h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Although this is not true everywhere, bicycling often is overlooked as a means of transportation. In the eastern United States where I live, bicycles are generally considered toys, not vehicles, and treated as such.

This causes problems for anyone trying to use a bicycle on the road.

1. There are few bike lanes, and when there are they are designed by non-bicyclists and they tend to do things like go over curbs or sewer grates, or put you in the worst possible spot in an intersection.

2. The attitude of drivers who view bicycles as toys runs along the lines of "What is that jerk doing on the road?" and they proceed to either try to run you off of the road or swerve so far away that they cross into the oncoming traffic and cause a collision.

3. The attitude of drivers who are unused to bicyclists on the road is "what if they suddenly swerve out in front of my car" and they hover 2 or 3 meters behind the bicyclist, slowing traffic and making all of the other drivers anrgy at the *bicyclist* (who they believe shouldn't be riding a toy on the road anyway, and who is getting very nervous from having a car hovering 2 or 3 meters behind him and making left turns very difficult, because at that distance they *are* a sudden swerve).

4. The people who do decide to try bicycling as transportation refuse to view the bike as a vehicle and do not outfit it with lights or protective equipment, then ride around in the dark, reaffirming the belief that bicycles are toys and are not safe on the road. These people also do not signal turns, making turns look like sudden swerves.

/* Clears throught */

All of which is meant to say that bicycling is good for the environment, but many places have to change the community attitude towards bicycling as well, both among the drivers and the bicyclists, in order to truly make bicycling an alternative means of transport.

/*steps down from soapbox */

I think the most bike-friendly communities (relatively, anyway) are college towns. Many college students do not own cars, and exercise quite a bit anyway, so it is more common to see bicycles on the road than in other areas. UC Davis in California, USA is known for this.

My town is relatively bike friendly in that there are a lot of bicyclists around. But yes, the lanes are still designed by non cyclists, and drivers are still stupid. But less so. In my year of bike riding to school, I haven't seen any cars do anything truly stupid towards me.

I've found it, the perfect form of transport. Why is it that people don't ride bikes everywhere? Simple, too much effort, although we seem to be the biggest generation of health freaks in the world nobody is too keen on the idea of actually doing excercise. On the other hand I'm sure that motor biking actually does more damage than some cars.

No the answer is the motorised scooter, or Goped (although please don't use that name it makes you sound like a moron) Basically a skate board with a handle and the motor from a lawn mower nailed to the back. It has all the advantages of biking and more, it's environmentally friendly, it's small enough to allow you to weave in and out of traffice jams with ease so although slower than a car it moves much faster in urban areas, and afterwards you can just fold it up and slip it into your suitcase.

The only problem is that the government seems confused about whether it's a form of transport or not, so while in some places it's illegal to drive on the roads, in others it's illegal to drive on the pavements and you need insurance to go on the road (Which is very hard to get on what is effectively a motorised skateboard)

However just for a moment imagine, if you will, a future where everybody has a Goped (Okay okay, maybe it doesn't sound THAT stupid) London, far from being a car crash away from total gridlock as it is now, is full of bustling streets, with people buzzing up and down the roads in their thousands, the only large vehicles being the (now incredibly well funded) buses, and the occasional car full of school children. Road rage is now virtually none-existant, since being angry at someone from behind a windscreen is much easer than someone who is practically a pedestrian on wheels, emissions would be cut in half, oil would last a few more decades before completely drying up. The Goped IS the way of the future!

It is both a college-town and west-coast thing. I live in a college town on the east coast, and many of our students complain that it is not safe for cyclists, especially considering our campus is spread out over a large distance that makes some means of transportation necessary.

On the east coast, a bicycle-friendly town is the exception (like Boston around the MIT campus), and on the west coast, it seems to be the rule. I know Palo Alto/Stanford and UC Santa Barbara are both bike-friendly, as are some smaller schools that I have visited.

On the other hand, I'm told things on the East Coast are much more crammed together than on the West Coast. For example, residents of LA insist that there is no way to get around without a car because everything is so far apart, and there is no viable public transportation system. Thus, everyone has a car, everyone drives, and so legendary LA gridlock and pollution happens.

When I was looking at MIT, I was told that having a car was redundant because there was plenty of public transportation around. I'm guessing based on what you're saying that that isn't true.

As for gopeds, I personally think they're pretty silly. I haven't seen anyone actually commuting with one, except for a photo-op the mayor of San Francisco took a few months ago. The only ones I've seen are unmotorized ones that spoiled kids use, and they only use them when playing around, not to actually get anywhere.

From a technical standpoint, I can see how they might be useful. One would be able to get from point A to point B faster than walking, but be more manueverable than a car or even a bicycle. Plus a bicycle requires effort to ride. At this point, though, I think it's unsafe to ride one because no one knows how to deal with other people riding them. I would be scared of people jostling me or motorists having close calls while I'm riding one.

