this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
483 points (94.6% liked)

Bicycles

3143 readers
30 users here now

Welcome to !bicycles@lemmy.ca

A place to share our love of all things with two wheels and pedals. This is an inclusive, non-judgemental community. All types of cyclists are accepted here; whether you're a commuter, a roadie, a MTB enthusiast, a fixie freak, a crusty xbiking hoarder, in the middle of an epic across-the-world bicycle tour, or any other type of cyclist!


Community Rules


Other cycling-related communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Globally, only one in 50 new cars were fully electric in 2020, and one in 14 in the UK. Sounds impressive, but even if all new cars were electric now, it would still take 15-20 years to replace the world’s fossil fuel car fleet.

The emission savings from replacing all those internal combustion engines with zero-carbon alternatives will not feed in fast enough to make the necessary difference in the time we can spare: the next five years. Tackling the climate and air pollution crises requires curbing all motorised transport, particularly private cars, as quickly as possible. Focusing solely on electric vehicles is slowing down the race to zero emissions.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] capital@lemmy.world 66 points 11 months ago (10 children)

I don’t doubt this at all.

But it’s going to be 10 degreees Fahrenheit on my way to work tomorrow.

Public transit that doesn’t double my commute time is what’s going to get me to stop driving. Not a bike.

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 42 points 11 months ago (24 children)
[–] underscore_@sopuli.xyz 14 points 11 months ago

Tampere has improved a lot in the last few years in terms of cycling infrastructure, I now commute by bike all year round, even when it was under -23°C for two weeks at the beginning of this year.

There could definitely be more improvements as segregated bike lane coverage can sometimes be a bit patchy still.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm surprised NJB didn't bring up the point of slush that much, but studded tires might help solve that problem, and this issue is tied up in poor winter maintenance of bike paths. The scariest part for biking in places like Toronto is the potential to slide out into vehicle traffic.

The other day I was going over snow dumps up to my knees like taking a BMX track in a commuter bike...

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 11 months ago

slush is a problem of bad snow clearing, if you don't have snow on the bike paths then there will be no slush come warmer weather.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I watched the video and it had a huuuge hole in its argument.

It basically said one of the key issues is snow removal, then conveniently doesn’t mention how Canada gets more 4X the amount of snow than the Netherlands… Canada doesn’t remove snow as often cause there is more of it…

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I live in Montréal. Commute by bike daily. And the city removes snow just fine. Even from bike lanes.

I had a similar experience in Toronto for the years I lived there. But Montréal is better at clearing bike paths.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Devorlon@lemmy.zip 5 points 11 months ago (5 children)

The video is about how people in Finland still cycle.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 28 points 11 months ago
[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's not strictly speaking impossible to bike in below-freezing temperatures, although I'll concede that it's definitely not as fun as it is in spring/summer/autumn-conditions. It requires winter tyres and dressing approximately the same as for comparable winter sports, with more emphasis on warmer dressing for the extremeties. Hands in particular are very exposed when riding in winter, doubling up the gloves is a wise choice.

Note that winter biking doesn't have to replace every trip to be useful - I don't commute by bike in the current conditions, as transit is just a much better alternative during this season. I still use my bike to go shopping and for some other trips, further supporting the possibility of not having to own a car.

[–] Ibex0@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ice, salt, snowbanks narrowing the road surface. I haven't seen a bicycle in months and I understand why.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] QuaffPotions@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago (2 children)

As an avid bicyclist who tried their best to live car-free: it's easier said than done for anyone living in the US. I used to make 7 mile commutes to work, even in winters that could go below zero some days. It's doable, but it wasn't easy either. I completely sympathize with anyone who wouldn't want to bike in those conditions, even if a whole bunch of people do so in places like Finland.

But the worst part is the infrastructure. Motor vehicles dominate everywhere. Motorists are routinely hostile to bicyclists. Despite my best efforts to be safe, I've had multiple close calls and was once nearly rear-ended by someone who was going about 50 mph. Technically I did get hit - I had veered to the right just in time to feel the side of their car brush on the side of me. Miraculously suffered no injury, and only one of the support bars on the rear rack had been dented in.

