Near me is the largest open air weekend market of the Netherlands. Do you know how everybody gets there? By bike, public transportation, walking, etc. And then some small percentage that arrives by car.
Of course, and I've been to the mecca of public transit, Japan!
And guess what -- outside of the super-dense cities, most Japanese people drive cars. I spent some time in a Japanese city about as dense as a California suburb. Two train stations in the entire city. A car or two in every driveway. I've also been to smaller cities in various European countries and it's the same story.
People need to stop pretending that the world looks like Copenhagen or Tokyo. In reality, most of the world is not dense.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make
People who are advocating for bicycles as a primary form of transit are using a hyper-narrow definition of "urban," in which most cities would not be considered urban, and that is deceptive and wrong.
Even though I agree the policies here apply to a small fraction of the world's area, it affects a sizable fraction of the population.
Bullshit. I grew up in a small village -- 300 people or so live there. It's a couple of kilometers from two other villages in the 2000-500 range. There's one school for the area shared between the villages. The daycare I went to was located in one of the other villages. I biked (alongside my parents) for 5 kilometers on non-separated roads to get to daycare at the age of 4. I biked first 2 kilometers to school every single day until 7th grade where I then had to bike 12 kilometers each way. It sounds tough if you don't bike. If you've done it your life whole it's just a mode of transport. Taking 30-40 minutes on the bike was faster than taking the bus too.
If we let people build a couple Amsterdams or Londons in America, we could just self select and those that want to cycle and walk can do so, and those who want to drive can do so - just in separate places.
Shoppings and several city services are located on the city outskirts only reachable by car or taxi.
You can cycle around on the city centre and then enjoy the roads that are organised like motorways around the center.
But most people in Japan live in the super-dense cities. So we are literally discussing solutions that work for most people
Better zoning would help too.
Citation needed.
People who drive cars usually have a need for them. Cargo hauling for example.
> Two train stations in the entire city.
Probably wasn't a large city. I've been to some really small cities that had two train stations. You could walk between stations.
> A car or two in every driveway
For the most part, Japan doesn't have driveways. Even in less populated centers, they might have a parking space, or a garage, but not a driveway. It's a waste of space. Even street parking is limited. Some people may have two cars for whatever reason but I doubt that is the norm.
I'm wonder what region you were at that saw this many cars.
Interestingly, the number of cars in Japan is roughly the same as the number of bikes in circulation.
As to a solution; How about recumbent trikes? Beats dissing foreign nations based on biased preconceptions of healthy lifestyles.
Personally, I think this isn't an either-or kind of thing. I, and plenty of people I know, have both a bike and a car. They use the bike for relatively short trips, shopping, etc., and the car for everything else. As it turns out, the vast majority of driving people do are the sorts of trips that can be done easily (and more quickly) on a bike anyway.
People who simply cannot bike for whatever reason will continue to drive. That's fine. But we still need to shift the balance so that it's easier and safer for people to bike, even if it makes using a car slightly less convenient.
Which is what we have, and have had, for a very, very long time.
> Best way to ensure they care about the environment is allowing them to take home more than $5000 a month.
I have not noticed that wealthy people care more about the environment than poor people. It seems to me that it tends to be the other way around.
> Best way to get them to produce eco-friendly technologies, is to reduce barriers to entry;
Bicycles are already produced at scale and have been for longer than cars have existed.
Huh? Do you mean that deregulation is the best way to solve this?
The cheapest options for end consumers will almost always be the things that scale the most: race-to-the-bottom, and exploiting the commons as much as possible. While I agree that regulations are gamed, to suggest deregulation as the key solution means disregarding why we have regulation at all.
In the UK you don't drive to a football stadium because they're not surrounded by an ocean of parking lots.
How do many Americans become disabled in the first place? Many of them get injured in a motor vehicle collision. Why do so many lack physical fitness? A big part of that is they have to be in a car all day. And it's not just bikes--look at the variety of new electric mobility options that have appeared over the last decade.
It's self-destructive conservatism to wave off avoidable problems as being inevitable path dependence and pretend like there's no other choice. In fact there is much that could change.
