8 ms·
Unfortunately a huge number of those bikes are gathering dust in a garage. Europeans bike 188 km/yr vs 40 km/yr for the US [1]. It would be really interesting t
by stevewilber 13y ago
Unfortunately a huge number of those bikes are gathering dust in a garage. Europeans bike 188 km/yr vs 40 km/yr for the US [1]. It would be really interesting to see the rate of change.
[1] http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/jpah08.pdf http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/jpah08.pdf
- scragg 13y agoLets raise the gas prices to EU levels and see what happens.
- malyk 13y agoWe can start with the federal fuel tax which hasn't been raised in 20 years.
- cobrausn 13y agoGot any other great ideas that tax the working poor?
- antr 13y agoThe impact car emissions have on the working poor is far more costly and dangerous.
- cobrausn 13y agoAnd I doubt raising the tax rate on fuel would do much at all, in America at least. Gas prices have gone up significantly over the last few decades and we drive more and more. EDIT: Can't reply because of HN time restrictions on long threads, but I think the reduction on driving is more due to cities and housing centers within cities getting denser - even Houston is doing that, and we've traditionally been very spread out. We still are, but it's improving.
- jamesaguilar 13y agoThat's not really true. During the gas price spike a couple years ago I do remember several articles that showed that we drove a lot less when the prices were higher.
- paddy_m 13y agoActually we drive less and less per person since ~2004. And the total Vehicular Miles Travelled has been the same since 2004, even though population is growing. This is a significant trend. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/07/yet-more-evidence-peak-car/6299/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/07/yet-more-ev...
- cowbellemoo 13y agoIt's possible to point out that a tax is regressive without being snarky.
- cobrausn 13y agoYou are correct, I just get annoyed at flippant comments about changing government policy that just happens to affect billions without thinking through the consequences.
- hawkharris 13y agoThe tax could have a negative impact on the working poor, at least initially, but it's important to distinguish between short-term and long-term. A historical example comes to mind: the collapse of the slave industry in the American South in the 1800s. (Please note that I'm referring to very specific aspects of the trade; I'm not by any means equating slavery with the energy sector, morally or otherwise.) If you were to consider abolition from a short-term point of view, as many Americans did, it seemed like a terrible idea. It had catastrophic effects on millions of working, poor Americans. After all, it meant crippling the nation's single largest industry. And yet, when we reflect on the American slave trade and its eventual decline, those hardships are trumped by greater moral and economic imperatives. The moral imperatives go without saying. The economic ones had to do with recognizing the true cost of labor and finding new opportunities, some of which were outside of agriculture. Some moral and economic imperatives exist in our current conversation about restructuring the energy industry, which are only visible from a long-term perspective. For example, we're morally bound to address the long-term environmental impact and dangerousness of car travel (although, again, I'm not suggesting this moral imperative is equal to that of abolishing slavery). From an economic standpoint, we're also bound to recognize that our current methods of producing and consuming energy are unsustainable. TL;DR: Sometimes radically restructuring an industry is the smart - and right - thing to do, despite the relatively short-term economic hardships that it causes.
- cmsmith 13y agoSpend the fuel tax on a rebate given equally to every American. People can use it for gas money or, if they take the bus, to buy a sandwich.
- malandrew 13y agoThis. Especially in cities, where car usage is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. I personally would love to see the entirety of public transportation in major cities paid for by those who want to drive. Muni, BART, CalTrain, NYC Subway, etc. should all be funded via a tax on those who prefer to drive in a region where public transportation exists.
- sejje 13y agoWhy wouldn't you want to see it paid for by people who want to use public transportation? I think people should pay for whatever they want to use.
- victorhooi 13y agoReplying to the comment from sejje: It's called negative externalities - the free-market unfortunately doesn't account for all costs. If I smoke a cigarette - I only pay for the cigarette - but it's those around me that also get sick from the second-hand smoke. That's why the government taxes them. Likewise, if I buy a gas-guzzling SUV, which churns out black smoke to all my neighbours around - I only pay for the gas - but it's those around me that also suffer. Basically, if we apply your logic, then we would live in a every-man-for-himself society, where we'd do whatever we could to get ahead, and not care about the impact on those around us.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- sejje 13y agoVictor: that's not what he's suggesting. He's suggesting that an entirely separate party (drivers) pay for what others use (public trans). Paying for what you use and a little extra to offset the negatives is still just paying for what you use. Further, who pays for the roads the public transportation uses? I have a guess: drivers.
- angersock 13y agoOnly were that money guaranteed--guaranteed!--to go into public transportation projects (light rail, trolleys, etc.).
- at-fates-hands 13y agoIt would probably reduce the number of SUV's on the road, but not by a great number. In the Midwest, your SUV is your lifeline during Winter. Also, the distances between cities in the US is far greater than what it is in EU nations like Germany or Italy. Plus the scenery is much better. Ever ridden across North Dakota?
- jellicle 13y agoAs people will surely pile on to tell you, the vast majority of trips taken are no more than a few miles. If U.S. cities had proper cycling infrastructure, I would expect many more adults would use bikes for local travel. But as it is, driving is certainly more reasonable for many people when the alternative is biking on a shoulderless road with deadly vehicles passing inches away from you.
- at-fates-hands 13y agoCompletely agree and most cities are built with cars in mind first. Lucky for me, I live near the most bike friendly city in the country - and it's not on the left hand coast. ;) http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/1-bike-city-minneapolis http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/1-bike-city-m... If it was feasible and I lived within 10 miles of where I work, I would for sure bike. Right now, I commute almost 20 minutes in my car, so biking to and from work just isn't a great idea. If I lived and worked in the city, I would for sure bike every day. Even if I worked in the city, I would utilize the light rail for the majority of my commute. It sucks I would still have to drive 10-15 minutes to get to the light rail though.
