Too hot, or too cold, or too rainy. The Western European cities that are oftentimes given as positive examples (I’m thinking about Copenhagen and Amsterdam most) happen to be located in a temperate climate where it is almost never too cold, nor too hot, nor do you get pouring rain all that often.
Those are just two cities in two countries but you're ignoring Spain (Barcelona, Seville), France (Paris, Lyon), England (London), Italy where there are pretty extensive plans in cities like Milan, Germany which would be perfectly fine for cycling, ditto for the Nordics, and people also cycle a lot in Finland despite the cold. Also cities in NA like Montreal which are dramatically expanding their cycling network and already have fairly good ridership on the protected routes.
Yes, in places like Montreal they face a lot of opposition from car owners who literally seem to ignore that the only reason you can drive in heavy snow is because the snow gets cleared by pretty major logistics networks.
I've rarely been to a city that couldn't be a good cycling city at least for huge parts of the year, even if not a complete solution - does anyone who is pro-bicycle argue against extensive and effective public transport?
> and people also cycle a lot in Finland despite the cold
Yeah and how much is this exactly? Even with perfect cycling infrastructure it's something like 12% of trips. Go to finland or sweden in the middle of the winter, observe the bike lanes and see for yourself how much they are used. Hint, they are largely empty, which comes as no surprise considering how obviously impractical and uncomfortable it is. And they cost a ton of money in maintenance.
A lot less than the roads for automobiles, and I regularly use the bike lanes in Sweden during all seasons and have no issues with that despite being originally from a warm country.
What a weird rant to come after bike lanes because "they are expensive and just virtue signalling", jesus.
It doesn't matter if you regularly do it, most people do not. We live in a democracy and we should not spend tax money and public space to accommodate for a small minority of enthusiasts who like to be inefficient, despite our whole society motivating us to do the opposite.
Bike lanes are like gym memberships, people like the idea and buy into it, but in reality they are too lazy, and don't have the time to actually do it. And it just ends up being a waste of money on duplicated infrastructure, because you still need to cover 100% of the capacity in public transport for the rainy days.
> Bike lanes are like gym memberships, people like the idea and buy into it, but in reality they are too lazy, and don't have the time to actually do it. And it just ends up being a waste of money on duplicated infrastructure, because you still need to cover 100% of the capacity in public transport for the rainy days.
This was me before an ebike. I now use it absolutely every day, when the weather allows.
None of this is fact, and it's funny you think it's the people who are pro-bicycle who are in fact the lazy ones, not the people who choose to drive literally everywhere.
Or too windy. And more importantly, it's too slow and have limited range. Bonus point for also being the most boring mode of transportation since you can't talk to your friends or use your phone.
You want to spend more time being stuck in traffic? Ok then cycling is a great choice.
> The Western European cities that are oftentimes given as positive examples (I’m thinking about Copenhagen and Amsterdam most)
Cycling in these cities are probably related to tourism more than anything else. When you have time and you are flexible, sure cycling works well. If you are pressed for time and you need to be places regardless of weather, not so great.
I'm from a northern european country, have cycled in all weathers, winter etc, and I think it's one of the most pointless wastes of tax money and inducing unnecessary hardships on people with problems that are already solved much better. All for virtue signalling.
> you can't talk to your friends or use your phone
You've obviously never casually biked. In NL you very frequently see teens riding with 3 people next to each other talking, and while you're not allowed to hold phones anymore, you can easily do hands-free phone calls if you wanted. A lot of people have earpods for music or podcasts in.
If you think it isn't rainy in those locations... Amsterdam gets about 35 inches of rain a year vs 25 inches in London - plenty damp enough. Don't forget the canals often freeze up yearly or so in Amsterdam too, so it can be pretty cold there, and due to wet air feel pretty vile - but people still cycle as it is easy, fast and cheap.
No, it doesn't get rainy, rainy, you don't get half of the city flooded in just 30 or so minutes [1], most of the times it's just a drizzle that's manageable with a decent raincoat.
That's a strawman. Intense weather like a flooded city that would stop a car would of course stop a bike, but you're either stuck at home or stuck outside regardless of what you do. The only relevant weather is common weather you would have no issue with in a car (or would not allow you to do remote work that day).
It should also be noted that many Europeans have cars but bike in medium to good weather. I take the car in hail or snow for example, but bike as much as a car otherwise as I physically and mentally feel better after biking, I reduce pollution and I save money. Wins all around.
Raincoats work when you are walking, and the rain comes from above, but not when you are cycling, because the rain comes from the sides, and below.
It's really complicated to cycle in the rain, especially in cold winter rain. You have to have specialised clothing that will both keep you warm, and be waterproof. Special gloves, insulated rubber boots? And you still get sweaty underneath at the same time.
How do you cover your helmet? Your face? Have fun taking a shower in freezing water three times a week for 6 months of the year, ice bucket challenge on the way to work. I hope you don't mind those extra sick days.
It's not that complicated, you need a rain jacket, waterproof pants and you are already 90% there. If you want to be more comfortable if you are biking longer than 30-45 minutes in bitter cold before freezing (5C or less) it can be sensible to have insulated shoes but it's not a requirement at all, I usually don't wear any weatherproof shoes during spring/fall in Stockholm, rainy and windy around 5C or less and experienced no issues having a change of socks + shoes after a 45-60 minutes commute on a bike.
It's really not an issue if you just get used to it, every time I read similar comments to this I can only think of a picky child complaining about relatively minor issues, and mostly they are imagined ones by people who never really had to/tried to bike during these conditions...
It is an issue to have your hands, feet, head and face soaked in freezing water for 45 minutes.
> experienced no issues having a change of socks + shoes
Oh so now you have to carry extra shoes and socks all the time, "no problem" lol. You can just go into the subway and all of these issues disappear, and you will get to your destination faster, so cycling is bad in comparison.
It doesn't matter if you can find some person who likes it, the vast majority of people will optimise for practicality and efficiency, because that's what our society revolves around.
Building bike lanes is the easy part, the hard part is coming up with the extra time and patience for people to put up with a longer and more uncomfortable commute.
> Oh so now you have to carry extra shoes and socks all the time, "no problem" lol. You can just go into the subway and all of these issues disappear, and you will get to your destination faster, so cycling is bad in comparison.
I already have a backpack when biking, a change of shoes and socks is a non-issue, I don't know why this would be a problem for you but yes, if you are looking for "maximum convenience" instead of a balance of trade-offs.
Again, it's not faster for me to take the subway, the subway doesn't have infinite capacity, crowding during rush hour is a thing. There are issues with any mode of transportation, fighting against bikes and biking infrastructure is definitely the strangest position I have seen someone take.
I don't understand if you are just a contrarian or if you really believe that investment in biking infrastructure is an issue for transportation in dense cities... If so the only argument I read boils down to "it's not super convenient and hence is bad and no one does it". I don't see reality in that argument.
Yup, you want and can optimise for practicality, biking infrastructure is definitely not holding that up. Now trying to argue that biking is "bad" is way out, biking is bad for your constraints, I know tons of people who bike everyday in northern Europe and have no issues with it.
Not sure exactly what your point is... We shouldn't invest in biking infrastructure? Because... It's "bad" for your convenience constraints?
Biking is not convenient/practical enough therefore not enough people will do it to justify large investment. This is why billions for a subway station make sense while parking spots and bike lanes would be way better utilized as restaurant patios in dense cities.
Most dutch people own a raincoat and -pants for biking, you put it over your clothes and remain dry. They cost maybe €30. No-one wears a helmet, nor do you need to.
