• Atemu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It depends. Expended energy/m is higher but space usage is much lower. For walking you arguably don’t even need a paved path while (non-sport) cycling needs a somewhat even surface and places to store and lock the bike. It’s not nearly as bad as with cars but even with cycling, space usage can become an issue in very densely populated areas; the Dutch don’t build massive bike garages because it’s cool (okay, maybe also a little of that) but because it’s a necessity.

      If it’s near enough to walk, it’s usually better to just walk.

    • Puschkul@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I unironically want to see bicycle infantry back. Would also be a nice thing to have for the individual soldier, as time in the open is far more dangerous than being hidden or in a fortified position.

  • PickTheStick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Weird that the longer bars are worse. It’s a cognitive flip, even if what it may represent (carbon footprint, maybe? Fossil fuel expenditure?) is growing with the lower tiers. Oh, and whoever made the poster missed the fantastic opportunity to use Heil! instead of hell.