This is a MUST read! https://www.uncanny.net/~wetzel/gorz.htm

Im going to have to memorize this quote once i am car-free!

"The typical American devotes more than 1500 hours a year (which is 30 hours a week, or 4 hours a day, including Sundays) to his [or her] car. This includes the time spent behind the wheel, both in motion and stopped, the hours of work to pay for it and to pay for gas, tires, tolls, insurance, tickets, and taxes .Thus it takes this American 1500 hours to go 6000 miles (in the course of a year). Three and a half miles take him (or her) one hour. In countries that do not have a transportation industry, people travel at exactly this speed on foot, with the added advantage that they can go wherever they want and aren't restricted to asphalt roads."

Something to think about for my car loving buddies

I don't drive a car. I don't have a diver's license. I have never had a driver's license. I don't know how to drive a car.

I am happy.

That's great, Joe. I love it!

I have had this on going debate with my dad about how I don't need to own a car to better my life. He says that I am limiting my job prospects without a car. With a car, he says, I could drive to a bigger town that has more job oppurtunites. I have tried to explain to him that I can make considerably less money and still have the same standard of living by not owning a car. He still doesn't understand my point. Oh, well.

During my college years, I obtained and held numerous part-time jobs without owning a car, although I did have a driver's license. I landed my first professional career-track "real" job several months BEFORE I bought my first car, which I needed for my home improvement activities and for my wife's benefit, rather than for my job. I have known five highly successful professionals, two in industry, two in academia, and one in politics, who are unable to drive at all, because of tunnel vision, macular degeneration, or, in three cases, total blindness. (Two of these gents frequently stoke tandems.)

I've known a couple of people with detached retinas who are obviously unable to drive, yet still cycle around. I find that a slightly scary concept, but they seem to survive!

Ellie

I've seen a whole horde of morons with detatched brainstems, who are obviously unable to drive, yet continue to do so. I find that a slightly scary concept, but they seem to survive!

In 80's it still could be named driving. Nowadays it is more like moving in a "train" of cars along the street.

Ironically one car can has power to move about 50 other cars in such a train.

The property along the streets, which were selected by motorists as favourite, loses its value, as people do not want to live on such streets due to the noise, rubber dust, and toxic fumes.

Let alone the influence on the global oxygen vs. carbon dioxide balance. The total power of cars' engines exceeds times the power of electric generators, so the "clean" electric cars prototypes are utopia.

How right the saying turned out to be: "Things are not the same, what they seem from the first sight".

Ditto. To me a car would simply be one hassle I can quite happily live without.

I hate to go "off topic," (yeah, right!) but Alexy's presence here is extremely stimulating! :thumbup:

Joe, I heard of a guy who rigged his car to register "average speed," like we cyclists do on our computers.

His average speed in the motor vehicle was about 17 mph.

That's really pretty fast. I can't match that commuting on my bike!



Actually, even if someone markets an affordable, competitively priced, fast, environmentally friendly motor vehicle, I will still prefer cycling.

I say this reservedly, but no one will ever invent a vehicle as efficient, healthy, fun, cost-effective and environmentally friendly as the bicycle. (Why would they want to?)

I agree. And as much as I enjoy all the posts from the United Kingdom and from Atlanta (those two locations account for about 80% of total traffic, I believe ), it is great to see the Ukraine represented as well.

I guess that the bicycle is only in the initial stage of its development. If more people use it and market grows, the best engineers will join bicycle producing companies. There will be many surprising innovations in cycling equipment and infrastructure.

So far, the society still concentrates its immense resources on impractical solutions, similar to the one, where a driver is to stay on a sort of gyroscope with vertical handle, propelled by electric battery (I forgot the name). The problem with this contraption is that it does not address the very serious issue of hypodynamia.

Im not so sure about that, the bicycle is already the most efficient means of travel; honestly has much changed in the last 100 years? Im all for new riders, and bicycle advocacy!

Touche.

Ellie

I think that in London, a survey showed the average car covered 4 mph-- back to the days of the guys with red flags!!

I am a natural klutz, not a natural athlete, but our intrepid 4-man group maintained an average speed of 16.3mi/hi on the Los Angeles Wheelmen Double Century, with a total time of 12:18. Even when I commute on my knobby-tyred mountain bike 30 years later, I usually average 14mph. I'm getting 80 percent of the speed of driving, and 1000+ percent of the fun.

Indeed!

If the bicycle didn't have the "poor-person" stigma it seems to have in the U.S., more people would probably ride them, and a happy number would likely also ride electric-assisted bikes (which I think are highly nifty).

Speaking of advocacy, I'm going to start a new thread...

