Yes, because cars make sense when you've got more than your own arse to haul. Or when you don't want to end up in your destination dripping wet. Or when you want to sit in a warm cabin instead of fighting frostburns on a bicycle. Or when you don't want to be slipping on ice or getting stuck in snow..
Dude, I've been cycling in all weather for 20 years. I've been hauling stuff, small and big, light and heavy. It's not as simple as you make it out to be. I've gotten stuck in snow so many times. Turns out a bicycle just doesn't have a whole lot of traction or stability when riding a crumbling layer of snow on ice. No, studs don't fix it, and cargo definitely doesn't help it. At least I can hop off and hike the bike, but maybe not if it's a heavy electric cargo bike with guitars and work equipment loaded.
I've gotten soaked so many times, and even if I've got an outer layer that keeps me dry, there are many destinations you might want to go to where they don't exactly have the facilities for you to strip and put away dripping rain gear. I've also got my cargo soaked so many times, turns out protecting the cargo from water isn't quite as easy as putting a nice jacket on. I can only imagine how much harder it gets when you're trying to haul big cargo. And I've gotten soaked many times because weather can be unpredictable and having full rain gear on you where ever you go is a little too nuts.
And no matter how much I dress, getting glasses completely dirtied with water mist or the face blasted with wind when it's -35degC outside isn't any fun, at all. I'd say I'm a rather avid cyclist, hell I rode my fixed gear road bike with 25mm road wheels to work, on snow and ice, on the coldest of winter days, because the grease on my winter bike's freewheel stiffened up and prevented the pawls from engaging. I go pretty far. But I would not expect the general population to want or even be able to put up with anywhere near as much.
And then you need to make a trip longer than you can handle on a bike.
There are circumstances where your arguments apply, but they’re none of the typical situations encountered by most people who are making excuses why they “can’t” cycle.
[0] studs just mean you fall down less frequently. Oh, but fall you will after a non-trivial distance.
If you have the time, space, cash and desire to futz with a dozen pieces of gear that’s great, but does not invalidate anything at all.
Rain doesn't also make you wet it makes your ride more dangerous so without traction control and ABS on your scooter your have suddenly multiplied your risk many times and this is just for your riding and not for all those others trying to do the same or driving full size vehicles.
Against the cold only works so far before your again at risk or simply cannot bundle up enough. Then one has to ask, why not ride the bus if available? When it gets to freezing you run the risk of hypothermia and icy conditions on your drive plus reduced range and charging. A bike on icy roads worse than a car? Let me give you a hint, you cannot fall off four wheels and you cannot fall over either.
Seriously, scooters and bikes and even motorcycles have their place but be realistic in trying to dismiss all the difficulties and risks associated. The number one risk is simply falling over and people do that all to well.
There's a time and place for evreything, but minimizing needs as "just wear some rainpants" doesn't convince anyone.
"Hey, just use this miserable half-solution!"
Cargo bikes? Rain gear? Heavy jackets? Nobody wants to live like that. Why should the future be constantly uncomfortable?
This is why I started hating urbanism: it's full of people whose entire argument is to deny the reality of other people's experience. Biking in the rain doesn't suck, crowded trains aren't uncomfortable, cargo bikes aren't exhausting, "wear a jacket", etc.
We hate these things. I do not want to live in this world you describe. It sounds miserable.
The consequences of global warming sound miserable as well.
I challenge you to ride a bike for 20 minutes in rain gear during a Florida thunderstorm in July.
Then you're in the wrong place. Nobody here dismissed cycling as a whole. I'm an avid cyclist but I also recognize the downsides of it, and I understand why cycling is not a stellar choice for many people. If you read my first message in this thread again, you'll see that I outlined a few examples of specific scenarios when cycling isn't a good choice.
I live in a place with four seasons. There's way more awful weather than ten days a year. Winter -- with ice and snow -- lasts months. Autumn with lots of rain and mud and chilly weather lasts a couple months. Spring, featuring meltwater everywhere, loose mud everywhere, and then again ice everywhere becaus it got cold again and the meltwater & mud froze lasts long enough too. Summer isn't without its storms and rainy days.
"Edge case after edge case" are something I regularly run into, every year. And the people around me do too. They are common enough that it is not unreasonable for people to consider a car.
It wouldn't solve the Fred Flintstone problem — The Man must provide the propulsion for all of his family because Man — but that's a social hurdle, not a technical one.
https://www.daimler.com/company/tradition/company-history/18...
Wait, there's magic bubble of warmth and comfort that will take me to my destination without having to mill around with the other cold yet sweaty 99% Chimpanzees in their puffy insulated layers? Sold!
Not especially :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester#Climate
> Wait, there's magic bubble of warmth and comfort that will take me to my destination without having to mill around with the other cold yet sweaty 99% Chimpanzees in their puffy insulated layers? Sold!
A lot of people don't actually seem to be sold on this, though. They seem aggrieved when it isn't also faster than walking, cycling and public transport, because they've been sold a top speed. In the local news this week: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manches...
But a car takes up several times more area on the ground, compared to the same number of people walking or using wheelchairs, bicycles or buses — there just isn't room for every individual to have that level of luxury and leave room to move at speed.
I found this essay insightful: http://unevenearth.org/2018/08/the-social-ideology-of-the-mo... — via https://www.notechmagazine.com/2018/08/no-tech-reader-19.htm...
Edit: or had elderly parents. When someone needs to use a walker, good luck getting them on a bicycle. Plus, where do you carry the walker?
EDIT: I made a factual statement. If you downvote me for it, at least have the courtesy to say why. If there's something dumb, it's downvoting for factual statements that aren't even expressing either opinion.
Advocating for more people to use car-less transit more often is not the same as banning cars.
> "or had elderly parents. When someone needs to use a walker, good luck getting them on a bicycle. Plus, where do you carry the walker?"
This is a straw man argument, since at no point was anyone saying that Grandpa has to cube the car and hop on the saddle. The fact that some people cannot use a bike is a terrible argument against using bikes in general. That's like saying "well, some people are blind, so let's just ban cars".
If the main point is "we should promote using bikes/public transport instead of cars", I think no one disagrees about that - and that's why an extreme case gets mentioned, because there is no point in talking about a mild case and there is still a lot of people that want a full ban.
Functioning public transit gives a lot of freedom to elderly people who cannot drive anymore. Much more than individual cars.
Nobody is against cars when they make sense.
This poster appears to be against cars:
> Small electric vehicles effectively solve the last mile problem of public transport.