Hacker News Reader

Comment by btrettel | Hacker News Reader

Cyclist here. I'm amazed by how much money people spend on their vehicles. I have an expensive bike (about $1000 new), and aside from perhaps $100-$200 on maintenance and equipment per year, I spend nothing else for daily transportation. It's hard for cars to compete with that on cost. I think suspending someone's drivers' license due to debts could help reduce one's transportation spending.

Unfortunately, much of the US is car dependent, so taking away someone's license is net counterproductive because one's income typically would decrease beyond the savings without their car.

View on HN

It's a horrible idea. Lots of people get laid off or lose their jobs for various reasons. Taking away their transportation is a psychotic approach to debt collection.

In many areas, cities are cutting bus service to poor areas. The city I used to live in removed all but one route which left stranded or made transportation very difficult for a lot of people. The city I live in now simply cancelled their entire bus program.

The war on poverty doesn't mean what a lot of administrators think it means.

I'm also a cyclist, and spent most of my life biking exclusively, but not everyone is in a position to replace their car. If your car commute is 45 minutes on the highway, a bicycle is not going to help you when you lose your license.

> not everyone is in a position to replace their car

I agree, which is why I said taking away someone's license is net counterproductive.

Also, I'm not suggesting that people should become cyclists, just that driving is expensive.

On the flipside, a 45min commute in bad traffic can be a breeze on an eBike. Building mine ran $800 all in, and its been quite a commute changer.

Ultimately, these are just bandaids for low-density areas, greater density is needed to make the US livable without long distance commuting.

I would happely bike 45 min to work 7 months a year when it's not freezing and I did so, till I left academia and took a industry job 45 min away with car.

The main problem for commuting efficiency is housing and barrier of entry for getting a job close to where I live or vice versa.

> greater density is needed to make the US livable without long distance commuting

It might help distance, but it usually doesn't do much to help time.

Higher density means the grocery store is a 7 minute walk away rather than a 15 to 20 minute drive. Same goes for other destinations, though housing bubbles like what is occurring right now have inflicted needless commuting on many workers.

Even much shorter distances, say, five kilometers. Don't forget health and fitness.

It's always cringy when bike activists just assume that everybody can get to work on a bike fast and without sweating.

Yes, if they started now, many could do that in a few months.

But the whole discussion tends to veer into fat shaming real quick.

Your views of bike activists do not match my experience.

> It's always cringy when bike activists just assume that everybody can get to work on a bike fast and without sweating.

My experience is that people tend to have an inaccurate view of what bike activists believe. I think few would say that most people can switch to cycling without major issues.

As for sweating, my experience is that cyclists tend to argue that some sweating is acceptable, not that people won't sweat. I can recall some people discussing how to reduce how much you sweat to a minimum, but I can't recall anyone claiming that you won't sweat at all.

> But the whole discussion tends to veer into fat shaming real quick.

Having participated in and observed many conversations about cycling, I can't recall that happening once. Can you point out an example?

With ebikes these days, you probably can. And you can generally adjust how much assistance they give to match your circumstances.

Right, and a 45 minute car commute that can't be replaced by public transit is...well, not uniquely American, but certainly a hell of a lot more common in the US than most other developed countries.

The situation seems a bit more nuanced than that:

https://daliaresearch.com/the-countries-with-the-longest-and...

...is this data reliable? It seems to contradict other studies I've seen. And I don't just mean that it contradicts the parts that support my point. I was under the impression that Japan had generally longer commutes than the US, for example.

But in any case, it doesn't seem to contradict anything that I said.

I make no claims on the reliability of the data.

I just tend to get a bit suspicious when problems are described as being particular to the US or worse in the US than in other places. I find that in many cases that is just not true. So I tend to poke around and see what I can see.

I wasn't saying that the length of the commute itself was unusual, but rather that it was a lengthy car commute that was unable to be replaced by public transit.

In the case of many other countries, like Japan or Germany, most people's commutes can be accomplished reasonably efficiently with public transportation (often public transportation is even faster due to traffic).

