[jseban]

The truth is that cycling infrastructure is an unnecessary luxury. It's a "good thing" in principle because it's a way of transportation that's good for the environment and gives people exercise, but it's redundant and expensive, you still need full capacity in public transport, because almost no one cycles when the weather is bad. It would only makes sense really if you could dynamically allocate space between cars/bikes basically on a day-by-day basis, and/or convert bike lanes to bus lanes, but I guess you'd need a full fleet of only self driving cars for that to be feasible. Then you could have the luxury of using a bike on days with nice weather, just because it's fun. Until then, it's at the expense of general mobility which is a really big downside in cities that are already crowded and transport is slow. Why should we cycle more? Only one reason is really valid: save the environment. But then again, we have a million comforts and luxuries at the expense of the environment, and people can generally choose, as long as they're not using absurd amount of energy. Why force cycling specifically, I don't understand, just take the bus if you don't want to drive.

[unglaublich]

A car in a city center, _that_ is the unnecessary luxury.

> Until then, it's at the expense of general mobility which is a really big downside in cities that are already crowded and transport is slow.

Automobiles are the sole reason why general mobility is so poor in cities that are crowded (with cars) and where transport is slow (due to cars).

Please take a look at cities in Denmark or The Netherlands. Cycling is the primary mode of transportation in their city centers. Not only is it cheap, reliable, healthy and it doesn't take up much space... it's also _faster_ than driving a car.

Yes, cars are practical for rural and long-distance travel, but not for use in city centers.

[jseban]

> Cycling is the primary mode of transportation in their city centers.

It's not when there's cold rain in the winter, guarantee it.

[AlotOfReading]

You should probably tell the Dutch that they don't cycle in the rain. Over 1/3rd of days are rainy in the Netherlands on average and yet they somehow manage to put on their ponchos.

[jseban]

I would love to see the difference in bike use in the Netherlands relative to the weather, I bet only a small fraction will use the bike in bad weather conditions and they will need capacity in public transport to cover for these days.

[unglaublich]

Actually, it is. It often doesn't rain for hours on end, so people work a bit longer or start a bit earlier to avoid the rain. Otherwise, there's umbrellas, ponchos and plain old acceptance of the fact that you will be a bit wet for an hour. My dad used to say when it was pouring: "You're not made out of sugar, are you?" And yes, public transport is busier on some days than on others, is that a problem? How is that any different from motorists on roads?

[jseban]

I highly doubt that, it speaks completely against my lifelong experience as a cyclists. The vast majority of all people are fair weathered cyclists and bike lanes are mostly empty half of the year.

You get cold, wet and uncomfortable, and have to be very flexible with time. Even if you can "deal with it", it's still very real negative aspects, and why would you put up with that if you don't have to?

My point is that you have to have full capacity public transport anyway so the bike lanes are really redundant, a "nicety" and as such I think they should have little space and low priority, it makes perfect sense.

Why don't we have skateboarding lanes? Running lanes? Horseback riding lanes? It's fun, it's healthy, it's good for the environment! Because it's impractical, slow and inefficient, just like cycling is.

[enriquto]

I think the worse is rain in hot summer. You'll end up soaked whether you cover or not. Winter rain is OK, you just need appropriate clothing. Source: I cycle during the whole year, and sub-zero temperatures are not a problem at all (for a couple of weeks at most in my latitude, but still), even if it rains.

[jseban]

I disagree, it's a very real annoying problem to dress your whole body in both warm and waterproof clothes, and even if you like it, most people don't. And it is objectively, relatively, much less convenient and much less comfortable than the alternatives of a bus/subway.

[enriquto]

> much less convenient and much less comfortable than the alternatives of a bus/subway

This is quite subjective... For one, I've commuted by bus+subway for most of my life, in three different European cities (Lisbon, Barcelona and Paris). Two years ago I had a sort of epiphany looking at the bike lane that followed the same path as my crowded bus. I bought a bike, in order to "try" the bike commute, and I've never looked back since. Even some days with hard weather, I prudently walk to the bus stop, and then say "no shit" and walk back home to pick my bike.

Thus I politely disagree with you that it is "much less convenient", at least for everybody.

[jseban]

A bike lane that's only used when the weather is nice, when you already have a subway? No _that_ is unnecessary luxury. Take the subway if you hate cars.

[unglaublich]

Why take the car if you already have a subway? What a strange statement.

> Take the subway if you hate cars.

Why do you think that preferring to ride a bike makes one hate cars?

You can be both a cyclists _and_ a motorist. It's not a competition or a cult!

[minusf]

> unnecessary luxury

as en expat living in amsterdam i couldnt disagree more. a city with a bike first infrastucture is incomparably safer, quieter and more pleasant for everyone in the city.

when it takes 15 minutes to get anywhere in the city using the bike infrastructure, one would be crazy to pull out the car and look 30 minutes for parking places that cost north of 7 euros an hour.

"people dont bike in bad weather and in winter" is nonsense garbage from people who dont live in biking places. if the infrastructure is there people will bike even in snow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU).

> just take the bus if you don't want to drive

i dont depend on any public transport if i have my bike. it's the exact reason why people choose cars over public transport.

[convolvatron]

I live in a city center and used to walk/take public transport. which was fine.

biking is alot more convenient. I can only carry about what I would walking, but its not a big deal to go two miles to get something. and I feel much better for the exercise.

if zipcar hadn't been shut down after acquisition, I would still have the option to get something big from 20 miles away once or twice a year.