I think anyone who's seen early pictures of horseless carriages, or bikes for that matter would immediately figure out that the "looking silly" argument falls flat on its face, besides nothing's quite so silly looking as someone picking their nose/scratching their bum/playing air guitar at the traffic lights in the firm and totally unfounded belief that none of their fellow drivers can see what their doing.

(Correction: in the firm and totally unfounded belief that their fellow drivers can't see what their doing)

The west coast is generally more "spread out" than the east coast, mainly because it is not as old. Many east coast cities suffer from the same problem as European cities - narrow streets that were paved long before the idea of the automobile. But by spread out, it's just more spacious. You generally don't have to travel farther to get to McDonalds. They're everywhere. Keep in mind we are talking about urban and suburban areas. There's much more open space out west too, but it's not *in* Los Angeles. Ironically, the fact that they are spread out makes it easier I think to ride a bike. There is more space in the roads for decent bike lanes.

Californians love their cars. I walked once from the San Diego zoo to the airport (about half the length of the city, I think) on a Saturday afternoon and could count the other pedestrians on one hand. It doesn't make any sense and I've never been able to figure California out at all, but maybe the popularity of bicycling there is due to more of a hatred of walking than a love of cars. Maybe I should say that Californians love their wheels. Watch the movie "L.A. Story" for more enlightenment on this subject.

Having a car in Boston or Cambridge (or New York or Washington DC for that matter) is redundant. They do have wonderful public transport systems. I referenced MIT as the east coast example of a bike-friendly spot. In fact, I have relatives in New York who don't own a car. They don't need to, but they don't own a bike either because riding it would be suicide in much of the city.

The fact that early cars and bikes looked silly doesn't make a person riding a goped look any less silly. Perhaps one of these days someone will make an improved model that one can look dignified riding.

Hm .. sad that americans see bycickilg as a college-campus thing ... In Europe there are a few COUNTRIES that are bicycle friendly (Holland, Denmark ...).
The so-called american loveaffair with the car is not a celebration of individuality, but of the individual pursuit of money. As in How can I make MY life pleasant?! - Noone will build a better road if it's just for people to get to a park .. However, if goods can be transported, money made, you have a road!! Noone will put funding into research unless there is a prospect of making the investment plus some within a short amount of time.
So getting the average American to think ecologically, you must first have them realize how much they sell out, in terms of humanity, when they chase that next big buck!! ...
The rest is silence.

Since all of the Netherlands could fit into the same space as just one of the United States, it is not a fair comparison.

And to blame the love of cars solely on greed is a gross oversimplification. Europe has the advantage of being a very old place (in Western terms), and is thus far more developed and densely populated than the US. Parts of the US are as dense as Europe especially in the East, but there are still wide expanses of land further west that make cars a necessity. People living in Iowa or Idaho may need to drive for 5 or 6 hours or more to get to the nearest city.

In more populated areas, the economy has grown around the concept of the car, so it can still be difficult for someone without a car to shop for basic necessities or earn a decent living. The stores are all concentrated in "strip malls" along the highways, the factories are outside of town. Even people who would rather not have a car are sometimes forced into having one.

Greed is part of it. Cars in the US have long been status symbols and that is not likely to change soon. But it's not the whole thing. I would even venture to say that the average American is no more or less greedy than anyone else.

First let me say that QuDee is an ignorant jerk.

And now that I've gotten that out of my system... the West Coast cities, for the most part, evolved after the advent of the automobile. My own hometown in California was orange groves and grapevines for local wineries (the grapes were for the wineries, obviously, and not the oranges ) until WWII. The result is suburbia. The nearest convenience store is within easy cycling range, but the nearest real grocery store is pushing it a bit. And the way home is at a noticeable upgrade. Not the kind of thing you want to be trying when the beer is getting warm.

The real reason for gridlock, though, is work. In suburbia, finding a job within easy bicycle range of your home is absolutely impossible. I work in computers, but the only computers within cycling distance of my home are the ones that track the rentals at the local video store. I live in a quiet and fairly safe neighborhood that also happens to be a technological void. Moving after changing jobs isn't an answer, either, when you consider that I've changed jobs three times in the last year (and each time, for the better).

So I drive to work. It takes me 15 minutes to get to work using the freeways. On a bicycle, it would take me over an hour and a half, and then I would stink, my clothes would be ruined, and I would be too tired to work. I could take the train to work, if there was a train that went anywhere near the place. I drive because there isn't another option. I take good care of my car, too, because if it breaks down, I'm screwed.

People talk about the population problem n the US, but they must never have been on a plane. Fly over this country sometime, and you'll realize exactly how empty is really is.

Unfortunately no one needs to invest in public transport as everyone has cars, petrol is cheap, why bother going green? Of course the US, in the past 50-60 years has consumed more natural resources than the rest of the world put together since the dawn history, but who cares, look how empty the land is, how much room we have......
BCNU - Crescent

Yes, a car is pretty essential to get around in the US, but do they all have to be so BIG?

