Comment by no_wizard | Hacker News Reader

Comment by no_wizard | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Idk if its want in the terms you're thinking, in the USA.

I'd love to bike everywhere, it just isn't safe unless the infrastructure to it is dedicated to making it so. Even if I'm wrong and its just a perception issue (IE, I'm uncomfortable with the narrowness of bike lanes with cars so close)

If we had wide dedicated bike lanes (some cities do this) and bike infrastructure, I'm all in. I'd bike everywhere I could. I hate owning a car. I hate driving. I hate anything to do with transportation where I am doing those things because I could either be enjoying the fresh air on my own (biking) or would like to move the responsibility to a true professional (public transport).

Because, however, in most cities in the US, public transport and bike infrastructure sucks, its the best option I have.

EDIT: Also, in the US, cars are a tax on the poor and lower middle class. Hell, even solidly middle class people would have way more quality of life if they didn't need to buy and maintain the stupid things for (essentially) your entire life. They're just stupid worthless to have day to day IMO

The problem is even with that infrastructure, outside of a small handful of cities “everywhere you could” still isn’t very much, and you’d still have to have a car. You’re going to bike to the restaurant in the rain or snow? You’re going to bike to work in the snow or when it’s really hot and you’ll show up there gross? It seems pretty obvious to most people who don’t read HN why if you built a great biking infrastructure you’d just have two problems instead of one.

Poor people are much less likely to live close to where they work, so switching to bikes won’t help them. The people who want this bike infrastructure are far from poor.

Cars are not stupid and worthless. They’re expensive and the vast majority of the population owns and uses them every day, surely they have huge benefits. They are obvious to most people. They are not great for the environment but even if you magically got rid of them entirely we’d still be way over emissions targets.

Cars are expensive AND the vast majority of the population use them because they have to.

> You’re going to bike to the restaurant in the rain or snow?

Yes, yes I am? Why would I not; I own clothes for being outside in bad weather. Those clothes and bike were cheaper than a car, so why would I not?

> You’re going to bike to work in the snow or when it’s really hot and you’ll show up there gross?

Also, yes? You know people used to have to walk to places of work before cars, right? And while cars allow us to not experience any of those mild annoyances in exchange for huge sums of money, most economically minded people would rather be a bit sweaty than pay an extra pile of money for a car.

The main problem with cars isn't the environmental damage from tires / fossil fuels; it's the space they take up in our cities.

The amount of parking alone that is required at virtually every destination (and generally far in excess of actual parking demand) is the key culprit. But massive amounts of space dedicated to wide roads and highways also contribute.

This space dedicated to cars increases distances between everything and actively makes other transportation methods less convenient.

>Poor people are much less likely to live close to where they work, so switching to bikes won’t help them. The people who want this bike infrastructure are far from poor.

Poor people who are spending lots of money and time on public transit could substantially benefit from a low cost, point to point transportation system. Especially if their commute distances could be lowered in a less car dependent society.

If you are able to go outside in the rain or snow, or when it's really hot, why not bike as well?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com