Car makes us less us sedentary and less able to walk. Bikes work the opposite way, and encourage us to be more active and more able to walk.
The elder can't walk due in part because they didn't engage in enough physical activity, which in turn reduce their activity level.
Beside, we won't be able to redesign our urban architecture overnight, but with progress comes dividend that will make further progress much easier.
There will always be edge cases for people who are disabled and who are too obese, but I am confident we can find mobility options for them. A healthier society will have more money to support the hopefully dwindling reminders who can't use bikes.
The vast majority, by a long shot.
The way you describe it seems to me dystopian nonsense, but maybe that's the American reality.
As for overweight, old, and disabled, in the Netherlands they can use mobility scooters on the bike paths. This makes the cities much more accessible for them to get groceries and visit the doctor independently. Also much safer and accessible for children, a huge portion of the population that cannot drive.
It's not about eliminating driving. It's about providing alternatives. If those that can cycle or walk do, then there is less traffic for those that need to drive because of distance, cargo, etc.
they aren't driving themselves either so what is your point? bicycles with passenger seats exist, as do buses and trains (and, of course, bicycles with motors)
If you're going into "paraplegic and/or legally blind" as your idea of people that can't get around by bicycle, you will find that most people in public gatherings are just fine going around by bike.
If people can't see or think well enough to navigate on a bike... then cars etc. aren't the solution either. Sounds like they'd be passengers on bikes rather than riders.
They can start with a quarter mile and work their way up.
> disabled people, old people
Perfectly capable of riding bicycles. Unless you're talking really old, like 80s or 90s. They can ride trikes or golf carts.
> This is ridiculous utopian nonsense
Our ancestors ran down buffaloes and woolly mammoths. Your suggestion that we can't do basic physical exertion anymore is downright dystopian and nanny-stateish. We could all do with a healthy dose of taking personal responsibility for our own transportation.
We need a variety of options for people of varying abilities. We need standard bikes, e-bikes, accessible vehicles[1], busses, trains, light rail, street cars, walkable cities and electric cars.
Self-driving cars are more likely to make traffic worse, not better here's a good explanation about it[2].
At the end of the day, less people driving is good for people living in cities, and for people who need/want to drive
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canta_(vehicle) [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVWciFJeFNA
Lots of people are unable to drive for totally valid reasons. Yet we don't throw away cars because only like 75% of the population can drive.
There, car infrastructure was built on what existed - not on a blank slate.
Likewise in the Netherlands bike infrastructure was built around what existed. Not on a blank slate.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o
Change is possible.
Everyone needs to start moving more, and we can do it gradually. The people who are extremely unfit and can barely walk right now would benefit from some extra movement a lot.
It’s not like entire cities & towns go from “all cars” to “all walking and bikes” immediately. It’ll phase-in over like 20+ years. There will be slightly more opportunities to walk around each year, and it’ll get a little less convenient to drive to the shop that’s 1/4 mile away. The unfit will have plenty of time to adjust!
Those with physical mobility issues have tons of alternative solutions:
1) If fewer people drive, it’ll be easier for a disabled person to drive 2) Focusing on walking/biking ties naturally to expanded public transit, which is also better for the environment and better for people with disabilities, visually impaired, and elderly who shouldn’t be driving anyways 3) disabled and immobile-obese people can also benefit from cycling infrastructure — the Netherlands has tiny little electric mobility scooters which require a special “disability registration” to use (similar to disabled parking), which are able to use the bike infrastructure.
Is your contention seriously that we're incapable of improving anything because design decisions that have been made in the past are now unchangeable? Nothing must ever change after it is built for the first time? It's impossible to nudge people towards better transit possibilities incrementally through more thoughtful design? What a ridiculous take.
Maybe many of them wouldn't be in that state if their normal day to day activities involved cardio?
Sure, some people health conditions have nothing to do with their exercise level. But having a lot of people who couldn't ride a bike half a mile is not the expectation. People can ride bikes until pretty advanced ages.
We can reserve cars and other transportation for people who actually can't use anything else.
