5 ms·

The cause and effect might be reversed. 1) Most people prefer to drive... look at any country that is getting richer - people want to buy cars. 2) It is only

by sershe 3y ago

The cause and effect might be reversed. 1) Most people prefer to drive... look at any country that is getting richer - people want to buy cars. 2) It is only when people cannot afford to drive or driving is too inconvenient (traffic, or narrow streets/lack of parking in Europe, or outright restrictions ), they will use alternative modes of transportation. 3) The more people are thus inconvenienced, the more public support there is for the alternative modes (simply by the numbers); moreover, an average person biking and taking transit becomes richer/nicer, so the political will to improve the experience increases even faster than the number of people; plus the experience becomes nicer even without extra investment. It's a flywheel either way. Now, you could argue that global warming is bad / enough freeways cannot be built / etc., sure. Maybe we cannot have nice things. But don't argue that people want to live in urban paradise and some contrived system is simply not giving them what they want. Most people everywhere, when they can, want to drive and live in houses. Except in some places many can afford that and have the infrastructure, and in some only a few do. It's not like car ownership and traffic is that low in Europe, given how admittedly convenient it is to not have one and how relatively expensive car ownership is, esp. in relation to incomes.

TacticalCoder 3y ago
> It's not like car ownership and traffic is that low in Europe, given how admittedly convenient it is to not have one Indeed. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc. are all among the countries with the highest vehicles per capita in the world (it's not as much as in the US, but then in the US people can drive starting at 16 years old, so it messes the stats quite a bit).
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> 1) Most people prefer to drive.. You don’t know that. You would have to run the experiment - spend equal amount of money on infrastructure for bikes and for cars. Then see. Most British cities are tiny, you can cross most of them on an e-bike in like 15 to 30 minutes. Except London of course. But there is usually no safe way to cross them. When I ask people in London, why are your not cycling, 95% say they are afraid of getting hit by a car. They are wrong - they will be killed by a truck. Most cyclists in London due to 4 axle construction trucks. I have seen one of the bastards illegally drive into a cycle lane, then onto a pavement where women walk with kids, and drive on that pavement to get around traffic. I have seen a BMW stuck on a bend in a segregated cycle way at Tower of London. I’ve seen a wolksvagen in a cycle lane upside down. Go to a rich and cycling safe are of London like hackney, there are plenty of bikes. Go to an area with dangerous roads, like Surrey, no bikes We spend insane amount of money on car infra. We just built a new tonnes in east London, the only way to cross the river for miles, and you can only cross in a car.
- sershe 3y ago
  Here's a great link: "Vehicle ownership starts to grow quickly when countries reach income of about 2,500 per capita in purchasing-power-parity (PPP) terms. Rapid growth continues until income per capita reaches about 10,000. Saturation level is at about 850 vehicles per 1,000 people." The limiting factor for having tons of cars is income. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Websites/IMF/imported-flagship-issues/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/01/chp4pdf/_fig47pdf.ashx https://www.imf.org/-/media/Websites/IMF/imported-flagship-i... [pdf with per-country history]
  - xboxnolifes 3y ago
    I fail to see how this accounts for difference in car vs bike infrastructure.
    - sershe 3y ago
      Countries at "income of about 2,500 per capita" are not exactly known for their car infrastructure. Moreover, by necessity with low car ownership they cannot have car-centric cities - most people don't have cars. I mean have you been to Hanoi or Belize City, or some place similar? Yet, despite crappy roads, short distances and chaotic traffic (and good climate, in many cases), people get cars as soon as they can afford them - instead of staying on bikes and mopeds that they are already otherwise using. Until, if IMF is to be believed, they reach 0.85 cars per person.
      - doix 3y ago
        Those places are freaking deathtraps. It's basically what the article is talking about! Those cities are _extremely_ anti-pedestrian. They may not be car-centric, but they are definitely moped centric. There are usually no sidewalks, or the sidewalks are full of parked mopeds or you'll be walking along and the sidewalk will just end abruptly. You are usually forced to walk along the road. Nobody will stop when you're crossing the road, they just weave. A quick Google search shows that Vietnam has 29.81 per 100,000 of population deaths from traffic accidents. These places are awful examples of safe bike/pedestrian cites. Of course people prefer cars there, it's much safer!
esoterica 3y ago
> Most people prefer to drive > It is only when people cannot afford to drive or driving is too inconvenient (traffic, or narrow streets/lack of parking in Europe, or outright restrictions ), they will use alternative modes of transportation. This is literally a tautology. "People find driving more convenient, except when driving is less convenient". > But don't argue that people want to live in urban paradise and some contrived system is simply not giving them what they want. Most people everywhere, when they can, want to drive and live in houses. Price signals are real. The fact that millions of people choose to pay large amounts of money to live in big cities and not drive instead of moving out to the sticks is proof that it is an extremely desirable lifestyle for a large fraction of the population.
- sershe 3y ago
  It's not. First, there's the "afford" bit, that is the key. And second obviously it's a tradeoff based on infrastructure available, but my point is unless you outright restrict it, everywhere in the world people will fill up as much driving/parking capacity as available, then a bit more, and only then consider other options. Hence gridlock and expensive/scarce/both parking in all of the "big cities". That is not true for biking or transit - nowhere in the world, that I'm aware of, do people clog the bike lanes or trains until they are barely usable, then switch grudgingly to other modes of transportation. People in big cities still drive. I mean, LA discussed here is a big car-centric city, why does this have to be about living in the sticks?

