Gas prices and an increase in cycling?

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

Matt O'Toole wrote:

>>> There's no doubt that we'll see astronomical gasoline prices soon
>>> in the future. Of course, one would think that this would lead to
>>> an increase in cycling.

>>> However, I think human beings (especially Americans) are too lazy
>>> for bicycles, and we'll probably see an increase in horses for
>>> transportation [according to this it's already

happening:http://www.wyff4.com/news/15968363/detail.html].

>>> But, I have to admit that - yes, I'm surprised - I've actually
>>> seen an increase in cyclists?

>>> Have you guys too?

>> 1) I don't think there's any evidence that Americans are any more
>> lazy than the citizens of any other country.

> If anything it's the opposite, with cultural pressure to always appear to
> be productive, not "wasting time" on a bicycle. In the US, bicycles are
> seen as toys for children and immature adults.

> I think this is why there's so much emphasis on racing in bike
> marketing in the US. Americans feel they have to justify their
> interest in cycling by pretending it's a serious athletic pursuit.

>> 2) Horses, besides not being too welcome on city streets unless
>> they are pulling a couple snuggling in a carriage or being ridden
>> by a police officer, require a heck of a lot more work than does
>> riding a bike. Ever mucked out a stable or unloaded a truckload of
>> alfalfa?

> This is true.

> We'll never go "back to horses" because we never came from horses to
> begin with. This idea comes from our own car culture projected
> backwards. No one ever saddled up to fetch a quart of milk! Most
> people walked. Draft animals for pulling heavy loads were as likely
> to be mules or oxen as horses. When bikes came around in the late
> 1800s they were immediately popular among those who could afford
> them (about $4000, adjusted for inflation) -- not just for their
> novelty, but their transportation value, practicality, and economy.

> 3) I haven't noticed any increased bicycle usage.

> I have, but it's a trend that started before the latest runup in
> fuel prices.

> BTW, in the UK they've been paying $8/gallon for years. If
> anything, it's the congestion pricing in central London that has put
> more people on bikes.

As I see it, the US appreciation of bicycles agrees with yours and may
go even farther:

http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/6.1.html

Jobst Brandt

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> As the chief trainspotter here, what have you heard lately about the
> CA high speed rail line from LA to SFO through Bakersfield and
> Fresno? Sounds like a good deal to me, especially if they allow
> bikes aboard.

Quentin Kopp is haeding up the task force and he is making good
progress. The big noise (smoke but no fire) is wheterh the cut-over
from the Californina Central Valley to the SF Bay Area crosses at Los
Baños or the existing rail corridor over Altamont pass. Other than
that, funding is available and has been voted for.

Jobst Brandt

recycled

<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:4828f2d4$0$34526$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Cullen Carter wrote:
>
>> There's no doubt that we'll see astronomical gasoline prices soon in
>> the future.
>
> Are you sure it won't be in the past?

That might be truer than you intended.

Peak Oil theories aside I would not be surprised if we eventually repeat the
70's 80's 90's.... errrrr.... cycle again.

Grossy summarized, the price spikes of the 70's caused a huge gain in
efficiencies. Car kilometerage increased dramatically, insulation and energy
efficiency similarly improved. And yes previously uneconomic sources of oil
came online.

In fact it took pretty much two decades before that excess supply was
sopped up by the low price driven craze of massive SUV's and prolifigate
usage.

I suspect that within 5 years the 'cycle' will be repeating.


>> Of course, one would think that this would lead to an increase in
>> cycling.
>
> I'd rather not. If they are riding because they are financially
> pressed, they won't be friendly toward avocational riders, especially
> ones that flaunt expensive "racing" equipment and dress up like their
> professional idols.

Most might fit that description. But amnongst the dross some might be
converted.

Tom Keats

In article <4828f2d4$0$34526$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org writes:
> Cullen Carter wrote:
>
>> There's no doubt that we'll see astronomical gasoline prices soon in
>> the future.
>
> Are you sure it won't be in the past?
>
>> Of course, one would think that this would lead to an increase in
>> cycling.
>
> I'd rather not. If they are riding because they are financially
> pressed, they won't be friendly toward avocational riders, especially
> ones that flaunt expensive "racing" equipment and dress up like their
> professional idols.

