Living Car Free - Bikes win! Bikes 130 million- Cars 52 million

I was surprised to read this little factoid at Earth Policy Institute, but apparently there are more bicycles manufactured annually than cars. Also, since 2001, bicycles have seen extraordinary growth, in part due to e-bikes.

http://www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/Bike/2008.htm



The world produced an estimated 130 million bicycles in 2007—more than twice the 52 million cars produced. Bicycle and car production tracked each other closely in the mid-to-late 1960s, but bike output separated sharply from that of cars in 1970, beginning its steep climb to 105 million in 1988. Following a slowdown between 1989 and 2001, bike production has regained steam, increasing in each of the last six years. Much of the recent growth has been driven by the rise in electric, or “e-bike” production, which has doubled since 2004 to 21 million units in 2007. Overall, since 1970, bicycle output has nearly quadrupled, while car production has roughly doubled.


However, not great news for the US vis-a-vis the city of Amsterdam


In Amsterdam, cycling accounts for 55 percent of journeys to jobs that are less than 7.5 kilometers (4.7 miles) from home. The government has pledged to spend $160 million from 2006 to 2010 on bicycle paths, parking, and safety.

....

While biking remains popular for recreation in the United States, it is woefully underused for transportation. Total cycling participation has declined nationally since 1960, dropping 32 percent since the early 1990s, and now accounts for just 0.9 percent of all trips. Cycling to work is even less frequent, at 0.4 percent of trips.

Despite these unimpressive statistics, encouraging signs can be seen for the future of cycling in the United States. Aided by $900 million a year in federal funding for promotion of biking and walking for 2005 to 2009, the installation of bicycle facilities—including parking, bike-friendly roads, and designated lanes—is proceeding at a record pace. Indeed, plans in the 50 largest U.S. cities would, on average, double their bicycle and pedestrian routes; New York City alone will quadruple its bike network to 2,900 kilometers by 2030.

I also think those numbers are greatly skewed by the massive manufacturing and sales of BSO's (Bicycle Shaped Objects) WM at one time was claiming to have sold more bicycles than anybody else in the world...sad and probably true.

I am seeing more and more 2/3 wheeled non motorized conveyances than I used to. However I am also seeing an exponential increase in the number of 49cc scooters on the roads too. I think a lot of people that can barely afford a car have switched to the scooters. People on bikes seem to fall into one of two classes, those of us the choose and those that have no choice, with very little to nothing in between.

Aaron:)

More nonsense. When children from the age of two can buy and drive cars, then we might compare apples with apples. At no point does the data distinguish between children's bikes and adult bikes, and those used for recreation and for transport. And is it cars, or is it motor vehicles that include trucks, buses and others?

In addition, an individual is likely to have/buy three or four bikes, whereas their demographic might have/buy only one car.

And while I don't like the alluded swipe at *mart bikes (because they meet a market need)... yes, Aaron, you are right, the *marts outsmart the bike shops by a huge amount, and WalMart does sell more bikes in the US than anyone else.

Right now, bicycle and green advocacy groups are clutching at straws to try to convince the public that bicycles reign supreme so they can justify lobbying governments for expenditures on "safe" infrastructure and facilities. It is almost impossible to see any money allocated for programs to train people so they can ride bicycles with a modicum of skill and knowledge, and in my opinion, that is where money should be spent.

The Cycling Promotion Fund here in Australia rolls out the same sort of statistical mantra annually, saying more bike than cars were sold in the past 12 months. The response from the public to such earth-shattering news? "Who gives a stuff", because the spin is so obvious.

In my opinion, the best part about the recent bike sales blip from the oil price surge is that in, oh, about 12 months time, there will be a cleanout of garages of lovely unridden mid to high-end bicycles at bargain basement prices bought by people with more money and dreams than sense and willpower.

I can't wait!!

In addition, an individual is likely to have/buy three or four bikes, whereas their demographic might have/buy only one car.


I'm afraid you have it backwards, at least for the US.

One take-away from the article is that the bike population is rising (I can vouch for that just by the number of bikes in the rack at the grocery store...) and the US government is spending about 4 times the amount allotted by the city of Amsterdam to support bike infrastructure... whoopee!!! :notamused:

More nonsense. When children from the age of two can buy and drive cars, then we might compare apples with apples. At no point does the data distinguish between children's bikes and adult bikes, and those used for recreation and for transport. And is it cars, or is it motor vehicles that include trucks, buses and others?

In addition, an individual is likely to have/buy three or four bikes, whereas their demographic might have/buy only one car.

