Bicycles are also not a viable replacement for almost all the uses of a vehicle. None of this advice is useful.
It was a combination of federal push for highways and consumer demand for greater distance and easier travel.
Everyone always assumes that individual choices and consumer behavior drives this stuff, and then they wonder why nothing changes even though we all started using reusable tote bags and LED bulbs. Stop blaming the consumer!
(The DoD is the largest institutional polluter in the world, by the way.)
I do agree that the vehicle should not be the default transportation even if I do consider myself a "car guy".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo
Car centrism TAKES AWAY independence of kids, elderly, and disabled people.
Arguing for the sake of arguing in this case is really poor on your part.
Groceries? Yep. School? Yep. Commuting? Yep. Etc.
They aren't viable for hauling multi-ton loads, or covering long distances, that's about it.
The same is true for many states in the US, perhaps even most of the US.
> Advocate for safe biking infrastructure in your area.
We built dangerous highways. We can build bikeways as well.
Moreover, time is a limited resource. Even adding 15 minutes here and there take away time I would have to spend with family, work on a project, etc.
I once lived somewhere that was half an hour from the store by car. Thankfully that isn’t the case anymore.
Avid cyclist here.
* Extreme Weather: Severe heat, heavy snow, or torrential rain can make biking unsafe or impractical without specialized gear and high physical endurance.
* Accessibility & Mobility Issues: Individuals with certain physical disabilities or chronic health conditions may find traditional cycling impossible. (This also affects an aging population.)
* Time Constraints: For those with "trip-chaining" needs (e.g., daycare drop-off → work → grocery store → gym), the extra time required for cycling can be prohibitive.
* Infrastructure: Older adults are more sensitive to "heavy traffic" and "lack of safe places." Seniors don't stop cycling because they can't do it, but because they don't feel safe in traffic. (Good argument for upgrading roadways.)
* Care-giving: When parents become dependent on their children, often the children need to shuttle their parents around. A parent with dementia who escaped into the neighbourhood can be rapidly collected and ushered home in a car, not so much a bike.
* Theft & Vandalism: I've never had a car stolen. Two locked bikes, on the other hand...
The correct argument here is "if bicycles become the dominant transportation mode, then the government will absolutely mandate kill switches for them too." "Bicycles don't have software" hasn't been true for years. E-bikes and wireless deraillers have been around a long time.
My argument to my own post is that cameras that track cars and license plates could easily be reconfigured to track bikes and pedestrians. In that case there's no transportation mode that will save you from surveillance. The cameras have to go.
Also, why the hell have you got wireless derailleurs? What is the point? What possible advantage can they have over perfectly normal mechanical ones?
Additionally, I personally would have less issue with people driving due to a lack of physical fitness if they didn’t tend to 1. Drive recklessly and fast (35 on a 25 is not okay) and 2. Drive tank-like SUVs and Trucks
(Excluding you rural people, but depending on your city could be true if people had smaller lots and denser less car centric business areas, or more businesses in general)
A vehicle (presumably a car, since bikes are vehicles too) gets you and your stuff from point A to point B. Bikes do that too, though at a smaller scale.
If your commute or your errands aren't excessively long or require the use of a controlled-access highway, a bike's a perfectly fine alternative. The limiting factors are seasonal road or bike path maintenance and the discipline of other road users.