Advocacy & Safety - 15 Other Countries Have Higher Car Use Than U.S.

edit: i meant 'ownership' not use - sorry!

but i was surprised by this:

http://media.economist.com/images/na/2008w52/Cars.jpg

Looks like it's about time for someone to organize a Luxembourg Critical Mass ride.

Doesn't follow from the statistic that they drive more than Americans however. More instructive would be the average number of miles travelled by each car.

I bet U.S. population is a tad larger then for example Iceland population... :rolleyes:

Doesn't follow from the statistic that they drive more than Americans however. More instructive would be the average number of miles travelled by each car.

Even though Luxembourg is number one, they can't possibly drive that many miles. Isn't the whole country like five miles across or something?

Shortly after the invention of the printing press, my 9th grade math teacher required that we read a couple of mathematically-oriented books: "Flatland" and "How to Lie with Statistics".

Regarding the latter title, I *wonder* if the data in the graph was derived from:
# of cars owned / population
or
# of car owners / population.

True, it is hard to drive more than one car at a time, but I would suspect that the USA would be near the top of the list of # of cars/# of car owners.

However, miles driven per car is indeed a better measure of how much they're used / what their potential to spew pollution / run into cyclists / or even be available for occasional use by a cyclist.

Even though Luxembourg is number one, they can't possibly drive that many miles. Isn't the whole country like five miles across or something?

Not even sure we'd need bicycles there.

Even though Luxembourg is number one, they can't possibly drive that many miles. Isn't the whole country like five miles across or something?

Yeah and they never leave their country

Do SUVs and trucks count as cars?

Do SUVs and trucks count as cars?

Not for the CAFE standards, which is why Detroit has pushed SUVs so hard for so many years. When SUVs first came out, since they were "trucks" they weren't even required to have seat belts!

Bicycling Advocacy or Safety content?

zERO

edit: i meant 'ownership' not use - sorry!

but i was surprised by this:

We do not know how many of the citizens made up the population of surveyed individuals, and what the sample size of this population were car owners.

For that matter, in a country that size, the government can give automobiles to every citizen with less spent on that venture then we would spend on forming a task committee to find out why auto use is so prevalent.

-Kurt

I would think that the US figure does not include "light trucks". SUVs built on a truck chassis are considered "light trucks" but people use them pretty much as automobiles.

Are these statistics based on per 1000 people or 1000 people of driving age?

In a lot of European countries, there is a trend of having fewer and fewer children. If 250 of those 1000 Americans are children, where as only 100 of the 1000 of another country counted are children, then it will skew the numbers significantly.

For example:
America's population pyramid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uspop.svg
Italy's: http://www.nationmaster.com/country/it-italy/Age_distribution


I'd be more interested in the number of cars per eligible driver.

I would think that the US figure does not include "light trucks". SUVs built on a truck chassis are considered "light trucks" but people use them pretty much as automobiles.

I've read about these statistics on bikeportland a couple of weeks ago and had the same suspicion. I did some research and came up with this:


About the car statistics: I have some doubts about this. My suspicion is that SUVs haven't been included. I checked the data with the DOT's Highway Statistics, and if you add the SUVs to the passenger cars you get a figure of approximately 557 cars per 1000 people. That would put the US in 5th or 6th place, between Canada and Germany. And this is probably still a conservative estimate, as it doesn't include light trucks used as passenger vehicles.

Edit: That's the link to the Highway Statistics (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/) Got lost with copy&pasting.

I'll bet the U.S. is higher on the list of bicycles owned, even if most are sitting / hanging in perpetual storage.

My experience is only with BC but so many Canadians that I've met do not own cars or feel the need to own a car. Many have told me they didn't own a car 'til they were 30 or so, and had already bought a house or a condo. There also seem to be more one car families there too. So I'm surprised to see that car ownership is higher in Canada.

Bicycling Advocacy or Safety content?

Carz are the Evil.

:D

According to that MOST americans do not own a car.

I'm the ONLY adult, non drug addict/homeless, person I know without a car.

According to that MOST americans do not own a car.

I'm the ONLY adult, non drug addict/homeless, person I know without a car.

I feel like the stat is believable. Many (most?) people in dense cities do not own cars. I actually just got my driver's license at the ripe old age of 30, and I had a hard time finding friends or family who had cars that I could borrow so that I could practice driving. Not many of my friends own cars.

Then there's the 15% or so of the population that's under the age of 18. Most of them do not have cars.

Isn't Luxembourg one of those countries with a quickly dropping population because they don't have enough kids or any immigration? Given the less than 1 car for 2 people number I'm guessing they counted kids.

Not for the CAFE standards, which is why Detroit has pushed SUVs so hard for so many years. When SUVs first came out, since they were "trucks" they weren't even required to have seat belts!

