To me this reads like "Cars have won, give up on walking and biking in your cities."
That's just not a solution. Just because car lobbyists have successfully ruined nearly all US cities and a good amount of European ones doesn't mean we just sit down and continue to let it happen. I agree public transport is a huge part of the way forward, and I even agree that walking/biking in harsh weather isn't exactly ideal, but we can't let the most simple human ways of existing in cities (walking and biking) go to the wayside just because car companies want us to believe they're bad or unsafe transportation methods. Want to walk in the snow? Put on some boots and wear some layers with a scarf and a hat. Want to walk in the heat? Wear a hat, sunscreen, and a light shirt and pair of shorts. It's not _that_ hard.
I used to bike in Bergen, Norway in the winter and it can be really dangerous - I saw many accidents even from the locals.
I am sure some advances could be made - say, utilizing smaller buses and perhaps make them go out into the boonies only if someone had notified the bus company that they wished to take the bus - but for the most part, when the population is evenly and thinly distributed over a large-ish area with shoddy weather, the car is king for transport.
Walking in the snow is one thing, walking on ice in -20C/-4F while wind gusts threaten to topple you quite another; that being said, people are quite eager to use bikes whenever the weather is agreeable-ish - it's just that the car is the viable fallback plan when it is not - not public transport.
> It's not _that_ hard.
Yes it is, for most people given the condition. Implying that they are too lazy etc. it’s just not helpful.
> want us to believe they're bad or unsafe transportation methods
Conspiracy theories are generally not that useful. Cars are objectively the superior method of transport in low density areas (there is no use in denying that)
Please consider that not everyone lives in a city with all amenities at walking distance. The countryside exists. We should not abandon those living there.
I visited one of the supposedly ugliest cities in Norway this summer, Alta in Finnmark. It got its reputation because appatently during the reconstruction after the war, they couldn't decide which of the small population centres in the municipality they should locate public functions to, so they put them in the middle. So it was an unusually car-centric city.
What I found was that this reputation is either grossly exaggerated, or is no longer true. The grid is maybe spacier than we're used to in Norway, but they have a huge pedestrian plaza in the middle and you can walk to anything you'd need in the city centre. They even seem to have great pedestrian/bike paths all the way out to Hjemmeluft, and there was nice public transport. I'd happily live there without a car. Looking at the real estate prices, though, it seems lots of other people are happy to live there too, harsh weather notwithstanding.
Indeed, and the article itself agrees with you - the headline is deceptive. Without any specifics, the actual quote from the transport minister is about improving intermodal transport, saying "We must make it more attractive to travel by public transport, cycle, and walk."
Admittedly not the cheapest type of tire around. Last I checked a good brand name was going for $175 new. I found a "used once" set on eBay for a lot less.
The narrow ones are fine for a little wet snow but suck once you get more than a few inches of dry powder or downtown slop. You're way better to go for flotation then.
when you are 80 years old and frail you'll have to bike too? I do love people who comment by assuming everyone is going to be forever in top health to bike.
That said, when I am pushing 80 years old and if I have health issues, I can imagine that I would want an e-trike. That sort of vehicle solves for the issues of stamina and balance.
I don't know that I would ever consider traveling on a micro mobility device to be something I "have" to do. If I ever get to the point that I really can't do it regardless of equipment, I imagine I would feel a sense of loss.
Try driving in -20 on unmaintained roads, and you'll find the same thing as your current statement about biking. The temperature is largely unrelated to the infrastructure's useability
Last, cycling, especially in winter, is good if you're able-bodied, but it leaves out people with disabilities, which makes a sizable amount of the population if you take aged people in the mix.
I agree with OP that in general, a good public transportation system is the first step toward better cities with less cars. Bikes can play a role, but can't be the solution for everything.
I grew up with winters occasionally reaching -30°C and the logistics of walking (and cycling) in such an environment are simply time-consuming.
On a bike it takes about as long to get the blood flowing, and once acclimatized the ride can be quite nice.
I've been out riding in -42°C (mostly just to prove I could), and at those temperatures I started running into mechanical problems.
The metal of different components shrank at different rates, and my fork was binding up in the headtube, and the freewheel loosened off such that the ratchets wouldn't always connect with the pawls, causing slippage.
Not if you have a garage or a remote startup function in your car. This is what you're going up against proposing that people cycle in freezing temperatures.
> On a bike it takes about as long to get the blood flowing, and once acclimatized the ride can be quite nice.
That's the same as using the outdoor pool in an aquapark in winter, which I enjoy doing because... there's almost no one there at that time of the year!
We have a climate crisis, an obesity crisis, and also a mental health crisis, and bikes serve to alleviate all those things.
Stuff like morals and good citizenship: people just don't seem to value these things anymore. That's tragic, and also catastrophic.
The only answer is radically changing the way we view walking in biking in cities. They are the base of all transportation, and we should treat them as the most important mode of transport for that reason. If we do that, maybe Norway will plow their bike paths. Maybe California will drop their obsession with adding "just 1 more lane" to their freeways. Maybe high-speed rail could become a thing in the US as it is in so much of Europe.
There's no doubt maintained bike paths would make cycling more viable, and in the cities great progress have been made in that respect, from what I can see.
However, for a significant part of the population, that simply isn't much of an option as roads and bicycle paths alike are used by such a small (relatively speaking) number of people that keeping both maintained basically would ensure we all worked with maintaining the network!
From what I googled, Norway's urban population is about 83%, so cycling infrastructure should go a long way.
It also shouldn't be terribly expensive to support rural cycling infrastructure either due to the lack of wear and tear that such infrastructure experienced compared to roads for cars and other vehicles.
In the example city, Oulu Finland, they see a consistent 22% ridership all the way down to -20C, because they incentivize cycling with well designed and maintained infrastructure.
So what? Maybe it's because those people who only have a bike don't have any other means to get around? You need to look at different reasons before jumping to conclusions.
there exist winter tyres for bikes, that have spikes - ideal for ice