• ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    A bicycle is not good enough to transport cargo or large items

    Skill issue

    It is very easy to accidentally puncture a bicycle wheel tube

    Skill issue

    A bicycle can be stolen from you more easily than a car

    True, but a bike costs a fraction of a car, so it’s also much less of an issue if it happens

    The bicycle does not protect you from rain and snow and is more difficult to ride on ice, mud and puddles

    Skill issue

    • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      True, but a bike costs a fraction of a car, so it’s also much less of an issue if it happens.

      I’m gonna say I disagree. The only reason a bike is easier to steal is because the cops give even less of a shit about it.

      • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Nah, I saw some kids stealing a bike in town the other week, and they did it in a few seconds maybe 3 or 4 metres from a security guard. Smart kids, they acted in the moment I walked between them and the guard with pit crew-like efficiency - two steadying the bars, one cutting and removing the lock, and the last getting on the bike - so by the time the security guard called out they were already riding and running away. You can steal a car fast, but not that fast, and not in the middle of a crowded city centre.

        The cops definitely don’t give the slightest shit, but it’s not the only reason.

      • ped_xing [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Nobody’s proposing banning ambulances. You should be able to take the metro to the club. You should also be able to take it outside of the city and you can figure out the remainder of your journey from there. Reclaiming land from cars would also allow more space within cities for parks and such and decrease the need to get out of the city to escape dickheads leaning on their horns.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          How would ambulances work in a car free city? They seem kind of bulky for a city built for bikes. Unless we’re assuming those cities will still have huge roads to drive on?

          • ped_xing [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            8 months ago

            The roads are huge because of multiple lanes in two directions with street parking on the side. An ambulance only needs one lane.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Probably need two in case multiple emergency vehicles need to be on the scene. Imagine a bombing - you need ambulances, fire trucks, police, etc. That’s easy with huge car-based infrastructure but a bike-city seems complicated.

              Unless you just build huge roads everywhere despite the lack of cars, which would be sad.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Eliminating parking space for cars would be huge.

                  Might be able to cheat a little with the gravel shoulder, so it’s “two lanes” but only if vehicles on the left and right dirve half-off the road.

          • blakeus12 [they/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            what the other guy said and, to be honest, i really don’t see us just destroying all of the infrastructure our predecessors built. itd be a waste not to convert, say, a city street to a light rail track or something or other.

      • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        if you need to take two people at once to the hospital

        ambulance

        to a nightclub or to the forest outside the city for fishing and barbecue or somewhere else.

        shut up, those aren’t remotely urgent. Get on your bike.

      • CascadeOfLight [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        8 months ago

        If you need to go to the hospital, you can call an ambulance that will be able to quickly and easily reach you due to there not being any car traffic. (The utterly ludicrous cost of US healthcare is its own separate problem)

        Going to the countryside? Take a bus to the outskirts, or even out into the country itself, and cycle to a particular spot. Going to or from a club? Take the metro, take the bus, maybe even (depending no the strictness of ‘no cars’) a taxi, which you can afford on special occasions with the literally tens of thousands of dollars you’ll have saved by not needing to buy, insure, repair and fuel a car.

        You have to also understand that for a car-free society to even be on the table, a number of other social changes will have to have been made too. So just arguing that going without cars is impossible due to the limitations of the car-centric society that currently exists is just circular reasoning. There SHOULD be ways to do the things you’ve listed without using a car, and the reason there aren’t is BECAUSE of cars.