this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
1458 points (97.5% liked)

Greentext

5777 readers
1956 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
1458
Murica (lemmy.ml)
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by LifeLemons@lemmy.ml to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
 

Anons argue in comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 14 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

I dare you to travel on your own bicycle in the depths of winter across the USA in the same timeframe as a car.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 59 points 3 weeks ago (30 children)

Traveling across the entirety of the US by car in the middle of winter sounds fucking miserable. That's what trains are for.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

If you happen to enjoy that kind of thing and aren't on a tight timeline it is fun as hell. Like a mechanical version of hiking.

Like hiking, most people don't enjoy it or aren't really up to the challenge.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Like a mechanical version of hiking

I can't wait to describe driving this way to a friend so that we can both share in the laughter I'm enjoying right now.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Seriously though, with the right kind of terrain and conditions driving is a real challenge. If you have never driven off road through fields in wet, snowy conditions where stopping is likely to mean being unable to start going again and needing to guage how fast to approach a slope to maintain momentum it might sound silly.

Anyone who has never driven on an unpaved road might find it funny. Like how anyone who has only ridden a bike on paved roads might not understand the fun of going mountain biking off a defined path might find that funny.

Offroading on a motorcycle is more fun than a four wheel car most of the time, but all of things can be fun.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Eh, I did that for a couple years in Utah and it was largely fine. When the snow got nasty, I took the bus.

That was back when my commute was 10 miles (16km) with a segregated bike path the whole way. My new commute is more than double that, so I drive. But if we weren't so car centric, things would be more compact and I wouldn't have this nasty commute.

[–] Sergio@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

we weren’t so car centric, things would be more compact and I wouldn’t have this nasty commute.

Hi, a different commenter here. I love public transportation (time to sit and read! meet interesting people!) and dislike cars, but realistically we often have other considerations that city design alone wouldn't solve.

  • My most recent commute was 65 miles through a rural area -- I had to live in town A to support a family member and my job was in town B.
  • Before that I was in an urban area, but had to live near the hospital area for my BFF's sake, and my job was out in the suburbs 18 miles away. No bike lanes, and public transportation took 2-3 hours one way. (and this was in a city with relatively good public transportation.)

Now I WFH so that's cool. But the experience made me realize how complex is the problem of transportation and urban design. I mean, I agree with the fact that bikes are awesome and we need better public transportation in the US, though.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, I appreciate that it's complex, but in the US we prioritize cars instead of people.

A properly designed system will account for lots of transportation options. This means:

  • force cars to go around city centers - prevents gridlock in downtown, and improves transit and walkability/cyclability downtown; enforce with car-free zones
  • buses and bike paths to connect the different parts of the city
  • trains to connect cities
  • highways and roads connecting smaller towns

If you go to smaller towns, a car is your best bet. If you're going downtown, a train should be more efficient, and a car should be workable. If you live in or near a city, a bike should be sufficient.

We used to have one car because I could bike to work, but now we need too, and only because of the 2 days I commute to the office. And the worst part is that there's a train line near my house that I could totally take to work if they actually built the line they've been talking about for decades. But instead of building that line (connects to a larger system, including a stop at a major sports stadium), we expanded a highway (didn't fix traffic) and we're building a new highway (might help somewhat). Most of those cars are traveling along the proposed train route (it runs parallel to the highway), yet the highway gets priority.

I propose we rethink transit in terms of moving people instead of cars.

[–] Sergio@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah agreed it's an interesting problem bc it has so many components... unfortunately when we try to get one part of it implemented, people say: it's not going to solve the whole problem so why bother. I'm still learning about it and so are most people. But I think even the most truck-loving person has an older relative who can't drive any more, or maybe they themselves can't drive bc of a DUI or something, so there's always an opening for learning more.

Yup. Fortunately there are professions for solving these types of problems, so we need to stop demanding specific solutions and let them do their job.

It turns out adding more lanes often makes things worse, and the better solution is to replace cars with higher density transit, so your truck loving friend will likely be better off if we invest in transit instead of highways. I want to take transit to work instead of adding to traffic, but that currently takes 4x as long as driving (2-ish hours each way). You should absolutely be able to drive if you want, and the more practical other modes of transportation are, the less cars will be on the road since a lot of people would rather ride than drive.

