I’m sure they really believe their opinions but I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory that cycling is a panacea of awesome and everyone who opposes it is an oil shill. There are many real obstacles. Proponents often argue, “well just restructure society!”, as though that’s achievable or even desirable to many citizens.
That said, there are many ways to improve eco-friendly transport in cities. It just requires convincing locals that it’s better than driving. Selling this vision has been a catastrophic failure for activists. They need to stop arguing for a nebulous benefit which might benefit some future generation. They need to argue for why cycling is better today. If they can confidently prove it’s better, voters will support these measures.
I feel so many of these arguments have been addressed already by NJB, CityNerd and the like, and they don’t hold up.
I’m sure they really believe their opinions but I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory that cycling is a panacea of awesome and everyone who opposes it is an oil shill. There are many real obstacles. Proponents often argue, “well just restructure society!”, as though that’s achievable or even desirable to many citizens.
That said, there are many ways to improve eco-friendly transport in cities. It just requires convincing locals that it’s better than driving. Selling this vision has been a catastrophic failure for activists. They need to stop arguing for a nebulous benefit which might benefit some future generation. They need to argue for why cycling is better today. If they can confidently prove it’s better, voters will support these measures.
@JasSmith @cerement @lysol Density is the panacea. Cycling is just what makes it possible. You can’t have nice livable density with cars.