[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.

[tpm]

> My point is that it's not a good idea to expand bike lanes in big city centers where you already have public transport

I don't know what is your background, but many cities are doing it and it's not only about enabling bikes but also to disable passenger cars, and the main reason is it makes the places more livable and enjoyable: it's quieter, the air is cleaner, the streets are safer, people actually spend more time outside. So this is a practical solution to a problem people have: noise, pollution, loss of public space to car infrastructure.

[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.