What would it take to make a real impact in reducing car usage?

[LandLuger]

There have been a number of recent threads both here and elsewhere that have raised this question in my mind. There are some very bright individuals who frequent this forum, and I would like to read some of your insight. Personally, at least here in the States, I don't think the general public would change their driving habits for any reason--save some horrible catastrophe which knocked us back to an early 1900's tech level--would drive the average Joe to give up their four wheeled vehicle for anything else be it a bike or whatever. Please take this in the good spirit that it is intended. What are some practical strategies that would make a measureable impact? I personally don't own a vehicle and put somewhere between five thousand and ten thousand miles on my bikes, and the singular bummer of riding a bike is putting up with the hordes of motorists burning up the roads and threatening my life and limb almost daily with their careless driving.

I apologize if this has been beat to death, but a casual search of the posts turned up little specific to what I am asking.

[Artkansas]

There have been a number of recent threads both here and elsewhere that have raised this question in my mind. There are some very bright individuals who frequent this forum, and I would like to read some of your insight.

Personal Teleportation.

[mpop]

I don't know if this could be done, but the reason people use cars to much is that people are way to lazy, I see people get in their car to drive 2 blocks. So the first thing is not to get people on the bikes, but get people to be less lazy. When people are not lazy then you can get them on the bikes.

The US is not the fattest nation on earth for no reason.

[PaulH]

Fewer parking spaces and more congestion. People will take what ever transportation is easiest. Personally, I ride in part because I am too lazy to drive.

Paul

[LandLuger]

Fewer parking spaces. People will take what ever transportation is easiest. Personally, I ride in part because I am too lazy to drive.

Paul

Personally I'm too BORED to drive. Wish there was a way to share my perspective on transportation to people; it defies words--at least my humble ability.

[LandLuger]

Personal Teleportation.

:crash:

[genec]

I don't know if this could be done, but the reason people use cars to much is that people are way to lazy, I see people get in their car to drive 2 blocks. So the first thing is not to get people on the bikes, but get people to be less lazy. When people are not lazy then you can get them on the bikes.

The US is not the fattest nation on earth for no reason.


Yeah, nearly impossible to change that laziness factor... however... what if gas cost too much, what if it were just too difficult to drive 2 blocks due to really narrow crowded streets. What if there were large "no car zones" in cities to encourage clean air areas...

All of these might be enough to displace that laziness factor.

Of course if you are driving 2 blocks to pick up 6 sheets of plywood... well that is another issue. Yeah... it could be done on a bike, just like moving a piano... if you have the right bikes.

[LandLuger]

Yeah, nearly impossible to change that laziness factor... however... what if gas cost too much,

Alternatives such as bio fuels and hydrogen would become viable at some point, and Joe Public would be back in his SUV.


what if it were just too difficult to drive 2 blocks due to really narrow crowded streets. What if there were large "no car zones" in cities to encourage clean air areas...


This would probably never happen in a free Republic; the taxpayers would demand more roads, parking spaces, free state provided respirators, etc.


All of these might be enough to displace that laziness factor.

Of course if you are driving 2 blocks to pick up 6 sheets of plywood... well that is another issue. Yeah... it could be done on a bike, just like moving a piano... if you have the right bikes.

Not necessarily vehicle free just ideas that would have a strong impact on the mindset of Joe Public.

[slagjumper]

The President is doing all he can to get the oil producing countries of the world to stop selling the US oil. Once that happens, gas will go above 5 bucks per gallon. Gas will have to stay at that price for a few years for people to start moving closer to work and school, and to stop driving to the store for one thing.

If you dont want to sit around and wait for that plan to come into effect, then consider this--

Increase the gas tax. This would help us still be able to pay for roads once less fuel is purchased becuase of more people using hybrids. Right now no state fuel tax is higher than 37 cents a gallon.

Give tax breaks and other incentives to corporations that increase commuting, and alternative transportation use. I dont think that the President would like this, because there would be less demand for gas, the price of gas would drop and so more people would drive. I't would be nice to give everyone who bikes to work a day off, every 20 days of bike commuting. Some small company could make tamper proof gps odometers to verify that you where in fact riding the bike to work. If you where busted getting dropped of by the wife, and riding one block on the bike, you would be guilty of a crime against the Treasury and the IRS could come and take your car.

I don't know why so many Americans like spending a 2 - 4 week vacation sitting in their cars, going to and from work. Seems like we should get paid for that. But instead, what if people had to telecommute? I'd rather see Verizon and Comcast get the money, then waste a vacation's worth of time sitting in traffic jams.

What if the FCC started levying steap fines against advertisers for making fun of bikes? Taco Bell and the Yellow pages would be in trouble.

What if city officials closed 10% of your city's road space to cars, put up Jersey beariers, and opened them to cyclists? Imagine riding to work with out looking over your shoulder, worrying about some 17 year old or an octagenerian clipping you as they talk on a cell phone?

What if schools started contests that gave ice cream to the kid who wrote the best essay about why they liked bicycles. What if they replaced the many steering-wheeled based palyground equipent with bike-merry-go-rounds?

What if police where required to block traffic behind a cyclist when they came behind one?

What if the laws were changed so that the driver of any car that came in contact with a cyclist had to prove, why the cyclist was at fault in order to get off?

