What would it look like--a modern, industrialized society (like the U.S.A.) whose preferred method of transportation was the bicycle? I know, I know--it won't happen. But, if it did...

What would it look like?

Bicycles sold for status symbols? Larger thighs and calves, instead of larger motors? Racing to work to challenge each other, just for fun (without worrying about speeding?) Multiple bike lanes where car lanes used to be? Long-burning yellow lights--or perhaps no lights at all? Drink/food stations instead of gasoline stations? Physical fitness valued as a practical resource, instead of a curious hobby?

39,000 fewer traffic deaths per year?

Soccer moms as fit as their soccer kids?

What?

I love these mental exercises.

Alas, perhaps we'd see simply a new set of prejudices:

Roadbikers screaming at those riding mountain bikes, "Get that hulk off the road!"

Cyclists grudgingly skirting Razor scooters and skateboarders, who have all left the sidewalk for the wide freedom of the street.

Other shifts in the paradigm:

Police officers, who themselves have had to forsake their cruisers in favor of bicycles, are forced to maintain a high level of fitness, leading to the Great Doughnut Market Crash.

Hordes of rikshaws circling airports.

Stock futures in Coppertone and Ben-Gay -- Blue Skies, Baby!


-Rob

That's already happened here.

Your society would look very much like China does now with its thousands of bikers.
I seriously doubt that the "Quality of Life" would be improved. Suberbia would crumble and fall as people moved closer to their places of employment. (There are people that drive 30/40/50 miles one way to work. They won't do that on a bike, and the factories are not likely to move to them.) Cities would have to be rebuilt with bigger and taller apartment complexs; murder and suicide rates would sky rocket because the ensuing congestion of bodies would eliminate all sense of freedom. There would be no more open spaces or areas for them to get away and relax.
The stress and tensions would just be horrendous.

Definitely an interesting scenario Bigman. The rickshaw comment was hillarious, thanks Rob. Ljbike makes some valid points. I would definitely look into being a bike mechanic if this ever happened. I think we would have to dodge sharp objects that are thrown at us from the good people at the used car lots and the mechanics. While we are dreaming, what if auto drivers could actually drive? What if every time a vehicle hit a cyclist or forced them off the road we forced them to ride a bike on the freeway for a year?

You got me thinkin' now Bigman...

I'm not totally convinced this would be the case. Many people seem to think that cars have always been there and that society has always been the way it is now. The truth is, it hasn't. I seriously believe that many businesses would decentralise and 'come to the people'. Those that did so would be in an excellent position to improve their market share.

I'm not sure if you've visited Surfers Paradise lately, or Sydney for that matter. There are many places in the developed world where this is already happening.

Before the popularity and availability of the auto, we had an agrarian society. People lived on farms and were self sufficient. The population was almost half of what it is now. Since the 2nd WW all that has changed. Populations have exploded, farm land has been paved over to build roads and where there had been acres of fertile fields there are now housing developments with smaller and smaller lots to feed the greed of the developers and make it almost impossible for the inhabitants to grow enough to sustain themselves even if they wanted to.

Society cannot and will not go back to an older way of life. It doesn't know how, and the mass majority would rather suffer the consequences of bigger and more crime ridden cities where everything is more convenient.

The only ones who could survive in a suberbia without autos are those who can make a living off their computer.

We had comments on this subject a few months ago, and at the time I commented the 'old' world would be a lot better off than the 'new' world.

By and large in the 'old' world people still live near where they work, 40+ mile commutes are not the norm.

We also typically have a public transport system which whilst could be massivly improved, by and large operated well and cheaply

Our cities and road systems were laid down millenia ago, seriously upgraded for modern fast traffic by the Roman Army some 2,000 years ago. They were further upgraded over the last 200 years or so for the horse and cart.

The car has only been really common outside the USA in the last 40-50 years, My wifes grandmother can still remember her first sight of a car, and her first ride in a car, and like her daughter and granddaughter never owned a car or learnt to drive.

My personal feeling is personalised large motorised transport vehicles capable of long distance travel have only a few decades remaining of survival. The sooner they go the better

That's all well and good, Brains, but you do live in London. The tube (whilst many swear about it) does make trips easier, and buses are plentiful (even if they do all come at once).