Point is, unless the infrastructure changes, I would never expect others to switch to biking. It is dangerous.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Exactly, we should be pouring money into infrastructure, not electric car subsidies. Make cars less important and emissions will go down.

[–] Chriswild@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

The only public infrastructure the US will fund is to prop up the military industrial complex and the car industry.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 8 points 11 months ago

I love downhill mountain biking. There is no way I'd ever be biking in the road with cars. It's too damn dangerous. If you crash mountain biking, you are usually wearing armor and the crash is usually at less than 25mph and into dirt and bushes. Not quite the same in heavy traffic with people not paying attention :p

Big fan of rail networks though, and our city is taking steps to improve heavy and lighter rail options, even if it's not exactly perfect yet.

I'd love to see even more rail options in a euro-style circular rail network with multiple concentric rings, more pedestrian/bike/bus only roads, and a greater emphasis on public infrastructure investment (fun stuff like pools, parks, and stuff to get people moving).

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 27 points 11 months ago (3 children)

This is a very simplistic solution to a really complicated question. I say this as a cyclist myself.

Cycling is great for short commuter trips. But it doesn't replace long trips at all, not practically anyway.

Cycling, while great for your health, consumes extra calories that you wouldn't otherwise have to expend. That extra food has its own carbon footprint. Depending on your diet and where it comes from, that extra carbon footprint can actually be quite significant.

Cycling reduces congestion. No argument there.

Even if you cycle, you are probably cycling to local stores that have their merchandise driven in on big trucks. It's still probably more efficient this way, but far from net zero. Remember that the environment you live in is still mostly powered by gas guzzling equipment. That equipment will need to be electrified.

And that's my point. Cycling is not a one size fits all solution. It is one piece of a much bigger puzzle.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Cycling is great for short commuter trips. But it doesn’t replace long trips at all, not practically anyway.

Depends on what "long trip" means. 20km? 50km? 500km?

Sure, a bike isn't ideal for "long trips", but it's easily integrated into other forms of public transportation, which is also better for society than having more EVs.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 10 points 11 months ago

Sure, a bike isn’t ideal for “long trips”, but it’s easily integrated into other forms of public transportation, which is also better for society than having more EVs.

You nailed it. I'm mostly WFH, but twice a week, I have to go into the office which is ~110km away. Fortunately, there's a train between the two cities and the station is 750m from the office, so it's a nice 10min walk. My home, on the other hand, is 3.5km from the station and that walk takes 45min even if I'm booking it. On a bike, it's a reasonable 12min ride.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Trains cycling and walking can do by far a huge amount of transport needs. Just look at Japan.

No one is saying it will fix 100% of all issues, they are just saying its such a huge part of it even if you took half the funding of cars and put it to bikes it would solve so so much.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago

Exactly. And if people cycle more regularly, cities will adjust infrastructure to accommodate them. And that includes more than just cycling infrastructure, but trains, buses, etc.

Ideally, we push to get that infrastructure done now to help build that positive feedback loop.

[–] lemann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago

Honestly this, 100%.

My bike can easily get me to & around the nearby city, no problem at all. Bulky shopping? Not an issue, I have pannier bags.

Long distance trips though? Absolutely no chance. They require some planning and pre booking bike spaces on the long distance train, mainly because our public transport has been turning into a mess. It's been on a steady decline with prices on the increase, and its not really an attractive option anymore.

I won't be giving up my bicycle, but I have eaten the forbidden fruit and started learning how to drive, since it's the only alternative to bridge the ~200mi journey between here and the people I care about. I dislike it a lot, and it's actually quite stressful being behind the wheel, compared to just relaxing on a bus or train. Even riding on my bicycle is much less stressful.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 26 points 11 months ago (1 children)

... even if you swap the car for a bike for just one trip a day.

