Cause you can’t actually GO anywhere on a bike. If you want to go somewhere 200 miles away for a week, it’d take a day and a half each way, minimum, and you can’t bring anything with you bigger than a backpack. It’s also physically strenuous to go literally anywhere, even the places you are allowed to go.
Cars were, and to some extent, still are, a statement of wealth. Having a “horseless carriage” back when personal vehicles were called that, was an easy way to distinguish that you were a successful person. As time went on, this transformed into having the latest vehicle or vehicles of a specific brand or type, or that cost x amount of dollars… Many of these points are still true today, unfortunately.
Because of the status you would demonstrate having a vehicle, demand for infrastructure from the affluent persons that owned these vehicles, most cities were built with space in mind so their richest could enjoy their personal vehicles as optimally as they could. As time went on, and more people bought cars due to the ease of transport they provided, that infrastructure demand only increased.
Specifically in America, further pressure was given to state and local governments by automobile manufacturers to build better and better roads to more places so more people would have access to roads and therefore see value in owning a personal vehicle.
Then there’s the interstate. Again, specifically talking about the states here, mostly… The Interstate systems were desired by the auto makers and people, but we’re not strictly required. AFAIK the largest push for interstate freeways came from the military, so they could rapidly move equipment from one location to another. This is why interstates are so built up; if you compare the underlying structure of most roads with what’s done for interstate freeways, the difference, at least, historically, is quite significant. The interstate was designed to have a batallion of tanks roll from place to place, something that would utterly destroy most roadways. Of course they can also move other equipment on it, since the majority of the remainder of what they would need to move is less damaging to the road than tanks… Like planes. Many interstates are designed, on purpose, to act as impromptu runways to land or take off from. This enables the military to set up shop pretty much anywhere they need to, in order to defend the land.
The existence of the interstate only drove (no pun intended) more people to want and buy cars. Further compounding the problem.
Now, many years later, city streets are generally not built for you. They’re not built with regular human lives in mind. They’re built to act as conduits for emergencies so personnel or equipment can move from place to place with ease and relative speed. Public emergency services (police, ambulance, fire) are all geared around the existence of roads for transit. Because of this and a multitude of other, somewhat less notable reasons, roads continue to be a fixture in most cities and urban areas.
Another stupid (mostly American) reason is how far away everything is. The reason everything is so distant is a simple explanation: zoning. Commercial and residential zoning created problems where getting a plot of land re-zoned to build a strip mall or plaza is challenging at best. So since you live in a residential zone, all the commercial zoned services that you use, must be on different land in different areas. The nice thing about this is that residential zones tend to be much quieter than commercial most of the time, so homes can sit in quiet area while all the hustle and bustle of the city stays separate. This has somewhat changed on recent times but it still exists as a significant issue. Since zones of residential and commercial are generally not very small, unless you live at the edge of a residential zone that borders a commercial zone, essential services like grocery stores and shops are generally a significant distance away. Owning a vehicle and road infrastructure makes this a minor inconvenience at most, unfortunately it also makes this a major inconvenience for anyone who does not (thus driving sales of personal vehicles, again, compounding the problem). Again, in recent years, maybe the last 20-30, this has been changing, and we’re starting to see, at least in large Metro areas, the rise of condos. Usually intermixed with commercial areas, it’s a home you can buy that is surrounded by commercial services within walking distance (copy/paste for apartments).
Unfortunately, due to the military and historical reasons, as well as continued demand for roads from people living in residential zones that are further away, roads are and continue to be built, and maintained, in cities.
If you look “across the pond” to Europe, there are many examples of cities that existed long before zoning was even considered and where automobiles didn’t exist that are very convenient to bike or walk through. Homes are intermixed with shops, and generally living in the city, while a bit more noisy than a residential zone, is otherwise very convenient for walking and cycling where you need to go. Mainly because cars were not a consideration at the time that those cities were constructed. Walking was common and cycling was not unusual, so the infrastructure reflects that.
We’re seeing a resurgence of this kind of anti-vehicle infrastructure thinking among people, and with the rising costs of everyday living and the expense that vehicles can incur, both in operating them, storing them and maintaining them, it’s easy to see why, especially when housing, in the form of apartments and condos, is getting closer to the commercial services that people want and use. However there seems to be a growing animosity among those that want more walkable and cycling friendly cities, with their car-driving counterparts.
I’m impartial. I own a car and live in a rural area, so I need one to get pretty much anywhere. My situation is not that of a city dweller and I see the merit in the walkable city. At the same time, I see the merit in drivable cities too. I wouldn’t mind driving to a parking structure and taking a bus/subway/bike/whatever to get into any major city, since I do so very rarely. But I can’t deny the convenience of driving into a city and parking less than a block away from my destination. Both arguments have merit and ultimately, I don’t really have any “skin in the game” (so to speak), so what happens shouldn’t be up to me, and cities should sort that out among their populous. I just know way too much about the issue, so I decided to comment. Sorry for the wall of text.
Go for it! I think it really helps getting around more easily! Once you learn it you won’t forget even if you don’t ride your bike for a long time, so it’s worth it IMO!
Don’t forget the fact that you can be randomly stopped and forced to provide documentation that you’re legally required to carry in order to operate the machine… Unlike a bike, which you can just ride wherever.
Oh… And yeah, and most bikes don’t have computers in them that can tell on you to the cops if asked.