I think Detroit pushed SUV's because consumers can't account value correctly. SUV's add features which don't cost nearly as much to add as consumers will pay for them. This means higher margins.

Are not all the same features available on a SUV also available on most any coupe or sedan? People who favor SUV's sometimes do so for many reasons that have nothing to do with what Detroit wants to sell them. The manufactures were (and still are) only giving buyers what they wanted.

Car ownership is not necessarily the problem. Car miles driven per year might be a better guide.. Roads will only accommodate so many cars per hour.. If people are on bikes or taking the train, and the cars are setting in the garage, ownership does not necessarily constitute an overuse of the auto.

Are not all the same features available on a SUV also available on most any coupe or sedan? People who favor SUV's sometimes do so for many reasons that have nothing to do with what Detroit wants to sell them. The manufactures were (and still are) only giving buyers what they wanted.

Is that really true?

GM even admitted deceiving the auto public regarding their promotion of autos... obviously including SUVs which were the largest profit making vehicle in their line.

Could it be that a market was created, and then buyers were led into that market... One of the biggest (no pun intended) assumptions regarding SUVs is that they are safer than most passenger cars. The NTSB has determined that this is NOT true, but that has not stopped buyers from making that assumption.

SUVs generally have a warning label explaining this, yet potential buyers still assumed that "size mattered."

And don't tell me that markets cannot be created... "Madison Ave" spends millions of dollars to create markets... the "sweet smelling deodorant" market is one such example. Breakfast cereals are another such market... and the list goes on and on.

The American auto buying public was sold a bill of goods and bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

The American auto buying public was sold a bill of goods and bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
Do you own/drive your own motor vehicle? Were you tricked by the auto manufacturers and their minions and sold a bill of goods and bought it, hook, line, and sinker? If stupidity isn't the only reason for your purchase and use, how come you are the only American who has a legitimate reason to own/buy an auto?

And what does all this ranting about automobile ownership have to do with bicycling?

Do you own/drive your own motor vehicle? Were you tricked by the auto manufacturers and their minions and sold a bill of goods and bought it, hook, line, and sinker? If stupidity isn't the only reason for your purchase and use, how come you are the only American who has a legitimate reason to own/buy an auto?

And what does all this ranting about automobile ownership have to do with bicycling?

1991 Toyota 4WD truck, which I use to go off road and camp in Baja. Currently it has a blown head gasket and is sitting beside my garage awaiting my service.

The comments I made were specific to SUVs and were in response to a post about SUVs.

I bought my truck based on my desire to go off road in Baja and the fact that at the time there were few, if any, well built American 4WD vehicles (older jeeps being the exception, but they ride poorly on freeways and got lousy gas mileage).

American SUVs, on the other hand are NOT well suited for off road use, and have been shown not be the "safe vehicles" they are assumed to be by the American public. That was the basis for my comments, and I will stick to that basis. As for the thread in particular... welcome to A&S.

Are all Americans deceived by the automotive advertising... No... some people do their homework.

BTW ILTB, apparently Madison Ave isn't all bad either. They recognize their efforts influence people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090301/ap_on_bi_ge/the_color_of_advertising

They have not tricked me.

I do not own one. I do rent one on occasion for a whopping 15 dollars per day.

1991 Toyota 4WD truck, which I use to go off road and camp in Baja. Currently it has a blown head gasket and is sitting beside my garage awaiting my service.

The comments I made were specific to SUVs and were in response to a post about SUVs.
You don't have to explain your choice or needs in vehicle ownership, and neither does anybody else have to apologize to sanctimonious bicyclists who post truisms, generalizations and stereotypes as if they believe that they are God's gift to the environment just because they don't need an automobile at this point in their life.

You don't have to explain your choice or needs in vehicle ownership, and neither does anybody else have to apologize to sanctimonious bicyclists who post truisms, generalizations and stereotypes as if they believe that they are God's gift to the environment just because they don't need an automobile at this point in their life.

Hear, hear.

-Kurt

Shortly after the invention of the printing press, my 9th grade math teacher required that we read a couple of mathematically-oriented books: "Flatland" and "How to Lie with Statistics".

Regarding the latter title, I *wonder* if the data in the graph was derived from:
# of cars owned / population
or
# of car owners / population.

True, it is hard to drive more than one car at a time, but I would suspect that the USA would be near the top of the list of # of cars/# of car owners.

However, miles driven per car is indeed a better measure of how much they're used / what their potential to spew pollution / run into cyclists / or even be available for occasional use by a cyclist.

You would also have to calculate this with total miles of roadway taken into account. Then it would be about as good a comparative measure you could get.

You don't have to explain your choice or needs in vehicle ownership, and neither does anybody else have to apologize to sanctimonious bicyclists who post truisms, generalizations and stereotypes as if they believe that they are God's gift to the environment just because they don't need an automobile at this point in their life.

Apparently I do, as that was exactly the information you requested.

