I bike all year long in Sweden, it's doable with the right gear and clothing. And I'm not even originally from a cold country, I'm Brazilian, living here for 7 years and used to bike in the heat of Brazil as well. This is a cop-out...

> it's doable with the right gear and clothing

It's doable, but it's also the most time consuming and impractical way of transportation, compared to the other options, so therefor it's bad.

Just because you can find a weird amish guys who insists that riding a horse is great, doesn't make that a good way of transportation, or something that we should start doing more.

> It's doable, but it's also the most time consuming and impractical way of transportation, compared to the other options, so therefor it's bad.

My connection to the center of Stockholm takes 45-60 minutes counting the time to-from stations, I bike the same distance in about 40-45 minutes. I get some exercise, I get to bike to any street I want to in more-or-less the same amount of time. It's bad for you, so just swallow that as a personal opinion but don't come with sweeping statements that "it's therefore bad", this is totally subjective to one's level of discomfort and/or laziness.

I prefer the bike than the great public transportation here for any trip where I won't be carrying more than what my cargo backpack can carry.

I don't agree with the logic of your statement ("it's not perfect for me so therefore bad"), also coming after biking infrastructure is a very weird hill to die on...

> this is totally subjective to one's level of discomfort and/or laziness.

Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad. The whole point of our society is to transcend this. There are a million ways to do exercise and sports, and to spend your life and time and energy. Just because someone doesn't like cycling like you, doesn't make them lazy. That's an unbelievably self centered and arrogant viewpoint.

My logic is that cycling is bad because 1. it's not powerful and 2. it's sensitive to the weather, and 3. most people don't do it. Doesn't matter what you personally like.

> That's an unbelievably self centered and arrogant viewpoint.

> My logic is that cycling is bad because 1. it's not powerful and 2. it's sensitive to the weather, and 3. most people don't do it.

> Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad. The whole point of our society is to transcend this.

Pretty self-centered I'd say.

This doesn't mean that we should construct infrastructure that actively discourages cycling. The argument isn't "let's force everyone to cycle". It's "let's make cycling so safe and convenient that the ones who would like to do it can do so without risking life and limb jostling in the same lanes as SUVs the size of Abrams tanks."

Let's prioritise what makes for actually efficient transport, and which most people will use, and not prioritise inefficient transports that only a few enthusiasts are using.

"Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad"

Think you might find that your biology disagrees somewhat, there. Try sitting in a bathtub 100% of your life and see what happens with your health.

Yes, yes, being forced is bad. But it does help against laziness :)

You also have cities on the coasts (especially west) with weather very compatible with biking. Also no need to tear everything down, just add a few floors and shops at the ground level on existing houses, with maybe larger sidewalks. As long as shops are not all required to be concentrated along a big non walkable road it will work.

> For the heat of Texas, Arizona, Florida, and New Mexico? For the freezing temperatures in Minnesota, Alaska, and North Dakota? You would quickly die.

The majority of people commute by scooter/moped in Jakarta, so it's clearly doable in climates as hot as those you mention.

> even though we obviously can’t just tear down our cities and start from scratch.

You don't have to. Reclaim the roads/stroads by building in the middle and leaving a single one-way lane on each side.

> The majority of people commute by scooter/moped in Jakarta, so it's clearly doable in climates as hot as those you mention.

Yeah and the majority of people in Dhaka where I’m from walk everywhere. The true goal of urbanists and environmentalists is for us to live like we’re impoverished people in the third world.

Would people in Dhaka prefer cars or just a better walking and public transit experience? Are cars even conceivable with a population density of 76,080 per square mile? If cars are impossible in such a city then it doesn't matter whether they're impoverished or not.

> Would people in Dhaka prefer cars or just a better walking and public transit experience

Nobody wants to walk or take public transit in that heat and humidity. Especially not with two or three kids, or carrying tiffin containers of leftovers after a dinner party. My family members who came over from Dhaka to the US moved to places built around cars as soon as they could afford it. My cousin just moved to Texas (after studying in Queens) and is loving all the open space, the houses with pools, etc.

Walking in heat and humidity is unpleasant but the climate and population are what they are so you work with what you have.

I can't speak for all environmentalists but I'd like people to live pleasantly wherever they like if they can do so sustainably. Probably most Dhaka residents, like most people anywhere, would prefer to stay in their home city and country if possible, just improved. In any case giving everyone in the world a Texas-sized house and pool is not on the table no matter what until we invent personal fusion generators and matter replicators.

Having climate-controlled walkways or more comfortable transit options specifically for people with kids should be available in every city, "impoverished" or "third world" or not. The world certainly has the resources for it.

> Walking in heat and humidity is unpleasant but the climate and population are what they are so you work with what you have.

Bangladesh has about the same population density as the Houston metro area. So it would be totally possible for most people to have cars and houses if it became an advanced service economy.

> I can't speak for all environmentalists but I'd like people to live pleasantly wherever they like if they can do so sustainably.

It's not really up to environmentalists in the first world.

> Probably most Dhaka residents, like most people anywhere, would prefer to stay in their home city and country if possible, just improved. In any case giving everyone in the world a Texas-sized house and pool is not on the table no matter what until we invent personal fusion generators and matter replicators.

I think that's an accurate reflection of what people's end goals are, yes. Using technology to increase the standard of living, just as in western countries.

> It's not really up to environmentalists in the first world.

We are also predominantly complaining about people in the "first world" disregarding the environment due to minor convenience and unfortunate economics.

(But we only have one planet for now, and as things are, nobody is entitled to a free pass to be environmentally irresponsible anymore.)

> The true goal of urbanists and environmentalists is for us to live like we’re impoverished people in the third world.

Indeed, when you bike to work you're mimicking truly impoverished people like Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark.

Sometimes I wonder if aggressively pro-car anti-bicycle people ever tried using a bicycle seriously...

I once told my dad, who grew up in a Bangladeshi village, that my wife and I were going to a fancy restaurant that churns its own butter. “Why would you churn your own butter,” he asked. “You can buy butter at the store.”

Similarly, biking to work does not make you impoverished. Having to bike to work, or living in a society where most people bike to work, strongly suggests you are impoverished.

Your dad has a point about butter, but would the transport equivalent of not having to churn your own butter not be to have others chauffeur you around, rather than driving yourself? Or, if we think of it as highlighting mass manufacture efficiency, taking public transport?

In Denmark at least, most people bike to work, so the latter part is at least objectively false.

> In Denmark at least, most people bike to work, so the latter part is at least objectively false.

In case anyone is curious, the following PDF provides some statistics on this issue: https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/docu...

Tldr: 20% of commuting trips are by bicycle, 13% by public transport, and 60% by private car/van. Of all travel miles, 5% are by bicycle, 10% by public transport, and 77% are by car/van.

Oulu has temperatures go below -30C and has a healthy cycling culture.

For heat, it will depend individually. Personally I've biked at +35C and it was fine until i stopped due to the wind/movement refreshing.

The commenter did already address the temperature part of your concern already, but this should be helpful: https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU

I have biked year round in Minnesota for my commute since I was a child, not dead yet decades later.

So much of the Internet these days is Americans explaining why their collapsing system will never be fixable. It makes me sad.