distortionwarrior t1_jb6arqe wrote

What you're saying is that you want people to completely blow up their lives and cities so they can take up your hobby of bike riding, whether it works for them or not. As with all conversations like this, I say you can do whatever you want up to the point that your freedoms do not take away other people's freedoms. You can be a gun owner, you can be a bike owner, you can be a presbyterian, you can be a vegan, but don't force any of that on anyone else. You are free to ride your bike and set up your life in any way you like, but where I live, it doesn't work for me or my city, and the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. Childcare is horribly expensive and waiting lines are months or years long, jobs are far away, housing in the city is small and horribly expensive, and the government should not be in the business of taking away thousands of our very limited parking spots so some people can have the privilege of riding their bike on the main road instead of one block in either parallel direction.


distortionwarrior t1_jb5711t wrote

This just encourages cost escalation and pushes the nuclear family further and further from mainstream. Nuclear family is absolutely essential for the responsible growth and sustainment of a superpower country, and forcing bicycle use is telling people they really can't have a family, or they can't work where the good jobs are, or they can't live where they can have a family because there isn't enough bedrooms or house space, and no one with a baby wants to commute hours to the daycare in a bicycle then to work. There literally isn't enough time for a busy family to fart around with making bicycles a viable primary transportation source while still being forced to have two incomes and keeping all the family tasks done. In the unique pockets where you can walk to many places, like New York, very expensive to live. Can't reasonably buy property. Bicycles are really not a viable option for most people.