Submitted by giuliomagnifico t3_11j7a4c in science
Reply to comment by Notspherry in Study reveals that although private automobiles continue to be the dominant travel mode in American cities, the share of car trips has slightly and steadily decreased since its peak in 2001. In contrast, the share of transit, non-motorized, and taxicab trips has steadily increased by giuliomagnifico
This just encourages cost escalation and pushes the nuclear family further and further from mainstream. Nuclear family is absolutely essential for the responsible growth and sustainment of a superpower country, and forcing bicycle use is telling people they really can't have a family, or they can't work where the good jobs are, or they can't live where they can have a family because there isn't enough bedrooms or house space, and no one with a baby wants to commute hours to the daycare in a bicycle then to work. There literally isn't enough time for a busy family to fart around with making bicycles a viable primary transportation source while still being forced to have two incomes and keeping all the family tasks done. In the unique pockets where you can walk to many places, like New York, very expensive to live. Can't reasonably buy property. Bicycles are really not a viable option for most people.
I lived in a city of 10 million people in Japan. You regularly see mothers with babies in the bicycle baskets and groceries on the back.
In JAPAN. Not everywhere, some cities in JAPAN.
Yes, and if a city of 10 million can do it, it is possible. Humanity has found a way to do it. It can be implemented in other places if we actually would want it and accept that it’s possible.
There are a lot of assumptions here that I do not agree with.
Full disclosure: I live on the outskirts of a 70k town in the netherlands. Definitely not in a big city.
First, giving people the option to ride for transportation does not equate forcing people to ride. If your local steakhouse adds burgers to the menu they are not forcing you to only eat burgers.
Second, dropping off my kids at daycare/school has never been more than a 10 minute detour. The way towns are set up here means that most daily destinations like schools, shops, doctors and sports facilities are always close to residential area's. This means chaining several trips together by bike is very easy.
Third: cars coststake up a large part of the budget of young families. Cutting (a part) of these costs means being able to afford a better house, or working less. I see lots of mothers who cycle everywhere, with or without kids, because it is the most convenient way to get around.
What you're saying is that you want people to completely blow up their lives and cities so they can take up your hobby of bike riding, whether it works for them or not. As with all conversations like this, I say you can do whatever you want up to the point that your freedoms do not take away other people's freedoms. You can be a gun owner, you can be a bike owner, you can be a presbyterian, you can be a vegan, but don't force any of that on anyone else. You are free to ride your bike and set up your life in any way you like, but where I live, it doesn't work for me or my city, and the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. Childcare is horribly expensive and waiting lines are months or years long, jobs are far away, housing in the city is small and horribly expensive, and the government should not be in the business of taking away thousands of our very limited parking spots so some people can have the privilege of riding their bike on the main road instead of one block in either parallel direction.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments