• parlaptie@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a chicken and egg problem, unfortunately. Cities won’t improve conditions for cyclists if they only see car traffic and people will avoid cycling under bad conditions.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is EXACTLY the problem.

        I was speaking with city planners for a project they were working on (proposed road widening) , and every time I brought up the need for cycling infrastructure in certain areas, they would say something like “not enough cyclists use that route”, and I’d always follow up by saying “because that route is too dangerous or inconvenient without cycling infrastructure.”

        The addage “if you build it, they will come” applies completely to cycling infrastructure.

    • Spzi@lemmy.click
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cities worldwide are hostile to cyclists

      They aren’t all the same. See, of the 20 most bike friendly cities, the top 4 are in the Netherlands.

      Which of course is because they have started to invest in excellent bike infrastructure decades ago, and made it a priority. So it isn’t really putting the burden on people. I wouldn’t expect people to bike in a hostile environment. But I hope we create friendlier environments.

  • unceme@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    The great news is that infrastructure to make cities more walkable and bikeable is actually really cheap. Like, compared to car infrastructure that can move a similar amount of people it’s nothing. It’s mostly an issue of political will to actually build the stuff.

  • Sir_Simon_Spamalot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah right, keep putting this problem on “everyone” because those bigger poluting companies can do nothing to change their course of action.

    • geissi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think this shouldn’t be read as an individual call to action as in ‘everyone has to do their part and start cycling’.
      Rather, it should be a call for governments to support a changing traffic and transportation infrastructure.

      • saigot@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s a chicken and egg problem. No one cycles because cycling infrastructure sucks, so politicians don’t care about cyclists so cycling infrastructure sucks. To break the pattern we need to soften things at every link of the chain. That means going somewhat our of our way to cycle and to pressure politicians to improve things.

        Personally I am currently I the process to moving to a more walkable city where I will be able to cycle to do most chores. It will increase my commute dramatically but I don’t go in every day and that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make in order to be free of my car. I tried biking in my current city but it was simply too dangerous. I was having near collisions weekly.

    • Spzi@lemmy.click
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Aside from emissions, cycling is also healthier, safer, more pleasant for everyone else.

      I see it less of a question of “where to put the blame?” as more “in what environment we want to live?”.

      Cycling puts also less money in the pockets of bigger polluting companies, and you can still blame them on the ride for all the good reasons.

  • Cowbob45@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes but not everyone lives in a flatland like the dutch do, I believe I could fully transition to a bicycle if cars weren’t the top priority on my city, but I know many friends that live in parts of the city that are basically mountains.

    • karce@wizanons.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ebikes are definitely the answer. Much easier to ride up hills and very accessible for regular people to start riding. Plus they are significantly cheaper than cars when you account for insurance and registration and maintenance, etc.

      • Deviance@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I live in a hilly area and got an e-bike exactly for some of these monsters. I love it. Makes me feel like a kid again. I’m not out of shape by any means but I’m 60 lbs heavier then I was and it’s just not feasible unless I train for that purpose which I’m not trying to do. I just want to enjoy my bike ride at a leisurely pace.

        Now my biggest issue is where I live isn’t exactly bicycle friendly. Sucks when you can’t really move to the side for cars to pass and when the sidewalks are all skinny and uneven.

        Additionally all the cars are just noisy as shit. I can’t even enjoy the ride unless I take side roads which is impossible to always do to get where I want to go.

        Lastly, a lot parks around here only allow bicycles on the road and not on paved paths.

        Pisses me off. Like where am I supposed to go? I just want to ride my bike around from destination to destination and enjoy nature and seeing people out and about.

      • hex@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh yeah, when you bring the price thing in to it you could buy a really nice new ebikes every year for the average cost of keeping a car legal and on the road.

    • hex@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are plenty of people who bike in Seattle. Ebikes make it achievable for most people. Also, there are tons of cities that are flat. Why isn’t Austin or LA as bike friendly as Amsterdam or the Hague? Hills aren’t the problem.