by sershe 3y ago

TacticalCoder 3y ago

> It's not like car ownership and traffic is that low in Europe, given how admittedly convenient it is to not have one Indeed. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc. are all among the countries with the highest vehicles per capita in the world (it's not as much as in the US, but then in the US people can drive starting at 16 years old, so it messes the stats quite a bit).

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> 1) Most people prefer to drive.. You don’t know that. You would have to run the experiment - spend equal amount of money on infrastructure for bikes and for cars. Then see. Most British cities are tiny, you can cross most of them on an e-bike in like 15 to 30 minutes. Except London of course. But there is usually no safe way to cross them. When I ask people in London, why are your not cycling, 95% say they are afraid of getting hit by a car. They are wrong - they will be killed by a truck. Most cyclists in London due to 4 axle construction trucks. I have seen one of the bastards illegally drive into a cycle lane, then onto a pavement where women walk with kids, and drive on that pavement to get around traffic. I have seen a BMW stuck on a bend in a segregated cycle way at Tower of London. I’ve seen a wolksvagen in a cycle lane upside down. Go to a rich and cycling safe are of London like hackney, there are plenty of bikes. Go to an area with dangerous roads, like Surrey, no bikes We spend insane amount of money on car infra. We just built a new tonnes in east London, the only way to cross the river for miles, and you can only cross in a car.

sershe 3y ago
Here's a great link: "Vehicle ownership starts to grow quickly when countries reach income of about 2,500 per capita in purchasing-power-parity (PPP) terms. Rapid growth continues until income per capita reaches about 10,000. Saturation level is at about 850 vehicles per 1,000 people." The limiting factor for having tons of cars is income. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Websites/IMF/imported-flagship-issues/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/01/chp4pdf/_fig47pdf.ashx https://www.imf.org/-/media/Websites/IMF/imported-flagship-i... [pdf with per-country history]
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  I fail to see how this accounts for difference in car vs bike infrastructure.
  - sershe 3y ago
    Countries at "income of about 2,500 per capita" are not exactly known for their car infrastructure. Moreover, by necessity with low car ownership they cannot have car-centric cities - most people don't have cars. I mean have you been to Hanoi or Belize City, or some place similar? Yet, despite crappy roads, short distances and chaotic traffic (and good climate, in many cases), people get cars as soon as they can afford them - instead of staying on bikes and mopeds that they are already otherwise using. Until, if IMF is to be believed, they reach 0.85 cars per person.
    - doix 3y ago
      Those places are freaking deathtraps. It's basically what the article is talking about! Those cities are _extremely_ anti-pedestrian. They may not be car-centric, but they are definitely moped centric. There are usually no sidewalks, or the sidewalks are full of parked mopeds or you'll be walking along and the sidewalk will just end abruptly. You are usually forced to walk along the road. Nobody will stop when you're crossing the road, they just weave. A quick Google search shows that Vietnam has 29.81 per 100,000 of population deaths from traffic accidents. These places are awful examples of safe bike/pedestrian cites. Of course people prefer cars there, it's much safer!

esoterica 3y ago

> Most people prefer to drive > It is only when people cannot afford to drive or driving is too inconvenient (traffic, or narrow streets/lack of parking in Europe, or outright restrictions ), they will use alternative modes of transportation. This is literally a tautology. "People find driving more convenient, except when driving is less convenient". > But don't argue that people want to live in urban paradise and some contrived system is simply not giving them what they want. Most people everywhere, when they can, want to drive and live in houses. Price signals are real. The fact that millions of people choose to pay large amounts of money to live in big cities and not drive instead of moving out to the sticks is proof that it is an extremely desirable lifestyle for a large fraction of the population.

sershe 3y ago
It's not. First, there's the "afford" bit, that is the key. And second obviously it's a tradeoff based on infrastructure available, but my point is unless you outright restrict it, everywhere in the world people will fill up as much driving/parking capacity as available, then a bit more, and only then consider other options. Hence gridlock and expensive/scarce/both parking in all of the "big cities". That is not true for biking or transit - nowhere in the world, that I'm aware of, do people clog the bike lanes or trains until they are barely usable, then switch grudgingly to other modes of transportation. People in big cities still drive. I mean, LA discussed here is a big car-centric city, why does this have to be about living in the sticks?