What will it take?
 

Seriously (as this topic begs for the ridiculous response), what will it take to motivate the general public to adopt cycling?

Why do so many lose out on the greatest form of human transport ever invented? Cycling combines the speed of vehicular transport with the personal benefits of human power, not to mention extremely economical use, no pollution, no waste, etc.
Truly the wave of the future.

Who is blinding our minds? :confused:

Imagine: streets filled with bicycles instead of cars. Fresh air. Heathy, fun-loving folk. What's not to like?

Maybe we could approach it from the health and fitness angle, if economics don't force the issue.

What do y'all think...?

A massive hike in fuel prices would do it. I don't think you'll ever convice the general public (the great unwashed) with rational reasoning.

I don't know pete. Cars do have their place. I'll bet you didn't take your wife to the hospital on the back of a bicycle when it was time to give birth now did ya :)

I do agree we've grown dependant on them more so than is needed. It's a culture that a lot of us have grown up around. There is a freedom that comes from being able to hop in a car and just go. Yes you can hop on a bike as well, but not to visit your relatives in a different state (I'm talking about the entire family coming along so don't even start).

To expect everyone to live close enough to work to commute everyday on a bike is expecting way too much. And isn't that what it's all about these days? WORK? The Rat Race? Money money money?

Want a roof over your head? Gotta work. Want food on the table? Gotta work. Economics do force the issue. You have to get to work somehow. Someway. Everyday. Rain or shine. Young or old. That's America right now. Birth. School. Work. Death (from the Godfathers in case anyone is paying attention ;) ).

And like Forrest Gump said, "That's all I have to say about that"... Time to order that Pizza now :D

They're doing something right in China!

Whenever I see pictures of people going to work, it kinda makes me feel good to see thousands of bikes on the road.

Could that really happen in the western world though I wonder?

Hope so!

Rich

Hi All,
Have you ever stopped to think how much money your bikes etc would cost without the truck to haul the parts etc that make up your bike ? Dont get me wrong I would love to see many more cyclists on the road and a road structure that was more bike friendly. Last month in Bicycle Mag Houston was voted the worst big city to bike in...O well.

Ride Safe....Dudley

We have to win converts by positive example and in incremental steps. Perhaps if people realized how harmful cold starts and short trips are to their cars and to the environment (cold engine, fuel system, and catalyst --> maximum pollution, fuel consumption, and engine wear), they would complete more of their short errands on foot or bicycle. As rush hour traffic congestion continues to intensify, perhaps we can encourage more workers to commute by bicycle and/or transit.

By the way, although China is famous for its swarms of "Flying Pigeon" riders, there is a strong movement afoot (so to speak) to dedicate more roads to automobiles for the "upwardly mobile" members of the growing middle and upper classes.

The people on this forum love bicycling and we ride for that love.

However, many people simply do not "LOVE" to bicycle.

For the majority of people, the motivation to bicycle commute would be for economics and for lack of a better alternative.

John E points out that bicycling in China (THE bicycle kingdom) is rapidly giving way to the automobile. JohnE is absolutely correct. I witnessed this sad evolution through 12 years of regular travel to China. Still, my Chinese friends tell me that they don't really miss the bicycle. They say "Mike, you bicycle because you like it and have convenitient alternatives. We bicycled all of our lives because there simply was not any alternative - rain, snow, or shine.

In the USA, the two biggest bicycle booms were in the 1890's and in the 1970's. In the 1890's, the bicycle was one of the best and most convenient forms of mobility to the urban dweller. He had access to streets/roads and horses were not available to many urban dwellers.

In the 1970's, gasoline prices doubled, inflation was rampant, and incomes plateaued. Many people took to bicycling for economic reasons. Of course, with the "back to nature" movement of the day, bicycling was quite fashionable and sexy, so others were motivated to bicycle just for the fashion of it.

If time is money, then the MASSIVE amount of hours people spend auto commuting to/from work in their automobile is a terrible investment. Suppose a person makes $30 an hour for an 8 hour day, but they have a grueling 3 hour car commute. Since the commute is so much work, let's consider it part of one's work day, so that one's work day is 11 hours rather than 8. One's effective hourly rate shrinks to $21.82 -- a pay cut of almost one third. But the cost of owning/maintaining a car is also expensive. _Asphalt Nation_ conservatively estimates that this costs the individual about $6000 a year. Let's say that it takes $8000 gross to earn $6000 after taxes. This puts one's effective hourly rate down to $19.02 -- an hourly pay cut that has now exceeded one third.

If I were dictator of the world, I wouldn't ban cars outright. However, I would ban car loans. People would whine and complain that they couldn't afford to get a car this way. But don't these people realize: If you think it's too expensive to buy a car outright, the car becomes even more expensive when you finance it.

VC makes a very valid point. I hear that in Sydney alone, the economy loses $4million/day due to time wasted from people spending time in traffic queues (time that could be more productively spent). It's almost scary to think that when this is projected to all of Australia it becomes in excess of $1billion/year. Then I think about what the US figures might be :eek: .

The biggest issue here, however, relates to fuel prices. I honestly can't understand why governments spend so much money on trying to subsidise these, when petroleum is a finite resource that will eventually be totally exhausted and for which there is, at present, no alternative. This behaviour, incidentally, also convinces me that our species is nowhere near smart enough to come up with any alternative. Conclusion: Sooner or later there will have to be a post-oil economy

The way I see it we have to options here:
1. Allow fuel prices to gradually increase to world levels. This means reducing the incentive for people to use their cars, meaning that hopefully they will only be used when necessary and less often for shorter trips as time goes by. This might also allow more time to develop a practical and realistic alternative to petroleum powered vehicles.
2. Do nothing (as seems to be the favoured option at the moment) and get a massive shock in about 40 years time. As someone who still intends to be around then (and who will be reaching an age where I mightn't be able to ride quite as much - although it will be no choice of mine ;) ), I favour option 2.