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s why bikes have gears. You should be able to go up any reasonable hill with a bike that has more than one gear.

      E-bikes are another option, but not a necessity.

    • chickpeaze@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ebikes have really helped flatten things out in my area. I see plenty of couples in their 70s and 80s tooling around.

      However they’re not cheap, and I think there should be tax incentives for buying them.

      • Sam@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        In Canada I’ve seen some places advertising a 500$ rebate for ebikes.

      • packadal@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I completely agree with the incentive, and in some countries there are.

        For instance in France, there are government helps for buying ebikes.

    • mustyOrange@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Id say the car-centric city design is a huge factor as well. At least in the US, most large cities had electric trains, and we tore it down for parking lots. Fixing that problem would be incredibly daunting.

      Id say a good step would be to have high speed rails that go between major cities, coupled with bringing some of those electric trolleys back. As a Michigander, I think a good line would be Detroit -> stops along I96 -> Grand Rapids -> Benton Harbor -> More stops along 131/I94 -> Chicago.

  • atlasraven31@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    It would also help if expensive private jets and yachts had to pay to offset their CO2 emissions. Oil industries and others need to pay for their pollution too and certainly can’t claim government money as they pollute.

    • saigot@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s kinda insane how many cruises there are that don’t even really make any stops. Just giant inefficient hotels. I feel like there has got to be a set of incentives to get rid of the majority of these a hotel with a no phone policy (or located somewhere remote) would replace 90% of the appeal.

      • prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cruises have two major benefits (for the owner) over resorts:

        1. Their workers are half a step up from indentured servants.
        2. Land is expensive.

        There are cleaner fuels available, but they cost more, so it’s only used when not in international waters as mandated by the government of wherever they’re going. Until we, as a worldwide collective, agree to stop selling and using bunker fuel, there’s not a lot that can be done, because cruise ships are basically free money for their owners.

  • Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    When are these idiots (journalists/editors) going to learn that messaging matters? 690 million tonnes? Yeah, sounds like a lot. No context for that number in the headline which is all most people read.

    Perhaps instead of listingn only statistics and pretending that laypeople care, help people see what that would mean for them personally. Get them invested in the idea. Help plant the seeds and allow them to come to the conclusion that things should change. It’s like someone saying the government spent a billion dollars on something. Sure, that’s a lot of money, but the vast majority of people have no real concept of what a billion of something even is.

    It’s a damn shame that the us isn’t more bike friendly. I would kill to have a public transit system that didn’t suck, but unfortunately,l unless there is a massive change, I don’t see car usage going anywhere.

    • hex@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t worry, when gas becomes $100/gal in the next decade or two the US will become really bicycle friendly.

  • hex@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Here’s the thing. Everyone will bike like the Dutch and the Dutch will bike even more. It’s not a question of “if.” We are already past peak oil. There will only be more wars and more climate change. Those who survive will be relying on bikes because petroleum won’t be an option anymore and electric cars are not a real solution. Cities will become more dense, suburbs will decay, in all likelihood huge parts of the US will completely collapse because life will be impossible without cars. We know petroleum is finite and there is no other technology that will replace this.

    We can prepare by rolling out infrastructure now, or we can just keep going and crash as hard as possible in to a wall. No matter what we do, we’re going to stop using gas. I hope we do it on our terms rather than waiting for tons of people to die before we fix it, but I honestly don’t have a lot of hope. But hey, some people are starting to wake up so maybe we can keep that going and save millions of lives.

      • Jazzy Vidalia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because there isn’t enough lithium in the entire solar system to actually support everyone using electric cars at least with current technology. Even with projected advancement this won’t happen. We’re going to need better batteries using different materials. We’ll probably get to a point where renewables will supplant the current tech but it’s going to be rough.

        Also, it is very important to understand that we have probably been in the first stages of collapse for a while now. About 30 years. We just haven’t really noticed because the rot is uneven and even as societies collapse they still often continue to progress for some time in various ways. It’s just now becoming evident because it can no longer be ignored.

