I just received the July 2002 copy of Professional Safety magazine (Vol. 47, No. 7, pg. 12), from the American Society of Safety Engineers. There was a very interesting article on a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) study. I have the study, downloaded from:
www.nhtsa.dot.gov
It's entitled "The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000." Here's the first paragraph of the article:
"The economic impact ofmotor vehicle crashes on U.S. roadways has reached $230.6 billion a year--nearly 2.3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product or an average of $820 for every person living in the country--the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports. Using data from the year 2000 (in which 41,821 people were killed, 5.3 million were injured and 27.6 million vehicles were damaged), the agency found that the average readway fatality has economic costs of $977,000, while the costs associated with a critically injured crash survivor surpasses $1 million. The yearly economic costs also include $61 billion in lost workplace productivity; $20.2 billion in lost household productivity; $59 billion in property damage; $32.6 billion in medical costs; and $25.6 billion in travel delay costs."
The article goes on to "highlight the critical issue of seat belt use. The agency estimates that seat belt use prevents 11,900 fatalities and 325,000 serious injuries--saving $50 billion in medical care, lost productivity and other injury-related costs. 'Conversely, the failure of crash victims to wear seat belts leads to an estimated 9,200 unnecessary fatalities and 143,000 needless injuries, costing $26 billion,' NHTSA states."
"The statistics also draw attention to another concern--alcohol-involved crashes, which caused an estimated 16,792 fatalities in 2000, as well as 513,000 nonfatal injuries--accountinf for $50.9 billion in economic casts. 'The impact of alcohol involvement increases with injury severity,' NHTSA concludes. 'Crashes linked to alcohol accounted for 46 percent of fatal injury crash costs, 21 percent of nonfatal crash costs and 10 percent of costs in crashes involving property damage only.' To abtain a copy of the report, visit www.nhsta.dot.gov."
The study itself has interesting charts, which detail the over 1 million deaths since 1975 on our nation's highways, the fatality rates (which have been going down from a high of 35.74 per 100,000 licensed drivers in 1978 to the current year 2000 rate of 21.94), and other interesting information. I would encourage those interested to download this study, by typing in "economic impact" into the NHTSA web page's search engine.
To me, this gives the bicycling community some much-needed ammo to use in discussing bicycling alternatives, and the need to spend money to get people out of cars and into a safer, saner means of travel. What are your ideas?
John
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
The article goes on to "highlight the critical issue of seat belt use. The agency estimates that seat belt use prevents 11,900 fatalities and 325,000 serious injuries--saving $50 billion in medical care, lost productivity and other injury-related costs. 'Conversely, the failure of crash victims to wear seat belts leads to an estimated 9,200 unnecessary fatalities and 143,000 needless injuries, costing $26 billion,' NHTSA states."
Is it compulsory to wear seat belts in all or any states in the US? It is illegal to drive in Australia without seat belts.
Chris L
Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
To me, this gives the bicycling community some much-needed ammo to use in discussing bicycling alternatives, and the need to spend money to get people out of cars and into a safer, saner means of travel. What are your ideas?
Agreed, but then, we've had those reasons for years anyway. The problem has always been that it's just not sexy enough to win votes at the next election.
Stor Mand
You should change the name of this thread to "The Real Cost of Crashing". :D
JRA
Originally posted by MediaCreations
Is it compulsory to wear seat belts in all or any states in the US? It is illegal to drive in Australia without seat belts. Yes. It's compulsory.
John E
Thanks for posting. This is one reason I proudly contribute to MADD every year.
LittleBigMan
Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
To me, this gives the bicycling community some much-needed ammo to use in discussing bicycling alternatives, and the need to spend money to get people out of cars and into a safer, saner means of travel. What are your ideas?
John, I have long wondered how so many fatalities and such gross carnage could be swept under the rug. We have singled out tobacco companies for the human cost of their enterprises, but have been curiously silent about the human cost of automobile accidents. What is not included in your numbers is the human cost of automobile/pedestrian accidents. That should be added, as well.