In fact, it’s much more devastating for elderly people in America who can no longer drive due to poor eyesight when the only mode of transportation in a city is by car.
It wouldn’t take much investment (compared to pricy car infrastructure) to make many American cities bike friendly.
Most people will also want climate control options (heat, A/C).This should be possible in the future but may require more battery cost than would be supported by acceptable prices at the moment.
How much would people pay for a highly-visible-to-pickup-truck-drivers recumbent bicycle which can safely go 45mph and has air conditioning? How much would this cost? At a hypothetical $8,000 I'd be tempted to just spend twice as much on a car so I can go on the highway.
Cars also get stolen a lot less than bicycles, so the extra $8,000 for a car might pay for itself if the proposed recumbent might get stolen once or twice.
I love bicycles, I want to be able to use them for my commute. But I think to make that happen we need to focus on broadly-acceptable solutions rather than pipe dreams.
Fat people: Most people aren't super-fat, though those that are ... do ride bikes.
Skinny people: Not a problem
Old people: Often use an E-bike. Although I've seen 80 year olds riding without assistance just fine. (And beating me to my destination besides)
Young People: Get kicked outside by their Moms in the morning, rain or wind or snow. "Kids are not the wicked witch of the west, you won't melt. Now get to school young man/lady/other , and don't let me get a call from the headmaster saying you were late!"
Disabled people: There are many ways to modify bikes for diverse disabilities (including pedalling with hands, having 3 or 4 wheels, etc).
Me? I actually drive a car a lot. I like driving, I need to travel long distances, and where I live the car infrastructure is pretty decent too. And most drivers are pretty good, because people who don't want to drive don't have to.
There are a lot of very fat people, old people, disabled people, and so forth who could not walk for half a mile.
Is walking now an utopia?
>We aren't going to rebuild our cities around bikes, and even if we did, a large number of people could not use them. On the other hand, we already built our cities around cars, and self-driving cars would fit right in (if they actually worked).
And also we aren't going to magically reverse Type 1 Diabetes, but that doesn't mean everyone who doesn't have it shouldn't have a decent diet instead and instead eat like pigs and then get hooked on pills until the day they die.
And then you need to walk across them anyway, even if you drive.
The contention that thinking societies could incentivize and build towards decreased reliance on car infrastructure and that bikes can have a serious role in that is 'utopian nonsense' is obviously entrenched in some 'nothing can ever change' mentality. Yet, interestingly, the point also highlighted that things that have cemented themselves in societies that are maladaptive or wrong have come about for bad reasons 100 years ago. It's almost as if those advocating for making better decisions in society today are acknowledging the previous bad decisions and working towards making better ones now, so that the actual conditions in societies 100 years from now is an improvement, y'anno, not pretending they have a magical history reversing wand to rewrite the past.
Guess what, there are even US cities in which a good proportion of the people at the store could have certainly biked, if the future came with dedicated infrastructure and incentivization making it easier to do so over the years. The above doesn't address that, or e-cargo bikes, or the increased mobility that ebikes provide to those that struggle due to physical limitations. I became fit by biking after a lifetime of not being so. Had you looked at me in the hypothetical crowd of incapable of ever biking, you'd make the incorrect assessment of what is possible for the future. And what of people gradually getting more exercise that are able to bike or ebike? who is saying disabled people must bike, rather than we should incentivize those that can, make it easier for all, and have public transit whenever possible. When I had issues for a period that made biking hard, I eventually got a homebuilt ebike for $600 which restored a lot of my freedom and enjoyment, and eventually made it so it was easier to bike unassisted again.
Believing we exist in some optimally selected world in which the market or some other magical force has made everything exactly the way it is for a reason and that we have no say in the matter is a pretty prevalent viewpoint around here. It's almost absorbed as naturalistic in people's brains, rather than reflecting as to what immense past and continued vested interests are at play in cementing the sales of large, expensive vehicles to every individual as our only 'utopian solution' to the future of transit or climate crises.
Fat tire e-bikes can support fat people and it's not an engineering impossibility to make bikes for fat people (it's largely market driven AFAIK). old people in many other countries routinely use e-bikes as they require very little effort. No, everyone on the planet can't ride a bike, but the vast majority of people who drive are capable of riding an ebike.