How about a 100% import tarriff on any luxury or sports car? The proceeds could be used for bike awareness PSAs.

What if we let the Japanese mob in to run Kerin tracks in the US? The winners would be idolized by the kids, who would start cycling to emulate their heros.

What if more bike manufacturers and other interests, (like walmart), started kicking in for advertising and PSAs?

If every bike commuter got 2 more to commute by bike, every year-- In 6 years everyone would be commuting by bike.

[LandLuger]

What if the FCC started levying steap fines against advertisers for making fun of bikes? Taco Bell and the Yellow pages would be in trouble.

If you think popular culture/fiction is hard on bicyclists in general then consider how hard Hollywood is on recumbent cyclists like myself. What type of characters do you see riding recumbents in the movies and television? It is really too bad because the extreme comfort of the recumbent would bring hordes of newbie riders into the fold if they would be willing to give 'em a try.

[attercoppe]

There are some very bright individuals who frequent this forum, and I would like to read some of your insight.
Well, if it's okay, I'll speak up too. ;) I think the only thing that will happen in the near future (barring some major catastrophe) that will get at least some people to drive less is a significant increase in gasoline prices. I'm not sure that this will create a "real" impact or not - I think prices would have to get pretty high to get even a large minority to drastically reduce or even completely cut out their driving. And as you mentioned, alternative fuels will likely undermine this.



The President is doing all he can to get the oil producing countries of the world to stop selling the US oil. Once that happens, gas will go above 5 bucks per gallon.
Wow, I never thought of it that way. Once we tick off all the oil-producing countries, GW and his Texas buddies will be supplying America with all its oil - at prices even higher than they are now. Hmmm...

[Thor29]

Think about how most Americans live. In a suburban sprawl metro area where jobs and houses are spread out all over the place, cars are almost a neccesity. Especially for family types. I don't like it - but it is a reality.

What will it take for the average suburban American to get out of their car? That's easy - when they can't afford to drive. This will happen (and hybrid cars, hydrogen, biodiesel, wind power, etc will not be able to prevent it) soon enough as oil gets too expensive. Of course, the economy will crash and they won't have jobs to go to nor money to spend so they won't have any reason to leave the house anyway, at least until the house is repossessed and they join the hordes of people roaming the countryside trying to figure out how to survive.

But look on the bright side - obesity will be a thing of the past.

[chicbicyclist]

Thor's got it.

It's all about the sprawl, that damn suburban sprawl. Make that expensive compared to living in the city centre, and you might see a dent in car usage. That, coupled with Smarth Urban Growth(mixed-use zoning, better public transit) and car usage should drop.

The main reason people drivbe in cars is not laziness, though it is a factor. It is the convenience of arriving faster at your destination comfortably, and economically.

So in summary, this is what needs to happen:

1. Higher upkeep for a car(gas, parking, etc.).
2. Quality of a commute(Higher commuting times and unbereable traffic congestion).
3. More people choosing urban living(New York City is a very good example, more people do not own cars than those who do).

This would probably never happen in a free Republic; the taxpayers would demand more roads, parking spaces, free state provided respirators, etc.

But in a dense city, you can only build so much roads....

[wageslaveonbike]

we've basically peaked in oil extraction and its entirely likely we will see a decline sometime in the next decade. So I think the car usage is going to make an impact on itself. I also agree that there is no way we are going to be able to replace all the cars with biodiesel. hydrogen is just a sad joke. The thing that you need to do is think about how you can help create a more viable public transport and a local based economy. Think about where you get your food, your electricity and just about every thing else you own.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

There are some very bright individuals who frequent this forum, and I would like to read some of your insight.
Really? Me too. Let me know when one of them responds with credible ideas on this subject, and not more far-out, groovy, spacey, and/or chemically induced wishful thinking/speculation.

A related topic would be explaining the purpose of proselytization for getting others to involuntarily and drastically alter their lifestyle to eliminate their private car usage/ownership, in order to please those who do voluntarily choose to live a car free life-style.

[MichaelW]

Sprawl developement has factored cars into the design. You can't replace them with anything else even if you wanted to.
A is too far from B for anyone to consider cycling and the origins of journies (everyones A) are too spread out for effective public transport.
The most effective way of reducing car use is the Katrina option.

[mpop]

I see alot of talk about high gas prices, I will admit even though I don't buy gas, high gas prices do scare me. Why? you might ask, because I still need to eat, and I doubt that the trucking companies will be nice and eat that cost, more likely they will pass it on, and tack on a little more to make a extra profit (I am not bad mouthing them, this is how things work) well the chain will continue like this warehouses, and the store will also pass on the cost, and if the costing is going up a bit, well an 10% more in their pocket will not hurt them.

I will admit a part of me would like to see the SOB's that try to run me off the road when I am on my bike, having to pay $100 a gal, but still my logic kicks in and I do realize, that if they are paying that $100 a gal, how much more would I have to pay for my food, and other stuff.

[LandLuger]

Really? Me too. Let me know when one of them responds with credible ideas on this subject, and not more far-out, groovy, spacey, and/or chemically induced wishful thinking/speculation.

Sure, you too. You've hit it on the head; I looking for innovative strategies, ones that would survive the odyssey through our elected government, to strike at the heart of this "addiction to oil." While its great that this thread is gaining some traction I'm really looking for out of the box thinking on this subject.