"...41,821 people were killed, 5.3 million were injured and 27.6 million vehicles were damaged."
This sounds like the aftermath of a nuclear explosion.
Thanks for your input, John! :)
Andy Dreisch
Originally posted by Chris L
Agreed, but then, we've had those reasons for years anyway. The problem has always been that it's just not sexy enough to win votes at the next election.
Votes to do exactly what? Ban cars?
Chris L
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Votes to do exactly what? Ban cars?
How about votes to actually subsidise other forms of transportation to the same extent that cars are currently subsidised. You'll notice I get no tax credits at all for cycling 20,000km per annum. You'll also notice that my bike does not contribute to the statistics mentioned at the top of this thread.
LittleBigMan
Originally posted by Chris L
You'll also notice that my bike does not contribute to the statistics mentioned at the top of this thread.
(I noticed that! :) )
LittleBigMan
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Votes to do exactly what? Ban cars?
Let's not go there. Cars are here to stay.
What we cyclists want is equal asphalt (bitumen,) safe drivers and clean air. (At least, that's my hope.)
Chris L
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Votes to do exactly what? Ban cars?
And another thing, why is it that every time someone mentions trying to encourage people to use other forms of transport, the old "so you just want to ban cars" comes out? Please note that in over 3,100 posts on this board, I have never seriously suggested banning cars.
What I have suggested in the past is:
1. Proper accountability for motorists for their actions (basically equal to the accountability they'd have in any other facet of life).
2. Proper training for motorists to handle the awesome responsibility that goes with operating a vehicle of that size/weight. (including making it totally clear to them that cyclists are actually legitimate, tax-paying road users. Many of them seem to think otherwise).
3. Other forms of transport actually receiving equal funding to cars (something else that doesn't happen now).
Again, please tell me where I have suggested banning cars in all of this.
John C. Ratliff
There was a question about pedestrians not being addressed in the article. Actually, they weren't addressed in the study either. For this information, go to the following study:
This will not be too pleasing though, as it looks at the contribution of alcohol to pedestrian fatalities, and alcohol drank by the pedestrians is a significant problem.
But our concern is about bicycle safety and cars. This also is not addressed in this study. What I'm trying to show is that, although there is a great economic benifit to having the jobs the auto industry provides, there is also a down side, which now is costing us dearly--2.3 percent of our Gross Domestic Product! There probably is not an extended family who hasn't been affected by an auto accident in the last 25 years.
As bicyclists, we can now show the economic "other side" of driving, and use this information to show that things like freeway widening projects which simply place bottlenecks somewhere else will end up costing us money in the long run. We can ask for planning to get to a supermarket, school, or other infrastructure without having to drive everywhere. We can ask, with some stats to back us up, for greater educational emphasis on driving etiquette, bicycle training programs, and measures to counteract the huge toll that auto accidents are taking on our society. We can ask for some accountability from the auto industry, and not just commercials which show SUV owners ignoring people in distress, or going "zoom zoom."
If we can do more in these areas, riding bicycles will become a better alternative, and perhaps a bit more accepted by the general public.
John
Bigtime
You'll notice I get no tax credits at all for cycling 20,000km per annum.
Chris, if I had my way, you would get a tax credit. A LARGE tax credit. One way to get people to do something they don't want is through incentive. What incentives does your government or ours for that matter give you to ride your bike? Lets start giving out tax credit, shopping discounts, free bikes, whatever it takes. They certainly have the $$ to fund this type of thing.
nathank
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Votes to do exactly what? Ban cars?
i agree completely with Chris: why is this the normal "car-driver" reaction? just because someone suggests not using huge huge amounts of our public tax money to subsidize and promote and encourage car usage and maybe put some of those resources into something else like cycling... how is that interpreted as "banning cars"?
