this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
458 points (97.3% liked)
Greentext
8443 readers
1136 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can only be safely used in good weather.
Collisions will, in fact, fuck you up bad.
Limited cargo space.
Single occupancy.
Most arguments against bikes are from people who never even tried to address the issues. It's like "I've seen a BMX and that's ALL there is!"
Most bike fatalities are car related, though bike on bike deaths do exist.
I was not thinking about discomfort due to rain (wearing glasses does suck in the rain) but slippery conditions. I have taken a bad spill off my bike twice and both times were because of rain.
I guess I don't count e-bikes as bikes. That is a bad mind set on my part.
Riding a bike in the rain sucks floppy donkey dong. Poncho or not. I've done both. A lot. Car any day over it.
While I get there are plenty of reasons to ride a bike and many arguments against it are overblown, pretending that a bike always has a solution or that that solution is always preferred is as bad as the inverse argument.
I'm not entirely sure that's what you are actually suggesting(rather I think you're just positing potential solutions), it just leans that way.
Riding bike in the rain turned out to be one of my favorite things when I figured out how to not suck at it. Ponchos are no good. Waterproof coats and pants make all the difference.
If anything is a challenge, it's high winds and places with harsh winters. What we really need is more economical enclosed vehicles that bridge the gap between bikes and cars.
Any waterproof thing I wore, also trapped heat underneath and I'd be so sweaty by the time I arrived anywhere that there was little point to me wearing the waterproof garment in the first place.
High winds and snow/ice are really troublesome, but I always appreciated cold (even bitter cold) weather since I'd sweat less.
There's weeks where rain a couple of days, but then months were there's no rain at all. I would take my bike everytime because I prefer to use the rain clothes 4 hours of a year that spend an entire week of the year stuck in traffic.
Scandinavia and the Netherlands disagree on all but one of those points
Not disability friendly.
Limited Range.
Makes you all sweaty before arriving at your destination.
Hills.
Infrastructure not set up to store them anywhere.
Easily and frequently stolen.
Not in fact super cheap, for a decent one.
Requires new infrastructure because everything is built around cars and is literally not safe to use around cars.
They're exceptionally disability friendly and many age specifically adapted for people with disabilities. E-tricycles are used a lot for this purpose. You see them a lot in some countries.
E-bikes address the sweatiness and hills issue. But even without electric assistance, people in Germany and Austria have managed.
It doesn't always require new infrastructure to be built. Ideally infrastructure for cars is repurposed for walking and cycling. This is something that needs to be done anyway because lots of people don't drive, causing transport poverty.
My bike was $270 second hand and is awesome.
The range issue is fair. Consequence of designing exclusively for cars. Then again, no need to cycle every journey. Just the short journeys already helps a lot. Where I live most car journeys are under 5 miles.
For range, there is public transit, and it's a good option overall for when bike rides are not feasible!
Sadly it's more theoretical than an actual option in many places.
Where I live (UK, not London) short distances can be done by bike or public transport. Although public transport isn't great. For medium distance, public transport is often non-existent. For long distance, public transport works well and you might be able to take your bike on the train too.
I'd rather cycle through the rain than pay an extortionate amount for a bus ticket.
Roads would be great infrastructure for bikes if we just banned cars from them. :)
Just like cars?
As bad as cars?
Not as limited as you think.
Not necessarily.
No, cars can easily be used in much worse weather than bikes.
Worse. It may sound surprising, but in a traffic accident being inside a car protects you more than just having a helmet.
I wonder if that thing is even legal to drive.
You sound like somebody who hasn't touched a bike since childhood, if ever.
But should you? Driving even just in rain makes your car significantly more dangerous, especially if you're dumb enough to drive at high speeds. Besides, I've biked in some pretty extreme weather, including a blizzard that constantly blasted ice at me so much I had to keep my hand in front of my face the whole time. Was I in danger? Probably, but there's still not actually that much difference between weather that bicyclists should avoid, and weather that motorists should avoid.
The biggest difference being how much danger the latter poses to others in addition to the driver.
You're so well protected in your little bubble... unless your little shelter is smaller than the monstrous trucks that are on the roads now days. Now you're pretty much in the same boat as the bicyclist, there's always a bigger fish. So I guess by your logic we should actually all be driving the largest trucks possible.
And that touches on the crux of the problem. Your overly sheltered lifestyle disconnects you from realities right in front of your face. See in these crash scenarios the bicyclist is likely thinking as much about the safety of who they might be crashing into, as well as their own safety. Usually, yeah yeah assholes are everywhere, but the fact is the bicyclist is significantly less of a danger to both themselves and others.
Motorists are as dissonant as meat eaters. Any leap of logic to avoid confronting that you are part of the fucking problem.
The pic I just posted is of a model that likely doesn't even have a motor in it. Of course it's legal to drive. Don't even need a license.
I don't have a car or motor, I don't even have a driver's license, I go around largely by public transport. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a part of the same secret cult out to get you, I certainly don't think cars should be preferred by default to bikes or to mass public transport, I simply found your specific arguments to be wrong or questionable. You of course went all out fantasising who I am and what's my motivation...
I'd much prefer to be hit by a truck while I'm in a car than while I'm on a bike, thank you very much. Overall I think there's so much fewer trucks on the roads than cars that cars are, in absolute numbers, more dangerous for bikers and pedestrians than cars. Maybe statistics would prove me wrong here, idk. (Note: I live in Europe, the cars usually used here and the overall traffic infrastructure are different than in the US.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycletouring/comments/xe1m1e/legal_issues_with_bicycle_trailer/ - are these people crazy or dumb for discussing the legal limits for bike trailers and the potential problems with their weight and width?