I've also never been healthier.
fwiw, a stolen bike is about 500usd to replace (i have my dad's 1970s Schwinn as a backup for when i am doing maintenance or loaned out my daily rider) vs a stolen car... i know a half-dozen people who've had their kia or hyundai cars stolen in the last 2 years, usually the car is completely totalled, one of those people had their same car stolen 3 separate times before it was finally totalled, and in some cases a friend (doordasher) lost their job and then housing due to not having transportation.
How do you get the groceries? Just buy a day or two's worth at a time?
How do you keep from stinking all the time?
I used to ride a motorcycle in the US and other drivers were dangerous as hell. It's even worse for bicyclists. How do you deal with that?
Serious questions, not being sarcastic.
You don’t really sweat on an ebike.
It’s trivial when you live in a dense city where drivers don’t feel entitled. They are rather respectful of pedestrians and cyclists here.
In Holland (and in fact much of Europe) huge malls are rare, cities a structured as shops intermingled with housing. In fact it's often shops on the ground floor, housing above them. So buying a day or two's groceries one the trip home is a matter of turning into a door on the way home.
Also they have "cargo bikes", which is a push bike designed like a kangaroo (google it). The cargo space in the front is mum's taxi, used for groceries and kid transportation.
> How do you keep from stinking all the time?
Holland and many of these places are cool and flat. But if you go to Asia it's the same deal. I don't recall anyone stinking there.
> I used to ride a motorcycle in the US and other drivers were dangerous as hell. It's even worse for bicyclists. How do you deal with that?
No one travels far (because of the city design described in 1st para), so no one has to travel fast. Literally. In places like the USA and Australia even the push bikes move at 20..30km/hr. Not in these places. It's one of the things that stick out when you visit, actually. In non-bike countries the bikes you do see are fancy, the riders dress in Lycra to suit the sporty image, and they ride fast. But in bike countries the bikes are boring, people ride them sedately, and women in evening dress on a push bike is a common sight [0]. Push bike accidents do happen all the time, but aren't serious because of the low speeds.
Another way to explain your puzzlement: Cities in Australia, Canada and USA are designed for cars. Cities in other places are designed for bikes and walking. These are two Nash equilibrium's to the transport problem. Once a system has settled into a Nash equilibrium it's very hard to change. So in a place designed for cars, riding a push bike is taking ones life into your own hands so everyone buys a car. In a place designed for push bikes, trying to drive a car is an exercise in frustration: you drive as slow as a push bike, and there is nowhere to park when you get there. You are living in one Nash equilibrium, but there is another. Try travelling for a bit.
Try googling "airbag bicycle helmet". They are a thing. Why are they a thing? Initially it was because a traditional bicycle helmet mess with a woman's hair do, and these things are worn around the neck. When you are dressed to the nine's riding your bike to the opera, you don't want your hair messed up after all. But it turns out they are safer than regular helmets.
i live in Minneapolis, so when it's hot i just take it a little easier so as to not work up a sweat, and in the winter biking is shockingly warming (i am consistently surprised to be able to bike in subzero temps with my normal jacket, jeans and long underwear on)
as for automobile drivers, it's kinda a combo of defensive driving tactics, along with knowing bike lanes, bike boulevards, and parkways. (bryant ave and the midtown greenway are pretty nifty for all cardinal directions of travel)
A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) determined that the road damage caused by a single 18-wheeler was equivalent to the damage caused by 9,600 cars. ... The study found that essentially, road damage was related to the 4th power of the relative loads. https://www.denenapoints.com/relationship-vehicle-weight-roa...
The worst offender here is cyclists, who eat up road space and then buy goods offloaded from 18 wheeler, massively transferring axle weight portion of damage cost to the poor dude in beat up civic.
What you're citing is only the fraction from axle weight, exclusive of other damage impactful including weathering.
But for the current roads we already paid for, the average car is apparently around 4100 lbs whereas the average bicycle weight is 30 lbs, so 30^4/4100^4 means that a bicyclist should be paying around 1/350,000,000 of the cost comparable to the average car driver... so litterally a rounding error down to zero.
If you look at Chernobyl (search "Chernobyl parking lot" https://www.vecteezy.com/photo/3732091-pripyat-ukraine-2021-... ) you'll see even 40 years later with no care paving is actually completely usable.
But wait, it's even worse. Cyclists and drivers are benefactors of 18 wheelers. So the cyclist is the worst of all. He gets same benefit of 18 wheelers bringing him goods while offloading unequal axle damage costs on car drivers taxes. Cyclist is ultimate leech in this equation you present.
As opposed to simply changing the tax code to better reflect road usage and wear and tear?
Car drivers don't pay for the damage that 18-wheelers do to the roads in any different way than bike drivers.
When taxes are approximated as first to second order of weight and damage is fourth, the calculus is lower weight cars are shouldering unequal cost of 18 wheelers vs everyone else including cyclist consumers. Effectively part of this is shouldered of free riding cyclists consumption of 18 wheeler goods.