My bicycle of 60s and 70s differs from my present Giant AluLight Boulder 2000 a lot. Maybe I was not paying attention at that time, but it seems to me that in 70s there were no computers on bikes to measure speed, distance, etc.

Besides the wide sleek tires with 4 kg/sm2 pressure also make a lot of difference. The same about the light aluminium frame.

I saw on the Internet, that a company starts to produce bike parking containers. Bike can be locked inside the container together with panniers on the a parking lot against some payment. It would open absolutely new possibilities for tourists on bikes in cities.

A legislature could oblige companies to build offices with the facilities needed for bike commuters: trails, secure bike parking, dressing room, shower.

I would also do not mind paved long bicycle trails along major rivers, where they go under bridges and do not cross highways.

Presently there is no critical mass to make politicians to invest in such things. No one knows, however, how it goes further.

If global warming proves to be true and causes some major islands to submerge, due to thawing of polar snow, the attitude may change.

17mph is pretty much a lifetime average for motorists. In the centre of cities, the average is down below 12.
Another number motorists prefer to reamain ignorant of, is their instantaneous fuel consumption. During hard acceleration at slow speed, this falls to 5mpg.
Most motorists imagine that they average 30mph in 30mph zones, and their cars use the manufacturers figures of 30-40mpg (15-20 for SUVs).

You people are forgetting that is isn't all about speed. I'd much rather be happy for 60 minutes than miserable for 45.

Coming from Detroit, can't say I am anti-car,the annual car show used to be an event of the year. Who could not be in awe of the Edsel. The car just must be in its place. I would prefer just to use it on vacations, ocassional rides out in the country where there is no mass transit. And instead of backed up on the freeway, have alternative transportation.
I think the car makes people crazy. Watch the wacko's. It is like the Indy 550, trying to jockey into first place at each stop light. Does not really make any difference. Risk your life to get home 8 minutes earlier. In town we have a divided highway. Chris, I often ride on "pathway." It is divided, urban with open access. In the bike lane, cars wizz by you at 70 not far from a school zone. In a 55 mph zone. Do not feel safe next to cars that fast with lots of traffic.Cars careen all over the road.
Also, think the car has ruined our cities. Lead to American plan of abandoning our cities, suburban sprawl in what should be pristine land and brings on a whole social pathology about those who fleed vs. those who did not. Also, waste of resources.
The ironic thing. Cars with one passenger leads to anti-social behavior. The race home -just being alone. In other countries notice the social interaction on commuter trains. I think those people are better adjusted and contact with other humans leads to a more understanding society. Thats my take on the car culture. Add to that the waste of fuel sources.

There is good German word - 'yain'. It means 'ya' and 'nein', yes and no, at the same time. For example, one will not bring 10 tons of gravel to the construction site of, say, bicycle trail without a car.

The phenomenon of the interconnected world leads to the spread of what may be loosely named the American way of life. If I squint my eyes a bit on a streeet of Port-Luis, Mauritius, or Katmandu, Nepal, I could see New York street clearly. The same elevated buildings and rivers of motorcars.

Do not get me wrong, there are good things in it, as liberty and basic respect for human rights. I guess that just no one expected that there will be so many commuter cars. I am to see yet the idyllic country free of these problems.

Though I liked the article, I was dubious, when the author flirted with the idea of socialism. For me it is the axiom: socialism does not work. Full stop.

I guess the idea of bicycle transit should become as attractive and marketable, as the desire of a car ownership once was. Then it may catch masses.

I cannot completely agree. The fact of the matter is that roads were around long before cars were ever made. Cars were made to suit the road, not the other way around.

The point he is trying to make is, I believe, a bit more general; cars, and motorized vehicles, do have a worthwhile purpose -- building a two-hundred story skyscraper without the assistance of trucks, cranes, and other machinery would be impossible.

It is simply the gross over-use of the motorcar that has done so much harm; conning people into the idea that any use of the body as a means of efficient transport is "old-fashioned" and "for the poor masses."

I plan on owning many more cars; I like to tinker with them; and, on the open road, with nobody else around, motoring can be a pleasurable experience. It's the morons driving five miles to the store, or sitting for an hour in freeway traffic to drive ten miles to work, that we need to work on.

I own cars and will always do so. I find cycling more pleasant and rewarding. But the car, my point- from an urban planners stand point, they have destroyed our cities- at least without mass tranisit in the US and wasted energy resources and polluted our air. But, yes the car has its place. And yes, the car has lead to anti-social behavior, where motorists will hit, kill and run; just to turn our roads into speedways.

(Since my self-control mechanism is stifled at the moment, I will woefully add: you are also getting 0 % of the emissions, waste,
stress, guilt, and 1000 % of the benefits of having a brain stoked with a burgeoning blood supply. Ahh, the transcendental nature of oxygen... )