I live in a village. It is 8 miles to my nearest train station, and the closest station to work is a further 4 miles away. It is 14 miles to ride straight to work. Buses come once every two hours (approximately) and do not go anywhere near work. My transport options to get into town? Let's see. Cycle (fine - when I have a shower at the other end, I'm fit and well, and it's not going to be too late when I want to head home) or drive in my soon-to-be outmoded individual fuel-driven vehicle.

My friends live in other villages. Average distance away approx. 10 - 15 miles. No buses from my village to theirs. No trains from anywhere to anywhere closer. Again, cycle if they don't mind me showing up sweaty (great if we're going out) or drive.

I play cricket most weekends. Home matches are 20 miles away, away matches we meet on the other side of town, 17 miles away. Again, no buses, no train. Too much stuff to carry to cycle, plus I'm not fit enough to cycle 20 miles, play a cricket match and cycle home again. Driving is the only option, no matter how I try to think around this one!

So yes, a car-free world would make a big difference to me! Even in this 'old' world...

Ellie

I believe that a hybrid situation is the best solution. Automobiles are great for traveling city to city and in rural areas where you can travel faster. My parents live 800 miles away and my in- laws live even further. My wife and I could rely on air travel but it's too expensive and we don't really enjoy it. Buses and trains are just too slow with their frequent stops. Large, spread out countries like the US could not do without personal motorized vehicles anywhere in the near future.

Instead of getting rid of cars, let's remove them from the places where they offer no advantage over other modes of transportation. Congested areas like downtown cities could be restricted to bikes, motorcycles, buses, and possibly multi passenger vehicles with a minimum # of car poolers allowed in them.

Hmm...

China? That's worth thinking about in reverse: what will happen as China's billion-plus population shifts to automobile use from bicycle use?

From my perspective, I would breathe easier on my summer afternoon commute if bikes covered the roads instead of cars.

I used to marvel at the freeway as I crossed over it on a quiet neighborhood bridge. Seeing the ocean of cars and trucks
crawling bumper-to-bumper, I would imagine what it would look like if each of those single-occupancy vehicles became a single person walking. Suddenly, there would be a tremendous amount of space and freedom.

A study was recently conducted in the US comparing the dangers of living a) in the inner-city, b) in the near-city suburbs and c) the outlying suburbs. When including the dangers of both crime and motor vehicle accidents, the most dangerous place to live was c) the outlying suburbs; b) the near-city suburbs, was the safest place and c) the inner-city, was somewhere between the two.

I was thinking as I rode in this morning about the lines painted on the street. I realized that painting more lanes (for bikes instead of cars) would probably not happen. More likely, there would be less of a need for lines, except maybe to mark the shoulders.

Well, heck, I don't know everything! But it's fun to imagine...

Ellie

I appreciate the problem, I originally come from Cornwall, nearest rail station 18 miles, nearest town/school 9 miles, nearest village/shop 2 miles. Public transport - one bus a week to/from local town.

However, the house, like all the others around it, is 400+ years old, so life must have existed 'BC' (Before the Car.)

If there were no (or few) cars, public transport would be radically improved, where rail was not an option then busses would be far more frequent, certainly in my village Cornwall we had busses every hour or so up until the 1980's

I have travelled in a number of 3rd world, sorry, 'Developing Nations' (even if they are not 'developing' but going backwards). If places like Bolivia, can manage a Public Transport system of sorts, that is better than can be found in the Developed Nations. Turkey is a case in point, every village in the country has a local bus every 2 hours minimum.

JRD - Appreciate for N.America a different solution is required, but it can not be logical in the long term to do a 800 (or even 100) mile journey in your own personal motorised transport - For N.America the car should be used to get from the home to the transport hub (ie the local town). In an ideal world they should not be used for journey under say 5 miles (the bike) or over say 50/100 miles (the train). For long distance then the 'plane can be used.

As I have pointed out before on this forum, N.America is a train line builders dream country, basically flat with nothing much in it.
A proper modern train system could get you from the center of the continent (say Chicago) to the ocean, east, west or south in about 8 hours, imagine going to bed in Chicago and waking up by the sea, far more confortable than a 'plane, about the same door to door time uses up a lot less resources, and if properly fuunded would be a lot cheaper

The thing to be thought about now, whilst we have the time, is what will replace the car, as it's life is limited. I simply do not see Mr Average American (or Europen or anyone else) owning his own personal motorised long distance transporter a generation from now.