I don't know why you feel the need to assert that the last 100 years status quo is some statement of natural law...I've always hated getting trapped in those smelly little boxes and now I have a choice!

[jseban]

Not the car, take the bus. The reason cycling is unnecessary is that all use cases are already covered by public transport and/or driving. That's a fact. There's nothing that you specifically need to cycle for. That makes it unnecessary, that's just basic logic.

And most people do not cycle when the weather is bad, that's also just a fact, and I grew up in an extremely bike friendly city and rode my bike all winter in the snow, in bike lanes that were completely empty and I just saw a whole bunch of money down the drain, just to pretend to be environmentally friendly when in reality 95% of people hop on the bus as soon as the weather is even slightly bad.

[patall]

A lorry is also not strictly necessary if you have a Smart or a wheelbarrow. There is plenty of use cases that are only reasonable thanks to having a bike. I for example went to work by a combination of bike and public transport. Car alone would have been 1h, public transport and walking as well, but bike and public transport was 45 min. (Car and public transport did not work together for lack of parking) By your logic, the bike was unnecessary and that is true but beside the point for the sake of 2*15min a day.

Just because most people are doing something does not mean its sensible. Most people are also overweight, even though everyone knows that that is not healthy.

[jseban]

Yes there are cases when a bike will be faster, because your destination happens to be poorly covered by public transport, but on average it's not, and that's what's really important.

[tjr225]

Uh. I doubt cycling infrastructure is even a minute fraction of the cost we put into automobile infrastructure. I have no proof but lol let’s call it a hunch.

> Why should we cycle more? Only one reason is really valid: save the environment.

It’s better for the environment, it’s cheaper, it’s more efficient(more bikes can occupy less space and move more people), it’s fun, it’s good for your body, it’s safer(if we don’t have to share the road with cars- for instance if the infrastructure for bikes were to actually exist), bikes are easier to maintain, bikes can access a variety of terrain most cars can not. I could probably go on and on.

IMO the only reason bicycles are seen as an unnecessary luxury is cultural. We aren’t all Lycra clad snobs who ignore stop lights, but for some reason this perception persists.

[jseban]

No it's not. People don't like to be very uncomfortable and inconvenient. Cycling year around every day, is very uncomfortable and inconvenient for many many days, so why would you do that if you don't have to?

I can argue exactly the same way for why you should turn off the heat in your house the whole winter, it's great for the environment and you just have to "put on a coat".

[stefan_]

You seem to feel strongly about this topic. So strong you have now replied to the same comment twice. Time to take a break?

[jseban]

People also like to choose whatever they think is fun, if you want to play tennis instead of riding a bike, because you think that's more fun, you should be able to do so.

Your fun is at the expense of other people's mobility, why can't you just use some of the other million ways of getting exercise and having fun, where you don't have to be in other people's way?

[Fricken]

It's better to be a driver. It's no fun. You don't get any exercise. It drives up infrastructure costs, kills and maims people, destroys the planet, and takes up even more space on the roads.

[jseban]

So, just use the subway then and your problems are solved. In a much better way than cycling.

[AlotOfReading]

Bikes are often used in combination with subways. Bikes can also be used in cities that don't have subways and cycling infrastructure is far cheaper to build.

[jeromegv]

Bikes solve the problem of the last-mile. Subways are expensive to build and dig, bikes gets you much further and literally anywhere. Add a bike station at your subway station and you have both working together.

[tpm]

It's solved when you live very close to subway station and it goes everywhere you need. So not a lot of times in many cities.

[jseban]

Yeah well, in this example and many similar big cities in europe, you have subway and buses that will take you to any street corner. Sure, in a small town in australia or the US, not the case, but I highly doubt bike lanes will be any viable alternative there anyway.

My point is that it's not a good idea to expand bike lanes in big city centers where you already have public transport, especially not in places that doesn't have a bike friendly climate. It's simply not a good use of the space, can't really make any good case for it except some people think it's fun, which is extremely weak. And I don't understand why it makes cities such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen so much better, people just get randomly happy from the joys of riding a bike, or what? I'd rather have many more practical solutions with tangible results such as actually reducing the time and energy we spend on commuting, not increasing it.

[tjr225]

I had no fucking idea what you were talking about until I read your other comments about the bike lane in front of your home.

I can’t believe I have to explain this to you; just because your city did bike infrastructure wrong doesn’t mean it can’t be done the right way.

Honestly, such a weird set of comments, I can’t tell if your a troll or what but, best of luck to you!

[jseban]

I'm simply talking about cycling in a big city from a practical point of view, based on facts and my own experience, and pointing out the limitations. As opposed to using cycling as some kind of protest, and people get triggered when I'm challenging the latest virtue signalling trend.

[tjr225]

You are the one virtue signaling, my friend- and based on your own personal anecdotes- hardly what any reasonable person would refer to as “facts.”

[pvaldes]

> it’s safer

That depends. Not in a crash event. A bike can't match the safety measures that even the dumbest car has today. Hitting an obstacle in a car with seatbelts and airbags, or hitting it in a bike are totally different cases, even at a lower speed.

[jseban]

Yeah it's the least safe mode of transportation, driving, public transport and walking are all safer than cycling. "But it's the fault of the cars", no cyclists have tons of accidents by themselves and amongst each other, that walking and public transport completely avoids.

[analog31]

As a thought experiment, take any American city, remove the bikes, and see if the congestion goes away.

Now, remove the cars that are being used for unnecessary luxury, such as organizing your entire lifestyle and schedule around the availability of unlimited single-occupancy car use and generous parking.