For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:57:01 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
wrote:

For your reference, records indicate that
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I beg to differ. Excessive body mass and lack of motivation are
certainly real problems. However, they are symptoms, not causes.

I’m not sure it much matters. That simply *is* the landscape you’re
dealing with, and thus a major part of the problem that needs to be
solved. Besides, symptoms have a way of becoming causes of other
illnesses. Obesity is a prime example.

It matters. Treating the root cause is far more effective than simply
treating the symptoms.

Treating *everything* is the most effective. Just because you can cure
a disease that leads to obesity doesn’t mean the person magically
becomes thin and fit as a result. Complex problems must be approached
holistically.

But that doesn’t address the problem that bicycles *still* require
effort to use and still expose you to weather. Most guys who wears a
suit at work aren’t going to be keen on biking 15 miles in the rain,
regardless of their fitness level.

Google images suggests otherwise:
https://www.google.com/search?q=bicycling+business+suit&tbm=isch

It suggests nothing beyond unscientific cherry picking on your part. Do
you or do you not want to have a rational discussion here?

If we *really* take a big enough
step backwards, we see all kinds of problems that are interconnected.
We can’t just address a single issue and act like that is going to
result in the widespread adoption of bicycling.

True, but you can identify these problems and concentrate on those
that will have the greatest impact on cycling popularity.

Maybe, but it’s tough to really know what will be the thing that
*actually* makes people try transportation alternatives. Because it
does generally seem to be the case that once someone buys a car, they
tend to use it for everything. Whether that’s the disease or just a
symptom doesn’t matter; it simply is the state of things that needs to
be fundamentally changed if you expect people to use bikes more.

Replace "want" with "need". I need a car because I run a business
that requires I drag around a fair quantity of tools and need to
transport customers computahs. I've tried to do service calls on a
bicycle and failed. I've also tried to do the same using municipal
bus transport, which was even worse. If all I need to move was myself
and a few tools, I could do it on a bicycle.

Funny, but that’s the same sort of “need” excuse that most people in
business suits would use to dismiss bicycling (do your own Google
search). My point is that you need to address the motivation of the
individual, and prove that there is a benefit to biking even at times
when a car/bus/whatever might be available.

The teenagers mentioned attend one of two local colleges. Both are
about 15 miles away from home. They are riding bicycles effectively,
but not when the weather fails to cooperate, where they switch to
either public transport or getting a ride in someone's car. If we
lived in a small town, where everything is fairly close, a bicycle
would be practical. If the major facilities were farther away, the
bicycle becomes less practical.

But that does not address my point. If they don’t *want* to bike,
they’ll stop the instant they can afford a car. To change that, you
have to address those pain points of distance and weather.

If you want to see a
real difference in the world, you have to solve the problem(s) in such
a way that transportation alternatives like bikes (or even electric
vehicles) make the most sense *regardless* of the individual economic
impact. Some countries seem to have found working solutions, so it’s
really just a question of whether or not we are willing to adopt
and/or adapt them.

That's easy. Just apply government subsidies and tax incentives to
any activity that is unpopular, impractical, or overly expensive.

Now you’re firmly into troll territory. There is *nothing* easy
about proposing major changes to a transportation infrastructure.

Maybe a tax break for NOT driving a car. Cycling Low cost or maybe
free bicycles are a good start. Free parking. Free air for the
tires. Free bicycle racks. Free bicycle lanes, lanes, and
infrastructure.

Entitlements are rarely a good starting point. Indeed, a major
problem with the current transportation infrastructure is that it
externalizes the true costs of the automobile industry. That’s why
even simple changes, like moving from fossil fuels to renewables,
requires a big change to how that “free” infrastructure is paid for.

From the governments point of view, "We provide the
infrastructure. You do the rest". However, these are all solutions
being pounded being used to solve an unspecified problem. Perhaps it
might be better to define the problem before blundering forward?

And I’m doing that. The root problem is one of sustainability. The
issue on top of that is a lack of transportation planning based on the
things/people we want to move (rather than the vehicles we use to move
them/us).

For
example, if you want to make cycling safe by adding a dedicated
bicycle lane, how many automobile parking places can you remove before
the residents riot?

Again, you need to holistically approach *all* the issues at play.
It’s not *just* about favoring one approach over the other, but what
the actual goal is. *Why* would bikes need a dedicated lane to be
safer? *Why* do cars deserve those particular places to park? And
what is the long term vision for the street/neighborhood that guides
the proposed infrastructure changes?

In the largest sense, humanity’s big problem is that
most of the developed world was not built to run sustainably.
Incentives need to align with reality if you want that to change.

Sustainable for how long?

Ideally until the Sun boils off all the oceans and engulfs the Earth.
If that’s asking too much, I would settle for seeing both a 100 year
and a 1000 year plan.

Incentives paid by whom and to whom?

Paid to suppliers by people who have demands. Econ 101.

Who's
reality, yours or mine?

There is only one reality that is shared by all rational people.
Scientific reality.

Does align mean agree or a compromise?

It might mean both. There is a real lack of experimentation when it
comes to governance, and that really should change. I see no reason why
a city couldn’t try to redesign a neighborhood to be a car free zone
(with some agreement/compromises by the current residents) and see what
works and what doesn’t.

Once
we get beyond the basic necessities (food, shelter, internet), things
become rather more complexicated.

There is nothing at all basic about the logistics needed to supply food
in the modern developed world. Hell, it might not even be fundamentally
sustainable. But we’re better off asking that kind of question rather
than pushing forward as though it’s never going to bite us in the ass.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly