You’d be surprised how far you can travel on a bike. As long as you cycle within your ability/fitness level and eat enough you can basically cycle forever. I cycled 300km in one day last year and it wasn’t even that hard. I just made sure to eat enough carbs and stick to a sustainable pace. It took some determination, but it was not difficult physically. Humans are built for endurance.
You cycled for 300km for fun.
You didn’t cycle 240km to another city with a 10kg boardgame hanging off your back, taking your dog and gf with you, while it was -15c and snow drifts in winter.
And you had to get back home by a certain time in the evening for another thing.
I did this described trip with a train and I won’t do it again without a car. Public transit is only as good as its schedule is frequent and stops are closeby.
People don’t want bike as a hobby they want it as a viable way to go a to b.
Bikes are not a viable method of travel for anything that is further than 30minutes and without hills. Ebikes shoot up viability greatly though.
Most cities aren’t big enough to be bike friendly or have public transport at all, let alone good public transport (as an issue of not enough taxes to do it bc small and not enough demand for private section either).
You mean not dense enough (as in high concentration of people).
Commutes need to be short enough that bikes are a reasonable alternate mode of transportation. That means you have to get to work and shopping within 30 minutes or it isn’t feasible for most folks.
That can only work if they get rid of a lot of residential suburbs and instead build condos and apartments close to places that offer a lot of jobs. Then it’ll work out.
no I mean too low in population. it is not reasonable or feasible to make anything other than a large city bike-friendly, and suburbs are large cities in comparison to the majority of cities. also replacing real homes with apartments is a bad idea because it takes away true personal ownership of your home. you seem to be unaware that small towns exist and that a lot of people do not want to live in a big, dense, concrete slab of a city. you should leave your city sometimes and remind yourself that the people outside of it do exist.
cool but just because you are fine living in a concrete box does not mean everyone else does or that trying to get everyone to will solve anything. you are out of touch with the people around you. there’s these things called ‘privacy’ and ‘property’ that normal people aspire to have and that apartments are the polar opposite of. it makes much more sense to phase out the idea of having the whole company work in one place than to force everybody into apartment complexes so they can always be at their master’s beck and call. it’s crazy that you are on the fediverse and yet you want to have your real life situation be exactly as centralized as the platforms you are here to escape.
You have a somewhat weird assumption of what I’m trying to tell you.
I don’t want everyone to live in an apartment. But they are needed for a healthy city. The residential suburbs made of of single family homes that the US is building everywhere are not sustainable. The infrastructure costs far outweigh the tax revenue they’ll every generate. The people living there have to have a car to get around because everything is too far away. This just can’t work in the long run.
there’s these things called ‘privacy’ and ‘property’ that normal people aspire to have and that apartments are the polar opposite of.
That’s plain wrong. My neighbors have no idea about what I do in my apartment. I never let them inside and there is no need to do that. Heck I don’t even know their names Even my landlord was never inside since I rented it.
And why do I need to own it? What advantage is there? I would be stuck to this place as property isn’t that easy to sell.
My parents are trying selling the family house they built themselves for almost 2 years now. They are now too old to maintain it and none of the children wants it. We all have our own lives. That’s the reality for most of the people that own property: You are stuck with it whether you like it or not.
at their master’s beck and call
Do you have some kind of delusion?
it’s crazy that you are on the fediverse and yet you want to have your real life situation be exactly as centralized as the platforms you are here to escape.
Those two don’t compare. At all. You’ll always need to have some kind of central ‘power’ to coordinate efforts and resources. Here the instance is the center that’s doing that, much like a city does. And if I don’t like the instance I switch to another one like if I don’t like a city I’ll move.
the solution is not to make apartments instead of single family homes, the solution is to not allow massive housing developments with no businesses around them and to not make massive residential zones where none are allowed. the lack of businesses such as stores or regular sized offices in the vicinity of residential areas is the problem, not people having their own homes. what you said was to build apartments closer to where people work instead of houses. you may not have intended it this way (and to be honest, I was more hostile here than was deserved) but what that sounds like you are saying is that people should be living in apartments right by their offices instead of having their own houses. if the entirety of a company’s workforce (or at least the entirety of any particular office) lived in an apartment building right by the office, the company would exploit that to restrict people’s ability to not be working. I communicated this poorly but the fact is that many companies already get as close to doing this as they can manage even when they can’t exploit your housing, and if they could this would immediately be a genuine threat. what I meant by the fediverse comment was also based on what i thought you meant, because it sounded like you were saying all of someone’s work and housing should be as close to one big block as possible. this is why i made the comparison to centralized social media as it would all be one big block unilaterally controlled by just about anyone but the consumer. if this were to become the case there would be no better place to move to because every city would be like that. the privacy and property comment doesn’t make that much sense to me either, so i’m going to take it as a sign that that’s enough internet for tonight. If my interpretation of what you were saying was incorrect (and having slept a little between when i made my last reply and when i made this one, i’m pretty sure it was) then I’m sorry I misrepresented what you said. I still stand by what I said but it probably shouldn’t have been directed at you.
car go further faster, and car more useful when not in big city.