as Chris said, i think the post important thing is for Auto Drivers to be made responsible for their actions - only then will safety for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians really increase
i think auto users should pay their costs - i.e. the typical US auto registration fee of $30-100 a year plus the taxes they pay in gas are not even close to the public costs of operating a vehicle (there have been many studies, but i have no link, sorry)
i also think there should be programs to encourage other alternatives to driving. As far as i know in the US, Portland Oregon is the only place that even tries to do this other than a few cities that help subsidize transit passes or require that large companies subsidize employee transit passes (Houston TX did that when i loved there). of course Portland has a theme of trying "to get people out of their cars". i'm not up on the laws, but basically Portland
* requires bicycle parking facilities at businesses with a certain number of emplyees (i think) -- unfortunately they also require an excessively large MINIMUM number of parking spots for cars
* has a free program to install bike racks in communities or for businesses where customers call and request and then it is considered (like the local convenience store)
* requires companies to subsidize part of the cost of transit passes
* promotes cycling with bike maps, bike to work day, good bike route design, especially near large freeways and bridges
* provides secure bike lockers downtown
* allows bikes on busses and rail
i think the tax credit for cycle commuting is a great idea and one that could actually be economical and serve companies' interests too. most local ordinances REQUIRE most businesses to build a certain amount of parking spaces (for either customers or employees) and these costs also factor into the company's costs --- either as a per-employee cost or a per-x-customer cost --- imagine if a company with 1000 employees could reduce their parking lot from 1100 spaces to 600 spaces (assuming 100 for visitors) by half of their workers either cycling, walking, car-pooling or taking public transit.
at the very minimum, funds can be used to help ensure:
* that an alternative to the auto is POSSIBLE - i.e. that you don't have the situation where you need to get from point a to b and the only way is the multilane freeway or the interstate bridge with no shoulder and no bike/pedestrian crossing
* that cyclists are relatively safe on the road (mostly be making motorists accountable as i mention above) but also by educating motorists through signs, heck, maybe even adds (there are public service adds against drunk driving, why not against general wreckless or unfriendly or unsafe driving, particularly when seen from the perspective of pedestrians or cyclists)
on a related note, does anyone know if ISTEA has been renewed or what it's future is (under the Bush administration and the "tax cut and spend everything on the military" regime i think it looks bad) --- oh, that's Inter-modal Surface Transportation Act which as i understand was a federal act to allow states some flexibility in how they spent federal transportation dollars providing the choice to spend on cycling or pedestrian projects instead of being designated as "auto-facilties", with a certain percentage ear-marked for non-auto things. i think it was originally passed in like '91 and trhen renewed in '96 or so (i'm guessing) and i think due to expire some time in the last year or so.
although much of the money went to bikepaths of questional overall assistance to cycling (see other BF threads), many good things were done - for example Portland was able to finance bicycle bridge crossing and re-design cycle-unfriendly intersections, etc.
Andy Dreisch
OK, no more "ban the car" pronouncements from me. Please bear in mind that I am a serious, dedicated bike-commuter. I also love my car.
I just don't buy the prevailing opinion that dramatic changes must occur in order to make my bike-commuting experience better than it is. I am perfectly content with my lot. I co-exist with cars. I recognize that roads are built for them, not for us. I deal with it.
I view most attempts to improve our lot through governmental agaencies (e.g., bike lanes) as being full of unintended consequences.
Advocacy in this regard (e.g., San Francisco Critical Mass lunacy) often backfires.
If you do accept the need for dramatic change, I contend that the only way we're going to improve our lot is to dramatically increase our numbers. Sorry, but roads are for cars (or internal combustion vehicles in general). Sure, bicycles are "vehicles", but roads are clearly not built for our type of vehicle.
Why?
Because there are so few of us and so many of them.
Tax credits? You've got to be kidding. What lawmaker would possibly spend more than 5 minutes' time dealing with a bicycling advocacy issue like this?
A better bet would be to go through private institutions. We bike-commuters commute to work after all. Argue the direct savings a bike-commuter provides to the company health plan, and encourage others.
But it all comes down to demand. We are an invisible group; the less-than-one-percenters. And far too often we have Critical Mass-type idiots representing us, which paints us as lunatics (not an indictment of posters here).
