- cross-posted to:
- greentext@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- greentext@sh.itjust.works
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/26368144
Anons argue in comments
You must log in or # to comment.
The automobile isn’t a symbol of freedom, never has been.
It’s a status symbol.
Food -> exerting force is not even remotely fuel efficient
IIRC, even considering those losses, biking is still one of the most efficient forms of land transport. What I found interesting was a study that found that e-bikes were even more efficient than regular ones.
I mean, bikes are great for a lot of things and cities should definitely have the infrastructure to support their usage, but let’s not pretend that they can easily replace cars in every use case.
Cars are faster, cover long distances which are just infeasible for bikes, are more comfortable, can be used in bad weather, and are needed for people with disabilities. Granted, all of those use cases should be covered by a good public transport system, but that’s exactly why cars are considered to be the symbol of freedom - not depending on the bus/train schedules, weather, distance etc.the freedom to be stuck in traffic because everyone else got a car too
Despite some people on here’s hard-on for completely banning cars which would be impractical and impossible country wide, it makes sense to see them as what they should be: a luxury for most and a necessity for a few people with mobility issues.
Mass public transport should be the cheapest and preferred option and a vital part of any city’s infrastructure. Then spreading out in terms of density, towns should have parking outside of the town centre with regular free shuttles into the centre with regular and cheap/free bus travel to and from town centres with buses that have segregated lanes for high traffic areas so buses are able to run on a good timetable. Towns should also be built on the 15 minute city model. Then finally, in villages and rural locations, an on-demand bus service balances the provision of public transport without ridiculously long waiting times between buses or spending way too much on frequency when there isn’t the population density for demand.
All of these population densities should have extensive cycle paths and long cycle highways between these population centres.
And viola: civic infrastructure where a car is the infrequent option and therefore significantly less traffic, lower carbon footprint, lower infrastructure maintenance costs, and a more active population engaging with eachother in thriving communities.
Greatly used in Montreal too for instance, but problem is winter, riding in a foot of snow while it’s -20, not easy…
Cars perform even worse in snow.
I’m generally in support of this. The car allows for more freedom in certain conditions, though:
- Better for people with physical handicaps
- Can be more easily/comfortably used in extreme weather
- Doesn’t leave you as hot and sweaty, especially when going to work
Better for people with physical handicaps
The majority of physical disabilities prevent people from driving, resulting in a loss of mobility and freedom when they do not have viable alternatives. Many people who do not bike for transport and do not talk to people who bike for transport see a handicap parking spot and assume that everybody with a handicap drives.
People cycling and using public transit free up road space for the minority of people with handicaps who drive. I know two utilitarian cyclists with disabilities who cannot drive but use a bicycle as their primary means of transportation.
Can be more easily/comfortably used in extreme weather
Wear a jacket. Many of us go for walks in extreme weather. There are very cold and hot countries all over the world that have high rates of bicycle usage for transport. The problem usually lies in cities designing and maintaining their roads in a hostile way to all forms of transportation other than bicycles in the winter. Look at Montreal and Oulu for counter-examples. Even the Netherlands gets constant rain.
This is a great video on the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBUDoesn’t leave you as hot and sweaty, especially when going to work
See above
Are there many physical handicaps that prevent people from driving, but not from riding a bike?
As for the extreme weather, I said “Can be more easily/comfortably used in extreme weather”
The OP was asking why the car is a symbol for freedom and not the bicycle, so I provided some possible explanations.
Better for people with physical handicaps
At least the people with handicaps that can still drive.
It actively makes the transportation landscape worse for those without hearing or sight or a mobilty reducing handicap that disallows driving.
Yeah, reducing car usage would be much better for all handicapped people (those who can drive get better traffic.)
Someone addressed your first point. But the second two are only true when your city is so spread out to make room for huge roads and parking lots between everything. Not to mention zoning laws that make it illegal to build denser housing, or to build a grocery store near where people live.
Id rather be in a tram on rails in snowy conditions than in a private vehicle thats subject to slippery conditions and other vehicles hitting it. The tram if hit often has more mass and survives the hit better than a sedan would.
The rail transport is always the safest option, barring staying at home in the first place.
Also, the car will be way faster
To create a pedestrian first world I think we need to legitimately understand what advantages a car has. A car is a true source of empowerment.
Sure, I can ride a bike, but I could never ride a bike 300 miles for a weekend trip to any arbitrary destination. I can take a bus but not at any moment, and not the middle of the night. I can take public transit, but not to the place I need to go.
A car is a portable personal space. I can eat lunch in my car, I can take a nap.
A car is a space protected from the elements - I’m not getting rained on. Protection from wind, snow, sun.
Its locked doors are a barrier between me and potential (and sometimes imagined) threats.
I don’t need to list out for this community all the negative things associated with cars. I just list these pros to highlight it’s a challenging task to displace cars. It’s a list of benefits to replicate.
Sure, I can ride a bike, but I could never ride a bike 300 miles for a weekend trip to any arbitrary destination
This is a strawman argument. 300 mile trips are better suited for trains.
There isn’t a train running from where I live to anywhere. And even if I lived in the nearest metropolitan area, trains only run to a couple destinations that are 300 miles away.
Don’t get me wrong, we should build trains going everywhere. That’s a huge expensive goal that has no foreseeable date for completion. I’m talking about why do people view cars as a source of freedom? It’s because they offer something not easily accessible by other means. The original post was talking about how great bikes are and why do we think cars are a symbol of freedom?
I think bikes are great, and I’m glad to ponder the nice benefits they offer. To displace cars requires understanding why people want them.