You’d be surprised how far you can travel on a bike. As long as you cycle within your ability/fitness level and eat enough you can basically cycle forever. I cycled 300km in one day last year and it wasn’t even that hard. I just made sure to eat enough carbs and stick to a sustainable pace. It took some determination, but it was not difficult physically. Humans are built for endurance.
You cycled for 300km for fun. You didn’t cycle 240km to another city with a 10kg boardgame hanging off your back, taking your dog and gf with you, while it was -15c and snow drifts in winter. And you had to get back home by a certain time in the evening for another thing.
I did this described trip with a train and I won’t do it again without a car. Public transit is only as good as its schedule is frequent and stops are closeby.
I didn’t say cycling 300km was the most convenient way to travel such a distance, just that travelling long distances by bike is doable.
People don’t want bike as a hobby they want it as a viable way to go a to b. Bikes are not a viable method of travel for anything that is further than 30minutes and without hills. Ebikes shoot up viability greatly though.
I’m aware, but car still go further faster so it’s better if you aren’t in a big city.
Yes, but have you considered this extremely selective list of positive features for bikes?
For this, bike friendly cities have good public transport (bus/tram/metro) and bike shares
Most cities aren’t big enough to be bike friendly or have public transport at all, let alone good public transport (as an issue of not enough taxes to do it bc small and not enough demand for private section either).
You mean not dense enough (as in high concentration of people).
Commutes need to be short enough that bikes are a reasonable alternate mode of transportation. That means you have to get to work and shopping within 30 minutes or it isn’t feasible for most folks.
That can only work if they get rid of a lot of residential suburbs and instead build condos and apartments close to places that offer a lot of jobs. Then it’ll work out.
no I mean too low in population. it is not reasonable or feasible to make anything other than a large city bike-friendly, and suburbs are large cities in comparison to the majority of cities. also replacing real homes with apartments is a bad idea because it takes away true personal ownership of your home. you seem to be unaware that small towns exist and that a lot of people do not want to live in a big, dense, concrete slab of a city. you should leave your city sometimes and remind yourself that the people outside of it do exist.
I live in a small town of just 20k people in an apartment. It’s perfectly fine.
cool but just because you are fine living in a concrete box does not mean everyone else does or that trying to get everyone to will solve anything. you are out of touch with the people around you. there’s these things called ‘privacy’ and ‘property’ that normal people aspire to have and that apartments are the polar opposite of. it makes much more sense to phase out the idea of having the whole company work in one place than to force everybody into apartment complexes so they can always be at their master’s beck and call. it’s crazy that you are on the fediverse and yet you want to have your real life situation be exactly as centralized as the platforms you are here to escape.
You have a somewhat weird assumption of what I’m trying to tell you.
I don’t want everyone to live in an apartment. But they are needed for a healthy city. The residential suburbs made of of single family homes that the US is building everywhere are not sustainable. The infrastructure costs far outweigh the tax revenue they’ll every generate. The people living there have to have a car to get around because everything is too far away. This just can’t work in the long run.
That’s plain wrong. My neighbors have no idea about what I do in my apartment. I never let them inside and there is no need to do that. Heck I don’t even know their names Even my landlord was never inside since I rented it.
And why do I need to own it? What advantage is there? I would be stuck to this place as property isn’t that easy to sell.
My parents are trying selling the family house they built themselves for almost 2 years now. They are now too old to maintain it and none of the children wants it. We all have our own lives. That’s the reality for most of the people that own property: You are stuck with it whether you like it or not.
Do you have some kind of delusion?
Those two don’t compare. At all. You’ll always need to have some kind of central ‘power’ to coordinate efforts and resources. Here the instance is the center that’s doing that, much like a city does. And if I don’t like the instance I switch to another one like if I don’t like a city I’ll move.
tl;dr: elaborated, sorry if misrepresented you.
the solution is not to make apartments instead of single family homes, the solution is to not allow massive housing developments with no businesses around them and to not make massive residential zones where none are allowed. the lack of businesses such as stores or regular sized offices in the vicinity of residential areas is the problem, not people having their own homes. what you said was to build apartments closer to where people work instead of houses. you may not have intended it this way (and to be honest, I was more hostile here than was deserved) but what that sounds like you are saying is that people should be living in apartments right by their offices instead of having their own houses. if the entirety of a company’s workforce (or at least the entirety of any particular office) lived in an apartment building right by the office, the company would exploit that to restrict people’s ability to not be working. I communicated this poorly but the fact is that many companies already get as close to doing this as they can manage even when they can’t exploit your housing, and if they could this would immediately be a genuine threat. what I meant by the fediverse comment was also based on what i thought you meant, because it sounded like you were saying all of someone’s work and housing should be as close to one big block as possible. this is why i made the comparison to centralized social media as it would all be one big block unilaterally controlled by just about anyone but the consumer. if this were to become the case there would be no better place to move to because every city would be like that. the privacy and property comment doesn’t make that much sense to me either, so i’m going to take it as a sign that that’s enough internet for tonight. If my interpretation of what you were saying was incorrect (and having slept a little between when i made my last reply and when i made this one, i’m pretty sure it was) then I’m sorry I misrepresented what you said. I still stand by what I said but it probably shouldn’t have been directed at you.