So what is the goal of taking the data described earlier if it is not to effectively restrict the rights of automobile drivers? And if this is the case, we're vastly outnumbered.
Me? I'll wave to considerate motorists, stare down inconsiderate ones, and along the way they'll become more familiar with me and with other bike-commuters. I hope my fellow bikers don't work against my efforts.
Bigtime
Tax credits? You've got to be kidding. What lawmaker would possibly spend more than 5 minutes' time dealing with a bicycling advocacy issue like this?
Well, several states including Georgia, Arizona, and California have provided tax incentives for purchasing Low Emission Vehicles in the past. I believe the government also gives a 2,000 dollar tax credit if you own a clean fuel vehicle such as powered by an electric motor. They certainly have done it for vehicles, I see no reason why they could not apply something like this to bike commuters.
LittleBigMan
www.pednet.org/artblumenauer2.html
Andy Dreisch
Passing the tax exemption on to bike-commuters seems reasonable. But (a) did it pass and (b) how much an effect would this have? I mean, $175? And an exemption (not a credit)? Am I reading this right?
Also, from Earl's quote contained in the link: Forty percent of our daily auto trips are within two miles of the drivers' home.
This is misleading isn't it? The exemption would only cover commuting as I understand it. But the above quote covers all auto trips.
Don't get me wrong. This is not entirely useless. But very close!! ;) I am not arguing against these or similar measures. But I am saying (once again) that the demand for autos explains the prevelance of autos. Pure and simple.
There is no similar demand for bikes.
John C. Ratliff
Nathank,
What is the the driving you see in Germany? What are the repercussions of causing an accident there?
John
Bigtime
But (a) did it pass and (b) how much an effect would this have? I mean, $175? And an exemption (not a credit)? Am I reading this right?
A) As far as I can tell it is still being discussed by the Ways and Means committee, even though it was introduced over a year ago. B) This type of legislation will have little effect, IMO. But I appreciate LBM posting the link, and I think his point was to show you that some lawmakers are at least making an attempt. The forty percent quote was not meant to encompass the Commuting Act, but I think rather to suggest that maybe we should ride our bikes on these short trips which make up a good portion of auto usage.
Passing the tax exemption on to bike-commuters seems reasonable.
Ahh, there it is. Thank you sir.
Now I can go on record as saying I agree with your post :beer:
-BT
LittleBigMan
www.commuterchoice.com/employerresources.php?elink=support
(see especially, "Parking Cash-Out.")
Government subsidies already work for me. You can choose to ignore them if you want, but if you're paying taxes, why not get some of it back? The folks at Enron sure got their share.
Andy Dreisch
With all these incentives then, why are bike-commuters so rare?
LittleBigMan
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
With all these incentives then, why are bike-commuters so rare?
Incentives for bicycle commuting are practically non-existant. Incentives are primarily for all other alternatives to single-occupant vehicle commuting, such as mass-transit and carpooling.
Bike commuters are rare because we are just plain WEIRD!
Your point, as I understand it from previous posts, is that people drive because they prefer to. While this is obviously the case, one would have to wonder if they would still prefer to drive as much if the cost of doing so became prohibitive.
I have already determined that overdependence on cars was, for me, too costly, economically, healthwise and in terms of my quality of life.
Chris L
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
With all these incentives then, why are bike-commuters so rare?
Perhaps because every single car on the road is so heavily subsidised.
Andy Dreisch
Originally posted by LittleBigMan
... Your point, as I understand it from previous posts, is that people drive because they prefer to. While this is obviously the case, one would have to wonder if they would still prefer to drive as much if the cost of doing so became prohibitive.
Obviously, no.
But where is the data to substantiate that the cost of driving exceeds the benefit of driving? Obviously this is not the case. So if the cost of driving is somehow reduced by "subsidization" of driving, just who pays for the subsidization? Taxpayers that drive !! So how hidden is this "subsidization" anyway?