[LandLuger]

Sprawl developement has factored cars into the design. You can't replace them with anything else even if you wanted to.
A is too far from B for anyone to consider cycling and the origins of journies (everyones A) are too spread out for effective public transport.
The most effective way of reducing car use is the Katrina option.

Its hard for me to sympathize with the single individuals--those w/o children--because I'm sort of a freak. I live in a rural area that is about as far from anywhere as possible; I like it that way, and I don't mind the fifteen mile ride into town either. People think I'm crazy when I ride thirty miles to the nearest city to get something or other. On a recumbent I can make serious time; could do even faster in a velomobile if the investment wasn't so darn high. I worked with a fellow who did the sixty mile round trip commute most days of the week. But we're freaks, right?

[mpop]

Maybe we can try to get them to think about how much it costs to own a car, a cheap car, with gas, insurance, maintenance, etc. Can run you about $9K a year, I rather spend that $9K on other things.

[LandLuger]

Hmmm. . .education. Many have touched on this. Might as well do a little positive brainwashing on our kids. I mean it seems like the schools are full of radical teachers these days; why not.

[Nightshade]

Since the end of WWII Big Oil, Big car makers & Big government have
all worked to remove rail,bus, trolly or any means of mass transit nationwide.

Look at the rest of the world. Mass transit and extremely hi cost of
car ownership go hand in hand. The rest of the world is smart enough
to know where to put public transportation dollars and it ain't in super
highways! It's in trains. It's in tiny electric / gas city cars. It's in what
serves the most for the least cost.

Urban sprawl is the result of cars not the other way 'round. I can remember
a time in the 50's & early 60's when you could easily travel by train with good
bus service in cities.

Sadly, as long as the the three "Big's" run the show we will all be stuck driving
everywhere.

[cerewa]

On a recumbent I can make serious time; could do even faster in a velomobile if the investment wasn't so darn high.

Have you tried to do homemade fairings? I hear they help some with aerodynamics.

[Roody]

I think there are four things, each already mentioned, that will significantly reduce car use:


A hefty increase in the price of gas.
An increase in the prices of automobiles themselves.
Development of livable or sustainable communities.
Practical and efficient alternative transportation.


I think #1 is inevitable, given the dwindling of the resource. Higher taxes should be implemented to speed this along, helping us conserve the petroleum that's left, and to help pay for alternatives.

#2 will probably not occur, as higher productivity of auto workers and better efficiency in auto plants is actually making cars cheaper. A hefty tax on gas guzzlers would help. Say, $2,000 for each mile per gallon under 50 mpg. In other words, a vehicle that gets 20 mpg would be slapped with a $60,000 tax.

#3 is starting to happen, at least on paper, largely because it's what many aging baby boomers want. Sustainable communities will pick up more momentum if auto transportation become much more expensive.

#4 requires political will and so far there isn't much demand for good public transport. Of course most of us on this forum have an alternative that works well for us--the bicycle--but we recognize that bikes are not the answer for everybody.

[schiavonec]

going along with Roody's #3 (sustainable city)

A radical paradigm shift in all future municipal development such that there is a reversion to a real city model, i.e. one in which there is no need to live in the burbs and take the suv to costco for a truckload of provisions. Independence from personal motor car transportation, walking and biking has and will always be viable in this type of model. This works in Europe for the most part due to higher density population, adequate public transport, and the lack of wally worlds, albeit the super store is making its way there too. Ultimately the 'hassles' of personal motor car ownership need to exceed the benefits (perceived or real). If you live in NyC, there isn't much impetus for a two adult family to own two cars (arguably even one). Everything thing you need (except a campground LOL) is within a short walk, cab ride, train, subway. This includes health care, schooling, many types of recreation/entertainment, food sources, etc.

Perhaps ways to promote this is gov sponsorship of redev vs suburban dev. (Make the federal contributions for infrastructure exponentially higher for city redev and reduce funds for suburb/rural dev.)

Increase funding for greenspace/undev lands with nodal connectivity between centers to facility locomotion via train/bus.

Increase toll roads and taxes associated with the transport industry to represent the true cost of movement. (Abated rates for trucking, etc. so as to not penalize necessary trade and damage the economy or ability to obtain necessities.)

(Gov plans in place such that real estate values on the periphery aren't negatively impacted (lofty goal here which is probably unrealistic))

A way for people to realize they don't need 'more'. This applies to a highly consumer oriented society where people 'require' more space just to store their 'stuff'.

[tokidokizenzen]

Yep, I agree with nearly all of it. I think that gas prices are the strongest current force [not very effective in the long run] to help reduce auto use. Unfortunately this only affects middle and lower income folks. Most above this bracket will think nothing of paying $5 at the pump. And about laziness, I'm not sure this is the right word, convenience is more like it. If you see a closer parking spot then you will park there.

Most cities in America do not make alternative transportation easier. I live in the biggest offender of all, Massachusetts. Throughout my life here I have experienced just about all the forms of transportation this city has to offer and none are as convenient as driving. The absolute worst form of transport here are the busses, I will not describe why becuase the list will never end.

In the end I guess there are too many variables to figure this one out. All are valid and effect the convenience of the other. Myself, I would ride in every day but weather and work load does not always permit. And there are the days where I am just too worn out to make the 11 mile commute.

