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
>> trans****tation 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 superseded by the auto that it never really took hold culturally in the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 im****tant form of trans****t
> 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 rider****p 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 ex****ted
> 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.
|