I hope that's "IF" not "WHEN". The Chinese Govenment, for all it faults, tends to be a little more forward thinking than that.

Really? So it's the Chinese government that restricts auto use? No. It's busy restricting many other things ... but I won't get into that here.

It's the fact that the country is dirt poor (per capita income) that has the effect of restricting cars.

Yes, and that is changing. China is fast becoming a curious mix of Communist Capitalism.

Remember how "Made in Japan" used to mean junk? The Japanese started on their road to economic expansion by making cheap toys and things. Now, it's the Chinese who are doing this, only perhaps better.

I wish the Chinese would restrict environmental hazards more.

Hmm, never thought of N. America as flat although there is a majority of flat area.

The problem with trains versus cars is speed and infrastructure. Trains have to make frequent stops if they are going to service every part of N. America. I suppose they could be designed to run in excess of 100 mph to make up for the stop and go delays. They could also be slowed down and use a second train to mate up with the moving train temporarily for load/unload with minimal delays.

We already have a fantastic infrastructure of interstates, highways, rural roads, and even dirt roads that cars can travel. The infrastructure for trains just doesn't compare.

Another problem with that transition is the American mindset. With cars you have the freedom to travel almost anywhere in the country except for very remote areas. It's a big part of the American culture. You have control, power, and individuality in your car.

It would take a major shortage in fossil fuels and no cheap alternative to get Americans out of their cages. The pollution is a major problem but mainly in cities where cars are congested. That's why I think the cut back in cars should start there. If it slowly progresses to the countryside, that would be cool.

Agreed 100%. Funny how the most polluting countries are/were communist.

Back to the original point: the world with only bikes. I think it'd be awful. I love bike-commuting but I can only do so largely because my wife (and her big hulking van) many times acts as a sag or support vehicle of sorts.

Sure, we all could be clustered into tightly-packed communities within X miles of a train station, but that'd make us like Bulgaria. No thanks.

The car is far, far, far more beneficial than it is a drawback, which is not to say that it has no drawbacks. If it weren't we'd be all riding bicycles or stepping over horse dung or being packed like sardines into "public transportation" like in the old East Germany.

No thanks.

I'm not sure this would necessarily happen. Think about it, many businesses only started to centralise their operations after it was demonstrated that people were prepared to drive 50 miles for a loaf of bread (I may be exaggerating, but you get my point). I believe many of them would be forced to do so again if their customers simply stopped travelling those vast numbers of miles.

Again, I'm not totally convinced. The fact is that the car has been far, far, far more heavily subsidised than 'public transport' has for years anyway. The train between the Gold Coast and Brisbane is a prime example of what can be done with a little bit of funding, it is both faster and cheaper than driving between the two cities (and not nearly as much fun as riding between the two, but I digress).

I am not advocating totally banning cars, and I never have. But for some reason, many people think our species would disappear without it. Our species wouldn't disappear, we'd just adjust and adapt as we always have, and within a few years, nobody would even care anymore.

The speed issue is simple - a train is faster.

Here in the UK (which has an old, underfunded, rail infastructure) even the local trains that stop at local stations every 2-3 miles can get upto 80mph in-between stations, the intercity trains travel at upto 125mph. In countries with decent rail systems (France, Germany, Japan etc) intercity speeds over 200 mph are normal.

I have travelled from Paris to Nice, a distance of close to 1,000 miles in under 5 hours, so an average speed of 200 mph, which when compared to a 'plane means your door to door time is cut by a couple of hours, a car is not even in the race.

[/i]
We already have a fantastic infrastructure of interstates, highways, rural roads, and even dirt roads that cars can travel. The infrastructure for trains just doesn't compare.
[/QUOTE]

Imagine if the amount of money that was poured into the road system, the car industry, the steel industry, and all the other industries associated with the car over tha last 50 years, had been put in the rail system insted. The USA would then have rails to every town and many a village throughout the lower 48 states

The people would be fitter, would live longer, and the entire car culture of the country would dissapear, the knock on effect would be enormous, Hollywood movies would have a script insted of yet another car chase (a bike chase perhaps ? Speilberg managed than in E.T., even if flying bikes were just a little far fetched), the health industry would collapse as fitter Americans need fewer doctors ( and lower heath insurance), meaning excess doctors could go and treat those in the 3rd world (OK, getting silly...)