[LandLuger]

Have you tried to do homemade fairings? I hear they help some with aerodynamics.

I experimented with a Mueller windwrap and found it offered more protection from the elements than increased speed. The real speed gains are to be found in body socks and streamlined hardshell bodies. This isn't really practical on a bicycle so you need a tricycle, and then you've arrived back at the velomobile. If there was a manufacturer in the States I would be the first in line.

[LandLuger]

going along with Roody's #3 (sustainable city)

A radical paradigm shift in all future municipal development such that there is a reversion to a real city model, i.e. one in which there is no need to live in the burbs and take the suv to costco for a truckload of provisions. Independence from personal motor car transportation, walking and biking has and will always be viable in this type of model. This works in Europe for the most part due to higher density population, adequate public transport, and the lack of wally worlds, albeit the super store is making its way there too. Ultimately the 'hassles' of personal motor car ownership need to exceed the benefits (perceived or real). If you live in NyC, there isn't much impetus for a two adult family to own two cars (arguably even one). Everything thing you need (except a campground LOL) is within a short walk, cab ride, train, subway. This includes health care, schooling, many types of recreation/entertainment, food sources, etc.

Perhaps ways to promote this is gov sponsorship of redev vs suburban dev. (Make the federal contributions for infrastructure exponentially higher for city redev and reduce funds for suburb/rural dev.)

Increase funding for greenspace/undev lands with nodal connectivity between centers to facility locomotion via train/bus.

Increase toll roads and taxes associated with the transport industry to represent the true cost of movement. (Abated rates for trucking, etc. so as to not penalize necessary trade and damage the economy or ability to obtain necessities.)

(Gov plans in place such that real estate values on the periphery aren't negatively impacted (lofty goal here which is probably unrealistic))

A way for people to realize they don't need 'more'. This applies to a highly consumer oriented society where people 'require' more space just to store their 'stuff'.

It would seem that a greater sense of community is at the heart of your essay; however, currently the powers that be seem to be driving a wedge between the citizens. Would you agree?

[Satyr]

I don't know if this could be done, but the reason people use cars to much is that people are way to lazy, I see people get in their car to drive 2 blocks. So the first thing is not to get people on the bikes, but get people to be less lazy. When people are not lazy then you can get them on the bikes.

The US is not the fattest nation on earth for no reason.

This is an important point to remember. The use of a car for moderate tasks is not usually a product of necessity. I see dozens upon dozens of people on my commute to class each day, during snowstorms and icy road conditions. Most of the people are not serious cyclists, and had they been raised in the States, probably would not be biking. This is just to say, attitude drives the use of vehicles.

For the U.S. a few things would need to happen.

1) The association that motor vehicle = freedom/joy would need to be broken. This would basically require less media attention on vehicles, and a revamping of car advertisements. Car adverts are many in the States and always focus on an SUV taking you to some improbable alpine locale, or even a regular vehicle bringing joy by speeding around corners, etc.

2) Greater public concern about health.

3) Commuter bikes need to be easy to acquire. I speak about things that have dynamo lights, racks, baskets, fenders, easy gearing, etc., already installed. Average people in Europe can bike with greater ease pricesely because it is easy to pick up a bike fit for commuting.

4) Bikes need to be popularized to American youth, and the idea that they are a legitament transportation method drilled into the younger generations.

Basically, the general notion is to BREAK down the worship of the car - CREATE supply of utilitarian bicycles - EDUCATE youth. Those three things I think would make a tremendous difference. I have lived in a lot of places and never found a place that deterred my cycling (though most wouldn't spend 3-4 hours commuting each day as I have had to in the past).

I'm pretty optimistic about the future, but occasionally get these dark glimpses where people are so wrapped up in technology that makes life easy that they forget the simple joys.

[schiavonec]

Greater sense of community could be a way to state it, but it probably depends. Does NYC have a greater sense of community (in the broadest sense) than any other place? Dunno, but it certainly is a great city and one in which you can be car free. Great place to visit, but I don't want to live there permanently. The concept of community can apply to just about any setting though. (People in rural areas have some of the best sense of community there is, e.g. helping one another out, etc.)

Never thought about the 'wedge' that way. The powers that be aren't presenting any impetus (albeit often at their own enrichment) to change so I guess there is an implicit wedge, e.g. keep the status quo.

[TimJ]

More political participation with an eye toward creating an environment in which less burning of petroleum makes the most sense.

A lot of people have touched on it but zoning laws and the (mainly) municipal entities that control them dictate how we physically live in this country more than anything else. How do you change infrastructure development to be more pedestrian/bike friendly? You go to some boring-ass meeting downtown and make yourself someone to be listened too, or you form some sort of community interest group and make your presence known at those same boring-ass meetings, or you get elected to stuff from neighborhood councils on up and you do the actual legwork required for change. Or you keep informed and knowledgeable about the subjects and you vote for and support the people who are going to do this for you.

Sure, trying to be an example yourself could possibly open someone’s mind a bit or something, but that’s not going to change the new Walmart being built on a road with nothing but freeway access. City councils get some development group in front of them that says ‘we’re gonna build x number of outlet malls and it’ll bring x jobs and x revenues, and all we want is this land and an off-ramp’ and they jump allover it because they need the property tax revenues to pay for city services and they want to say they brought jobs to town, etc., etc., and not one moment is spent considering what that development forces people to do. It forces people to drive. It forces people to take that one particular road. It forces people to spend their day in the car because it’s too far away to be a quick stop, etc.