My point (refined) is this: we can rail against the "cost" of automobiles as much as we want in an effort to reduce the prevelance of those "nasty" vehicles. We can refer to the statistics used on this thread to say "Ah hah, cars are more costlier than previously thought." But the value of driving far, far, far exceeds the costs of doing so, "subsidies" or no. And unless this changes, there's going to be a lot of windmill-tilting going on by some here.
Stor Mand
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
With all these incentives then, why are bike-commuters so rare?
Perhaps because it is not practical for many to bicycle commute 20+ miles each way, drop off/pick up children and/or run errands and then still have time for family.
:beer:
mechBgon
But it all comes down to demand. We are an invisible group; the less-than-one-percenters. And far too often we have Critical Mass-type idiots representing us, which paints us as lunatics (not an indictment of posters here).
Unfortunately, in my area I'm also represented by thousands of scofflaws who won't stop for red lights, pay no heed to stop signs, won't cycle in a predictable fashion (eg, signalling turns)... aggravating. And I'm talking about adults, not children.
To shift gears, let's compare gasoline prices in the different countries we call home. Here in the US, evidence that automobile use is heavily subsidized can be seen in the typical gasoline prices of about US$0.40 per liter or less. You can use the CNN online currency converter here (http://money.cnn.com/markets/currencies/) for comparison in your currency. My understanding was that most other countries don't candy-coat the gasoline prices the way the US does.
It isn't completely impossible to live without a car, but if one wants to buy two weeks' worth of groceries, one had better have a bicycle trailer, or else a touring bike with front and rear panniers (and I would know, having done this in college). I managed to bring home 53 pounds (33kg) of food one time, but it wasn't easy. So I think autos will be the first choice of most people for the forseeable future, although I expect we will see them evolve to use fuel cells and other clean technologies.
Andy Dreisch
Originally posted by Stor Mand
Perhaps because it is not practical for many to bicycle commute 20+ miles each way, drop off/pick up children and/or run errands and then still have time for family.
:beer:
EXACTLY !!!
Which is why autos will remain as prevelant as they are. And which is why this thread, based upon hopes of the bicycle usurping the role of the auto in everday life ... is USELESS !!!
Andy Dreisch
Originally posted by mechBgon
Here in the US, evidence that automobile use is heavily subsidized can be seen in the typical gasoline prices of about US$0.40 per liter or less.
Wrong. This is instead evidence that the US has excellent gasoline production and distribution capabilties. Take away the taxes and you have a wonderfully inexpensive means of fueling the automobile!!
LittleBigMan
Let's cut to the chase.
Cars and trucks have boosted the US economy tremendously over the last 50 years. The US government has encouraged paving our nation for this reason and continues to do so. No one can deny this.
We can't suddenly stop driving anymore than we can stop breathing. The point is, if we don't stop driving so much, we won't be able to breathe...
mechBgon
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Wrong. This is instead evidence that the US has excellent gasoline production and distribution capabilties. Take away the taxes and you have a wonderfully inexpensive means of fueling the automobile!!
In a way, that's probably correct. I'm thinking of the US compared to, say, Germany. Apparently the cost of providing highways and the rest of the infrastructure that supports motor-vehicle use is not hidden away elsewhere, it's rolled into the cost of fuel for the vehicles that use the highway.
That is probably a gross oversimplification, but I'd suspect their nation is also quite efficient at distributing gasoline, and nevertheless the price of gasoline (in the customary US units) is apparently $3.50 to $3.75 per gallon, compared to $1.50 per gallon in the US. As a taxpayer in the US, I help pay for the cost of highways whether I drive or not. Hope that explains my line of thought a little better... :)
John C. Ratliff
First, let me agree that we are not going to get rid of cars. I use them all the time--today, for instance, to go scuba diving (after a 12 mile bicycle ride for exercise).
To answer an above question, the subsidy for auto accidents is $820 for each of us in the United States. The point of this thread is not to "outlaw" autos, but to point out the hidden costs of this enterprise.
