Cars are more convenient; no one contests this point.

But they come at significant cost, and these costs are also often opaque.

People advocating for public transit are often motivated by things like walkable downtowns, more compact neighborhoods, reduced public spending on roads, less traffic, and fewer parking lot oceans. Perhaps additionally public health, climate change, or air quality.

I think ultimately it's not about how public transit is itself so amazing; it's really more about the city you could have, if cars & car infrastructure were not so dominant.

If your bike doesn't stop at your door or doesn't go where you want to go, you're using it wrong.

I bought an electric bicycle recently after years of being a staunch car supporter. I am now convinced that the electric bicycle is the perfect mode of personal transport for non-rural areas. It takes up hardly any room, it doesn't make much noise, it doesn't go fast enough to be a danger to anyone, it doesn't get stuck in traffic, you can park it anywhere for free. You can even take it through pedestrian-only zones if you get off and push. Being electrically-assisted, it can actually get you up hills at a fair speed without making you arrive at your destination sweaty and smelly. Being a bicycle, it can still be used even if you ride it so far that the battery goes flat (well over 30 miles).

It's personal transport of the future. Everyone should get one.

Edit: and if you want to try out an ebike, there's almost certainly a bike shop near you that will rent you one for a day.

> In warm and dry parts of the world with good roads.

All you need are good roads. Bicycling in the winter in Helsinki or – even further north – Oulu is completely mainstream. People know how to dress for the outdoors, and as long as the bike lanes are cleared of snow, cycling is not viewed as the major inconvenience that people in warmer countries expect it to be.

“All you need are good roads.” That’s a Big expensive undertaking. In Canada (which is ever so slightly bigger than Finland) the roads range from excellent to abysmal. In the US the roads often have potholes and little accommodation for cycles, and the U.K. has some of the worst roads I’ve seen outside of a developing nation. Finland is also a small country with a population which all lives in the same climate. Countries like the US and Canada are huge, and far more populous, with population densities varying wildly. In addition, the climate ranges from lovely to arctic.

Needless to say, this creates a host of issues you won’t find in Helsinki, where 1.2m of Finland’s 5m inhabitants live. A bunch of very similar people living in the equivalent of one American state or small Canadian province, speaking the same language and sharing the same culture and weather can make roads and cycling a priority. Good luck scaling that.

Note that I mentioned Oulu. The bike lane infrastructure constructed there – the sheer total distance of lanes versus the city’s population – makes it preposterous to claim that Toronto (the example city in the grandparent post) cannot also have decent winter cycling.

We are talking about one city; no one is suggesting that Canada’s rural areas – which is the only place it would be relevant to bring up distance or low population density like you did – need bike lanes, too.

FWIW, I live in the UK. The roads are fine for cycling and the cyclepaths are excellent.

There is a "National Cycle Network" of cyclepaths and roads that are exceptionally well-suited to cycling (low traffic etc.), and it is signposted well.

(But, again, I hadn't noticed any of this until after I got the bike).

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map

> Some people also understand that roads are dangerous, and being hit by a car when you’re on a bike is very bad news.

Some people understand that cars are dangerous, and would see the risk of killing people with your car as a downside to using a car.

The parent specifically mentioned 'it doesn't go fast enough to be a danger to anyone' as an advantage for the bike.

Fair points. Where I live there is actually a very good network of cycle paths.

But I didn't even know they existed until after I got the bike and started planning routes for journeys.

Even if the cycling infrastructure near you is unsuitable, there are still lots of people in places that do have good cycling infrastructure but either don't realise it or just haven't tried it.

Those people should strongly consider trying out an ebike!

I like my car. A lot. Stereo is great, seats are comfortable, goes where I want it to go when I want it to. Sure it's expensive, I have 220$ monthly parking bill (Pittsburgh, I know it's worse elsewhere), insurance, traffic, whatever--in a way I think my car is like a child's safety blanket. I just don't feel right without it handy.

I felt the same way. Then I sold my car and I cannot believe how much money I am saving, it's actually a little bit ridiculous.

