@[email protected] to [email protected] • 1 year agoThis (rule)slemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square159fedilinkarrow-up1856arrow-down114file-text
arrow-up1842arrow-down1imageThis (rule)slemmy.blahaj.zone@[email protected] to [email protected] • 1 year agomessage-square159fedilinkfile-text
minus-square@Gabulink2•1 year agoLargely, yes. Bicycles are a better, healthier way to move distances longer than 100-ish meters, ideally are only powered by human effort and move at speeds low enough that accidents are absurdly unlikely.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•1 year agoWouldn’t that make it a bikeable city? I live in Europe, not about to break out the bike to go less than a couple of km
minus-square@Gabulink2•1 year agoThat too, but a walkable city by necessity also becomes a bikeable city.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•1 year agoI thought it was just funny that the term “walkable” for some people invokes the idea of using bikes
Walkable city means taking a bike. Got it.
correct
Largely, yes. Bicycles are a better, healthier way to move distances longer than 100-ish meters, ideally are only powered by human effort and move at speeds low enough that accidents are absurdly unlikely.
Wouldn’t that make it a bikeable city?
I live in Europe, not about to break out the bike to go less than a couple of km
That too, but a walkable city by necessity also becomes a bikeable city.
I thought it was just funny that the term “walkable” for some people invokes the idea of using bikes