And while I don't like the alluded swipe at *mart bikes (because they meet a market need)... yes, Aaron, you are right, the *marts outsmart the bike shops by a huge amount, and WalMart does sell more bikes in the US than anyone else.

Right now, bicycle and green advocacy groups are clutching at straws to try to convince the public that bicycles reign supreme so they can justify lobbying governments for expenditures on "safe" infrastructure and facilities. It is almost impossible to see any money allocated for programs to train people so they can ride bicycles with a modicum of skill and knowledge, and in my opinion, that is where money should be spent.

The Cycling Promotion Fund here in Australia rolls out the same sort of statistical mantra annually, saying more bike than cars were sold in the past 12 months. The response from the public to such earth-shattering news? "Who gives a stuff", because the spin is so obvious.

In my opinion, the best part about the recent bike sales blip from the oil price surge is that in, oh, about 12 months time, there will be a cleanout of garages of lovely unridden mid to high-end bicycles at bargain basement prices bought by people with more money and dreams than sense and willpower.

I can't wait!!

They damn sure aren't training too many drivers in the USofA either! When I was a young pup and coming up we used to get cyclist/pedestrian training in school. That has long since gone by the wayside. Now (at least in the state I call home) you can get a driver's license to pilot a 2 ton+ missile with only about 40 hours of training, less if you are over 18 and can pass the pathetic road test and a dumbed down written test. And if you can't write or speak English they will read it to you.:rolleyes: Yes we need cyclist training but I suspect that proper driver education would go a long ways in helping too. Yes WM does fill a need...but I just haven't figured out what for, unless to provide a dumping ground for Chinese toxic waste and an over abundance of manufacturing capacity. And possibly to fulfill the American need of conspicuous consumption.


Aaron:)

Most of those bikes must be sitting in garages, cause they're not on the road her in Tucson.

They must have ended up here in my part of Cali, I'm seeing an assortment of bikes and cyclists on the road that I haven't seen in years.

I'm afraid you have it backwards, at least for the US.

One take-away from the article is that the bike population is rising (I can vouch for that just by the number of bikes in the rack at the grocery store...) and the US government is spending about 4 times the amount allotted by the city of Amsterdam to support bike infrastructure... whoopee!!! :notamused:

Four kids, with four bikes or four cars? Probably you are right, and Aaron does make a point about conspicous consumption that to a degree might be true. But we've seen many posts here asking why someone should spend $500 on a bike when they can spend $100 at *mart that is ostensibly the same (and I have seen where the LBS bikes are no better at all). BFs are a tiny sample of what actually goes on out there in the community. And most *mart buyers are parents getting bikes for their kids.

-----------

One of the toughtest things in my experience as a professional cycling advocate working within local government, is trying to persuade elected council members that it is worthwhile spending money on cycling facilities (and I don't mean exclusively MUPs*) because of the community benefits that ensue.

Like all politicians, they can only see the community benefit as it affects their chances of winning at the next election, and when the vast, vast majority of constituents are screaming their heads off that roads and parking are not up to scratch, they see satisfying car owners first as the No 1 priority to winning the votes.

You can have paid staff behind the scene playing their own political games, too. But unless there is a keen cyclist in a key position, such as heading up an engineering department, cycling remains marginalised, and the unresolved question in many people's minds is: Is it recreation or transport? The answer to that affects where the money is allocated from within a council or State budget.

The cycling lobby can preach all it likes about how more bicycles are produced than cars each year, but it has almost no effect on swaying the vocal anti-cycling local government members who exist on councils. Rather, it becomes a laughing point that they use cynically but to good effect.

The other significant issue with so-called Federal funding of cycling facilities (in fact, funding of anything) is that the people who dole out the money have political masters who will pork-barrel by having generous amounts of grant money spent in their electorates first, whether those electorates need it or not. Of course, every two bit community is fighting for the funding because it can be used to sustain jobs within their councils, and while the funding may be earmarked for cycling, it probably means a job or two hangs off it.

Cycling is the love child of the green movement when it's expedient, but really, the commitment to cycling by the environmentalists is tokenism at best, and dangerous at worst.

When the collective cycling community, in all its guises, decides to get together as an effective lobby group, vis a vis the motoring organisations, then maybe the politicians will start to take some notice. But the cycling community is such a disparate and disintegrated group, that it can't even decide on what policy priorities it should pursue, let alone get itself together as an effective national voice.

* Carefully crafted proposals in the long term can be quite effective. Things such as encouraging traffic engineers to take advantage of rebuilding, resealing and remarking programs to create things like wider travel lanes, sealed shoulders with smooth surfacing, realignment of driveway crossings and intersections, improved sightlines, thoughtful T-junction traffic control devices, short link paths between dead-end streets, and other things that allow cyclist to blend into the traffic pattern but still retain their integrity.