        As for bikes, it won’t be so bad. We’re adaptable creature and we’ll find a way to make it work. Cities will get denser and greener, but with less cars they will become quieter and more welcoming places. Public transit options will begin to become viable for the majority of people once again. There’s some hope that necessity will help drive a better future. If there is one thing humans are good at, it is adapting to their conditions.

        • s900mhz@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks for the detailed response! I agree with you with your thoughts on trajectory of society. I don’t have enough knowledge about earth lithium deposits to know if your statement about electric cars is true, but I was genuinely curious on your reasoning.

    • will@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree we’re probably past peak oil, but i think i disagree a bit on cities becoming more dense - i think video conferencing and remote work put much less impotus on people to congregate like we once did, and yes that likely will mean more strain on the roads, but i also think the electric cars will be more like a spreading out of electric storage and transmission than 100% used for transportation. (Again due to increasing popularity of remote work) having a store of electricity will be posh and help guard with the rolling brownouts due to climate change and terrorism interrupting the grid.

    • chickpeaze@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I’m a card carrying bike nut and plant-based eater, I feel we can make more of a difference encouraging people to do things that are less all in.

      Work commute too far right now? Maybe start replacing the small car trips with bike trips.

      Veganism unthinkable? Maybe try a meatless day or two a week.

      Something people can wrap their heads around, and after trying, realise they haven’t died.

      • phrixious@lemmy.studio
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        While I’m also a card carrying bike but and plant-based eater, I think that in many places the answer is also better public transport. When I lived in a big city, busses, subway stations, trams, etc were always 5-10 minutes away, both walking and waiting for the next one.

        I live in a smaller town now of ~40,000. However, only ~13,000 live in the actual “town”, roughly 20 minutes of walking. The rest of the people live anywhere from 10-60km away. Grocery stores can be anywhere from 10-30km away. Iove biking into work when the weather is nice, but it also snows six months out of the year. Even for a “small trip”, you’re looking at 20km round trip in hilly terrain to the nearest anything that isn’t a neighbor. Busses exist, but out in the countryside they’ll come twice around 6am and then twice around 6pm, and none at all during weekends. So if you’re not working in the middle of the week, you’re SOL unless you’re prepared to spend 12 hours in town.

        It’s also a chicken and egg problem though, everyone has a cat because public transport isn’t great. But public transport isn’t great because there’s no demand, because everyone has a car.

        This issue is definitely not only in my town, 70% of the country is dotted with small towns like this and the same issues. Not everyone is physically capable of biking 20km on a summers day, let alone in -20°C on a half meter of snow, so they have almost no choice but to drive.

        • chickpeaze@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I live in a town of about 20,000. The adjacent regional centre (80k people) is about 35km away. We’re the opposite of snowy, we have highs in the mid 20s here right now in the dead of winter, high 30s to mid 40s with high humidity in summer. I bike commuted to the regional centre for years, but again, I’m aware I’m a bit extreme.

          Agreed better public transport is also important. We’re lucky, our buses run about hourly throughout the day, you are a bit screwed at night.

          • phrixious@lemmy.studio
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The luxury! It’s been a bit of an annoyance for us since we moved out of the town center and into the countryside… If we want to have a night out with drinks involved, either gotta book a taxi or have a nice friend to drive us (or one of us just doesn’t drink, but that sort of defeats the purpose of us going out for drinks together…)

            The culture here is also just more car-centric. If I bike to work, which honestly is downhill almost all the way, all my coworkers look at me like I’m some Olympic athlete. Like cmon, it takes less than 40 minutes, it’s not exactly impressive.

    • dreadedchalupacabra@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      And that is nothing compared to corporate emissions and air travel, but the internet LOVES telling you that how you live your life is wrong for moral reasons or due to some panic.

      I say this as a chef that’s generally vegan friendly. We gotta stop blaming each other when we’re a drop in the bucket compared to big business. They got you attacking other people so they can do what they want with impunity.