It is a pride thing, that and the fact that petrol (sorry, Gas) costs about a 1/3 of what it does in Europe

The large distances that have to be covered mean that there are flights to many destinations, so you don't need to drive that far.

Harsh winters mean that a 4x4 is useful, but not essential (if it is why are there any other cars around?)

If society wanted to move away from the car, it could, particularly in urban areas. There are some signs peope want to - if not, why are New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Minneapolis ALL currently building train/transit systems to their respective airports.

The trouble is the majority of people don't want to sacrifice anything. Co-workers here in the US happily drive up to 90 miles EACH WAY to work, yet shudder at the thought of a 20 minute train journey, as I take when I am working in the UK.

The basic problem remains the same in both the UK and the US,although the US has a more cronic case. That is the lack of a viable alternative. Also let's not forget, no one solution will fit everyone's situation.

The mobility inherent in today's society means that people need to travel - we just have to work out how they can do it without causing the damage they do at present.

Hope you can make some sense from these ramblings!

In the US, cars are so big because they can be. Our development came so late that we were able to incorporate wide, straight avenues into so many of our cities, as opposed to the cramped, helter-skelter arrangement so common in Europe. I'm not exceptionally tall (6'), but my head brushes the roof in your average Japanese or European car. I drive American because I can fit easily into it.

The biggest thing, though, is the American desire for independence and freedom. When you drive yourself, you are in complete control. You decide when you leave, you decide how to get there, and you decide on whether to stop someplace on the way or go straight to your destination. Trains mean noplace to sit, some dude's foul armpit in your face, being crammed in like cattle, and being wholly at the mercy of the train's schedule, and its ability to stay on it.

I think stereotyping in this case is as doomed to failure as stereotyping everywhere. Portland, Oregon, has an outstanding public transportation system, and it is widely used. San Francisco's renowned trolleys also see heavy use. San Diego's trains do see good use, but the system is not convenient to enough areas to merit heavy use. Washington DC's subway is the same, which is a shame, because it is, in my opinion, the best public transportation system in the country, and situated in an area that desperately needs it. It just doesn't have enough stops beyond the Beltway.

4x4's are an ego trip, for the most part. So are SUV's. Minvans are the worst, as they usually carry one person, just like anything else. All three will be driven by a woman who cannot operate the turn signal nor find her blind spot. But as long as there is a market for these things, they will be around.

"The large distances that have to be covered mean that there are flights to many destinations, so you don't need to drive that far." - Commuter flights are neither cost effective nor time efficient. A flight from my hometown to LAX, for example, would cost me $39 and take me, with check-in and boarding time, an hour and a half. Then I'd still have to take a train to my destination (supposing for a moment that a train actually went to where I needed to go). That same trip would take me, in good traffic, one hour by car, cost me $5 in gasoline, and take me directly to my destination. Common sense has to rule here.

I'm American, but I have to disagree with on a few points. First, big cars, including the SUVs and minivans, are a fad. They will pass like tail fins, and then come back some day.

And second, the sense of independence is exactly that (a sense) and nothing more. It is not real independence to sit in a traffic jam during rush hour for an hour in order to drive 15 miles, but that is a regular occurrence in the northeast US,and I suspect in some areas out west too.

I find a car to be a liability, not an asset. When driving, you have to deal with traffic, with poor driving habits (Hey! They're not all women!), and when you get to your destination you have to find someplace to put your car, which in and of itself can take a considerable time. A change of plans and you have to go get your car and bring it with you starting the whole process over again; there is no hopping in someone else's vehicle and going for spontaneous side-trip unless you are certain you can get a ride back.

If you think of a car as an object, like an umbrella, you'll start to see how I think about cars. It's a big, heavy, often unnecessary object that you drag around with you, need to put where you can remember it, and once you bring it somewhere you have to drag it around until you bring it home again.

I always prefer the train (or the bike for shorter distances, which is how this topic started).

First of all I would all I would like say I think the coment about fellow Hitch Hiker QuPed (sorry if I have splet it wrong) by Colonel Sellers (formerly GargleBlaster)are disgusting!

Aspesclily as he proved him right.

Secondly what use is being one of the biggest countries in your big hard to manover cars if you can not breathe because of all the fumes from all those other drivers who have gas gozzleing cars just like the one you are metaphoricaly sat in!!

Oh, we can breath. All of the fumes drift northward into Canada.

On a more serious note, I was almost run over by a bicyclist today who was behaving in EXACTLY the way I described (completely ignoring traffic laws and traffic, behaving like he was playing with a toy, making it tough to use a bicycle because he was reinforcing a negative image). I would have been safer in a car. I was ready to throw a rock at him, but he was wearing a helmet.

When cycling into Nottingham city centre, I can regularly outpace the traffic, even uphill. I am thinking of having a t-shirt printed with "STUCK IN TRAFFIC? i'M NOT." on the back, just to make car drivers consider their actions as I zip past them.

Also did you know that the bicycle is the most efficient form of transport there is in terms of energy in for motion out? There you go.