> But, they do not stop at my door, and they do not stop at where I want to go. Sometimes they stop close, sometimes a few blocks away.

I think it's reasonable to expect a commuter to walk 4-5 blocks on either end of a ride unless they happen to be handicapped. And winter jackets, boots, and umbrellas are available for the conditions you've mentioned.

No one is saying we should ban private cars from cities. Those will be needed, but they should definitely not be the default mode of transportation for most urban dwellers.

From this same thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17034959

> God I would love it Manhattan banned Uber and all non-commercial traffic (exile all civilian traffic to the highways and parking garages alongside them) and upped the number of buses. Clean new yellow cabs too and tougher requirements to drive them (raise the fares, I don't care).

Manhattan is not a city, it's the smallest borough of a city.

  > No one is saying we should ban private cars from cities. 

Many people on HN do (search for it). That's the point i was trying to counter with the original comment.

>"No one is saying we should ban private cars from cities"

I am actually saying that, at least for the city centers.

Ban private cars, or charge a non-trivial congestion fee. Let commercial vehicles with a business purpose drive there, for deliveries and work, and let taxi services operate. But get rid of the space-hogging private cars.

Amsterdam is not really what I’d consider ideal for transit (there is the walkable tourist area (with trams and for locals, bikes) and then a larger area around it with a fairly frustrating train system and great roads. Outside of the core tourist area, the main disadvantage of a car is cost.

Hong Kong seems like a better example of a place where transit clearly wins. Higher density, inferior roads, and better transit.

"You're not important enough for buses to cater to your needs" is not a very strong argument for using buses.

But it is a strong argument to people to take the initiative to live where transit is feasible rather than live where it's not and complain about it.

I live a 10 minute bike ride from a park-and-ride bus stop where I have several bus line options to get to work, my bike+bus commute is faster than my driving commute because the bus takes the express lanes (and can legally drive on road shoulders in some places). I do a full bike commute some days, but it takes about twice as long by bike as it does by bike+bus, so I don't do it all the time. If I didn't want to bike to the bus, there's a local bus that runs a block away from my house that I could take to the park and ride.

But I didn't end up with this transit accessible commute by accident, I purposely chose where I live so I could take transit.

That only works for people who already want to take the bus.

If you like your car and you don't like buses, why would you pay any attention to the buses when choosing where to live?

You don't win people over by saying they need to go out of their way to come over to your side, you win people over by showing how good your alternative is.

Buses are great if you're poor, but otherwise they're very inconvenient everywhere I've ever lived.

Nor you. We each get a vote. And mine is for cars.

Also, what about bicycles does not allow them to go to your door or where you want to go?

Biking in freezing rain isn't wonderful either

There's always rain gear...

But I'm already working on it, actually. Rentable covered trikes and quadricycles with electric motors and storage. Slim enough to fit two to three units per road lane. Capable of multiple trips across town up steep hills before needing to be recharged, and remaining light enough to pedal (the default mode being lightly assisted power). Tow trailers and rear sidecars are an option, too.

I mean, you could also claim bicycles are obsolete and why not use scooters and motorcycles, but they have different use cases.

Cars are two-ton balls of complexity that last decades, operate in any environment and require mostly non-renewable energy. They've very costly, they take up a lot of room, they're expensive and complicated to maintain, and they're dangerous enough that you can't operate one without a license and we need laws and officers to regulate and police their use.

My vehicle is basically a four wheeled electric bicycle with a plastic cover. These already exist in many places with slightly different design. They've just never been designed specifically with dense urban transportation in mind.

Also, they're not intended to replace public transit. You can not get more efficient than a train, light rail or a bus. My vehicle is intended to provide the kind of personal transportation that a car is used for in cities while allowing for denser and more efficient transportation while also being safer and pollute less, to say nothing of parking, and cost of ownership.

Which is a sensible thing to do if the design parameters for transport that is limited to an urban region are significantly different from that of the typical car.

I'm too spoiled to walk in the rain is hardly rational debate.