gerv 

IMHO a much bigger factor is the poor quality of education in many parts of the US. You can see this in the generally poor quality of politicians elected and the general ease with which a politician or propagandist can promote a pure falsehood. A recent good example of this is that 20% of the population believe Obama is a Muslim.

I think a good solid education where students are actually forced into the discipline of thinking and the development of ideas is a great defense against the brainwashing you talk about. With wiser and more thoughtful citizens, no amount of advertising or brainwashing is going to succeed.

Wiser citizens will also be quick to pick up on a "sea change" . For example, they would be clamoring to get their officials to deal with the imminent energy and climate threats. Instead what I see are the Vikings of Greenland.

Robert Foster

While for some people you might have had a point, but Roody didn't fall into any of the brainwashing catagories. He didn't see cars as glamorous. He knew the advantages of cycling yet the ease of use caused him to make choices he has constantly posted against. Not meant as an offense to Roody but I have heard him time and time again talk about this very subject using words such as, "if people only knew they could do the same things without a car." Yes given the same choices most of America has been given he made the same decission they have. Roody isn't a Viking and yet???? The temptation was too great to resist?

Roody

I went to different libraries, restaurants and credit unions when I had the car because they fit into the car system rather than the bike system or the bus system.

I used the car more because i knew I would only have it for a limited time. I don't know how much I would use the car if I had it permanently--I think a lot less. But what I discovered is that I live in an area that has more than one viable transportation system, while you and many other americans don't have a real choice.

storckm

Can you force people to learn how to think clearly and rationally?

cycleobsidian

What if there was no zoning for car parking lots? Cars are a preferred method of transportation because there are spaces for them to park, even though parking lots are costly, wasteful, and environmentally degrading. So it's not just a random choice that people pick the private automobile among many options. They pick the car because they can. And other people don't walk or bike because, among other reasons, they have to walk past buildings that are far apart in order to accommodate the parking lots that are next to them..

Robert Foster

If you were talking about someone who didn't know the disadvantages or didn't understand mass transit or wasn't a bike advocate you might have a point. But that isn't the case here.

Cars weren't always the preferred method of transportation they evolved into the preferred method. Roads weren't always built just for cars, the Romans built roads 2000 years ago to make traveling between cities easier.

Yes people pick cars because they can. Parking lots are part of the zoning laws and building are af far apart as they are because of other zoning restrictions. That isn't going to change and if there were no parking the building would still be just as far apart. There simply is no infrastructure to change than nor is there enough people willing to spend the money to change it.

What you are talking about is not reasons people decide to drive or ride in a car you are talking about excuses people have for not walking or riding a bike. The question becomes is the ease of use so great in using a car that cycling advocates believe they should be outlawed like drugs? If we make it more difficult to drive a ICE powered vehicle will people willingly tear down cities to place buildings closer together? Should we limit the choices people have so they can see the wisdom of riding a bike more or walking more? I don't think that is a practical solution. We live in a society where people get to vote and have the freedom of choice on how they get from point A to point B. If the 4 choices are walking, bike riding, mass transit or private vehicles the public will make their decision based on both their wants and their needs and if the majority choose cars then we will have parking lots and buildings zoned for the parking lots. People will not choose a harder way of doing things, make that more physically demanding, if there is any easier way of doing something. Go to any large mall and see how many more people use the escalator rather than the stairs.

Roody

Instead of no parking lots, just charge people the real cost of parking. Make them pay for their share of the damage that's being done to the environment and the quality of life. When I was in the car, I went 8 miles to avoid paying a dollar for parking at a closer library. If every parking place charged, I bet some people would leave the car at home and walk or ride to the closer library.

Robert Foster

Isn't it all a matter of perspective? There is a recreational lake about 3 miles from my house. There is a 22 mile dirt trail running around the lake that you must enter at the Marina. If you drive your car and unload your MTB or boat they charge 7 dollars. If you ride the 8-12 percent 1 mile grade to the marina you could ride the trail for free. Starting January this year with the budget crisis they started charging 2 bucks even if you rode your bike to the marina. The cars and boaters are still going to the lake. The cyclists and hikers have dropped off considerably. You went 8 miles to avoid paying a buck. Some people will drive 8 miles to avoid sweating on a bike. It is all in where your values are.

cycleobsidian

My friends who live in Vancouver do just that. Parking alone is $10 a day each for them, so they leave the car at home and bike to work. It certainly helps that they can do so on streets designated as bike friendly as well as bike lanes.