[–] sudneo@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I am curious, how much time did it take to make those 18miles (28km?) by car? I have just checked in my city, that has really nice public transportation (Tallinn), and to cross essentially the whole city (~20km, a route that nobody does, so probably not very well connected) on Monday at 9am it takes 59m by public transport (2 buses) and 40m by car (it takes 30m generally, but traffic). 2-3h or 2/3 times that to do 50% more distance looks like public transportation is not that good, did you mean "good for US standards"?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

But demonstrate the incontrovertible need for a car during one's regular commute through an average modern city. And I'm even offering the main exception - busses and taxis/ride sharing/whatever the current nomenclature, as I consider public transportation to be its own independent thing, unrelated to Cars.

I think the people who would enjoy such a venture via bike have or are already doing it, the rest of us would just like to be able to ride the bike through the city without having to play Frogger with three lanes filled with enraged lumps of cortisol *wrapped in two tons of steel and various other such substances.

Edit: added * to further drive home the viscerality of my desire.

[–] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I live in a city of 60,000 people in Colorado. The closest train station is 15 minutes away, by car. There is a bus that will take me to the train station, but it's an hour to walk to the closest one and the bus comes once an hour, 6 am to 7 pm, M-F. I can't afford to spend 4 hours on a quick trip to the grocery store and never leave my house on the weekends.

There are bike lanes on the main roads (4-6 lanes 50+ mph traffic). More than half the vehicles around here are massive jacked up trucks and SUVs. I have a bike, but do not have a death wish. It regularly snows, making bike riding a no-go for most of 4 months of the year.

I am very much in favor of reducing car traffic. But it's not feasible for so many people with the way cities are designed and the lack of public transport.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean, that isnt really an argument against public transit and bike infrastructure, its just an argument that the way to do it isnt to just tell people to stop driving and expect it to happen, one has to redesign cities to make these options feel like the safe and natural choice.

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

This was my thought as well, goes to show we need better long-range public transportation!

And bikes should be used for more granular destination points, once the bulk is covered via whatever works best as public transport in a given area.

Edit: bikes could also serve as a good first step toward a more rational approach toward public goods, as we could just stack public bikes at each node to be grabbed for free. It's self-limiting, it presents minimal waste as once you have one you don't really need a second, and it'd remove any entry barrier there may be to biking. Other than learning how to ride, of course. And this would be in addition to dedicated carry spaces for bikes on public transport - s'why I love the subway.

And I'm done hallucinating, I apologise.

[–] Krik@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

we need better long-range public transportation!

That's what trains are for.

What you actually need is a different city design. Office and housing need to be within 2-3 miles not 20-30, then bikes, buses and stuff become reasonable alternative modes of transportation. Even buying groceries could be done without a car.

But the US of A chose to move housing out of the cities into suburbs dozens of miles away. As long as you don't change that you'll stay car-dependent. It's just too far.

It will also help to build more apartments that are cheap to rent. That increased concentration of people will make it possible for small local markets, restaurants, etc. to survive. Cost of living should also go down a bit because you'll reach more people with less infrastructure. That'll also increase tax revenue for the city. It's win-win for everyone.

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Fair enough, I'm all for trains! And I agree, they really do have the most potential out of pretty much everything else (to be fair, they each excel at different things) in terms of people over distance.

And I get what you mean about the structures, starting to see the same tendencies over here as well. Add to that the fact that our average is about 0.6 cars per person and growing (mostly concentrated in cities, of course), or something like that, plus an outdated infrastructure which is basically frozen due to being surrounded by historical buildings (and god forbid we do anything with those, ours is to wait and watch them slowly crumble!), and you have traffic jams in even the smaller cities and towns. It's fucking horrid, is what it is...