In the safety profession, we many times map out the "hidden costs" of accidents. This is invaluable for management of a company to make decisions concerning accident prevention. If we can show that an engineering control of a workplace hazard can prevent a $500,000 injury/fatality, then management of that company is much more likely to spend the money. This study is therefore a tool each of us can use to apply to specific hazard situations for both cars and bicycles, to get changes made and make the ride/cummute by either method less costly in terms of both human lives and money.
John
Andy Dreisch
Originally posted by LittleBigMan
... We can't suddenly stop driving anymore than we can stop breathing. The point is, if we don't stop driving so much, we won't be able to breathe...
Sorry, LBM. Don't buy it. Modern automobiles are amazingly clean-burning and will become even more so as pressure on manufacturers to create even cleaner cars increases. To me your pronouncement seems a little extreme. But I guess we can agree to disagree. This is my opinion -- not a knock on yours.
RWTD
Autos are still a major cause of pollution in this country .Problem is they are so scattered and widely owned they are not a popular or cost-effective target to regulate.I think LBM made some good points.
LittleBigMan
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Sorry, LBM. Don't buy it. Modern automobiles are amazingly clean-burning and will become even more so as pressure on manufacturers to create even cleaner cars increases. To me your pronouncement seems a little extreme. But I guess we can agree to disagree. This is my opinion -- not a knock on yours.
Andy, what are the highest parts-per-million concentrations of ozone and particulate matter for San Jose during the last month?
Chris L
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Wrong. This is instead evidence that the US has excellent gasoline production and distribution capabilties
Even though most of it is imported from the Middle East.
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Sorry, LBM. Don't buy it. Modern automobiles are amazingly clean-burning and will become even more so as pressure on manufacturers to create even cleaner cars increases.
I disagree. Many people rave on about how 'clean' their cars are, but I for one am not prepared to lock myself in a room with one as yet.
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
But where is the data to substantiate that the cost of driving exceeds the benefit of driving? Obviously this is not the case. So if the cost of driving is somehow reduced by "subsidization" of driving, just who pays for the subsidization? Taxpayers that drive !! So how hidden is this "subsidization" anyway?
The basic problem with these sort of subisidies is that those who drive less end up paying the same amount as those who drive more. Hence those who only drive when they find it absolutely necessary are paying for those who drive distances that would be faster to walk. I find it amazing that many of these drivers would happily partake in a communist system here, when they criticise any country that adopts one in other facets of life.
John C. Ratliff
Here's a couple of other things I didn't post earlier tonight.
--A few years ago, when I was in Hong Kong, the price of gasoline (which was bought by the liter there) was the equivalent of about $8 per gallon.
--We buy crude oil from overseas, and manufacture the gasoline here.
--The cleanest-burning gasoline engine will not pollute as many nitrous oxides, and carbon monoxide. It will still produce as much, or more, carbon dioxide. The perfectly-burning gasoline engine produces CO2 and water. This will help the ozone problem, but not the greenhouse effect of increasing carbon dioxide levels worldwide. I read yesterday of huge losses of glacial ice from the Alaskan area--cause so far undetermined. Undetermined???
I told above about needing my car to go scuba diving today. I actually had the opportunity to participate in a fish counting exercise in the Tacoma area (I'm from Beaverton, Oregon). But I started thinking about the driving, the risks from driving 6 hours to the dive site, to do one dive for under one hour to count fish for a national database, and the amount of CO2 I'd be releasing into the air to do it. I couldn't justify it on either basis. So I dove a local river where there has been some drownings, and gave the lifeguards a rough idea of depth, hazards and currents for the area. Driving time was about an hour. I figure that I saved the environment about 5 hours of drive time, and the subsequent CO2 load that would cause.
What I hope to do is to raise the level of consciousness of both the risks of driving personally (and those costs to all of us), and the environmental impacts.
By the way, we are now in an air pollution alert for ozone in the Portland Metro area for tomorrow. Portlanders have been asked to limit driving, and to not mow lawns or use aerosol cans tomorrow and until this alert is lifted (KOIN News this evening).
John
mechBgon
Very enlightening info John.
