Good for you, man. How would you like for most of the people, who don't actually have exceptional use-cases, to not be on the road, in your way, in the form of traffic?

[–] EremesZorn@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's entirely not feasible for anyone living a typical life with errands to run and places to go, and you know it.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 3 points 1 year ago

You two aren't strongly disagreeing; he wants to make it more feasible outside of cities. I've met a handful of people who do indeed manage to bike around suburban towns.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I literally live a typical life with errands to run and places to go, entirely without a car.

[–] EremesZorn@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Because the amenities you require are geographically close enough to not necessitate a car. I don't know what the population density is where you live, but if it's a city, there's obviously going to be public transit to make that happen at least somewhat efficiently.
And yeah, the cities that don't have effective public transportation, or just have unattractive public transportation (i.e. "its too crowded," "I don't want to be around this many people," etc.) are the places where you'll find more traffic on the road. In a rural setting though, it comes down to a low population density and much broader geographical ranges. I'd imagine that makes public transportation really inefficient, and in the eyes of local government, fiscally untenable.