      • PJepb@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Totally agree with your sentiment, we wasted so much time putting the pressure on the individual when the real culprit was Industry, there is no argument whatsoever there. That being said, the Agriculture Industry (food production in general) does account for a hearty chunk, about 25%, of all worldwide emissions, and that is without doing calculation for “land lost” costs, i.e. the reduction in forests we took by having agricultural industry there instead, and the emissions those forests could have negated.

        Food is a serious driver of climate change. Meat, but especially beef, is the worse food in terms of the cost we pay in overall emissions. Moreover, half of ALL agricultural land in use is for pasturing animals. Beef being eliminated as a food product would incredibly help climate change and meet emission goals much faster. This video does a great job at summarizing the problem, is a generally reliable channel for informative mini docs, and provides a huge list of sources you can review there.

          • Umbrias@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Willful extinction” is not a productive way to end climate change.

            You won’t convince people, so it’s DOA, but it’s also philosophically weak in the face of alternative views. Alternatives which also theoretically have humans in them and don’t obliterate the environment exist, meaning you are on the back foot here to justify an anthropocentric philosophy.

            “Why do you think people should exist?” Can be an interesting discussion, but as an argument it’s not a great one.

            • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You won’t convince people

              I don’t have to. Birth rates in the developed world are plummeting.

              And unless I’m mistaken, you are the one trying to convince people right now. Edit: I was, in fact, mistaken.

              • Umbrias@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Birth rates are plummeting to maintain what will probably be around 13 billion. That’s wildly distinct from willful extinction.

                I… What? You made a post saying people should do x, I responded. Yeah we’re both trying to convince people of a thing, I’m not sure I see how that is actually relevant.

              • n_emoo@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Birthrates are not plummeting to zero, if thats what youre implying. As people get more educated, they tend to have fewer kids. No one is considering having “fewer” kids because of the childs lifetime GHG emissions

                • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Birth rates are plummeting for a variety of reasons, but that is most certainly one of them. No one in their right mind would willingly bring a child into this world knowing what’s going to happen, and educated people know what’s going to happen.

            • sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You won’t convince people, so it’s DOA

              That pretty much sums up any approach by humans to do something about what’s happening to the planet. Anything anyone throws out is realistically DOA.

        • sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s nothing inherently bad about eating meat. We’ve been doing it for 100s of thousands of years. It’s that there are too many freaking people. I judge people way more when I see them with offspring, then I do their dietary consumption.

      • dreadedchalupacabra@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And that is microscopic compared to levying massive fines on businesses that don’t go carbon neutral and passing global laws to protect the amazon and MESS UP any government that toys with it.

  • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can ride a bike to work or the store around here, but you’ll be walking home. Bikes are way too easy to quietly steal.

    • hex@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bicycle theft is also a problem in the Netherlands, but they still do it. There are also lots of people not in the Netherlands who bike to work and don’t have their bikes stolen.

      That’s not the problem. The problem is car culture.

      In the Netherlands they have functional bike parking, which makes it a lot harder to steal bikes. They also use wheel locks, which are much harder to cut without damaging the bike. There are also sites like bike index that let you track your bike serial number in case it gets stolen. If you use bike index and your bike is stolen there’s actually a pretty good chance it will be returned. Also, if you buy a bike check it on bike index first to see if it’s stolen.

      • dreadedchalupacabra@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh we’re doing the anti-bike thing? Fun! Riding a bike to work for me would take 3 hours. Not everyone fits in the same mold.

        • taco_ballerina@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, certainly. Beyond just talking about bikes most new urbanists are trying to encourage walkable cities and transit oriented development. Walkable cities, which also tend to also be bikable, are cities designed like they were a hundred years ago, where it’s possible and even encouraged for most people in the area to be able to walk between home, work, dining, entertainment, shopping, and recreation.

