My needs are:
- have place for a family of four, two of which are small children;
- be something I can use with said family in -15 Celsius;
- Be able to be used for a 200km trip weekly with said family;
I have an EV.
- layers, and canopies for aforementioned e-bikes
- train
Of course, speaking in the ideal. Just because the car has been the only option for so long doesn't mean it's replacement has to replace every trip either.
I think bicycles certainly have a place in the Netherlands, with actively car-hostile policy, a very high population density and hardly any distance longer than 300km; but any nationality that enjoys their personal space will probably be better of with something else.
I do wonder if rails or road are more efficient ecologically and economically. I've been wondering about smaller-and-slower-than-airliner planes or even eVTOLs, since they don't need a lot of infrastructure and the physics are surprisingly efficient. The technology isn't there yet but sooner or later I don't think flying is a bad idea. A small 4-seater airplane uses about 10-20 liters of fuel per 100km at faster speeds and more direct travel than a car, and if legislation allowed barrier-less mass-use and thus mass-production, planes wouldn't cost much more to the end user.
I just moved here from the US. I live in the Noord Brabant in NL and currently own a car. The village I live in does not have a train station, not to mention that it is pretty pricey to take the train to work, both in time and money. My commute costs about €15 per day on public transport and up to 2 hours each way. I also have family that live in Belgium, about 150km away, also in a small village with no train station. Driving makes a lot of sense for me currently.
Sorry, to the actual question. When you travel abroad, what is your cutoff for taking the train versus flying? From where I live to Brussels, it's about half the price to take the train versus flying, but go out a bit further to Paris, and it's about 25% cheaper to fly. If I'm in NL, it seems like it would almost always be more economical to fly if the destination is more than 300km away. These are also cursory Google searches so the timeline is 3-4 weeks out. When planning a trip months in advance, I would assume the flights and train tickets will be cheaper, but likely still comparable in terms of percentages.
My car is also very efficient. A full tank to drive 600km costs about €60. I realize I would need to pay for parking at the destination, but if I'm staying at a hotel or outside the city center, I think it would still be cheaper. Another cursory train search, Eindhoven to Prague is €140 per person round trip. Traveling alone, probably worth it, but with a family, driving seems more economical.
I feel a bit ramble-y but hopefully that makes sense. I'm trying to figure out how this whole "European" thing works :)
If you're not interested enough to invest in an ebike, an escooter is a good way to try... though it removes the exercise element and restricts you to what can be carried in a backpack.
Not so long as a "never in a lifetime on average" crash remains an acceptable justification to spend tens of thousands of dollars it's not. And that's ignoring weather and convenience.
What does this mean?
That’s a strong argument against SUVs, a type of vehicle that is notoriously dangerous because drivers can’t see children in front of their hood. It also flips over and kills people inside at minor incidents.
Cargo bikes don’t have those issues.
>a strong argument against SUVs
This kind of hubris to think you can plan the exact details of the market for a product followed up by cognitive dissonance when it doesn't work out drives me up the wall.
The SUVs back in the day when they were becoming a thing had fine visibility, great even by modern standards. Then you people said they rolled over too much and were too unsafe so they grew wide to be stable and they got thick bodies and doors and strong pillars and high belt-lines to be strong and nobody could see out of them. And then you people backed over your kids. And then we got backup cameras and all sorts of tech. And now you people complain the screens are distracting and un-ergonomic. You see the pattern here?
Just stop trying to tell everyone else what's good for them and then force it on them and we wouldn't have this problem.
Want me to do zoning too? Because it's basically the same story.
Increasing car size (sometimes) increases safety for the driver at the expense of anyone in a smaller car or not in a car. Road deterioration also increases exponentially with vehicle weight so people that opt for no-car or smaller cars are effectively subsidizing the excessive vehicles of other people with their tax money. iirc a Hummer causes 21x more damage than an "average car."
"Most of the world" is a big place.
Are there more cars or mopeds in the world? I assume that the typical family in Asia has either a scooter or no vehicle, so an ebike would be an improvement for them. Probably the same for Africa and a lot of South America.
I mention this to demonstrate that most of the world doesn't have cars, and they get along ok. Such a thing is not impossible.
There are roughly 1.4bn cars in the world for 7.8bn people... so most people get around without one.
You can see it if you travel a bit, in India and China you'll see families getting around on bikes and scooters. Over 1/3 of the Dutch use a bike as their primary means of transportation. People often cite weather as a reason not to, but if the Finnish can regularly use bikes to get around (another European country with high bike use)... nearly anyone can.
Plenty of people bike all 4 seasons, the Netherlands is the go-to example... it rains a lot there. Driving to work under-dressed in a heated box is a luxury that's kind of harmed a lot of people's ability to know how to dress for the weather. It's not particularly difficult.