As far as truism, generalizations and stereotypes... welcome to A&S.

You don't have to read what is posted here either.

Per this Wikipedia listing the graph presented by the OP is possibly not correct. Here is a list of vehicles per capita which I presume includes SUVs and pickups as well as cars. It may also include large trucks. In that case the U.S. leads the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

Are not all the same features available on a SUV also available on most any coupe or sedan? People who favor SUV's sometimes do so for many reasons that have nothing to do with what Detroit wants to sell them. The manufactures were (and still are) only giving buyers what they wanted.

Oh please, don't be so naïve. Car manufacturers would never leave something as important as consumer taste and what cars they buy up to the consumer. Why do you think Car makers spend billions of dollars on advertising every year? Car manufacturers tell the consumers what kind of cars they will buy. And consumers, being sheep, fall for the car companies advertising that "you get a free sexy girl with each Tahoe that you buy" and walk in lockstep to what the manufacturers are selling.

Since SUVs are not cars, a whole series of federal regulations, including gas mileage standards, do not apply to them. This means that the manufacturers are freer to do whatever they want and get higher profit margins from SUVs.

Oh please, don't be so naïve. Car manufacturers would never leave something as important as consumer taste and what cars they buy up to the consumer. Why do you think Car makers spend billions of dollars on advertising every year? Car manufacturers tell the consumers what kind of cars they will buy. And consumers, being sheep, fall for the car companies advertising that "you get a free sexy girl with each Tahoe that you buy" and walk in lockstep to what the manufacturers are selling.

A real prize winning entry for the Extreme Simplification, Generalization, Stereotyping and/or Prejudice Contest.

Even better than some of the stupid all encompassing generalizations made about the ethics and values of all lawyers, or "All lawyers are this or that type of low life."

Car manufacturers tell the consumers what kind of cars they will buy.

Precisely why consumers, after repeated exposure to such advertisement, were successfully bull****ted into believing Pontiac Aztecs were cute:

http://estb.msn.com/i/EE/93E27DA836D9898688B36D16E4D8.jpg

-Kurt

A real prize winning entry for the Extreme Simplification, Generalization, Stereotyping and/or Prejudice Contest.

Even better than some of the stupid all encompassing generalizations made about the ethics and values of all lawyers, or "All lawyers are this or that type of low life."

Your powers of debate are just so stunning, other than generalizing and name calling, you haven't refuted a single point I have made.

Oh please, don't be so naïve. Car manufacturers would never leave something as important as consumer taste and what cars they buy up to the consumer. Why do you think Car makers spend billions of dollars on advertising every year? Car manufacturers tell the consumers what kind of cars they will buy. And consumers, being sheep, fall for the car companies advertising that "you get a free sexy girl with each Tahoe that you buy" and walk in lockstep to what the manufacturers are selling.

Since SUVs are not cars, a whole series of federal regulations, including gas mileage standards, do not apply to them. This means that the manufacturers are freer to do whatever they want and get higher profit margins from SUVs.


Somehow, I beg to differ, all one has to do is look back at Ford's failed attempt in the Edsel, trying to give a car that they thought was the perfect car that the public wanted, something I'm sure is still in the back of the minds of automakers today. SUV's are basically today's station wagons of years past, only that they are based on a truck chasis which has more appeal to a lot of men, while having the comforts of a car which appeals to a lot of women, making the SUV more open to a larger market. All the media hype in the world cannot beat word of mouth for very long.

Your powers of debate are just so stunning, other than generalizing and name calling, you haven't refuted a single point I have made.

Holy Cow!!:eek:
You actually believe your own over-the-top rhetoric (so-called "points)! :lol:

See: http://www.businessinsider.com/unsold-cars-around-the-world-2009-2
I guess the auto makers will have to resort to guns to the heads of the sheepish consumers to continue force marching them lockstep into buying whatever is put in front of them.

Shortly after the invention of the printing press, my 9th grade math teacher required that we read a couple of mathematically-oriented books: "Flatland" and "How to Lie with Statistics".

Regarding the latter title, I *wonder* if the data in the graph was derived from:
# of cars owned / population
or
# of car owners / population.

True, it is hard to drive more than one car at a time, but I would suspect that the USA would be near the top of the list of # of cars/# of car owners.

However, miles driven per car is indeed a better measure of how much they're used / what their potential to spew pollution / run into cyclists / or even be available for occasional use by a cyclist.

Good points. I'll point out it seems a ratio to population, not legal driving age population. That means the percentage of population that is of driving age can have a major impact on the results.

And what does all this ranting about automobile ownership have to do with bicycling?

Could it be that automobiles pose a safety risk to cyclists?

So, why do you have such a big problem with people choosing to engage in conversation about how the automobile is promoted? I've always thought of you as intelligent enough to see the links between the images created by the marketing practices of the auto industry, the attitudes of motorists, and the implications it has of issues of safety for the rest of us. Did I overestimate you?

