Pants-of-dog wrote:Why do you dismiss people's motives for riding a bicycle as "making a silly statement"? Since you cannot actually know what their motives are, it seems like it would be impossible for you to characterise them properly.
What snobbery. Your motive is to show that personal transportation in inclement weather is possible without an SUV or even an automobile as all. Additionally, there is probably a subconscious motive to demonstrate silly environmentalist virtue, given that you're a progressive.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think it is good to be exposed to the elements, to exert yourslef, and to move slowly in areas with lots of people. As for how much I can carry, I have taken two kids to school on my bike, at the same time that I carried everything I needed for my work day.
Congrats, now try carrying a week's worth a groceries, furniture, appliances, or more than two passengers on your bicycle. Or, for that matter, try going a distance that exceeds 50 miles--routinely and quickly. You know it isn't possible, so stop with this pedantic splitting of hairs. A bicycle is less convenient than an automobile, which is why more people drive than bike.
I agree with your other points. Exposure to the elements has a hormetic affect, and the constant climate control people have these days has a negative effect on their health, immune system, and vigor. The benefits of exertion speak for themselves. However, sometimes speed and comfort are more important. After a long day of work, especially if the work is physical, a lot of people don't want to immediately exert themselves, especially in the cold.
I sometimes dream of a Spartan society in which the measure of a man is the pain he can endure, but that's not a realistic option that people are going to accept. People like the bourgeois, middle-class virtues of ease and comfort.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then the urban centre you live in is atypical in its lack of community services. Where do you live?
The vast majority of urban communites have services for everyone, even dumb kids.
Chicago, not a city known for its lack of services. I live in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, which has a high concentration of affluent white people so there is a demand for "cultural" services. The museum campuses and art galleries (barring a commercial one that sells garbage abstract "art") simply aren't within walking distance.
Pants-of-dog wrote:To deal with noise, smells, pollution, and driving difficulty, many urban centres are enacting bans and regulations on private automobiles, such as Paris. Many cities are also creating car free spaces, increasing the amount of open space available to urban dwellers.
A lot of the noise, smells, and pollution is simply a factor of density. You live closer to other people and other activities, so noise is more concentrated. There are two construction sites within 50 yards of my apartment. For that matter, I also hear people walking in the stairwell in my apartment building, something which obviously wasn't an issue in the suburbs. Effectively dealing with this would require extensive investment in sound dampening materials, increased cleaning maintenance, and a drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels (something that can be served by regulating motor vehicle traffic). I don't really see any of this happening.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Your complaint about proximity to lower social classes will get the attention it deserves.
Get off your high horse. Your progressive denial of the realities of lower social classes doesn't remove the problem for the rest of us who aren't religious fanatics with a blank slate view of human nature and a noble savage view of the underclasses. They're noisy, rude, fat, ugly, loud, and criminally inclined. No one wants to live in proximity to them.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, more people means more crime, but I doubt that the crime rate per capita is higher in urban centres than in suburban ones once you correct for socioeconomic factors.
Irrelevant. Because cities have public transit, services within walking distance, and tend to have more welfare services they attract more of those lower "socioeconomic factors", so you are always in greater proximity to populations with inclinations to criminal behavior. I live in the safest police beat in the city of Chicago and despite that property crime is much more prevalent here than in typical suburban communities, most of which feature lower median "socioeconomic factors" than this neighborhood.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then all these suburban people with their TV sets who complain at advertising directed at children should be more like the weirdos.
This is an unreasonable demand to make of people. The vast majority of people have televisions and use them, including
people who live in urban centers. Most parents would like a helping hand from government here, not arrogant suggestions on how they should live their lives.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes. Pros and cons. Public tranportation will never be as convenient as private tranportation, but it does utilise resources most effectively. A bicycle has the convenience of private tranportation, but it has drawbacks in terms of maximum speed, range, and carrying capacity. Each tranportation option has advantages and drawbacks and users will choose their option based on their needs.Now
Any viable plan for improving urban congestion and polution must therefore have several options for any user. I would live to ban all automobiles from city centres, but I also realise that city centres need stuff delivered, and some of it must be frozen. Venice has done it, but Venice has canals.
we get to something that I agree with you completely on.
Everything you believe is wrong. Yes, you!Boom. You just got Dave'd.