My own 1988 wagon, similar to this one, (http://www.stationwagon.com/gallery/pictures/1985_Oldsmobile_Custom_Cruiser.jpg) is anything but a paragon of efficiency (14/21mpg city/highway), and the saving grace is that I don't drive it much or far (it does easily pass WA emissions tests for CO and oxides of nitrogen, thanks to a professionally-rebuilt carbuerator). Wish I could afford a lightweight sedan with a 4-cylinder engine, but I've got to make do with what's paid for. :(
Bigtime
The basic problem with these sort of subisidies is that those who drive less end up paying the same amount as those who drive more. Hence those who only drive when they find it absolutely necessary are paying for those who drive distances that would be faster to walk.
You hit the nail between the eyes Chris. Someone who drives 30K miles a year essentially pays the same as someone who drives 30. Definitely an issue with me, and if I knew of a way to have everyone pay their share I would do it. Just like if the police come to your home 10 times in a month, and I see them once every 10 years, you can't charge people per visit. It is a cost borne by everyone regardless of use. Maybe I should drive more, get my money's worth? ;)
Stor Mand
Originally posted by RWTD
Autos are still a major cause of pollution in this country .Problem is they are so scattered and widely owned they are not a popular or cost-effective target to regulate.I think LBM made some good points.
Some of you may not believe it but the air quality around most cities is better now than it was 100 years ago.
:beer:
John C. Ratliff
Maybe on the East Coast and in London...I don't think you can compare it that way on our coast. We weren't using coal for heating then.
A good way to look at that would be to read about bicycling in the 1870's. I've got one book, and when I find it I'll post it, which covers an around-the-world ride during that time period. Air quality was just one of the things commented upon in those pages.
John
webist
I ride my bicycle for exercise and fun. My vehicles generally provide me with neither. Yet trips to the store or other errands likely involve stops during other driving events such as to and from work. Occasionally, when cycling, I will stop for an errand.
I do not have a guilt complex during my drives, nor do I ponder my contribution to the environment when cycling. Each has its purpose and each has its costs and benefits.
I would take issue with the notion that the 30 mile driver pays equally to the 30K mile driver. The greater the number of miles driven the greater the gas tax paid, the higher the insurance costs, the more rapid the depreciation and turn over of the vehicle and the higher the sales taxes paid on parts over the life of the vehicle.
Carl
Bigtime
The greater the number of miles driven the greater the gas tax paid,
Carl you are absolutely correct. I neglected to include that in my post. Good point. The insurance/depreciation really only affects the car though, not so much the road which is what I was referring to.
LittleBigMan
Originally posted by Stor Mand
Some of you may not believe it but the air quality around most cities is better now than it was 100 years ago.
I would believe that during the winter, people had to heat their homes by burning coal. But your statement fails to take into account the size of cities 100 years ago. Today, ozone pollution (which does not occur in winter) covers vast areas.
Atlanta 100 years ago, for example, was tiny compared to what it is today. The "greater metro Atlanta" area includes small towns
further than 12 miles from the city itself. Automobile pollution covers these huge areas because of urban sprawl.
No, I am not convinced of the accuracy of your statement that the air quality around most cities is better now than it was 100 years ago. Where did you get this information?
Chris L
Originally posted by Stor Mand
Some of you may not believe it but the air quality around most cities is better now than it was 100 years ago.
:beer:
Not in this country it's not.
Roughstuff
The problem with all these statistics is you are attempting to jump to conclusions about individual behavior and motives.
Thus, "99% [or whatever] of all auto trips are less than 20 miles from home." So what? That means they can be done by bicycle instead? No way. Try taking a bike to bring the kids to a soccer game, pick up groceries, swing by the ATM to get some badly needed cash, run into CVS for a few prescriptions, pick the kids back up and bring them home for dinner. THATS what alot of those 20 miles are.