I'd like to think that the more people get away from
their POVs, the more sociable and amicable they're
likely to become.

Maybe incidents of so-called "road rage" would wane.

Nobody can have a chip on their shoulder while
riding a bike. It would blow off.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

JCrowe

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 18:53:12 -0700, Bob wrote:
>> 1- I don't think there's any evidence that Americans are any more lazy
>> than the citizens of any other country.
>
> If anything it's the opposite, with cultural pressure to always appear to
> be productive, not "wasting time" on a bicycle. In the US, bicycles are
> seen as toys for children and immature adults.

That's a mighty wide brush you're painting with. I've ridden
seriously in various parts of the U.S. as an adult for something like
35 years now. While this is anecdotal evidence, I don't think I've
ever encountered the label of immature adult or toy user in that time.
I have encountered aggressive behavior from some people, but those are
not the common reactions.
>
> I think this is why there's so much emphasis on racing in bike
> marketing in the US. Americans feel they have to justify their interest
> in cycling by pretending it's a serious athletic pursuit.

Maybe, or perhaps the bicycle makers push the high priced bicycles
because the profit margin is much greater there. I will make one
observation about cycling that I have noticed in the U.S. but not
in Europe, where I have lived a couple of times. In the U.S. bicycle
advocates often live bicycling and pretty much not much else, to the
degree that some of them are boring and more than a little annoying.
IME, in Europe, people just ride bikes for transportation or for
exercise/entertainment and don't tend to claim any moral superiority
because of it.

> 3- I haven't noticed any increased bicycle usage.
>
> I have, but it's a trend that started before the latest runup in fuel
> prices.

I am seeing more adults riding in neighborhoods and on running/bike
paths...not so much on the roads where I ride. There is a fear factor
involved here, I believe. High speed auto traffic and bicycles are a mix
that's daunting for many folks, and in suburban areas, which is where a
significant part of the local population resides, there are a lot of
neighborhoods connected by highspeed arteries. Out here in the burbs,
there are no safely accessible places to shop by bicycle either.
>
> BTW, in the UK they've been paying $8/gallon for years. If anything, it's
> the congestion pricing in central London that has put more people on
> bikes.

Actually, in the UK, gasoline is priced in English pounds.
Converting the prices to dollars right now simply indicates how
far the dollar has fallen against other currencies. FWIW, petrol
prices in the U.K. have been high for years due to high rates of
taxation. The same is generally true in the rest of Europe. One
more point. Places like London, Paris, Rome etc. have mass transit
that is effective for two reasons. First, the cities were built way
before the advent of automobiles so retrofitting an automobile culture
is difficult and second, they have population densities that make mass
transit more cost-effective. An alternative to vast daily migration to
places of work from homes would be to distribute work closer to peoples'
homes, or to implement more telecommuting options.
>
> Matt O.


--
They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for
one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in
your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.
-- Ernest Hemingway

Peter Cole

Bob wrote:

> 2- Horses, besides not being too welcome on city streets unless they
> are pulling a couple snuggling in a carriage or being ridden by a
> police officer, require a heck of a lot more work than does riding a
> bike. Ever mucked out a stable or unloaded a truckload of alfalfa? ;-)

Hey, I did a double-take last month when I came across one of Boston's
finest on a bike. I asked when the unit was started & he replied it was
new this year. Apparently the mayor just started riding last fall and is
now something of a convert (don't know if the two are related). He's
been talking up bike lanes and parking. The bike-cop actually seemed to
be really enjoying himself.

DennisTheBald

On May 15, 11:32 am, JCrowe <bongof...@hotrats.org> wrote:
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 May 2008 18:53:12 -0700, Bob wrote:

> I am seeing more adults riding in neighborhoods and on running/bike
> paths...not so much on the roads where I ride. There is a fear factor
> involved here, I believe. High speed auto traffic and bicycles are a mix
> that's daunting for many folks, and in suburban areas, which is where a
> significant part of the local population resides, there are a lot of
> neighborhoods connected by highspeed arteries. Out here in the burbs,
> there are no safely accessible places to shop by bicycle either.