- Aloisius 13y agoAn SUV is not necessary in the winter. There are winters in Europe. It isn't like they are all driving around in Dodge Durangos.
- derleth 13y ago> An SUV is not necessary in the winter. Assuming you live in Europe. It's different in the US.
- krylonkid 13y agoThe surest way to kill a proposal in the US is to say "This is how they do it in Europe".
- ssharp 13y agoIt would have little effect on bicycle use. Raising gas taxes is going to cost people who have longer commutes substantially more than people who live within reasonable biking distance. The average U.S. commute is around 32 miles round-trip, which would take close to 2 hours without traffic or traffic controls. The response to higher gas taxes would have nothing to do with bikes. We'd buy cars with better fuel efficiency, explore alternative engines with lower costs-per-mile, and continue to pay the tax. Until the efficiency gains match the costs of the tax, the rest of the economy would suffer as most people would have less discretionary spending. You HAVE to get to work, so you're going to eat the tax. And it's regressive, to boot. Urban people in the U.S. complain a lot about the suburban nature of most of the country, but there is little that can be reasonably done eliminate the suburbs. Most people in this country simply prefer it, and will pay more for their transportation costs to get it. Raising taxes on these people is not going to change their behavior in any meaningful way. A few extra cents, or even an extra half dollar is gas taxes is going to be a lower cost to them than uprooting their life and moving within biking distance.
- asperous 13y agoThere's also public transportation, I've lived in Portland and LA and on average it takes 2x-10x longer to get to where you want. I've always wondered, especially on light rail, why can't they just go faster?
- shanac 13y agobecause of stopping. It takes more force to stop. Plus you would throw everyone and their stuff on the train around the process (they have no breaks for their forward acceleration). You already feel a mild version of this in rush-hour on NYC subways. Your body will move slightly as the train breaks, often causing people to lose balance (particularly if they never experienced this previously)
- eli_gottlieb 13y agoThus leading to the well-known sport of Subway Surfing.
- return0 13y agoIs the notoriously sprawling America cyclable? Distances in the centers of old european cities are small.
- sejje 13y agoIn most cities I've lived, not really. I grew up in Florida and cities were not made accessible to those without cars. Cape Coral, for instance, is just a huge, sprawling (mostly-vacant) city. You could probably manage to situate yourself with most of the things you need nearby, but you would still find the vast majority of the city inaccessible without a long ride.
- meerita 13y agoIt would probably terrible for all kind of prices. Since transportation, delivery and many things depends of oil :D
- FireBringer 13y agoThat actually seems like a reasonable difference considering that outside of cities biking is only a hobby (and sometimes quite a dangerous one depending on infrastructure). And in America many commuters drive for over 20 minutes.
- erikpukinskis 13y ago> outside of cities biking is only a hobby I know what you're saying, so I'm sorry for being a little pedantic, but I just have to jump in and point out that there are MANY bike commuters in suburban and rural areas. I lived in Bloomington, Indiana for two years and biked 3 miles into town every day. It was incredible for my health and the countryside is just gorgeous. In many ways it was vastly preferable to my various urban commutes since then. You're right that the infrastructure is often lacking, but you learn the tricks you need to get your errands done, and there are many of us out there every day building the critical mass to change that.
- donretag 13y agoI would say that nowadays, if you live 3 miles from "town", then you really are not living in suburbia. Most commuters live at distances far greater. From the second result in Google: "The average commute in miles for Americans is 16 miles and 26 minutes for one way" http://www.reference.com/motif/sports/average-commute-in-miles-for-americans http://www.reference.com/motif/sports/average-commute-in-mil...
- erikpukinskis 13y agoI lived here: https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!q=rolling+ridge+way%2C+bloomington&data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-86.563899!3d39.154527!2m2!1f139.33!2f90!4f75!2m7!1e1!2m2!1s7Ob8o1fogn3k27ZrHGpakw!2e0!5m2!1s7Ob8o1fogn3k27ZrHGpakw!2e0!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x886c6772f854f833%3A0x2864925d0b1bb3f0!3m8!1m3!1d382776!2d-117.1089785!3d32.8245525!3m2!1i1186!2i685!4f13.1!4m2!3d39.1535963!4d-86.5628674&fid=5 https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!q=rolling+ridge+way%2C+... You can make of that what you will. I would call it rural.
- antr 13y agothose stats made me look up the distance I've ridden to date http://cl.ly/image/2u2r2a0T0X3s http://cl.ly/image/2u2r2a0T0X3s . I'd say 70% has been commuting and 30% other. i'm in Europe.
- localhost 13y agoThanks for the link. I skimmed through the article and found this bit of unit conversion amusing: "... compared with 40 km (87 miles) per year in the United States ..." That's a shockingly low number of miles ridden per year. I will no longer think of myself as an underachiever on Strava :)
- malandrew 13y agoThat's it? A paltry 40km/yr? I think I put like 5000km on mine in the past year just by commuting daily.
- WildUtah 13y agoI do 15,000km per year here in Utah. Even 188km per annum seems like maybe you don't need a bike because you could just walk.
- Luc 13y agoNot how averages work :) (Maybe everyone only used their bike for a yearly 188 km ride. Or one woman rode 10,000 km and the rest 10 km. Etc.). But then I do often use my bike to go 50 m, since it's faster and I can carry stuff on it.
- alxndr 13y agoYou (and I) keep that average up at 40 by balancing out all the bikes that get 0 km/yr.
- teej 13y agoThis isn't too surprising to me. I'm not sure how average americans perceive the tradeoffs, but biking where I live is incredibly dangerous. Your yearly commute in micromorts is 311 versus 12 by car. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort