This sub is pointless until it can provide a solution to having to get somewhere 30 miles from here when it's 10 below outside for most of the winter.
Dont give me that it's not always 10 below excuse. It is often 10 below or lower for long stretches in the north. Biking is simply not viable or practical.
Look at this example. Looks like it's 80 and sunny with the top down on a convertible and everyone in summer clothes.
Public transport? Or cars. Some people on here may be militant about getting rid of all cars, but most of us aren't that extreme. We simply want to have the option to not use cars, which is currently not the case in many regions of the world.
@Dkarma@theplanlessman public transportation can absolutely work for rural populations. As long as it's designed and built well. But our governments keep robbing us off that possibility. And we keep letting them.
Talking about the problem is literally the only way to further the cause. Change starts with a dialog. We're not going to "get the laws passed and THEN talk about it", that's backwards.
80% of the US lives in metropolitan and micropolitan areas. In small towns, suburbs and cities.
People on this sub aren't saying that we should force Old Macdonald to take the bus from the farm to the feed store. You're never going to get rid of all cars. They have an important niche.
You always have the option to not use a car if weather permits no one is stopping you.
I mean, in a technical sense that's true. Practically, though, people respond to their built environment. There's a reason way more people drive to work in Rome than Barcelona, and it ain't the weather. And there's a reason way more people bike in the winter in Oulu, Finland than Syracuse, NY despite having similar populations and climate.
Most people aren't ideological "drivers" or "pedestrians", they're just people who want to get somewhere and will follow the path of least resistance. Put them in Amsterdam and they'll happily bike to their destination, put them in Houston and they wouldn't.
Dont give me that it's not always 10 below excuse. It is often 10 below or lower for long stretches in the north. Biking is simply not viable or practical.
"It's sometimes cold, therefore you can never bike"
This sub is pointless until it can provide a solution to having to get somewhere 30 miles from here when it's 10 below outside for most of the winter.
-10F or -10C?
-10C really isn't very cold. The average low in Oulu, Finland in February is -12C, and ~10% of all trips there in the winter are via bike because they have an extensive network of well-plowed bike paths.
Biking in -10C is really just a matter of having appropriate gear to block the wind - similar to what you'd wear skiing like a jacket, mittens and a neck gator/ski mask. -10C isn't warm, but people do outdoor winter sports literally all the time in -10C. It's fine.
-10F needs better cold gear, and is probably going to be pretty uncomfortable for most people. You definitely have to worry about preventing frostbite, and I definitely know skiers who would stay inside.
But most places don't really stay -10F. That's like Fargo or Fairbanks cold, not Buffalo or Boston cold. Chicago has only gotten down to -10F in three years in the past decade. Relatively few people live in places that regularly stay -10F.
Although there's a standard solution for 30 mile trips that works in basically all temperatures: a bus or train. Which isn't really practical in American style suburban sprawl, but is very practical in denser walkable European towns and cities.
If we assume there isn't another solution to that, why does it matter? Why does your need for a car for your specific use negate any use of alternatives anywhere? We can still advocate for better transportation and land use in cities, even if the proposed solution doesn't work for your journey between Plunkett and Blucher.