Could it be that automobiles pose a safety risk to cyclists?

So, why do you have such a big problem with people choosing to engage in conversation about how the automobile is promoted?
Anything "could be"; doesn't make it so. Posting snippets of data and wishful thinking about automobile ownership, or dreamy rhetoric about automobile ownership does not provide any enlightenment about safety risks for cyclists. Especially when neither bicycles nor cyclists nor any association with them are even mentioned in these postings about car ownership.

Somehow, I beg to differ, all one has to do is look back at Ford's failed attempt in the Edsel, trying to give a car that they thought was the perfect car that the public wanted, something I'm sure is still in the back of the minds of automakers today. SUV's are basically today's station wagons of years past, only that they are based on a truck chasis which has more appeal to a lot of men, while having the comforts of a car which appeals to a lot of women, making the SUV more open to a larger market. All the media hype in the world cannot beat word of mouth for very long.

Exactly.

I certainly don't discount the power of advertising to influence buyers, after all I work in the marketing industry. My present company even handles plenty of automotive accounts, both on the individual dealer, and the corporate level. But for something to sell as well as SUV's have for as long as they have, (almost 20 years?) consumers must be happy with the product beyond anything we can make them believe through advertising. We may be able to sell a product, but the product has to earn its keep if it expects to stay around.

All the media hype in the world cannot beat word of mouth for very long.

They've been successfully convincing everyone for the last 50 years that anything "used" or "old" is "no good." Nobody "repairs" anything anymore, or considers doing so. Word of mouth falls completely on deaf ears to members of said throwaway societies (same way that cyclist's comments fall on driver's deaf ears) - nobody wishes to hear it, because they've been brainwashed into believing anything short of replacement is foolhardy.

Hell, there are some folks out there that don't seem to understand that a light bulb can be replaced without trashing the entire fixture that it's screwed or clipped into.

-Kurt

Since SUVs are not cars, a whole series of federal regulations, including gas mileage standards, do not apply to them. This means that the manufacturers are freer to do whatever they want and get higher profit margins from SUVs.

This is true, but only part of the story. In the good old days (50's/60's/70's), your basic station wagon was a very useful vehicle, and was very popular because of it's usefulness. Along comes CAFE to mandate, among other things, gas mileage standards. Station wagons cannot meet these standards as cars.... but wait..... trucks are exempt.

So, SUV's were born as an unintended consequence of the CAFE restrictions. The public wanted their very useful station wagons, and were denied. That demand was met with the advent of the gentrified SUV. Station wagons all but disappeared, and SUV's began to roam the earth. By the time traditional station wagons came back, it was too late - the same people that found station wagons so useful had long switched over to just as useful (if not more-so) SUV's.

The plain fact of the matter was that when the station wagon was legislated to near-extinction, people who had need or use for one could only get that need satisfied with an SUV.

The car manufacturer's were not creating a demand, they just figured out a way to keep servicing on that was already there.

They've been successfully convincing everyone for the last 50 years that anything "used" or "old" is "no good." Nobody "repairs" anything anymore, or considers doing so. Word of mouth falls completely on deaf ears to members of said throwaway societies (same way that cyclist's comments fall on driver's deaf ears) - nobody wishes to hear it, because they've been brainwashed into believing anything short of replacement is foolhardy.

Hell, there are some folks out there that don't seem to understand that a light bulb can be replaced without trashing the entire fixture that it's screwed or clipped into.

-Kurt

Usually it depends on the cost to repair an item and how much it costs to replace it. With the influx of inexpensive consumable items over the years, this I feel has contributed to our "throw away" society rather than media hype.
I repair just about everything in our household, even my wife and children can change a light bulb. ;)

You can thank overpriced and poorly trained "repair" shops for that (Cases in point: Bad bike shops).

For that matter, most of the equipment available today that remain repairable goods involve both expensive maintenance cost and expensive replacement cost.

-Kurt

Could it be that automobiles pose a safety risk to cyclists?

So, why do you have such a big problem with people choosing to engage in conversation about how the automobile is promoted? I've always thought of you as intelligent enough to see the links between the images created by the marketing practices of the auto industry, the attitudes of motorists, and the implications it has of issues of safety for the rest of us. Did I overestimate you?

Everybody thinks that advertising tricks their neighbors into buying cars, while they themselves make a rational and independent decision to own one.
:rolleyes:

Trying to convince people that they're stupid pawns because they own a car is a losing strategy. Far better, IMO, to convince them that they can use the car a lot less for many trips, and explain the practical and economical options that are available, such as feets, buses and of course bikes. Athe same time, do your best to advocate for those options. Try to get your town to improve street conditions for cyclists and pedestrians, or even to construct better alternative infrastructure. If applicable, advocate for public transit while you're at it.