In cities like Copenhagen where there is high bicycle use, car use is reduced by having strict liability for car drivers when they hit cyclists, snow cleaning in winter on bike lanes before the roads, bicycle superhighways from the burbs, bicycle equality (where bicycles are seen as being an equal and respected partner in the traffic equation,) charging 180% tax on the car's net value when buying a car, gas costs over $10 a gallon, etc etc.

Over 30% of commutes are made by bike there, and another 30% by public transit. Policy can definitely influence driver behaviour.

gerv 

Same here. If you work downtown, you pay $6-8 a day for parking. If you work in the suburbs, parking is free. As I chug to work each morning, lots of people waiting for the downtown bus. Very few riding out to the 'burbs.

Robert Foster

And even with all of that mass effort to stamp out the evil car there are still more people driving than ride bikes in the US?

Check out about 48 seconds into the video. There are other reasons people decide to drive cars.

cycleobsidian

huh?

Well I guess then it is how you look at it.

Only 30% of people use cars for their daily commute in Copenhagen.

A much much higher percentage use their cars for their daily commute in the US.


As far as I'm concerned, public policy to limit car use in Copenhagen and other European cities is an astounding success. I hope that elements of these policies are adopted here.

I think that if gas prices rise and more attention is paid to the rising temperature of the earth, car use will be discouraged.

If the prices don't rise and the rising temperature of the earth doesn't influence government, then it will be business as usual for a long time to come.

(BTW, I didn't say car use is evil, you did. Under certain conditions, car use is necessary and preferred. In an ideal world there will be a switch to electric cars for these purposes.

Under other conditions, such as getting to work in distances under 5-10 kilometers, for those who can, public policy should definitely encourage walking, cycling, and public transit. IMHO)

Robert Foster

I forgot to post the link before but no matter.

The example I have started to draw from is China and India. Here you had a society that was heavy into mass transit, bicycles and walking and yet they seem to be giving it up for a more car centric life. I might add it was a country that never paid much attention to the wants of the people either so they could pass any policy they wanted. China surpassed the US in car sales last year and they are now the biggest energy users in the world having passed the US at least 5 years before anyone predicted they would. India is starting their own automotive industry.

The truth is people (in excess of 90 percent) simply don't want to walk or bike places in general. We have too much stuff to move, places to go and time for recreation so we go places to spend our free time.

I am not saying that people shouldn't be encouraged to walk, ride a bike or use mass transit. I am saying in a society that has the right to vote the majority isn't likely to embrace a lifestyle that takes their free parking away. We in these forums ajust are not just a minority we are a minority within a minority group. A vocal one to be honest but one that seems to be asking people to do what they simply do not want to do. We live in a world where easier is always perceived as better by the vast majority and Madison Avenue knows that as well as our political system.

In this country public policy follows public preferences eventually. It doesn't tend to go against what the public wants. When it does the public tends to replace the policy maker and reverse the policy.

Roody

It's very clear that public preference in the US and other wealthy countries is headed on the direction of using cars less, especially in urban and suburban areas. Maybe you can't see this from the OC, but it's evident almost everywhere else.

And, as you say, public policy is following public preference at a rapid rate. Most cities and states are starting to require bike and pedestrian improvements, and the federal Transportation Department has pledged that federal policy will also require bike and pedestrian improvements.

For example, my city and state both have Complete Street acts on the books now, making it very likely that all future street and highway rebuilds will include substantial improvements for bikes and walking. This is in Michigan, obviously a historically car friendly state.

Another example can be found in real estate prices since the bubble burst. The only areas where prices have more or less held steady is in areas that support carfree living with bike lanes, sidewalks, and above all, good public transit. Property values in exurban and rural areas, in contrast, have plummeted.