This may be a consequence of building everything in a car-centric way.
If you prefer driving your car, that's fine, but don't pretend that biking is somehow reserved for young fit people, that's simply not true.
Go to any northern European city and see for yourself.
Few people were riding bikes in the Netherlands too, before investments were made to switch to a more sustainable and human system.
My litmus test is: Will this work for one parent, with two kids, and three bags of groceries. That description loosely fits a LOT of people!
Cars provide an incredible amount of liberty, flexibility and autonomy. You go where you want, when you want, you can bring whatever you want, and for the most part you don't have to answer to anybody else about it.
Clearly there are alternatives in some cases. Many people who own cars also own bikes and take trains and buses when it makes sense to do so.
>if you multiply, you know, all of the journeys by the space that the car occupies in the road by the amount of road that you need by the distance that that pushes people apart because you have to build more roads, you are in a red queen’s race that you cannot win.
Disabled -> Electric wheelchairs are basically bike already [1]
Have things -> Delivery bikes [2]
Old people -> Yep, the ones that absolutely should not be driving? Old people use electrified bikes just fine in walmarts around the country. Same applies for obese people. [3]
Electric bikes of different shapes and sizes are completely redefining the usability of a bike. Most importantly, bikes are the last piece of a public transportation puzzle. They solve many of the last mile problems and force urban planning to be dense and walkable. This provides many additional benefits for accessibility. Walkable/ transit-based areas allow vision impaired people to independent. Bikes lead to many more smooth ramps that naturally accommodate movement impaired folks on wheels.
___________
> Society is not a blank slate, and we don't get to start over from scratch
Given that America literally destroyed cities and moved mountains to make the car-centric cities that we have today, your statement is demonstrably untrue. Le Corbusier's Paris almost happened and
America's biggest problems today are aging & crumbling infrastructure (owing to unsustainable building [4]) and low supply of housing. The nation is overdue for new economically-sustainable infrastructure and needs more space for housing. Guess what the most natural solution is ? -> Densification. (infrastructure costs shared over more people, allows for more housing when space is at a premium) Biking comes out as a natural side-effect of dense spaces.
It is also a little ironic that you name lack of accessibility, safety & obesity as big problems, without realizing how cars have been at the center of facilitating that very problem.
> aren't going to rebuild our cities around bikes
No one is asking for this straw man. The goal is to integrate into the existing fabric of cities. Building bike infrastructure has shown to reduce traffic and make it easier for those who NEED cars to continue using them. Bike infrastructure is the cheapest of all major forms of transportation infrastructure.
The fact that cities as dense as NYC have pathetic biking infrastructure is a testament to just how far behind America is on accommodating humans within its cities. We aren't talking about rebuilding Phoenix. This is about making biking a viable option for the densest of American cities. ___________
[1] https://image.made-in-china.com/155f0j00JvfYuGpRmTbU/New-Mod...
[2] https://ferlabikes.com/delivery-cargo-bikes
[3] https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0026/0030/4684/products/im...
Biking and public transit work, in a very small number of very dense places, and people drive cars everywhere else. Even in Europe and Japan, the supposed paradises of public transit, most people own and drive cars daily unless they live in London or Tokyo or other dense cities.
Accept that fact, and then you will be arguing in good faith. But to pretend that I'm ignoring some kind of bicycle-friendly paradise in other parts of the world is just silly. The super-dense cities where this works are outliers.
There are a lot of very fat people, old people, disabled people, and so forth who could not ride a bike half a mile.
This is ridiculous utopian nonsense. Society is not a blank slate, and we don't get to start over from scratch. We don't get to re-litigate the past and pretend it never happened. Some people seem to think that if something happened for bad reasons 100 years ago, we ought to just undo it, but that is not how the real world works. We have to build on what exists, no matter why or how it got to be that way.
We aren't going to rebuild our cities around bikes, and even if we did, a large number of people could not use them. On the other hand, we already built our cities around cars, and self-driving cars would fit right in (if they actually worked).