Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

For someone who wants a more bicycle like experience, it's better to set expectations beginning at $3k-4k.

And as far as "longer range than a bike" that's more than likely untrue. The largest batteries, best motors, and most efficient mode might make it to 100 miles on a charge, but more realistic on more common models is 30-40 miles in a middle power mode. A 40 mile limit is less than you can acomplish on a non electric bike.

There's a level of risk associated with the activity, there's no denying that. Risk mitigation factors can be applied to reduce the risk to a palatable level for a lot of people. Snow tyres, riding slowly, using lights in low light etc.

The opportunity is to convince more people that cycling is a legitimate option for a large group of people. Infrastructure investment instills confidence and further education for both cyclists and drivers help to manage that risk.

Whilst cycling in the snow might not be your cup of tea, there's a cohort of people who could consider it as a net positive to get from A to B, exercise and put less wear into the road. And we need to support those people.

Ah. interesting. I generally agree and fully support this method of urban planning, but the results here haven't resulted in more cycling.

What you describe is exactly how my suburb is set up. There are several clusters of mixed housing (single family, town houses, apartments) built around a few retail centers (and the retail centers usually have housing built on top of them). There is also both light rail and regular rail for transportation from the retail centers. I live 3-5K from the various central areas.

Here are my observations:

* cars are really only avoided for people in the residential apartments above or directly attached to the grocery stores. Nobody here rides their bike to shop (based on never seeing bicycles at the grocery store).

* there's still ~ 200M of elevation change inside of that 3-5K range. Only the most hard core are interesting in cycling that on a regular basis.

* It's a 5 minute drive or 30 minute bus ride to get to the light rail centre from my location (others are closer, some are farther). Some are content to take a bus, but many others drive. There are some who cycle but it's a tiny percentage.

* It's wet here all year long, but uncomfortably cold 5 months of the year. Those who cycle for transportation tend to only do it during May/June/July/August.

Well I wish cities would also make the infrastructure accessible to other muscle-powered vehicles, like skateboards, longboards, scooters, inline skates, etc.

Personally I very strongly prefer longboards over bicycles for commuting (it's more fun, you can just grab and carry it, both of your hands are always free when riding, etc) however there's just so many things that are fine-ish for bikes or pedestrians, but ruin the fun for skateboards. Cracks in the pavement. A street crossing with a lowered curb that is just slightly too high to roll over. Narrow sidewalk next to a busy, downhill street. Cracks in the pavement. Cobblestone. Badly timed traffic lights. Cracks in the pavement. Dirt roads. Potholes.

One important observation, a city that's awful to skate tends to also be much less accessible to pedestrians. You might think it's irrelevant until you meet someone (or end up) in a wheelchair, or with a stroller.

> Ok. But then unless you're hand making the bikes out of wood you scavenged from fallen trees and don't use rubber tires, neither are bikes.

Are you honestly trying to imply the making a bike has even a vaguely similar environmental impact as making a car?

I mean seriously, a bike weights at most 20kg. A car at least 1000kg. That means you should be able get at least 50 bikes out of a single car.