          Transit oriented development is urban planning that locates the above destinations in proximity to public transit stops. Furthermore public transit is prioritized above car traffic through the use of separate rights of way so that when car traffic backs up the public transit is not delayed.

          When you add more lanes to accommodate more car traffic on a road that gets too many cars, you attract more car traffic until that road is just as congested as it was before. But this induced demand works both ways. If you add more walking and bike infrastructure that’s actually usable and feels safe to get from where you are to where you want to go you’re more likely to walk or take a bike. If taking the bus or train is faster, easier, cheaper, etc than driving a car a lot more people will take that transit.

          https://youtube.com/@strongtowns

  • Che Banana@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Left LA in 2018. went from a 10min bikeride (1.25hr workout) to a 3-5hr commute because “promotion”… now I don’t even have a license, i run my 70 seat restaurant via cargo bike just fine (only meats, beer/wine delivery).

    went from a 2-3hr drive to the beach (++ parking fees) to 5 min bike, 10 min walk to one of several beaches.

    multiple mountain hiking trails within 20 min, bus/train with regular service etc.

    We could not be happier in our little slice of socialist hell…

    • dystop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I live in a tropical country… I would love to cycle to work but (i) roads are a living hell and (ii) it’s hot and humid af and i look like I fell into the ocean after a 20-minute ride.

      (i) is fixable with good infrastructure, (ii) isn’t :(

  • psyonity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    As a Dutchie, I can only agree. I do have to say the road infrastructure in a lot of countries will have to change too to make this feasible… I have been to Edinburgh, Scotland last week and it feels completely suicidal to ride a bike there, barely any bike lanes and a very big dislike towards cyclists.

    If anyone wants to know more about how we do roads in the Netherlands, I totally recommend Not Just Bikes

    I do question how this statement of carbon emissions reduction holds up with the large change towards electric bikes, but electric scales better to green energy then cars I guess.

    • sukotai@beehaw.orgB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      During 40 years, everything has been done for cars. But it’s ridiculous to use a 5 persons transport (car) for only one person. The ecological problem is not only thermal vs electric, it’s also cars versus 2 wheels transport

    • savjee@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      From my experience, the electricity consumption of e-bikes is low. We have a Babboe cargo bike and we drive 5km every day. I measure the electricity consumption of the charger, and it comes down to 0.5-1kWh per month. I assume regular e-bikes have an even lower consumption.

  • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I like this idea in principle, but the annual CO2 emissions for 2018 was about 35 billion tons. This makes the drop barely even impact our total production, let alone be enough to stop global warming.

    It’s still a worthy goal, but we’d be better off focusing on bigger wins, where even a few percent of carbon reductions would dwarf this number (or pushing for both).

    • olbaidiablo @lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This may work in the Netherlands, but in my country (Canada) where it’s a 2 hour drive to the next city, it simply isn’t feasible. I do, however, wish that my city was much more bicycle friendly and we had easier and cheaper options for bikes that could be enclosed from the weather.

        • olbaidiablo @lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think we need electric trains across the whole country and into the arctic and territories. Encourage more eco tourism. We can barely access northern Ontario much less the territories. This would require nuclear power, and as a byproduct, tritium which is needed for next generation fusion reactors. We could become the next Saudi Arabia.

  • MedicPigBabySaver@voxpop.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was in Copenhagen for a layover and left airport to go for lunch and a beer. I HAD to go get a beer. I have beer all over the globe.

    Anywho…as I enjoyed the beer, it was fascinating to watch the bike lanes. Seperated from cars, own light controls…so many people. Cambridge and Boston are making improvements for sure.

  • HisNoodlyServant@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    But that would require a small amount of effort. Seriously though I get some cities aren’t bike friendly (they could be though) but worked in a city that was pretty great for bikes. Small/medium sized manufacturing plant with a bunch of rednecks and almost all of them lived within 5 miles. Of course they were crying like hell when gas skyrocketed and other than me there was 2 people that biked. I think the best part is a good chunk drove gigantic trucks.