VC and ChrisL bring up an important aspect of traffic waste.

There is a lot of call these days for more use of rail service in the USA.

However, notice how much traffic gets tied up as those rusty old trains creep through town. Worse yet, in the USA, trains are often miles long which further ties up traffic in every city they groan into.

I bet that if you did the math from a national standpoint, it would be proven that the fuel wasted by traffic stopped at train crossings equals or outweighs any savings in fuel that rail transport might promise.

From my experience, your description is applicable to freight trains, but is not applicable to passenger trains. The difference between the two is like the difference between apples and orangutans.

A good commuter train system often has its own separate right of way. The El in Chicago for example only operates as an elevated line or a subway line -- it never crosses a single road at road level anywhere. The Chicago Metea occassionally crosses roads, but the crossings are usually done fast and infrequently. Motorists will find that most traffic lights that stay red longer than the time it takes for the Metra to cross.

Sorry Mike, gotta disagree here. Having ridden train between the Gold Coast and Brisbane to numerous job interviews earlier in the year, I can't understand why anyone would ever drive it. Even now.

VC and ChrisL are correct that trains don't necessarily HAVE to be traffic stoppers. In many countries, train lengths are limited and the facilities are designed such that they don't obstruct traffic so badly - such as having them above/under the city and such that trains can pass through cities at higher speeds.

However, most of USA trains ARE freight cars. These are trains which are miles long, run at ground level, and slow down to a crawl as they choke through cities.

Granted, they could be made more practical, but right now the USA trains cause a lot of traffic stoppage. We have trains in our city which tie up traffic for more than 15 minutes at a time. The traffic can sometimes get backed up for almost a mile on both sides of the track.

Freight train takes the place of many, many semi trucks out on the road. There fore less pollution and less traffic.

I would gladly wait for train then have all of those big rigs out on the road.

I am going to defend rail transportation, as well. My current commute is a 15-minute train ride, with a 1+ mile / 2- km walk/jog at each end. The 6.5-year-old San Diego Northern Railroad (www.sdcommute.com/service/coasterpage.htm), which uses a 100-year-old freight line parallel to the coast, has accomplished the "impossible" mission of coaxing thousands of southern Californians out of their beloved cars for a pleasant, stress-free trip to work. People who would not consider bicycling 15mi/25km to work don't mind bicycling 2mi/3km to a train station. Yes, at-grade crossings are a problem, particularly on a line with 20 Amtrak, 22 Coaster, and 5 freight trains, plus one maintenance truck, per day, but traffic engineering studies here have demonstrated that the trains exacerbate traffic congestion only very minutely. At the inter-regional level, Amtrak's service in the LOSSAN (Los Angeles - San Diego) rail corridor generates positive(!) income and cash flow, while directly and conveniently connecting several of southern California's largest urban cores.

First off, I dig trains. They are without a doubt a more efficient form of transport than cars and better at hauling loads than trucks. I could go on but let's just say trains rule.

To answer Pete's question, I don't think that we would ever be able to get everyone to ride bikes and I don't think I would want to see it if we could. I certainly would like to see people use appropriate, sustainable transportation, which the private automobile isn't especially with the worlds exponential population growth.

I believe to make a major change in the driving habits of Americans that the government would have to play a role. Just as they played a major role in encouraging surburban sprawl and private car usage.

Why shouldn't we expect people to live close to where they work?

Another thing about trains: It's costs a lot less to build a mile of railway than a mile of freeway, and it uses less room.

The key here is funding. It always amazes me to see so much government funding spent on subsidising private transport (such as the motor car) and so little spent on public transport (such as trains, buses etc). Maybe there's something I'm missing in these definitions :eek:

I have, on many occasions, pondered why many people choose to live in excess of 50km from their place of employment. It seems to me that the place would have to be a hell of a lot cheaper to live in order to compensate for the costs (both time and money) of a long commute.

:confused:

Trains are not cost effective for distances less than about 100km - i.e. most journeys of goods.

Light rail ? Don't make me laugh ! Look at LA.

Most people in USA do not live far away from work. The average journey to work is less than 20 minutes and is less than the average trip time in Australia, South Africa and Great Britain.
Of course, it can be a little bracing in places like Albany, NY...

I moved from Los Angeles to San Diego 20 years ago. Here, we do not laugh at light rail, because it works extremely well and is quite popular.

Or Japan, or San Fransisco, or New York, or Berlin, or...oh, oops.

Just because someone implemented an idea badly doesn't mean that the entire concept is bunk.

Kind of curious where you get the facts for this one; it seems to me that most of the population of the U.S. lives in suburbia, and if most people didn't work that far away, why are the freeways jammed with commuters?

I have vivid memories of that San Diego light rail. I spent several hours once at a freight yard in San Ysidro, waiting for a trailer to be found down in Tijuana, so I rode the rail up to San Diego. I must've chosen the wrong time, because as soon as the car arrived at the border, it was swarmed by about 1000 "green card" employess, all dressed in various fast-food and hotel uniforms. I didn't get on that train, but was ready for the next! Geez, even New Yorkers on the subway aren't that eager to get on!