People don't like that idea because it's highly exclusionary.
It only sounds good to younger people who don't have any disabilities, kids, grandparents who want to come along, or any number of other valid reasons to walk.
It's also highly indicative of the weather where you're from. Forcing people to bike and walk everywhere sounds a lot better if you're in a moderate climate where bad weather means you need to pack a light jacket and wait for the light rain to stop. Move somewhere with harsh winters and the moralizing about people driving places stops making sense quickly.
> People don't like that idea because it's highly exclusionary.
I disagree with you here- you have it backwards. It's cars that are exclusionary. Kids can't be around car traffic unsupervised, because car traffic is very dangerous. Old people become fat and frail only because they're robbed of exercise by a car-centric lifestyle. Blind people can't drive. Kids can't drive. Old people can't drive. By shaping cities around cars we doom the vast majority for the sake of a very small number of people, and many of them would probably be healthier and safer getting a little exercise and enjoying the excellent public transport that results from shifting a massive budget for car infrastructure to public transport.
What you've just said is a common refrain, if you haven't already seen it please take a look at these two videos that attempt to address part of what you're saying. I found them very interesting when I came across them years ago and it changed my view of what's possible or even good!
So Canadians bike less in winter than some Finns (not all, as the author of the video himself mentions that Oulu stands out among Finnish cities in this regard) yet those Finns make only 12% of winter trips by bike. That means the vast majority of winter trips they make (88%) are not by bike. In a small town, which is 12x6 miles judging by google maps yet has 590 miles of bike paths. If anything this proves cycling in winter is not an option for the vast majority of population.
And yes, the Dutch have their bike paths and bike without helmets, we all know that. The secret is the lack of elevation and living in crumped cities: on average a Dutch person bikes 3km per day [1].
It's utterly fascinating you wrote that and yet could not make the right conclusion.
"In a small town, which is 12x6 miles judging by google maps yet has 590 miles of bike paths."
+
"not all, as the author of the video himself mentions that Oulu stands out among Finnish cities in this regard"
The right conclusion here is that infrastructure and its maintenance is clearly the defining factor. This really shouldn't be surprising.
Consider this: how many trains do you think passed through the areas rail tracks are at before the tracks were built? Or: how many trains need to pass through an area before we can justify the cost of building train tracks there?
You simply can't point to just any winter cycling stats without first making sure the infrastructure is there. "Cycling in winter just ain't working out!" — no, you literally are not putting in the minimum of effort — "we've tried nothing and are all out of ideas" vibes.
And here's the kicker: You assumed these statistics are from a city that's a cycling paradise, but I'm willing to bet Oulu is a car-infested shithole, just like all of the Netherlands is. No, I'm not kidding in the slightest. And it's pretty much confirmed in the video the parent linked: [1].
Sure, those areas are as good as it gets at this time, but they're nothing to what things should look like, so since your conclusions are based on faulty assumptions, they are automatically invalid.
What these cycling-friendly areas are doing is slowly grinding away at the overbearing behemoth that is the already existing car infrastructure with the eventual goal of getting to at least parity. But they're still decades of work away.
The simplest example is free parking. You expect to get to take up 2m x 5m of public space with your private property for free and forever, almost anywhere in every city in the world. If anyone so much as touches it, they're strictly legally liable. That's normal though, right? Yeah...
Another, literally the snow plowing mentioned in the video: [2]. Imagine you woke up one day, got in your car to drive to work and... uh oh! There's 20cm of snow on the road! Can you imagine the uproar?
I sure can't, because 20cm of snow is normal on cycle paths in 99.9% of the world. And you're comparing those two realities with each other. So "not a lot of people cycle in winter" is actually "not a lot of people cycle through 20cm of snow". No shit.
Overall, the amount of information in the very video the parent linked you just straight up ignored makes me think you either didn't watch it, or didn't want to pay attention to a lot of the points made, like the one on population density: [3].