I mean I think in my state you still have to have iD for some reason while biking, also it’s illegal to ride on the sidewalk, which everyone still does but if a cop forgot his donut that day he’s got a reason to hassle you
Car-free utopia doesn’t mean, can’t mean no roads and no taxis. Taxis are actually the important part of that car-free utopia. It just means you aren’t expected to own your own car and use it as the prime source of transportation.
This is where public transit would come in. And it’s not like most of us want to do away with all final mile delivery, emergency vehicles, etc. We just don’t want the car infrastructure to be the primary concern in the design of public spaces.
Straw-maning the elderly and disabled for car use is also interesting, as those are probably both groups that either shouldn’t or can’t drive a car for other reasons.
A bike centric city would be just as, if not more, wheelchair friendly as a car centric one. There’s detachable front wheels that can be attached to wheelchairs and pedalled by hand so wheelchair users can use bike infrastructure just as well.
I get that, but how does take away the inconvenience of inputting more strength, energy, stamina and time for your commute? So it basically locks people in to finding opportunities which are commutable by biking distance?
I don’t mind other people having bike centric cities, but I want to be to drive around as I find that a more productive way to commute. If public transport was less riddled with human misery and harassment issues, I’d prefer trains or buses.
Oh sure I get what you mean. In my idea of bike centric cities decent public transport is assumed by me simply because that is so ingrained in my experience with living in a place where the car has the lowest priority. Streets are disappearing and turned into bike paths where cars are explicitly “guests” and have to give way for cyclists. Public transport gets dedicated lanes and even roads and bypasses stoplights entirely by tunnelling under crossings. The result is that driving here is an absolute nightmare, you’d really have to have a good reason to justify taking the car into the center instead of taking the bus, tram or bike.
Hmm, I hear you. Though note that Japan has one of the best public transport systems (and always have had it), but it is not immune to public transport harassment issues. It’s a human issue, not sure it has transportation solutions, but probably more policy ones.
Oh, some people do talk about banning cars completely. I guess you’re a fuck cars moderate lol. Local ordinances can really change the way people live in an area, like banning plastic bags etc. So it’s not unreasonable to worry about total bans, people who want less car usage policies should try to understand other perspectives.
I know. FuckCars in general is a purity contest that doesn’t understand how certain things work. Cars are here to stay in our society for a variety of reasons, but that doesn’t mean all our decisions for city planning have to center around them.
My city has less than 5% of people commuting by bike, and around 25% work from home. These numbers seem roughly typical of US cities. If we got 20% of people commuting by bike while keeping the work from home number, that would be transformative. That’s a huge number of cars off the road. Basically like adding a whole lane of traffic, but without the induced demand problems.
People might talk about banning privately own cars, but nobody seriously talks about completely banning cars at all. Service vehicles have their place in a walkable city, and taxi and carsharing is part of that, and even the most fuck-cars people are in favour of those.
I mean, there is always someone with a weird position, but those are flat-earthers of the movement, nobody cares about those.
They work the same way cars do in the snow: different tires. Like driving a car in the winter with summer tires here is also suicide on top of illegal.
We lived in Tacoma, WA for a bit and our eBike took care of things most of the time. If we were still in Seattle, I would probably have wanted a bit higher voltage because it would struggle on really steep hills. But we were able to sell our car and just use the bike for several months before we moved.
Ebikes really make biking in the US make sense. It’s just not walkable and hard to bike, but ebikes really bridge that gap unless you’re really rural.
Gonna have to get used to them anyway. Cheap oil won’t last forever and electric infrastructure for cars just isn’t realistic. Even if it was, there are too many other problems to make them scale.
Here is another reason. I can’t afford a reasonable sized apartment that can house my family near my work. So I have to travel further. Bikes are great for cities if you can afford to live in the city.
Also, what happens when it snows and you gotta get to work? Snow chains?
Not really. Where I live, the bike infrastructure is decent, even though it has its flaws. Right now the conditions are the worst, it’s cold, we had a lot of snow recently and even though they removed most of it, there is a lot of ice still. I just have to bike slower than usual, that’s all. Last year I remember like 5 days when biking was all but impossible snow was building up faster than they managed to remove it.
You can get chains for bike tires too. I haven’t tried it myself but I’ve seen mixed reviews. Meanwhile somewhere in Europe everyone bikes everywhere in the snow with regular tires because their infrastructure is awesome, snow compactor thing is awesome, and people aren’t brainwashed by big automotive.
biking in snow is possible and common in some places, just need the infrastructure to clear out snow in a timely matter. In some places its quite common to use a bike, even in the winter
Nothing stops you from commuting by bike. My best friend commutes over 40km by bike every day. Due to eternal traffic jams he’s not even much slower than going by car, he also almost gets to go in a straight line rather than following highways. Get out of that US centric mindset and realize a lot more is possible by bike than you might think.
These problems are interlinked. So much space in American cities is wasted on parking for cars. Then there isn’t space to build housing close to where people work.
You won’t be able to adjust it very high. And what is a better solution than 1 ton death traps? Is it trains? No. That would require rebuilding every city in America to be like 4 buildings and nothing else and the places where it would work already have it like new York. Is it buses? No. They are already in place and nobody uses them. So tell me, what is the actual solution besides cars?
The solution is fucking tiny cars where necessary and proper public transport - hub and spoke stuff (buses, trams) and for the big things, trains
Yes, its less convenient and requires some re-architecting of cities but if you cling to the notion that the status quo is sustainable, well, it’s just not worth arguing.
Add comment