this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2025
52 points (100.0% liked)

micromobility - Bikes, scooters, boards: Whatever floats your goat, this is micromobility

2653 readers
110 users here now

Ebikes, bicycles, scooters, skateboards, longboards, eboards, motorcycles, skates, unicycles, heelies, or an office chair: Whatever floats your goat, this is all things micromobility!

"Transportation using lightweight vehicles such as bicycles or scooters, especially electric ones that may be borrowed as part of a self-service rental program in which people rent vehicles for short-term use within a town or city.

micromobility is seen as a potential solution to moving people more efficiently around cities"

Feel free to also check out

!utilitycycling@slrpnk.net

!bikewrench@lemmy.world

!bikecommuting@lemmy.world

!bikepacking@lemmy.world

!electricbikes@lemmy.world

!bicycle_touring@lemmy.world

!notjustbikes@feddit.nl

!longboard@lemmy.world

It's a little sad that we need to actually say this, but:

Don't be an asshole or you will be permanently banned.

Respectful debate is totally OK, criticizing a product is fine, but being verbally abusive will not be tolerated.

Focus on discussing the idea, not attacking the person.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Skunk@jlai.lu 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Where I live in Western Australia they're not ripping bike lanes out per se, but existing bike infrastructure is just pitiful, and improvements are so painfully slow.

There's just no cycling culture here. It's considered a sport rather than a mode of transport.

It's not really clear whether scooters are going to have a positive impact by increasing demand for this infrastructure, or a negative impact by increasing animosity towards anything which is not a car.

[–] CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Bike lanes have no future in cities that also do not adopt a public transit first approach to city planning and development.

[–] AceBonobo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because as population increases so will the car congestion. The city can’t physically move skyscrapers further apart, so they’ll sacrifice bike lanes to support cars. If they instead invest in public transit reducing the need for cars in the first place, then there will be plenty of space for bikes

[–] JC1@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

You're right that this is the thinking. But it's so wrong though. I'm quite sure that a strong bike network reduces cars on the road, aiding car congestion. But you're right that it's not what people perceive.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

What does that really mean though?

Pretty sure any city would tell you that they're doing their best to improve public transport.

The only question is whether their efforts would meet your subjective definition of "public transport first".

[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

I am all for public transit, but I still disagree with that statement.