> yet those Finns make only 12% of winter trips by bike
Yeah, during Finnish winters. How many countries do you think this directly applies to? If 12% of Finns during their harsh winters can cycle just fine in -20C weather conditions then what does that say about the cycling stats of e.g. California?
> The secret is the lack of elevation...
I like to quip that bikes have gears for a reason and it's worth learning to use them, but these days the existence of e-bikes and e-scooters nullifies this argument entirely.
> ...and living in crumped cities: on average a Dutch person bikes 3km per day.
Yes, we're talking about cities here. So, the purpose of pointing out that biking over long distances in say, rural areas, is not viable is what exactly? We can pivot to talking about trains instead if you'd like...
Is this an AI slop or you just don't understand English?
I pointed out that a city with tons of infrastructure still has the vast majority of winter trips (and other trips too, but bike ridership drops in winter) not done on bikes and you are insisting that there is no infrastructure...
This might sound reasonable, but it's a solved problem in Europe. They have plenty of old/disabled people and harsh winters there too. Many parts are de-emphasizing cars.
I think you're confusing a walkable city with a nonwalkable city in which people are forced to walk anyway. As other commenters mentioned, in many ways making a city more walkable benefits the groups you describe.
When I was in SF, the coworkers who drove in were those who lived outside of the city who were trying to save money and raise family. Buying a home in the city is impossible for these people (and me). Mostly less prestigious jobs, like cleaners, technicians, office managers. Not the App guys making 300k living in the Marina.
It's often an unintended tax on the poor.
IDK maybe there's some middle ground where we beef up public transport while beefing up parking at stations.
That's a problem of not building enough walkable areas relative to how many people want to live in walkable areas, leading to them being expensive because of many people competing for scarce resources.
Car-centric infrastructure is incredibly expensive, so there's no inherent reason for walkable areas to be more expensive.
Calling everything but cars exclusionary is mildly hilarious.
First of all, you're simply forgetting about public transport. That's needed too and pretty much covers all your concerns.
However...
1. The disabled? How many of those do you think are disabled in just the right ways to still be able to drive? You know "disabled" doesn't just mean "missing a limb", right?
So uh, if the only option is to drive and someone's disabled and therefore can't drive, what do they... do?
Anyhow: [1]
2. Kids? How many kids do you see driving cars around?
You know 10+ year olds can just... bike on their own, right? Like, to school, etc.? [2] [3] [4]
Below that age, just bike them around? [5] ;)
> Forcing
You know nobody's forcing you to do anything, right? Like, you can still own and use your car, there are some very valid use cases best served by them.
For example, around half of the Dutch own a car. They just don't use them as much for really dumb purposes, like driving 5km to a grocery store, because the nearest one is within walking or cycling distance.
The problem is that driving has been so heavily subsidized, that we've come to take it for granted and are now truly shocked when asked to pay more to even somewhat offset the real costs. And I'm afraid there's no viable path forward that doesn't involve eventually paying in full.
> Forcing people to bike and walk everywhere sounds a lot better if you're in a moderate climate where bad weather means you need to pack a light jacket and wait for the light rain to stop.
Yeah, the Netherlands is quite known for its good weather...
> Move somewhere with harsh winters and the moralizing about people driving places stops making sense quickly.
I'm there. And? Literally the only issue is that the pedestrian/cycling infrastructure just does not get snow plowed either at all or at 1% of the priority the roadway gets. Seriously, the asphalt in winter looks basically the same as during summer but the sidewalks and cycle ways are full of snow, often literally pushed there from the roadway!
So yeah, you won't see many cyclists cycling around in 15+ cm of snow, since it's literally impossible. Cycling on ice is quite risky too. But, as evidenced by snowprints, some people cycle regardless!
It only sounds good to younger people who don't have any disabilities, kids, grandparents who want to come along, or any number of other valid reasons to walk.
It's also highly indicative of the weather where you're from. Forcing people to bike and walk everywhere sounds a lot better if you're in a moderate climate where bad weather means you need to pack a light jacket and wait for the light rain to stop. Move somewhere with harsh winters and the moralizing about people driving places stops making sense quickly.