Plus every new neighborhood which is added around the city is either a new residential area filled with tumor-like arrangements of apartment buildings with, of course, insufficient infrastructure to support said 0.6 cars per capita, so the possibility of extending a public transport line of any sort to that area is basically nulliffied from the start, or a useless shrine to Corporate Capitalism in the shape of a business center with a couple of gaudy office buildings and a whole swath of land tarped over with concrete and "modernised." While maintaining the old two-lane streets. The main bus line for the residential area in which I lived in my old city used to run along the industrial traffic lanes - you'd frequently see lines of fully loaded semi trucks waiting for the bus to finish transfering passengers. Because they had nowhere else to put it, they just sold the area to developers without a second thought given to how they'd actually connect the area to the rest of the city.

And to get back to the trains, we actually have a decently extensive railway network, but all it's seen for the past few decades has been basic maintenance, and our trains are the same. I mean, most of our engines are from the Communist era and most of our train cars are hand-me-downs from Germany - and they're really nice train cars, honestly, the sleeping cars have wood paneling, in-cabin grooming sink, and actual mattresses, they're a splendid bit of engineering - and they start looking like hammered shit maybe half a year after being introduced. I had to make 12 900km trips by train throughout the country last year and I'd say I ended up with an immune response after at least eight or nine of them, felt flu-y for a couple of days. And, yeah, this is also a major problem with the education and level of wealth around here, but they really don't bother actually trying to maintain a semblance of cleanliness.

So of course everyone buys one and a half cars and lugs that hunk of metal all around the place.

[–] Sergio@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 weeks ago

But the US of A chose to move housing out of the cities into suburbs dozens of miles away. As long as you don’t change that you’ll stay car-dependent. It’s just too far.

Agreed, that right there is the problem. But it wasn't just a one-time choice it's an ongoing decision: (A) inexpensive large house in the suburbs/rural area or (B) more expensive small apartment in the city. Personally I choose B but I have relatives who live in rural areas (large houses, huge yards, 1 car per person) who think I'm crazy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frank@sopuli.xyz 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The reason you can't is much more about infrastructure than weather, especially within cities

Source: I live in Scandinavia and everyone bikes even when it's cold

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Just out of curiosity, do you have snow tires for bikes or are the paths cleared well enough not to worry about it?

Where I live we often get mixes of sleet and ice along with the snow and since it is sporadic throughout winter we do a pretty mediocre job of funding the removal. If we didn't have so many wide roads it probably wouldn't take as much effort.

[–] htrayl@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Here not just bikes talks about winter cycling in Olou, Finland. The answer is yes, the city needs to manage the lanes during winter instead of letting it be acceptable to push snow in bike lanes or leave them uncleared. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU

[–] frank@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 weeks ago

This was exactly what I was going to link.

Certainly in my city bike lanes and sidewalks are cleared and salted before main roads. Though we just had the warmest January on record so a lot less snow to think about 😬

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago

I run studded tyres during winter, but the city also uses a clearing technique where they first clear off all of the snow from the bike lanes and then salt them to prevent ice. This kind of wreaks havoc on your components through corrosion, but leaves the lanes highly usable throughout winter.

I use the studded tyres as an insurance policy against any poorly cleared spots. They are usually pretty good about it, but sometimes the weather will just be bad.

I've been told that fat bikes do better on full snow, but I've never ridden one myself so I can't confirm it.

[–] zerosignal@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Even in the US, there are places that are bike friendly in the winter. Minnesota has a big winter biking culture, both for commuting and for recreation.

[–] MichaelScotch@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

That’s impossible and no one is implying that bikes should replace other modes of transport for interstate travel. However, I bike commute in winter in Wisconsin and it takes less time than riding the bus. Driving a car is faster than my bike commute, but only marginally so.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Checkmate liberals-tier comment. Why did you even post this?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I dare you to cross the Atlantic in a car.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

One thing people don't seem to grasp in many different situations is the vastness of the US. Most states are bigger than a lot of countries. You can fit several European countries into some of the biggest US states.

[–] frank@sopuli.xyz 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

True, but when I lived in the US the majority of my trips weren't cross-state, but 1-10 miles which can totally be cycled if the infrastructure was there.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

I dare you to travel on your own car in the depths of winter across the USA in the same timeframe as a airplane.