I'm sure it works great in some areas, but its completely unrealistic in others. Try running errands in Metro Detroit on a bike and come back and talk to me.

With that said I would prefer if the municipalities were more bike friendly in the first place. I like driving, but I was certainly happiest when I lived in a different town and could bike to work.

To reiterate a point I made in another reply, I'm not advocating for cycling here, just pointing out that driving is expensive.

Also, I know an engineer who works on diesel engines in Detroit and commutes by bike. He seems to think Detroit is pretty good for cycling, actually, contrary to what I expected. Don't know about metro Detroit, though.

Downtown Detroit is ok for biking, certainly. The metro area though is so spread out I just don't see a realistic alternative. Sorry to jump on you like that, I agree driving is expensive but when everything in our lives is separated by dozens of miles, connected by streets where cars move at deadly speeds next to paper-thin bike lanes, its difficult to see an alternative.

I'd love it if there as a pan-Southeast-Michigan light rail to happen, but doesn't seem realistic with all the other infrastructure issues Michigan is having right now. Best we can hope for right now is that Q line gets extended out from downtown Detroit up to Royal Oak or Birmingham, but even that is a whole can of worms that Dan Gilbert would have to push for for there to be a chance at it.

I cycle too and don't own a car, but I live in a lucky spot grandfathered in before the rent rose. I'm all for more transit options if they actually exist. You can't reduce car usage without allowing access to alternatives.

I'm glad you like to bike. Bikes don't go 60 miles an hour, which is necessary for some individuals who work an hour or more from their residence. And no, people don't do that sort of thing because they enjoy it. They do it because they have to. Please don't ruin people's lives with your ideas.

> Bikes don't go 60 miles an hour, which is necessary for some individuals who work an hour or more from their residence. And no, people don't do that sort of thing because they enjoy it. They do it because they have to. Please don't ruin people's lives with your ideas.

Reread my post, as I don't think you're responding to what I wrote. I don't advocate taking away someone's license because of debts, which I believe I made clear in the last paragraph.

First you said it "could help", then you said it was "net counterproductive". Which is it?

Both. There are multiple factors here. Reducing transportation costs is one factor (what I meant by "could help"), but typically one's income reduces even more, so on net it is counterproductive. I'll edit the post to be more clear.

This line of thinking that someone owes you a single sweeping opinion seems to reject any form of nuance that could exist in the world.

Maybe somethings could help sometimes and are net counterproductive other times.

Maybe some ideas could help in one aspect but are net counterproductive when considered as a whole.

I didn't read a contradiction in the parent post.

I did. You spent most of it lecturing people who use cars. I explained to you why you were wrong to do so.

Can you explain which parts you believe are lecturing drivers? My post was meant to offer my perspective as a cyclist: driving is more expensive than many appreciate. I wasn't arguing that it was unnecessary; quite the opposite.

I don't know what you mean by "Please don't ruin people's lives with your ideas" if you were not referring to taking away someone's license because of debt. As I stated, I don't believe someone should lose their drivers' license because of debt.

What is the idea I have that would ruin peoples' lives?

Just some perspective. I know this is not what you wrote, and probably not what you meant, but what I was thinking when reading your comment was "Car owners are extravagant. I spend a lot on my bike and still spend so much less money than them. Maybe if we suspended licenses some would get a clue."

I'm probably not alone in reading it that way, and I'd say many of us would be offended.

I appreciate your honesty.

What I meant was this: Driving is expensive, so one might argue that removing one's ability to drive would help them save money, but that doesn't work when a drivers' license is needed to generate income in the first place.

Upvoting because people seem to be unable to read the caveat at the end of your post.

Likely they saw him 'bashing cars' and immediately downvoted. People on HN tend to reflexively downvote opinions like this as unrealistic (if it was non-reflexive, they would've seen the caveat at the end there).

Thanks. I've learned to not "bury the lede" here...

I used to think that way until I lived in NoVA for a couple of years. Cycling on the roads there would have been quite dangerous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com