Never even said it wasn’t useful. Not sure where you’re getting that from at all. Original comment was even in support under the right circumstances. Think you missed something.
“Just saying the ability to have it be useful requires a lot of stuff the US doesn’t have”
If that’s not arguing it isn’t useful then I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Or in the entire thread because every single thing you’ve said is about how pedestrian infrastructure isn’t useful in the US!
The material posted and a ton of the comments are about “WHY DOESNT THE US DO THIS?!?!”.
I’m simply stating why. Different locale, society, and problems. Just because it’s possible in one place doesn’t mean it translates everywhere, which is the naive fallacy of a lot of these comments I’m reading.
Well, then, again, I disagree and that’s why we’re arguing. How you describe the arguments you’re making is not relevant. The point is that they’re not accurate. With political will we could have the same experience as these kids in our urban centers. It’s only different because we haven’t changed it yet.
Because we haven’t built the necessary infrastructure. Also because people don’t like change. Getting around without a car is a skill that will need to be developed, and most people have little reason to develop it. That will probably resolve naturally over time, if the built environment allows people to experience cycling as a safe, convenient way to get around, and as people in your social network introduce you to urban cycling.
But I mean there are a lot of people, myself included, who do currently find it preferable. The difference is I’m willing to invest a little more time and experience some discomfort around safety. The more you chip away at those issues, the more people will cycle, which will improve safety and get more people familiar with the idea.
You claimed that building better infrastructure won’t solve our transportation issues because our cities were built for cars while Dutch cities weren’t. None of that is true.
But I’m not sure why you want me to repeat the entire debate we just had. I’ve already corrected the points you made above. If you’re still confused, read again and ask specific questions.
What lol. Arguing pedestrian infrastructure is not useful is arguing against it.
Suburban sprawl is an issue. But it is solvable by building more density and improving pedestrian infrastructure. It’s not insurmountable.
Never even said it wasn’t useful. Not sure where you’re getting that from at all. Original comment was even in support under the right circumstances. Think you missed something.
“Just saying the ability to have it be useful requires a lot of stuff the US doesn’t have”
If that’s not arguing it isn’t useful then I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Or in the entire thread because every single thing you’ve said is about how pedestrian infrastructure isn’t useful in the US!
Useful is not the same thing as practical.
The material posted and a ton of the comments are about “WHY DOESNT THE US DO THIS?!?!”.
I’m simply stating why. Different locale, society, and problems. Just because it’s possible in one place doesn’t mean it translates everywhere, which is the naive fallacy of a lot of these comments I’m reading.
Well, then, again, I disagree and that’s why we’re arguing. How you describe the arguments you’re making is not relevant. The point is that they’re not accurate. With political will we could have the same experience as these kids in our urban centers. It’s only different because we haven’t changed it yet.
Okay, well if they aren’t accurate then why do you think people choose cars over walking in these areas?
Because we haven’t built the necessary infrastructure. Also because people don’t like change. Getting around without a car is a skill that will need to be developed, and most people have little reason to develop it. That will probably resolve naturally over time, if the built environment allows people to experience cycling as a safe, convenient way to get around, and as people in your social network introduce you to urban cycling.
But I mean there are a lot of people, myself included, who do currently find it preferable. The difference is I’m willing to invest a little more time and experience some discomfort around safety. The more you chip away at those issues, the more people will cycle, which will improve safety and get more people familiar with the idea.
Yes, so how in ANY of my comments am I being inaccurate or wrong about anything, because you’ve got the wrong grioe, exactly?
My God.
You claimed that building better infrastructure won’t solve our transportation issues because our cities were built for cars while Dutch cities weren’t. None of that is true.
But I’m not sure why you want me to repeat the entire debate we just had. I’ve already corrected the points you made above. If you’re still confused, read again and ask specific questions.