This method of advocacy-by-stealth (as in long-term incremental development) is relatively easy to sell because the cost impact is quite minimal but the outcomes are quite effective. Local and state governments don't then have to do a sell job on the electorate justifying millions of dollars spent on separated facilities such as MUPs that are usually seen only as being for recreational, weekend cyclists and importantly, recreational pedestrians.

It can be a win-win situation. But too often these sorts of effective proposals are hijacked and destroyed by the "militant" cycling advocates who want everything done now, now now... so nothing actually does get done because the traffic engineers and local government pollies are put off by the militancy and the huge cost impacts that are demanded.

It's also much easier to sell funding for training a cyclist to use current, existing facilities, such as roads, than to build new separated facilities. I do take the point about driver training (and have done since before I was a motoring journalist), but putting up that argument simply clouds the cycling issue.
I'll stop now.

I also think those numbers are greatly skewed by the massive manufacturing and sales of BSO's (Bicycle Shaped Objects) WM at one time was claiming to have sold more bicycles than anybody else in the world...sad and probably true.

Those were worldwide numbers quoted in post#1.

I don't think wal-mart can make a big dent in worldwide numbers of bikes sold, because walmart and the big-box stores are not major players in the world's consumer products sales outside their favorite country (USA).

* Carefully crafted proposals in the long term can be quite effective. Things such as encouraging traffic engineers to take advantage of rebuilding, resealing and remarking programs to create things like wider travel lanes, sealed shoulders with smooth surfacing, realignment of driveway crossings and intersections, improved sightlines, thoughtful T-junction traffic control devices, short link paths between dead-end streets, and other things that allow cyclist to blend into the traffic pattern but still retain their integrity.

It's also much easier to sell funding for training a cyclist to use current, existing facilities, such as roads, than to build new separated facilities. I do take the point about driver training (and have done since before I was a motoring journalist), but putting up that argument simply clouds the cycling issue.
I'll stop now.

Very interesting ideas. I wish you'd start a new thread about this on this forum.

I also think those numbers are greatly skewed by the massive manufacturing and sales of BSO's (Bicycle Shaped Objects) WM at one time was claiming to have sold more bicycles than anybody else in the world...sad and probably true.


Nevertheless, most people in the world commute and travel on bikes that are similar in quality to Walmart bikes. That's all most people can afford, but luckily it seems to serve them well.

I've read over the years that it's always been the case that more bikes than cars are produced in the US. I mean this isn't a recent development, AFAIK.

Ok, I'm not trying to bash here, simply putting some logic into play.

Cars are way bigger than bikes, so fewer are needed to convey more people.
Cars as a primary means of transportation are often kept running far beyond their expected lifetime due to cost, delaying, sometimes indefinitely their final destination in a junkyard or landfill.
Can the same be said of bikes? With all those bikes being made, is there a concern that the production and disposal of bikes may make up for any environmental savings from their use?

I am a biker or i would be here. But I just wonder what the stats are for that kind of thing.

Ok, I'm not trying to bash here, simply putting some logic into play.

Cars are way bigger than bikes, so fewer are needed to convey more people.
Cars as a primary means of transportation are often kept running far beyond their expected lifetime due to cost, delaying, sometimes indefinitely their final destination in a junkyard or landfill.
Can the same be said of bikes? With all those bikes being made, is there a concern that the production and disposal of bikes may make up for any environmental savings from their use?

I am a biker or i would be here. But I just wonder what the stats are for that kind of thing.

Well the "average" life span for a car in the US is around 13 years/145,000 miles (http://www.safecarguide.com/gui/new/neworused.htm). Supposedly a single car consumes as much raw materials and labor to produce as 120 bicycles. The bulk of my bicycle collection is well over the 13 year mark with several of them in the 35 year old range. I do own a couple of newer ones. A car may carry more people...but not that many more. The other major issue IMHO in the US is the number of short trips driven, and the number of large cars only carrying a single passenger. I have literally seen someone drive a distance of less than city block and back to purchase a sandwich. That is a waste of a car. Imagine if everybody carpooled with just one person. You could reduce traffic by over 1/3.

Also junk bikes aren't going to be dumping gasoline, motor oil, transmission fluid, freon and whatever else into the environment if they are improperly disposed of. We had one large salvage yard near us a while back that is on the EPA superfund list. FWIW I recycle all of the old bikes I get that I can't do anything with. The last load of BSO's that I hauled to the scrappers were primarily aluminum and I was getting over $1 a pound:thumb:

Aaron:)