Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 756 posts

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#501

Post by willio58 »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #331
camgunz wrote: post #83

I've said it before and I'll say it again: building the future around cars of any kind is completely unsustainable. We cannot reproduce the rates of rich world car ownership in the developing world without mass catastrophe (raw materials/labor needed for construction and maintenance, raw materials/labor/space needed for roads and parking lots, literal tons of waste--batteries, tires, steel, plastic, foam--, energy ne…

If you live in a suburban house, with a yard, and drive a car, its likely poster is part of the problem. Its easy to externalize blame and point fingers to something/someone else, when the reality is that people need to look inward. The uncomfortable truth is these macro policy desires, are very much a case of "Do as I say, not as I do" I speak this as someone that does not own a car, or have a yard, and drive a mope…

I live in an apartment-style shared home, we have a shared front lawn (not our choice), and I do own a car. I think it's great that you live without a car, a yard, and drive a moped! I'm slowly transitioning to that life myself. I've talked with our landlord about getting rid of the grass and I rarely use my car now that I live in a walkable neighborhood. I'd love to get rid of it someday soon! I say all of this to let you know we're on the same "team".

I need to make myself clear though around this line "I don't want to restrict anyone in the future from owning a car".

I don't care if anyone owns a car, I don't think that's what really matters. What I do think is that we as a nation (I'm in the U.S.) need to stop cities from continuously _subsidizing_ car infrastructure through taxation. You mention cost issues for the poor. Please realize those poor people you speak of are forced through taxation to subsidize car infrastructure even though those same poorer people may not even own cars themselves. This is really where the system breaks down. Poor people who may live in city centers are paying a portion of their taxes for the rich people to have nice roads paved out to their spread-out suburbs. Those who choose to live in the suburbs should pay for the increased costs of infrastructure that they require. You should pay fewer taxes to live more efficiently in urban or shared housing.

A lot of the ideas I'm spouting off here are from organizations like StrongTowns. They and others like them have been doing a great job of putting words into action, but we need many more people to be in this movement and we shouldn't promote infighting on details. Individual change is great, but it will not change anything at scale. The same thing goes for climate and general social progress. We need to force change at the government level, and stopping the subsidization of car infrastructure is just one step in that long process.

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#502

Post by throwaheyy »

bluGill wrote: post #460
mdgrech23 wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the suburbs but like you an older one and more densely packed. I'm maybe a mile from a major highway that goes to the city center. It's dead straight and major thoroughfare. If they dedicated one line to rail, none of that mixed BS, and had stops say every mile into the city my god it would be amazing.

Are you sure it is more densely packed? Where I live the streetcar suburbs are slightly less dense than modern suburbs. In the 1950s lot sizes went up, but they have mostly come down again. (streetcar suburbs were built assuming you would get some food from your garden. 1950's suburbs were built by/for people who remembered the depression and wanted a large lot for a garden - or that is my theory.

Streetcar suburbs are not 1950s suburbs, they are 1900s-1930s suburbs. 1950s suburbs are car suburbs.

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#503

Post by PaywallBuster »

that's why tesla is not the future

it's just an expensive toy for boomers

a small scooter would suit satisfy a lot of travel needs for lots of people and free the road space

bikes flow like water, cars flow like tetris, it would solve most traffic congestion

bikes (EV or ICE) require a lot less resources to produce and have a lot better mileage

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#504

Post by hnlmorg »

uneekname wrote: post #142
willio58 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fully agreed. And while everything you said is super important and true, one piece that really makes me pumped about this movement to ditch cars is more around quality of life. If you have to get in a car and drive to a parking lot somewhere to get groceries, commute to work, go out with friends, get healthcare, etc. You will obviously live a less healthy life both physically but also mentally because of it. Walking…

I totally agree about the noise and health benefits, but to me it's more a matter of respect and safety. In the U.S., we see too many pedestrians die each year. Our roads are built for cars only, with everything else as an afterthought. When I cross the street, drivers act like it's my responsibility to stay out of their way. If some people need to use cars for mobility or business reasons, that is fine with me. But…

A lot of that can be solved by law too. I know a lot of Americans would see this as an infringement of their freedoms but it’s quite common in other countries to place the order of responsibility to the most vulnerable to least vulnerable. What I mean by this is that cyclists need to give way to pedestrians, and cars need to give way to cyclists and pedestrians. I’ve never quite understood the logic behind jaywalking laws because it penalises the vulnerable rather than places greater responsibility on those who are least vulnerable.

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#505

Post by epistasis »

cbozeman wrote: post #326
epistasis wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always hilarious to me when people driving $60k vehicles ask me how much the ebike cost and say "that's expensive". The ebike costs less than they pay in insurance a year, much less maintenance, gas, etc. Some people have weird ideas about cars being "for regular people" while any money spent on a bicycle is a luxury.

