Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by throwaway894345 1378 days ago
To add to the list of challenges, not only are there places which get very hot, but there are also many places that get very cold or which have lots of precipitation. Obviously we can still increase bike adoption in these places during better weather, or in places that are just more moderate overall.

Other challenges include transporting infants, pets, or just larger commodities, so it seems more likely that most people will need to own a car and a bike. Again, not all trips require transporting one or more of these things, so we can still increase bike adoption.

However, these factors mean that the overwhelming majority would need a bike in addition to a car, and arguments about how much cheaper cars are than bikes only apply to people who satisfy the following:

* Healthy * Live in an urban environment * Work/shop/etc within a ~3 mile radius * Live in a hospitable climate * Don't have kids * Don't have pets (at least not that need regular transport) * Don't travel outside of their ~3 mile radius frequently

There are probably criteria that I'm missing, and yes, I'm sure some of those criteria are optional in theory (I'm sure someone knows some dutch guy who cycles his kids everywhere), but in practice these are deal breakers for mere mortals.

2 comments

I disagree with the cold part. It is easier to dress to stay warm in a cold place than to dress to stay cool in a hot place. Both adults and kids bike in Scandinavia in the winter.

Here is a good video on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU

The Dutch are mere mortals too.

Cargo e bikes solve at least 3 of those problems. Public transport solves the rest. Being healthy is a result of your environment, not the other way around. The transition sucks but you gotta do it.

> The Dutch are mere mortals too.

Yes and 80% of Dutch households have cars, and those who don't own cars aren't foregoing them voluntarily--rather, they have health or financial problems that prevent them from driving (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358798695_The_wides...). Of the remainder of the voluntarily carless, I suspect that's biased pretty heavily toward the young, healthy, and childless. Moreover, car ownership in the Netherlands is increasing--in 1992, 42% of Dutch households were car-free.

> Cargo e bikes solve at least 3 of those problems. Public transport solves the rest.

Maybe theoretically, but not in practice. You're probably not hauling furniture by ebike or by public transit, and for most people there are so many individually-rare-but-collectively-common things like this that it's not practical to rent a car twice a week.

> Being healthy is a result of your environment, not the other way around.

No one claimed that your environment is the result of being healthy...

> The transition sucks but you gotta do it.

You don't have to be car-less to be healthy. This is silly. Note also that rejecting the anti-car extreme doesn't imply opposition to more public transportation, cycling infrastructure, or changes to make cities more walkable.

Nice straw man. I'm sure you can refute your own arguments if you gave it an honest try.
I didn't invoke a straw man, I literally quoted your arguments and cited research. Falsely claiming "straw man" is the cringiest way to concede a debate.