Robert Foster

From everything I have read they are still tearing down blocks of Detroit and the metro area is still growing at a faster rate than the central core? Is that not the case?

I also realize after taking my last two vacation trips that California, more to the point Southern California is a bit of an contridiction to the big city models. LA is spread out to the size of a small state and over the years we have moved the industries to industrial parks and rezoned the cities to reflect the seperation between where people work and where they live. The OC is even worse in that reguard where whole cities are simply bedroom communities. There are also very few homes located within walking distance to the major industrial parks in Irvine and Newport Beach.

Where I live now is a converted farming community that has grown into a small town with a large retirement community surrounding it. We are pushing for more bicycle infrastructure but I never expect more than 10 percent of the people will use it. 10 percent seems like a massive number to a group like this but to bean counters building shopping malls and industrial parks we are a 10 percent knat compared to the 90 percent elephant they are catering to.


when we say less cars in this forum we are still talking about a majority using them. In LCF speak we are moving from hardly anyone using bikes to commute to a select few using them. I don't believe I will live to see the day when we can say most people don't use a personal self power vehicle. I just don't know what will power those vehicles.

cycleobsidian

Neither do I. But I do see a day where gas will be much more expensive than it is now. How would $10 a gallon affect personal car use? Electric cars will be an alternative for some, but not for most, as they will likely still be unaffordable to people still struggling with unemployment and underemployment.

If gas prices increase people will be demanding from their government alternate forms of transportation, such as public transit and walkable/bikeable communities. It may not be happening at breakneck speed now but it might happen in the future under this scenario.

Like I said earlier, if you think the price of gas is not going up significantly, you are probably right that people will not get out of their personal vehicles.

If you think the price of gas is going to go up significantly, then you might believe that more people will get out of their cars. They might switch from a two car family to a one car family for example. Poor people will no longer be able to drive--it will be a long time before you can buy a used $5000 electric car.

I'm not sure they will necessarily like the idea of diminishing their car use and instead hopping on a bike or public transit, but that may have to be the case anyway.

Robert Foster

A response to $10.00 gas could be 50 MPG cars. when I was in London in 2006 gas was something like $8.00 a gallon and still the streets were packed with cars. Smaller cars and almost no pickups but cars none the less. India is providing just such a vehicle to their own people. It cost less than my road bike and gets 52 MPG. It seems as if it is doing quite well in the home country.

If we recover from this recession it will be on the back of the housing and automotive industry, like it or not. We could have moved in another direction if we had started "before" trillions were spent to prop up the system we already have. Now there is no way to start a new infrastructure for more mass transit. If gas get too expensive is there a way to supply our already shipping dependant cities with food without the cost of fuel effecting that supply?

The US has waited too long and postponed necessary repairs to our infrastructure. Bridges, water supplies, roads and harbors need attention and will require massive funds to bring them up to modern standards. It is very unlikely that people will start rebuilding our cities till the econony recovers and if it doesn't recover there will be no money to change our cities to be more walk friendly, bike friendly or bus friendly. Not with the government we have today. IMHO.

storckm

Certainly the amount of effort we have spent (not always for democratic reasons) setting up things to be convenient for cars will make it difficult to change, as will the habits and ways of thinking that we have formed in response. But change is possible, and just as we changed from a carless society to a carful one, there isn't any reason why we can't change back to a carless society. Obviously, it will take time, and many choices, both public and private, but it could happen.

Why the housing and the automotive industry, Robert Foster? It seems like housing is only built if people have the money for it. And can't we make anything besides cars?

Robert Foster

Because housing and automotive are where the money "is" being spent. 38 billion to GM alone and to get the money back GM has to succeed. 700 billion to the loan institutions they may never get their money back from. To make money again those same institutions need building projects and housing. The government has invested our grandchildren's future in both of them both directly and indirectly. They have not invested that kind of money to do away with cars.

Because places like China and India are moving into a car-centric life style from the very life style some here are suggesting in light speed time. And because very few people believe giving up technology for the "old" ways is a good idea.