And stop the cackling about 'subsidies' to the auto industry since the roads are built by the states/feds. ORIGINALLY all the money for roads came from tolls and fees; then they switched to the gasoline tax. Of course, politicians being politicians, the gas tax now goes for many many functions that have nothing to DO with roads, so if anything, gas taxes are subsidizing god knows what! Just as cigarette tax revenues and settlements are SUPPOSED to go exclusively to nonsmoking efforts. Yeah, right!
The railroads were granted massive land rights-of-way as they expanded westward. Many of them still have this land on their books at a fraction of its true worth. Passenger railroads are failing because they provide half the service at twice the cost; if the Bush administration puts a nail into the coffin of amtrak it would be none too soon.
And by the way, if roads don't pay for themselves we can always reinstate user fees. We certainly have the technology to put scanners along major boulevards that will scan cars as they go by. You'll never see it. Once the public employee unions that work toll roads smell their jobs in danger, you can kiss that idea goodbye. It took forever just to get scanners on the Mass Pike and NY thruway.
Don't think for one minute there isn't a substantial minority of activists that would indeed like to ban cars. If the constitution guaranteed our right to "keep and ride automobiles," we'd have lost the choice to have a car already! The vision of the future these people see is everybody on buses and trains driven by public employee union hacks who can bring our urban areas to a standstill whenever they have some grievance like having their wages grow less than five times the inflation rate. Look at how london or NY grinds to a standstill when they have some piddling little beef.
The vast majority of transportation miles are for the carrying of commercial goods and services. Maybe cyclists can be pizza delievry boys--except when it rains. Till then grudge us greedy capitalists our delivery trucks, vans, and automobiles. I will use my bike for recreation, touring, and training; exactly the uses for which it was designed.
roughstuff
Jupe
Originally posted by Roughstuff
...snip...Thus, "99% [or whatever] of all auto trips are less than 20 miles from home." So what? That means they can be done by bicycle instead? No way. Try taking a bike to bring the kids to a soccer game, pick up groceries, swing by the ATM to get some badly needed cash, run into CVS for a few prescriptions, pick the kids back up and bring them home for dinner. THATS what alot of those 20 miles are...snip...
This is the all-or-nothing thinking that I often see in response to suggestions of reducing auto use. Nobody is saying that all trips under 20 miles should be done by bike but many certainly could be. There's also public transportation, carpooling, walking, etc. Also, how about using a bike for part of the trip you describe above: Drive to the soccer field, park the car, then take the bike for the rest of the errands.
I've not found it practical (yet) to completely rid myself of my car. However I've drastically reduced the mileage that I drive. I ride my bike to work usually 4 days a week and do most of my other errands by bike or on my way home from work on the day that I drive. I now make, on average, two car trips a week - both probably over 20 miles. Furthermore, I've found that the benefits of reducing my car use greatly outweigh the costs.
Roughstuff
Originally posted by Jupe
Also, how about using a bike for part of the trip you describe above: Drive to the soccer field, park the car, then take the bike for the rest of the errands.
Sure man!! Hop in the car, drop the kids at the game. Whip the bike off the roof, run and buy ice cream and coke for an after game party. I run a freezer off of my bicycle drive train to keep it frozen while I park in the hot sun (locked of course!!) and go to CVS. I'll take my mom's prescription, hang it off the handlebars in a neighborhood where any package worth more than 2 bucks is ripped off in seconds, while I go to the ATM and get enough cash to buy another bike, since i thought a 2 minute visit to an ATM wouldn't need a darn lock. Now me and the kids can all walk home happy since i lost the car keys in the bicycle handlebar bag. Did i forget to mention the rain?
NO ONE said you can't use a bike sometimes to do SOME things. But given that most driven road miles are COMMERCE and SERVICE related, a bike is a poor, poor choice.
roughstuff
LittleBigMan
The fact is, most cars during any commute contain exactly one person: the driver.
As for toting kids, of course, there is almost no other way to do this than by car. Then again, in my old neighborhood, you could bike or walk to the park where the little league games were held.
My parents refused to drive me anywhere. Never hurt me a bit. I just learned to have fun without shopping at the mall.