rode the exact same bike summer and winter with the same quite narrow tires meant for asphalt (never had studded tires on my bicycle) for the last 25+ years and still do. Well not the same bike over all the years but only ever owned 1 bike at the same time.
Actually now that I think about it is a bit harder when really cold (think -25c) but not for the reason you said. The grease/oil in your chains, ball bearings, etc starts to gel up making it harder. Could probably fix it by changing the oils but nobody bothers with that. Just cycle harder (or slower and accept the commute taking 5 minutes longer)
> Going uphill is a pain.
Just cycle harder. You will get in shape quite fast. If you have proper gears it is not a big problem (outside of some extreme hills that are pain in the ass to even walk up)
> You'll also sweat in the coat.
Don't wear too thick of a coat or just open it up a bit.
> Batteries for ebikes don't work as well in the cold either.
Based on comments from my friends they work just fine. We have electric cars here and they work too.
> I think you pretty much need an alternative transportation system for winter.
Again watch the video I linked about winter biking.
Basically riding in the rain is much more of pain in the ass.
If you're going to invest in infrastructure, I would think that investments in public transit will be more palatable to the taxpayers.
Also public transport and cycling are not opposites of each other. Here in Helsinki a lot of people cycle to the train or metro station and then take that to the city for their commute. You can also take your bike into the train or metro here if that works better for you.
People also drive their cars to the metro/train station and do the same. Parking can be really expensive (and hard to find) in the center if you happen to work there. For example my work place (a bit over 100 person IT company office) we have a total of 2 car parking spots for the whole company that you reserve in a google sheet when you need it.
In places where it gets cold enough to snow, but doesn't stay cold enough long enough for the ground to freeze, the snow near the ground can melt and then freeze as more snow lands on top, leaving you with an ice sheet between the snow layer and the ground. That can be much more treacherous to drive on, and I'd guess to cycle on.
What is a real issue is a lack of cycling infrastructure, if it's dangerous to commute to work by bike then a car is a better choice.
Even if you're walking, -20C and below is just too damn cold even if you have proper gear.
That sounds like bad infrastructure, which admittedly is the default almost everywhere.
There's also a safety issue in that if you're in that kind of cold for long enough, it'll kill you, jacket or no jacket.
Again, it's a matter of infrastructure and priorities: https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU?t=260
> There's also a safety issue in that if you're in that kind of cold for long enough, it'll kill you, jacket or no jacket.
In any situation where being outside for the time a commute could take would kill you, roads wouldn't be safe to be driven on.
However, what if you have a 30-60 min commute and it’s -20, -30 out? You can easily drive that, but cycling is another matter.
Bikes are but a means to an end: decreased traffic, reduced urban pollution and safer streets. Getting more people on bikes means fewer people on cars. Reducing traffic also require good and frequent public transport for both people of reduced mobility and weather events. Most situations were buses or trains are disrupted is a time when driving isn't quite safe either. And cars aren't going to go away, what you want to do is affect the margins: the 2 mile drive to get milk that would 1) ideally not have to be 2 miles and 2) trivially cycleable in safe infrastructure.
I am also of the belief that increased density should be a goal, for multiple reasons, which would make the need of 60 minutes commutes unnecessary for most, with the lovely side-effect that people that desire a suburban lifestyle can still have it and the equation for both bicycles and public transit a no-brainer.
Electric bikes are also an option that allows more people to ride in a wider range of situations that would otherwise be a limitation, including hilly terrain.
- Your commute is sufficiently short
- You have facilities to shower and dress at work
- You have sufficient time to shower and dress at work
- You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo
- Weather is sufficiently good
- You're sufficiently healthy