I can't carry four other people on my ebike, along with stuffing a minimum of one duffle bag per person, and usually being able to squeeze two in, along with a cooler for drinks, snacks, and sandwiches. My Telluride can do that though. Even if I could somehow fit all that shit onto an ebike, I wonder how long it and I would be able to make it before we give trying to go the 125 miles from Fort Worth to Possum Kingdom…

As somebody who has lived in many parts of the United States, your comment is infuriating to me.

My family of four gets around great on bicycles, including when two of those members could not yet cycle themselves.

You simply buy a bike that allows easy carrying of little people and all your baggage. Instead of some silly road bike or mountain bike that is meant for sport.

You don't see me making up complaints about the impossibility of transporting a finally by car because a Lotus can't fit them all.

Or how a car can't go from SF to Hawaii. Why would you ever buy a car if it can't support that vacation, right?

These are ridiculous complaints not connected to reality or towards actually looking at the high value that various modes of transport can provide.

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#506

Post by willio58 »

ars wrote: post #495
willio58 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fully agreed. And while everything you said is super important and true, one piece that really makes me pumped about this movement to ditch cars is more around quality of life. If you have to get in a car and drive to a parking lot somewhere to get groceries, commute to work, go out with friends, get healthcare, etc. You will obviously live a less healthy life both physically but also mentally because of it. Walking…

I loath walking more than any other activity. Your utopia sounds like hell of earth for me. I don't want any of those things you mentioned. I don't want to waste tons of time just getting places, I want to live in an area that is not so congested that traffic is a problem, I want space to live. I do NOT want to be near other people just to get somewhere, or worse live very close to others.

I'm actually on board for this! If you want to live that way you should be able to. But, you should be held responsible for paying your share of the infrastructure required to support such living. As long as that is understood, I don't really think there's anything inherently bad with what you describe. But I doubt people who love living the suburban car-centric life would like to see their taxes for infrastructure double. Here's an infographic explaining those numbers https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-publ...

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#507

Post by geraldwhen »

ahoy wrote: post #494
geraldwhen wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My work requires me to come to office on certain days. Not only are there no sidewalks to the office, the roads are egregiously unsafe even in a car. Even if a moped or bike were feasible, there’s nowhere to live within any reasonable distance. The office is isolated on the big acreage it purchased. If I could, I would bike a half hour to work, easily. I can’t. It’s just not safe. Everything is built for big, fast ca…

It's an incredible crime that basically no american can live within 5 miles of their work. Car companies ad the government that capitulated to them fucked us so bad.

I’m not much farther, but there are no pedestrian routes to get there, just highways or roads with no shoulder at 55mph.

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#509

Post by Unearned5161 »

smugma wrote: post #470
jordanbeiber wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bike will get stolen anyway which is really annoying no matter the insurance. Not saying bike isn’t preferred to car, it’s just something I always consider. I’ve got a bike AND a car, I still take the car on certain trips where the bike would make more sense logistically because it feels like 50/50 it’ll get stolen.

I live in SF and have two bikes (a road bike and a bike with a kid seat on the back), an eBike, and a car. I do lots of trips on my bike. When I am in a rush or need to go a bit farther or hillier than I feel comfortable on my bike, I often end up checking out an eBike. The fact that it's one-way is convenient but I also value that I don't have to worry about my bike getting stolen. The convenience and risk reduction…

this is the way, by far my absolute favorite thing to see when visiting a city is a solid bike share program. they should be absolutely everywhere and heavily subsidized. Mexico City's version of this has been my favorite so far. the way you can get virtually anywhere in the city through a combo of Metro, bus, and bike all using the same card is excellent. It solves so many issues and uses the power of crowd funding to make it all work!

Re: 280M e-bikes and mopeds are cutting demand for oil far more than electric cars

#510

Post by afuchs »

linuxftw wrote: post #427
JAlexoid wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suburban sprawl is literally a result of policy, not just "what people want". Most people would love to live in a gigantic castle in the Loire valley with a helicopter taking them to the office - should we subsidize that as well? Enabling people's wants by subsidizing it from other people's pockets - makes for a very bad result. Start removing tax breaks for home ownership, rationally spreading the burden of maintain…

The 'we' subsidizing the middle class is the middle class. "We" are paying for it. What 'we' are also forced to subsidize is the everyone else on top of our choice of accommodations.

I can compare old houses at the edge of a city which cost four times as much to new builds at the far edges of that city's metro area which cost significantly less. The more expensive houses require significantly less infrastructure and cost the government less to support because of their location.

A huge undercurrent in urban planning discourse right now (e.g., Strong Towns), is that if all subsidies and taxes were removed both the poor and rich living closer to the city (or in older, denser suburbs) would have more money at the end of the day, while most living in significantly less dense housing would not be able to afford to pay for their lifestyle.

Post reply on HN