Yep, the burbs were built to be inhabited by car people. But maybe
the can be reclaimed by humans in the post petroleum era.

Peter Cole

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> We'll never go "back to horses" because we never came from horses to begin
> with. This idea comes from our own car culture projected backwards. No
> one ever saddled up to fetch a quart of milk! Most people walked. Draft
> animals for pulling heavy loads were as likely to be mules or oxen as
> horses. When bikes came around in the late 1800s they were immediately
> popular among those who could afford them (about $4000, adjusted for
> inflation) -- not just for their novelty, but their transportation value,
> practicality, and economy.

I think the main problem for the bike was that it was so quickly
superseded by the auto that it never really took hold culturally in the
US. It's remarkable that only 20 years passed between the invention of
the pneumatic tire (and the safety bike) and the Model T.

As for horses, I think street cars were an important form of transport
in urban US, and until they went electric late in the 19th century, most
were horse drawn. The auto killed the bike and the street car.

Americans are technophiles, and it's a culture that we've exported
successfully. Bikes are considered backwards, not only in the US, but
the other cultures we've influenced. The Segway produced quite a stir,
the EBike, scarcely a ripple.

It's possible that energy cost/shortages may bring a short-term
boom(let) in bicycling, but that same motive (necessity) will doom it by
further connecting it with lack of status. As tempting as it is to poke
fun at "fitness" cyclists, that seems to be the only segment with real
growth potential.

In article <6e91e5cf-ec02-44e9-8c90-194e8bb84920
@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow@gmail.com says...
> On May 12, 9:53 pm, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't think there's any evidence that Americans are any more lazy
> > than the citizens of any other country.
>
> Try spending a few weeks east of the Atlantic, then returning to the
> US.
>
> I've done that a few times. Each time, the body fat walking around in
> the US airport shocks me. The difference is very noticeable.

I don't think this is evidence of greater laziness in the U.S., rather
it's evidence of urban design that panders to laziness in ways other
cultures would reject out of hand.

There's plenty of evidence that communities designed for walking promote
public health, not because the people who live there are less lazy, but
because their environment is more conducive to walking than driving.

Make walking the easy choice, and lazy people will walk, while dedicated
motor enthusiasts will drive.

Make driving the easy choice, and lazy people will drive, while
dedicated pedestrian enthusiasts will walk.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

victor.kan@gmail.com

On May 15, 6:55 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
....
> It's possible that energy cost/shortages may bring a short-term
> boom(let) in bicycling, but that same motive (necessity) will doom it by
> further connecting it with lack of status.

I thought cycling was "the new golf".

http://www.usaweekend.com/08_issues...323cycling.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/f.../04SILICON.html
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=497889

Frank Krygowski

On May 15, 11:30 pm, <j...@phred.org> wrote:
> In article <6e91e5cf-ec02-44e9-8c90-194e8bb84920
> @l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com says...
>
> > On May 12, 9:53 pm, Bob <hunr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't think there's any evidence that Americans are any more lazy
> > > than the citizens of any other country.
>
> > Try spending a few weeks east of the Atlantic, then returning to the
> > US.
>
> > I've done that a few times. Each time, the body fat walking around in
> > the US airport shocks me. The difference is very noticeable.
>
> I don't think this is evidence of greater laziness in the U.S., rather
> it's evidence of urban design that panders to laziness in ways other
> cultures would reject out of hand.
>
> There's plenty of evidence that communities designed for walking promote
> public health, not because the people who live there are less lazy, but
> because their environment is more conducive to walking than driving.
>
> Make walking the easy choice, and lazy people will walk, while dedicated
> motor enthusiasts will drive.
>
> Make driving the easy choice, and lazy people will drive, while
> dedicated pedestrian enthusiasts will walk.

American obesity levels are not proof of greater laziness, but I
suspect they are an indicator.

Regarding community design: I'm lucky to live in a suburban village
that's known for its pedestrian friendliness. My wife and I (and,
back in the day, our kids) used this. My wife walked my daughter to
kindergarten, our kids walked to school, we still frequently walk to
church, to the library... and it's always drawn comments!

