| i'm speaking from a european city (400k inhabitants) perspective, where everything is rather crowded compared to the american suburb commute. > A majority of the population cannot use bicycles for long trips well, bicycling _in the city_ is usually meant for short trips, but 95% of my trips are short trips of less than 10km. > Only healthy citizens with an excess of time and energy are able to use them for trips excess of time: on my commute i'm on average a lot faster by bike - no gridlock, no search for a parking spot energy: carbs are cheap healthy: cycling improves your health and fitness follows an S-curve. even if the ride is arduous in the beginning, it quickly gets easier > The elderly, children personal experience (biased): compared to driving, a disproportional amount of cyclists are elderly or children > those with heart conditions, asthma, or many other health conditions i don't know about that. a bike courier i know uses an asthma inhaler, but i haven't asked him about it. > and anyone needing to transport anything heavier than their own body you're right that there's a limit, but i can impose those same arbitrary limits on cars: "what if i need to transport X which doesn't fit in a car?" > Creating exclusionary space for bicycles is the opposite of progressive policy and efficient urban design. it's a safe space for cyclists who are not able or willing to ride on the road shared with drivers. i usually don't mind riding on the road, but as soon as i got my toddler in the trailer i tend to get rather touchy about safe cycling infrastructure. i'm not sure what you're arguing for though. are you arguing for motorized individual transport, because the disabled, elderly, toddlers prefer cars? or public transport? |