[m-schuetz]

I've lost a lot of enthusiasm about close-range public transport. In Vienna, bicycles get you nearly every twice as fast as public transport, and mostly about as fast as cars, depending on your destination. Bikes are about four times cheaper as public transport too.

Public transport ist great to connect cities, and perhaps districts. Beyound that, it quickly hits diminishing returns. It's prohibitly expensive to connect at a city block level, and even more expensive to connect rural towns. And Austria recently started doing very odd things. We are now building train stations in the middle of nowhere, not connected to any town. They are not meant to become new city centers, they are meant to be accessed via cars. They are useless for car-free people, and people with cars almost exclusively continue to commute the entire way by car.

In any case, the Netherlands is where I really got a sense of true mobility-freedom. You can get absolutely everywhere cheaply, safely and comfortably by bicycle. I've never before experienced such relaxing commutes as cycling along rivers and through meadows to work, then taking a detour through woods and parks on the way back home.

[whyenot]

I think bicycles work very well in a dense and flat city where people respect traffic laws. I am highly skeptical that they are the answer everywhere. Take for example San Francisco with all of its steep hills, or Rio where you have both hills and low adherence to traffic laws. How about Mexico City with its at time horrendous air pollution. In the United States, where many cities didn't really mature until after the automobile, you have low density to deal with, for example in Houston or San Jose. How about for someone who is older? Bicycles may be great if you are in your 30s, but what about for someone in their 70s?

Bicycling is a great solution for some people in some cities, but it's not going to work as well everywhere or for everyone. Public transit, cars, walking, etc. will all have to continue being part of the mix.

[AstroBen]

ebikes solve the hills and age issues. Although they're not actually an issue. Cycling is incredibly low impact, and proper gearing makes going up hills as easy as on flats, just slower

Air pollution is the same in a car or outside, no? Most cars don't have HEPA filters. At least on a bike you're getting exercise

[robocat]

ebikes do not solve the age issue: lack of oomph is only one part of aging. There's a lot of other reasons someone elderly might not be able to use a bicycle (or even trike) at all.

The risks of damage from an unexpected fall go up with age (my mum with osteoporosis broke her wrist falling of her bicycle in her 70s - we were lucky it healed well).

I investigated buying a three wheel electric trike for her. But she couldn't have used it (for 3 different important reasons).

[tim333]

As an over 60 age is kind of an issue. Ebikes sort it though.

[onecommentman]

E-bikes help us to get up and down hills, but the safety issue doesn’t go away. Response times are slower across all sorts of dimensions (detection, response, mitigation, etc.), and an accident is more likely to end in hospitalization or actual death, e-bike or no. Well-traveled bike trails sound like fun, but I think it’s a no-go for general transport for the elderly. You can do it at that age, but I’m guessing the first age-related (higher speed, new technology) biking accident will result in disability/death way too often. You’ll feel like a fool when it happens, because you were. Not the oops you want when bones break too easily and heal too slowly.

[tim333]

I guess it depends how elderly. For my kind of age group it's good. When you get to needing a walking stick maybe not a bike, although mobility scooters are kind of ebikes with extra wheels.

[AstroBen]

Not exercising is a risk also

[m-schuetz]

At least San Jose has huge potential for biking inftastructure. I've lived there for a month, and taking the riverside cycling path (Guadalupe) to Santa Clara was amazing. Yeah, San Francisco is less suited. New York could also be amazing. I agree that it's not a solution for everyone, but good cycle infrastructure takes a lot of pressure from public transport.

[rsynnott]

> We are now building train stations in the middle of nowhere, not connected to any town. They are not meant to become new city centers, they are meant to be accessed via cars. They are useless for car-free people, and people with cars almost exclusively continue to commute the entire way by car.

Huh, that's interesting; those sorts of park-and-ride facilities tend to be quite popular in many places (though, sometimes too popular, of course; they fill up).

They're a slightly awkward form of infrastructure, in that they have a very specific usership at which they work; if no-one uses them, they're pointless and expensive, but if too many people use them, they're a bit of a disaster, and can cause local congestion.