Every last tiny little municipal zoning decision forces behavior, plain and simple. Most people don’t base their everyday decisions on anything beyond taste and convenience, and often convenience will engender taste [$$ falls into convenience]. They don’t care how their coffee beans were grown, or where their gas comes from, or who made the shirt they’re wearing- and they are never going to. That’s the biggest mistake most earnest tree-huggers make, thinking ‘if only other people understood what I understand, their behavior would change’. B.S. People don’t care, they don’t want to care, they don’t want to know. Lucky for all the earnest tree-hugger types, they don’t need to.

People drive 2 blocks away because more often than not they’re forced to drive to get what they want. So, driving simply becomes habit. If decisions at the municipal level were made with an eye toward NOT forcing particular bad behaviors- at the least- or at the best, forcing good behavior, then change would start to occur naturally. The majority of everyone who doesn’t give a thought to their everyday actions would be habituated to better behavior without even knowing it.

More political participation with an eye toward creating an environment in which less burning of petroleum makes the most sense.

[TimJ]

This is an important point to remember. The use of a car for moderate tasks is not usually a product of necessity. I see dozens upon dozens of people on my commute to class each day, during snowstorms and icy road conditions. Most of the people are not serious cyclists, and had they been raised in the States, probably would not be biking. This is just to say, attitude drives the use of vehicles.

For the U.S. a few things would need to happen.

1) The association that motor vehicle = freedom/joy would need to be broken. This would basically require less media attention on vehicles, and a revamping of car advertisements. Car adverts are many in the States and always focus on an SUV taking you to some improbable alpine locale, or even a regular vehicle bringing joy by speeding around corners, etc.

2) Greater public concern about health.

3) Commuter bikes need to be easy to acquire. I speak about things that have dynamo lights, racks, baskets, fenders, easy gearing, etc., already installed. Average people in Europe can bike with greater ease pricesely because it is easy to pick up a bike fit for commuting.

4) Bikes need to be popularized to American youth, and the idea that they are a legitament transportation method drilled into the younger generations.

Basically, the general notion is to BREAK down the worship of the car - CREATE supply of utilitarian bicycles - EDUCATE youth. Those three things I think would make a tremendous difference. I have lived in a lot of places and never found a place that deterred my cycling (though most wouldn't spend 3-4 hours commuting each day as I have had to in the past).

I'm pretty optimistic about the future, but occasionally get these dark glimpses where people are so wrapped up in technology that makes life easy that they forget the simple joys.
I could not possibly disagree more. See my previous post above, but think about your ideas in the context of, well, any problem this country has ever faced. You're talking about changing minds, getting people to think about things differently, and that’s got to be the most inefficient, ineffectual method of controlling behavior there is. I mean, that’s the ultimate goal, right? You don’t want someone to still drive a block to the store but like bicycles, you want them to bike to the store, right?

If you want to change behavior, then go after the behavior. Going after the supposed logic behind the behavior is a fool’s errand, because who says there’s any logic there at all?

Plus, think about actualization of this idea, the idea to change ideas. What are you going to do? What is anyone going to do? It’s possible to make some people think differently, take the GOP’s war against reason since Golwater’s defeat. They created think tanks in order to create “experts” who could farm out their “expert” opinions and shape the discourse, they got rid of “equal time” legislation and began raising pundits whose sole purpose is to keep the talking points in the spotlight, they created a system of harassment and intimidation that has ultimately created the idea that there is no such thing as objectivity, etc., etc., and now we have the absolute worst president this nation has ever had presiding for 8 years.

That took 40 years, billions of dollars and a ton of insiders, and still they’ve maybe only brainwashed 1/3 of the country.

Changing people’s minds is the absolute worst way to change their behavior on a national scale. I firmly believe that to be true.

[chicbicyclist]

Timj, petroleum buning could be easilly replaced with other alternative forms of energy, especially in the near future, making your arguments kinda moot.

[recursive]

Timj, petroleum buning could be easilly replaced with other alternative forms of energy, especially in the near future, making your arguments kinda moot.

With what? ethanol? hydrogen? fuel cells? natural gas?

There's not enough.

[TimJ]

Timj, petroleum buning could be easilly replaced with other alternative forms of energy, especially in the near future, making your arguments kinda moot.
Uh, I don't think that's accurate, and I don't even see how it addresses my argument. Did you read up until you saw the words "petroleum burning" and stop there?

[mpop]

TimJ, I would have to say, it is best to change ideas, not just action. Why do you think we (I use we because I am a conservative) conservatives make so much fun of "Political Correct" speak, it does not change the underling problem it just hides it till it boils over. Also if you only change the actions, as soon as the rules that prohibit the action are removed that action will come right back. Now if you change the way people think, if you win their hearts and minds then you have won a more important war. Along with this, you have to realize that in all culture wars one of the major weapons is the language, so you do need to look at the language wars.

Laws might help curb bad actions, but you still need to win the culture war.

