Hacker News Reader

Comment by jtdev | Hacker News Reader

How will good be moved? How will the infirm get around? I admire the cyclist ideal that they are fixing the problems of the world by not driving/owning cars... but it seems like a very superficial, quasi-moralistic solution that's really not likely to have the impact that is desired/needed.

View on HN

Honestly these are such lame points that I hear again and again. I lived in Toronto, bad bike infrastructure, and now live in Amsterdam with great infrastructure. People here with limited mobility use electric wheelchairs in the bike lanes and therefore have more and cheaper and safer mobility options than in Toronto. A person in an electric mobility scoter can safely go from the city centre to the airport on the edge of the city. They also have the option to take a cab or a car of course, cars are still an option but they are not priorities over bikes here — you’re also totally ignoring that it’s dangerous for some disabled people to even use cars — but mobility scooters can be a safer option. Deliveries come in the morning on trucks, but that’s less necessary with more electric cargo bike being used every day.

Cars suck.

No dude, there would still be cars for these use cases, come on. All we need is some protected bike lanes, maybe like 10% of the space allocated to cars.

We need fewer roads and cars, not zero roads and cars. Think 2 lane road vs. 6 lane road.

More people on bikes doesn't mean all people on bikes.

> How will good be moved?

Same way they are now, on major roads.

> How will the infirm get around?

They use mobility cars or scooters in the bike lanes, is what happens in bike friendly places like where I live.

Funny, I always hear this question from right wing people who otherwise have no interest in helping "the infirm". I'm sure you aren't one of those people, right?

> it seems like a very superficial, quasi-moralistic solution

The alternative solution seems to be "Burn all the fossil fuels, die miserably," so I welcome some sort of alternative.

Yes it would require radically rethinking how a lot of cities are designed, definitely a distant goalpost

Goods and disabled people and emergency vehicles combined are probably < 10% of traffic within cities.

The objective isn't to get rid of all car lanes, just replace some of them.

Public transit

Lower one’s expectations of quality of life and consume less.

I don’t want to lower my quality of life so far that I can’t get an ambulance or have to be homebound once I can no longer walk.

More people on bikes means fewer cars. Coupled with frequent public transport means that your ambulance will not be stuck in traffic and that the bus that lets you not be homebound will take as long as the car you currently drive to get to the same places. And if you still need to drive, you will still be able to, it just won't be the only option available.

The comment is an excellent exercise in reductio ad absurdum.

I live in a bicycle centered city and we have excellent ambulance response _because_ there is less traffic.

Disabled people have various mobility devices that go on the bike paths.

The quality of life is a lot better here.

There's nothing like cars to lower quality of life. They are noisy, require huge areas to be paved over, thus removing prime property in cities from more useful purposes. Particulate matter emissions from the engines, but also from brake and tire wear are unhealthy[1][2]. We don't let kids play outside anymore because we are afraid they will be hit by drivers. We kill animals after they hurt one person, yet we fear to cross a street anywhere for fear of being hit by someone recklessly driving a few tons at speed and defend the right to drive as though it were primordial. And really, who finds a street lined with parked cars and stuffed with traffic inching forward esthetic. A few cars are hugely useful to grant mobility to the few people who cannot get around otherwise, provide emergency services, and move bulky goods. I'm not saying plumbers shouldn't be able to arrive with their truck full of tools, just that the overabundance of cars really lowers the quality of life of the vast majority of people.

1. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/J... 2. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_file_download.cfm?p_downl...

I agree with all of that, but people mostly perceive that they can't live in a large house on a large plot of land. Spread out living with requisite car transportation also creates a stratified society where you don't have to be near those you do not want to be near, which people might also perceive as a benefit.

Bikes do not decrease quality of life. More exercise, more fresh air, and better health are all quality of life increases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com