When my wife volunteered at the grade school, a fellow volunteer
needed to fetch something from the pharmacy, one block away. The
woman said to my wife, somewhat embarrassed, "I know you'd walk, and I
know I should, but I'm going to take my car."

But that doesn't beat the record: when visiting a friend, we watched
her neighbor walk out of his house, get in his car, back 50 feet down
to his curbside mailbox, reach out for his mail, then drive back up
and return to the house.

How would you rate laziness of different cultures? Would the
popularity of automatic garage door openers do it? The use of leaf
blowers instead of leaf rakes? Riding lawn mowers vs. walk behinds,
and self-propelled vs. push versions? Portable remotes for everything
up to and including overhead fans and digital picture frames?
Automatic dish washers?

- Frank Krygowski

Andrew Price

On Thu, 15 May 2008 22:55:59 GMT, Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net>
wrote:

[---]

>The auto killed the bike and the street car.
>
>Americans are technophiles, and it's a culture that we've exported
>successfully.

But not the point of killing trams (and bikes) in Europe.
Fortunately.

Matt O'Toole

On Thu, 15 May 2008 22:55:59 +0000, Peter Cole wrote:

> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>
>> We'll never go "back to horses" because we never came from horses to
>> begin with. This idea comes from our own car culture projected
>> backwards. No one ever saddled up to fetch a quart of milk! Most
>> people walked. Draft animals for pulling heavy loads were as likely to
>> be mules or oxen as horses. When bikes came around in the late 1800s
>> they were immediately popular among those who could afford them (about
>> $4000, adjusted for inflation) -- not just for their novelty, but their
>> transportation value, practicality, and economy.
>
> I think the main problem for the bike was that it was so quickly
> superseded by the auto that it never really took hold culturally in the
> US. It's remarkable that only 20 years passed between the invention of
> the pneumatic tire (and the safety bike) and the Model T.

This is true. The difference between the US and Europe on this point is
that Europe remained relatively poor for longer, with average folks unable
to afford cars until well after WWII. In the US, new development was
car-oriented as early as the 1920s.

> As for horses, I think street cars were an important form of transport
> in urban US, and until they went electric late in the 19th century, most
> were horse drawn.

This is true but the horse/person ratio was still pretty low.

> The auto killed the bike and the street car.

This is true too.

The oft-cited case is LA's streetcar system, perhaps the best in
the world at the time, supposedly killed by a conspiracy of big auto and
big oil. In fact GM/Firestone/Standard continued to run it at a great
loss with declining ridership for over a decade. The death knell
was from motorists demanding the streetcars be removed because they were
blocking traffic.

> Americans are technophiles, and it's a culture that we've exported
> successfully. Bikes are considered backwards, not only in the US, but
> the other cultures we've influenced. The Segway produced quite a stir,
> the EBike, scarcely a ripple.
>
> It's possible that energy cost/shortages may bring a short-term
> boom(let) in bicycling, but that same motive (necessity) will doom it by
> further connecting it with lack of status. As tempting as it is to poke
> fun at "fitness" cyclists, that seems to be the only segment with real
> growth potential.

You may be right, but bike/ped oriented communities are increasingly seen
as high status, desirable places to live, and the ability to ride a bike
or walk to work a luxury. In the current market, prices in these villagey
areas aren't slipping much, compared to the commuter towns and McMansion
areas.

Our sensibilities really *are* changing.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole

On Thu, 15 May 2008 20:30:26 -0700, josh wrote:

> There's plenty of evidence that communities designed for walking promote
> public health, not because the people who live there are less lazy, but
> because their environment is more conducive to walking than driving.
>
> Make walking the easy choice, and lazy people will walk, while dedicated
> motor enthusiasts will drive.
>
> Make driving the easy choice, and lazy people will drive, while dedicated
> pedestrian enthusiasts will walk.

The problem is when walking or biking is a hard choice because the
environment is so hostile to it. Then even those who would walk or bike
will drive instead.

Matt O.