That's the real takeaway that I hope everyone can acknowledge.

Outside of long distance (50km+ each way) commuting, the majority of single-occupancy car trips tends to be super short distances (something like <5km).

Replacing those short trips can be fun, easy, quick, and could have a massive positive impact on society. We just need more people doing it. 👍

[–] governorkeagan@lemdro.id 8 points 11 months ago

Totally agree with you! We’ve got the small digital sing posts in high cycle commuting areas that show a count of how many people have cycled passed that within a given time, I love riding past it and seeing the number go further up

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago (3 children)

We observed around 4,000 people living in London, Antwerp, Barcelona, Vienna, Orebro, Rome and Zurich.

There's the problem. These articles always come off sounding tone deaf to me, because they refuse to acknowledge the existence of people that don't live in big cities. There are a fuck load of people that don't live within a 15 minute drive of a grocery store. People that have multiple kids that go to school and have after school activities 10+ miles from their house. People that live more than 25 miles away from where they work.

I realize the authors might have good intentions, but when I hear articles that basically say "your EV isn't good enough, you need to ride a bike" I can't help but think "oooooh fuck off." Not everyone lives in a city. Not everyone wants to live in a city. An EV is the best option I have, so quit giving me shit for it.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Big cities have highes amount of cars per population. At least in my country.

more than 25 miles away from where they work.

I think you see the problem.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah big cities have become unaffordable, especially when it comes to raising a family. The idea of paying twice my current mortgage payment for something a quarter of the size just doesn't appeal to me.

[–] EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 11 months ago

people live in cities though, here in sweden 82% of the population lives in an urban area, and HALF our population lives in the 3 major cities. Complaining about ignoring rural people is absolutely pointless as it's hugely more likely that anyone reading the articles is living within moped distance of their job.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

Sure, but EVs are solving the wrong problem.

I live in a similar situation as you, about 25 miles from work, 3-4 miles to my kids school along busy roads, and about a mile to the nearest grocery store (not bad). For me, cycling makes little sense (I do it though from time to time) because there are no cycle paths where I need to go, they only go to recreational places.

People driving EVs doesn't solve the actual problem, which is cities designed around cars instead of pedestrians. What we need isn't more efficient cars, but more efficient ways to get around.

Think about where you live. Imagine a train connecting your city center to downtown, and cycle paths feeding into the train network. Replace some of the through roads with bus and pedestrian/cyclist-only traffic, and force cars to go around your city (i.e. no through roads). That way, you'd have two options to get to work/school/etc, on a bike/bus/train, or going the long way in your car. If the direct route (train) is competitive with the car, you'd probably take that option instead.

Getting people to ride bikes more isn't the end goal here, the goal is to show cities, counties, and states that there is demand for better transit, and that a shift away from cars is possible and even wanted. That's the goal here, not to use bicycles as the solution by itself and vilify cars. Cars will have their place, but that place should be at the outside of cities on longer trips (e.g. that 25+ mile commute, road trips, etc), not on grocery runs or whatever. If we remove a lot of the roads, we'll have space for stores closer to where people live. That's the goal.

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

I'm going to call bullshit, the biggest sources of emissions for logistics and transport aren't consumers. It's industry use, including airlines and sea freight.

Even if you don't include sea freight, then passenger cars are still only 45% of total transport emissions.

The title is even very clearly worded as an opinion, with it being "important" being intentionally subjective language. Get some bicycles and shit, support cyclist infrastructure, but also definitely support electric rail, planes, and freight.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] BustinJiber@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But what if I fart a lot during

[–] momoitin@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago

I specifically go bike riding to work out the farts, only problematic for those you leave in your dust (or fart)

[–] mydude@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

For context: The environmental impact of PRIVATE JET travel can be over 1000 times more than other travel modes. Aviation produces just under one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually, accounting for 2.5% of global CO2 pollution.

load more comments
view more: next ›