We could go back if we were willing to concede our position in the world to other nations. But we would have to become isolationists. No way to ship food to our big cities without cars and trucks. The farm land that supported them before cars is long gone. No interstate commerce without cars, trucks, trains and plains.

And lastly because most people see technology as a solution rather than going back to the "old" ways. With 95+ percent of the nation looking for the next item with bells and whistles the 3 or 4 percent that are looking for a slower life simply don't have the fire power to stimulate change.

How do you see a US functioning without motor vehicles?

cycleobsidian

Stats on number of motor vehicles by country per 1000 people:

https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tr...motor-vehicles

United States--the highest number of vehicles by the way:
765 vehicles per 1000 people

United Kingdom:
426 per 1000 people

Denmark
408 per 100o people

Robert Foster

Per person but not by gross numbers. China expects to buy 15 million cars in 2010. And while per capita they don't buy as many they have a lot more people to buy cars.
https://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...to-sales_N.htm

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8141690.stm

https://blogs.forbes.com/china/2010/0...etschannelnews

Not just the US but most of the world sees economic success in the purchasing power of the people of the country. The very economic health of a country is measured by GDP and GDP growth rate. China has a GDP growth rate of 9.1 percent and countries like Denmark have a GDP growth rate of -4.7 percent. It has gotten worse since 2007 when it was +1.7 percent. That may be why no one looks to Denmark for solutions to things or economic advice.

So if we are talking absolutes China is the number one in car sales and now the number one in energy use and they have lots of room to grow. But even if they weren't number one all we have to do is look how far they have come in the last 25 years and we can see their future. They have left a centrally controled economy and moved to a market driven economy. Who does that sound more like?

wahoonc

Unfortunately we have screwed ourselves on much of any kind of quick recovery and in some opinions totally screwed ourselves. Recovery starts from the bottom up when it comes to purchasing products. But we no longer make very many of the products we consume on a day to day basis. Things like clothing, small appliances, cookware, etc. Helluva jump in cost between a new pair or two of jeans and a new car or house. People would be more apt to purchase several small ticket items rather than a single big ticket item. If you have been laid off for a while and you get a new job, chances are your credit is in very good shape, so you won't have the money to put down for a new car, much less being able to borrow money for one.

As far as infrastructure? Good luck! They have be putting that off for years, raiding highway funds to balance budgets, etc. I was reading an article recently (believe it was in Massachusetts) where they are taking funds that had been earmarked for mass transit and are going to use them to raise a couple of bridges so larger trucks can get through, now how does THAT benefit mass transit? If they (meaning government) would do their research they would find out that they usually get more for their money when it is spent on cycle paths and sidewalks than on adding a lane to an existing roadway.

Aaron

akohekohe

Well, I have this debate every summer when we go to the summer place which is on an island and except in the winter, when the lake is frozen over, you need to take a boat to get there (well you could swim but that is really impractical). I really prefer to take the canoe or row boat but it is slower and not as convenient as the power boat. It is sort of like biking and cars - lots of people canoe for recreation but not for transportation. I sort of view car-free as really meaning ICE fee.

akohekohe

Why trash Denmark? In spite of being in a recession since 2007 they still rank 25th in the world in GDP per capita. That is better than the UK, Germany France, Japan and Australia.

cycleobsidian

I think we're talking apples and oranges. I'm not talking total car sales. I'm talking about how people get around. Obviously in other countries, if fewer people per 1000 are getting around by cars, they are getting around another way. Those are the people who are using alternate transport: buses, trains, and "gasp!" bicycles. We should be looking around the world and see the best practices of how this is being done.

China has a great GDP because they have so much room to grow as their living standards are currently so poor. They are the reason why our oil prices will go up despite stabilized oil use in industrialized countries.

I'm certainly not going to wring my hands over China or India and their car sales. I can't control that. What I can do is focus on more local politics and getting a more bicycle friendly infrastructure where I live. And on this level, it is working.

And by the way, if I had to pick a place to live, I'd pick Denmark over China any day, even if China's GDP is skyrocketing. GDP is definitely NOT an accurate measure of the well being of their citizens.