[TimJ]

TimJ, I would have to say, it is best to change ideas, not just action. Why do you think we (I use we because I am a conservative) conservatives make so much fun of "Political Correct" speak, it does not change the underling problem it just hides it till it boils over. Also if you only change the actions, as soon as the rules that prohibit the action are removed that action will come right back. Now if you change the way people think, if you win their hearts and minds then you have won a more important war. Along with this, you have to realize that in all culture wars one of the major weapons is the language, so you do need to look at the language wars.

Laws might help curb bad actions, but you still need to win the culture war.
I’m not talking about laws that address behavior, I’m talking about infrastructure. Infrastructure dictates behavior far more than laws regarding personal behavior when you talk about civic actions. You’re making the mistake of thinking there are innumerable options available to each individual on how to live their life day-to-day, so therefore the only way to change how someone lives is to change how they want to live. Sorry, there isn’t. There’s a finite set of choices based upon where a person is physically and what surrounds them. What surrounds them is infrastructure built according to a plan, usually a plan that pays no mind to anything but drive in, drive out.

When people start to fight against these sort of civically bad behaviors, like the car culture, people who never gave any thought to how they live get offended and reflexively defend themselves, defend their complete attachment to their car, for instance, and then go so far as to embrace the “bad” behavior as a statement to liberty, or some other thing. This is how something as rote as driving around in a car becomes a deeply held symbol of individualism and freedom. I mean, yee-ha. Driving around in a car. Go cowboy.

If you go after hearts and minds you’re framing the argument as philosophical or moral one which means there’s no right or wrong, no up or down, and maybe it can effect change, maybe it can’t, my point is it’s the worst way to change behaviour. You want to change how a rat runs through it’s maze, change the maze.

[btw- I reject any notion of a "culture war". The only "culture war" this country has experienced is the manufactured one being waged on Fox News and Talk Radio every day. There's no "culture" there, just hate-mongering.]

[Roody]

If you go after hearts and minds you’re framing the argument as philosophical or moral one which means there’s no right or wrong, no up or down, and maybe it can effect change, maybe it can’t, my point is it’s the worst way to change behaviour. You want to change how a rat runs through it’s maze, change the maze.

Some real life examples would be helpful Tim.

How would you "change the maze" to reduce car usage?

[mpop]

TimJ, well if people chose to live in the city more then in the suburbs then we don't need to worry to much about infrastructure. This is first step in the culture war here is to get people to reexamine where they live, and why they live there. If we get people to consider living in the city, this will not happen over night, people already have homes they live in, but when some one finds the need to move (say a new job in a new area) if they see the value of buying in the city, or teach the younger generations about living in the city, when they finally move out of their parents basement, they will look at living in the city. this could take 40 years or more, but if we take a longer view of things we can win for the future. (I know you hate Talk Radio, I will admit I love it and those you said you don't like I do like, I am a talk radio junkie) but this is the tactic that has been used with talk radio, reach the hearts and minds and over time people will change.

[TimJ]

Some real life examples would be helpful Tim.

How would you "change the maze" to reduce car usage?
Helpful? How about this- stop building things the way they’re built.

Seriously though, I’m talking about the forest, not the trees, all you need to do to think about what’s wrong with zoning is go to the nearest mall and observe how completely unfriendly it is to anything but cars. Now, imagine it otherwise.

How about no more off-ramp shopping centers? Just completely stop the practice and have some sort of maximum distance of shopping center to residential center, with access from smaller roads and pedestrian walkways, sidewalks, etc., within the complex, from street to shop. Limit the size of one-store retail centers. Incentives for complete underground parking where possible, making above-ground stores designed specifically for pedestrian access. How many parking spaces for how much square foot is regulated, why not how many ring-and-post bike stands? Or bike lockers? Curb the practice of single-use zoning. Tie mass-transit to a formula so any project that attracts x# of people or more per x time period must be serviced by mass transit, and put the cost on the developer if there’s no extant service.

I don’t know, there’s tons of stuff, I’m not a city planner. The country isn’t shaped the way it’s shaped because of some “free market”. This place is zoned down to the last square inch and the only question is: whom does the zoning serve? So far, much development has served nothing but monied interests- no regard to civic life at all. So rather than keep building things according to where the money flows, why not build it according to what’s best for people and place?

[LandLuger]

More political participation with an eye toward creating an environment in which less burning of petroleum makes the most sense.

A lot of people have touched on it but zoning laws and the (mainly) municipal entities that control them dictate how we physically live in this country more than anything else. How do you change infrastructure development to be more pedestrian/bike friendly? You go to some boring-ass meeting downtown and make yourself someone to be listened too, or you form some sort of community interest group and make your presence known at those same boring-ass meetings, or you get elected to stuff from neighborhood councils on up and you do the actual legwork required for change. Or you keep informed and knowledgeable about the subjects and you vote for and support the people who are going to do this for you.

Sure, trying to be an example yourself could possibly open someone’s mind a bit or something, but that’s not going to change the new Walmart being built on a road with nothing but freeway access. City councils get some development group in front of them that says ‘we’re gonna build x number of outlet malls and it’ll bring x jobs and x revenues, and all we want is this land and an off-ramp’ and they jump allover it because they need the property tax revenues to pay for city services and they want to say they brought jobs to town, etc., etc., and not one moment is spent considering what that development forces people to do. It forces people to drive. It forces people to take that one particular road. It forces people to spend their day in the car because it’s too far away to be a quick stop, etc.

