> I just don't get it and I don't think I can get along with people who wants to put us all on bicycles and I don't think people who want to get us all on bicycles could get along with me. And I'm fine with that.
You are creating a strawman though, people like me want urbanites/city dwellers to become cyclists because it's better for everyone living in a city.
If you live in a rural area where you need to go 10-20km to find a grocery store, yeah, it's not that practical to only rely on a bike. If you live in a dense-ish city where you can bike some 15 minutes to get to almost all of your daily needs, and with a 30 min ride you can get to 80% of your needs in a year then yeah, I will try to convince you that a bike is more practical for your day-to-day than driving the odd 3-4 km to get somewhere (and paying for parking, fuel, polluting the city, etc.), it's just stupid to drive this short if you don't really need it (e.g.: carrying big/heavy loads, being disabled, etc.).
It's odd to see this kind of overreaction to something that simply is better for your health, for the other residents of the city. It's odd to see how defensive car-centric people get by the suggestion that maybe more people cycling, and governments taking action to create infrastructure for it, will be overall better for a city. Even if you prefer to drive it'll be better for you.
Just don't create a strawman to distill your reactionary take, it always sounds like a whining child feeling their toy will be taken away... That's not the point.
> > I just don't get it and I don't think I can get along with people who wants to put us all on bicycles and I don't think people who want to get us all on bicycles could get along with me. And I'm fine with that.
> You are creating a strawman though, people like me want urbanites/city dwellers to become cyclists because it's better for everyone living in a city.
In my experience what people like the OP really mean by "I don't like that cyclist want to put us all on bikes", is that they want infrastructure to be catered for their car use (paid by the everyone), e.g. they say they can't use a bike because they (want to) live rural (rural infrastructure is heavily subsidised by city dwellers btw), but want to be able to drive into the city (despite city dwellers wanting less cars and more bikes). Thus they complain about "cyclist forcing everyone to bike".
You are creating a strawman though, people like me want urbanites/city dwellers to become cyclists because it's better for everyone living in a city.
If you live in a rural area where you need to go 10-20km to find a grocery store, yeah, it's not that practical to only rely on a bike. If you live in a dense-ish city where you can bike some 15 minutes to get to almost all of your daily needs, and with a 30 min ride you can get to 80% of your needs in a year then yeah, I will try to convince you that a bike is more practical for your day-to-day than driving the odd 3-4 km to get somewhere (and paying for parking, fuel, polluting the city, etc.), it's just stupid to drive this short if you don't really need it (e.g.: carrying big/heavy loads, being disabled, etc.).
It's odd to see this kind of overreaction to something that simply is better for your health, for the other residents of the city. It's odd to see how defensive car-centric people get by the suggestion that maybe more people cycling, and governments taking action to create infrastructure for it, will be overall better for a city. Even if you prefer to drive it'll be better for you.
Just don't create a strawman to distill your reactionary take, it always sounds like a whining child feeling their toy will be taken away... That's not the point.