[/i]
Another problem with that transition is the American mindset. With cars you have the freedom to travel almost anywhere in the country except for very remote areas. It's a big part of the American culture. You have control, power, and individuality in your car.
[/QUOTE]

That I agree is the big problem and the only people to change it will be the Poloticians, but there are far to many industry lobby groups to possibly allow it to happen

[/i]
It would take a major shortage in fossil fuels and no cheap alternative to get Americans out of their cages. The pollution is a major problem but mainly in cities where cars are congested. That's why I think the cut back in cars should start there. If it slowly progresses to the countryside, that would be cool. [/QUOTE]

That is my issue. When the shortage..., not IF. The ONLY way that personal long distance motorised private transportation devices can be sustained for more that another generation or two, is if they are made from over 99% recyled materiel and utilise a renewable form of energy to power them.

Hence, either we build more eco-friendly systems now, such as a rail systems, which I agree are not eco-friendly but are better than cars and can be sustained for many generations longer. Or we wait until the shortage in materiel and/or fossil fuels, by which time it will be to late.

A proper rail system would take at least as long as it took the US to build the federal road system so time measured in decades not years.

Fast trains are definitely better than planes in most situations.

That is fast. It would be nice to have something like that here.

That's a big IF. The problem is that we didn't. It's like POTS (plain old telephone system). It is vastly inferior to cellular given the cheap technology that we have today. Yet, it's still in use in developed nations that have built up the infrastructure. Developing nations can move to an all cellular phone system because they have little to no infrastructure for POTS. Maybe us developed nations will move to all cellular as it gets cheaper and maintenance on POTS becomes too expensive but it remains to be seen.

We'll need a big change to get started on more rail systems. Amtrak is losing $1 billion per year and only kept floating by taxpayer money. Lots of people want to make it a private company and that would probably spell disaster for any new train ventures.

What ljbike describes is reminiscent of Dicken's London or Napoleonic France during the Industrial Revolution. Not a pretty picture.

Forget cars. Remember those "space mobiles" in the Jetsons?George Jetson, where are you? Now that would be really cool. There would be "airmobile" traffic and then the earthbound roads would be for two-wheel and pedestrian traffic. If we can build an elevator to space, why can't we do something to transform cars into a different kind of beast?

https://www.vtol.co.il/VTOL%20Page%202%20new.htm

https://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...file_theam.xml

https://nasaexplores.com/lessons/01-003/9-12_index.html

https://aviation.about.com/library/weekly/aa123100.htm

Andy Dreisch: "Sure, we all could be clustered into tightly-packed communities within X miles of a train station, but that'd make us like Bulgaria."

Or maybe Venice?? Check out

https://www.carfree.com

for an idealized view of a carfree cities. Interesting stuff.

From the enclosed link (www.carfree.com), a quote:

The carfree city can be built. Venice is proof enough. But what about Rome? Why is Rome car-full, and Venice not? And was Venice "built" car-free, or did Venice become car-free. And is Venice (the metro area) really car-free at all? Or is it just where the pigeons and canals and tourists congregate?

Another:

Carfree cities probably must become the norm by the end of the 21st Century, due to energy constraints. Sure. Yeah. Right. Yet another Malthusian statement from the "sky is falling" crowd.

Hey, let's be clear: I'm not arguing that cars become the sole source of transportation. I am arguing, however, that the demand for cars explains the prevelance of cars. Wishful thinking about mass transportation and other supply topics misses the point.

I think we should realize that for all their problems, a world without those evil automobiles may not be as pollyanish as some of us would like.

Heh. Isn't that why there are all those jokes about inbreeding in the fens and places in Devon? Distances of 30 miles were considered too far to travel to meet a wife!

I agree. If we had to, then public transport would be great. So maybe that is what our new carless world would look like. Buses and trains in plentiful supply running as close as you'd need them to.

Wouldn't all this impact on shopping patterns, too? No more driving to the shop once a week for a big family shop.

This would require a serious shift in attitude!

Ellie