Every last tiny little municipal zoning decision forces behavior, plain and simple. Most people don’t base their everyday decisions on anything beyond taste and convenience, and often convenience will engender taste [$$ falls into convenience]. They don’t care how their coffee beans were grown, or where their gas comes from, or who made the shirt they’re wearing- and they are never going to. That’s the biggest mistake most earnest tree-huggers make, thinking ‘if only other people understood what I understand, their behavior would change’. B.S. People don’t care, they don’t want to care, they don’t want to know. Lucky for all the earnest tree-hugger types, they don’t need to.

People drive 2 blocks away because more often than not they’re forced to drive to get what they want. So, driving simply becomes habit. If decisions at the municipal level were made with an eye toward NOT forcing particular bad behaviors- at the least- or at the best, forcing good behavior, then change would start to occur naturally. The majority of everyone who doesn’t give a thought to their everyday actions would be habituated to better behavior without even knowing it.

More political participation with an eye toward creating an environment in which less burning of petroleum makes the most sense.

Your points are well taken, and you seem to have a grasp of the mindset of the common man at least those that I know. But as you said most cities and states are just struggling to make the budget year to year. How much credence do you think they will give to an individual representing a fraction of a % of the population? How would you put your ideas into practice? If one were to just show up talking up the coming energy crunch and the concerns over the future of our children's children how do you think it would go over? I'm not trying to throw cold water over your remarks; for the most part I agree.

[WorldWind]

I agree, the shift must happen from the top down. With well planned living spaces. But also, the profit in oil must be removed from the equation before its use in cars will be contraindicated. Just making things more expensive only excludes the lower classes from the utility they provide. Even when this benefits the infrastructure, it will not curtail their use to any great extent. Further more it will intensify the rift between the haves and the have-nots and spur ever widening waves of crime.

But the question was not about homes and oil but cars wasn’t it. The profit in making cars must be removed from the equation before all the cars begin to disappear from the landscape. Before this will even begin to happen we will need viable public transportation that is safe and convenient. Stores will need to start specializing in low cost error free deliveries. Then the question becomes can we live without our cars and still have the American dream?

In a world of bicycles only you would severely limit mobility to the young and healthy.

[LandLuger]

With what? ethanol? hydrogen? fuel cells? natural gas?

There's not enough.

Truly at present energy is vastly undervalued just look at how much energy is required to produce the above fuels, but at some point these will become viable as the existing oil fields expire. We are already laying plans to build a new fleet of nuclear fission plants to produce more energy rather face the reality of conservation. It is just the mindset of the people; we are willing to burn anything to keep up our lifestyle.

[LandLuger]

Laws might help curb bad actions, but you still need to win the culture war.

Yes and people still elect the representitives as much as many in this forum would probably wish otherwise. In all honesty I know Joe Public, and the only way many of the utopian ideas just far presented could come forth would be under an authoritarian government.

[LandLuger]

Helpful? How about this- stop building things the way they’re built.

Seriously though, I’m talking about the forest, not the trees, all you need to do to think about what’s wrong with zoning is go to the nearest mall and observe how completely unfriendly it is to anything but cars. Now, imagine it otherwise.

How about no more off-ramp shopping centers? Just completely stop the practice and have some sort of maximum distance of shopping center to residential center, with access from smaller roads and pedestrian walkways, sidewalks, etc., within the complex, from street to shop. Limit the size of one-store retail centers. Incentives for complete underground parking where possible, making above-ground stores designed specifically for pedestrian access. How many parking spaces for how much square foot is regulated, why not how many ring-and-post bike stands? Or bike lockers? Curb the practice of single-use zoning. Tie mass-transit to a formula so any project that attracts x# of people or more per x time period must be serviced by mass transit, and put the cost on the developer if there’s no extant service.

I don’t know, there’s tons of stuff, I’m not a city planner. The country isn’t shaped the way it’s shaped because of some “free market”. This place is zoned down to the last square inch and the only question is: whom does the zoning serve? So far, much development has served nothing but monied interests- no regard to civic life at all. So rather than keep building things according to where the money flows, why not build it according to what’s best for people and place?

Though you probably will not agree, society evolved to this point. The origin was probably the assembly plant philosophy of Ford and the Model T. The question is what will be the catalyst to drive the evolution of society in our (cyclists) favor?

[TimJ]

Your points are well taken, and you seem to have a grasp of the mindset of the common man at least those that I know. But as you said most cities and states are just struggling to make the budget year to year. How much credence do you think they will give to an individual representing a fraction of a % of the population? How would you put your ideas into practice? If one were to just show up talking up the coming energy crunch and the concerns over the future of our children's children how do you think it would go over? I'm not trying to throw cold water over your remarks; for the most part I agree.
I can't speak to that because it's a local issue, wherever one's local is. "All politics are local", as they say.

The main thing I'm trying to communicate here is this: we didn't get to the state we're in through sentiment, hearts and minds, or conscious desire. People didn't overtly want their city centers to dry up, or everything to be hostile to pedestrians, or the skys to be filled with smog. Yes, educate and advocate, but public sentiment isn't what got us here in the first place, and it's not what's going to get us out.

We got here via bad civic planning. We let this happen by allowing developers and corporations to write civic code, largely. And if you think about it it makes no sense in any way except this: maximum profit for the developer and the interest. And that's no way to build communities.

So how to appeal to a bunch of small-minded bureaucrats? Well, first off, elect better people. Second, the arguments need to be local and specific. If some dude goes to a city council meeting and talks about Gaia, he's going to be treated like a fool, and rightly so. The council doesn't need to think like someone who wants better planning, they just need to hear a better plan. So, have a good, specific argument.

Again, I can't talk specifics because this is local stuff. The large idea is simple: government determines how things get built, so therefore they don't have to be built they way they've been built- it can be changed. But the rest is all local.

[TimJ]

Though you probably will not agree, society evolved to this point. The origin was probably the assembly plant philosophy of Ford and the Model T. The question is what will be the catalyst to drive the evolution of society in our (cyclists) favor?
No, I agree, if you're using "evolve" simply as a descriptive term and not in a context like darwinian evolution. Yeah, we "evolved" to here all right, but there was nothing "natural" about it. We didn't know there was anything really wrong with the rape everything, pave whatever, kill whatever formula for growth until the 60s, but now we do. I mean, we're getting into big patterns in history, but specifically talking about modern infrastructure, the consumer boom after WW2 was the catalyst there. Prior to that we didn't have suburbs, essentially, and suburbs themselves a large part of the problem in regards to car use. Naw, before the consumer boom we were killing stuff as quickly as we could kill it, but there wasn't so much demand so we didn't really see much consequence from our actions, it wasn't until we started becoming a consumer culture that things really took off. But then we had the boom and people started building and it was bad planning, lack of foresight, and lack of knowledge.

Catalyst? I don't know. Our petroleum-based society is so obviously archaic, especially considering what we're capable of, I don't think there's any one thing that will start any revolution. I'm a firm believer that NO ONE IS GOING TO SAVE US, because no one doomed us. We got on a certain footing and by the time people realized it was a bad way to go on such a huge scale, the majority of interests were more interested in the status quo. So, again, go local. if it makes sense to do things right, then right things will be done.

[attercoppe]

I came back to this discussion a little late, hope y'all don't mind jumping back some to a previous comment:
For the U.S. a few things would need to happen.

1) The association that motor vehicle = freedom/joy would need to be broken. This would basically require less media attention on vehicles, and a revamping of car advertisements. Car adverts are many in the States and always focus on an SUV taking you to some improbable alpine locale, or even a regular vehicle bringing joy by speeding around corners, etc.(emphasis mine)

The Denver Post has recently been running some ads, a quarter-page apiece, from "Denver-area auto dealers". They're titled "Freedom to Drive", subtitled "YOUR CAR, YOUR SPACE." About half the ad space is a picture of the Statue of Liberty in front of an American flag. Here's the copy from two of them:

"Unleash your tweeters and subwoofers.
Pull away in a crescendo of Christina Aguilera.
MP3, U2, CD, R&B-you know the words.
Motor on in a sanctuary of leather, chrome, and Sly Stone.
Ease into a dream, dream, dream machine with cupholders, amplifiers, and non-stop vistas.
It's your rolling oasis, front-row concert seat, ticket-to-ride at your speed and to your destination.

It's not just a ride, it's your surround-sound boogie buggy.

Listen to the possibilities at your Denver-area auto dealers.

Buy Your Car Today."



"Business to go.
Late? Buzz a shave down a side street.
Making goal? Dial appointments in all-wheel-drive.
You've got horsepower, voice mail, burl wood dash and remote audio control.
GPS, SUV, HOV, MPG, but few Yugo's. [sic]
Young merchants with motors, your life is in overdrive, 8 to 5, 6 to 2.
It's not just your car, it's a briefcase with torque; a weekend five-passenger party.

Power up your life at your Denver area auto dealers.

Buy your car today!"

So basically, in the first one, they're selling a car as a mobile stereo. "Drive around for no other reason than to listen to music!"

In the second, the car is a necessary business tool - not to mention they're apparently promoting:

a)either shaving while driving, or speeding through neighborhoods as a shortcut (can't tell which)
b)talking on the cell phone while driving
c)driving 17 hours a day, likely including to and from the bar(s)/club(s) (6pm to 2am)
d)driving a five-passenger car as a daily personal-use vehicle (though they do throw in HOV - along with SUV and GPS)

Fake patriotism, emotional appeal, peer pressure, it really kind of makes me sick. The worst part? I'm sure it's effective. It's this kind of brainwashing advertising that needs to be done away with.

[KrisPistofferson]

Really? Me too. Let me know when one of them responds with credible ideas on this subject, and not more far-out, groovy, spacey, and/or chemically induced wishful thinking/speculation.

A related topic would be explaining the purpose of proselytization for getting others to involuntarily and drastically alter their lifestyle to eliminate their private car usage/ownership, in order to please those who do voluntarily choose to live a car free life-style.You can make an attempt to respond with credible ideas, too, or is it more gratifying to constantly crap on other people's posts?

[chicbicyclist]

Yeah, Timj, I think I misread you a couple posts back but I think you misread me, too. I was talking about your arguments for controlling petroleum fuels only, and I actually largely agree with your other points(city planning, et. al.).