I'm about to get a motorbike and, while this is in no ways reasoning for getting the bike (it's pretty much entirely for fun), it's had me thinking a bit about the social impact of motorbikes/scooters, especially if they were widely used (like they are in India, South-East Asia, and a couple other places) for commuting.
They're obviously more efficient in many ways. Less fuel usage, less material required to manufacture and transport, less space required both when driving and for parking, less infrastructure maintenance cost, etc. However, they're less efficient for all these things than the solutions mostly advocated by this and similar communities - namely public transport, cycling and walking. All of which are significantly better.
In contrast to those alternatives, though, motorbikes need basically no infrastructure development to be used, so it would be far easier to make incremental progress with individuals riding a bike instead of taking the car, rather than requiring organised political action.
Specifically for the USA and, to a lesser extent, the more similar countries like Canada and Australia, it's probably also more socially acceptable to not be riding public transport with the plebeians, or having to do physical exercise. And you can easily overcompensate with a massive bike, while still being far better than the massive cars coming out of the US - a litre bike is big, while a litre car is tiny. Obviously this isn't a 'good' reason, but it does seem to be a real consideration.
The main counter-argument I can think of is safety. But if you look at the countries where motorbikes and scooters are common, they seem safer than riding a motorbike in Western countries (anecdotally, from people who have ridden there on trips but wouldn't think of it at home; if anyone can find statistics for it, I'd love to see them). I'd say this is because of their prevalence. You'd get rid of the selection bias for risk-takers, and for high-power bikes. You'd also reduce the issue that car drivers aren't aware of motorcyclists, and often don't notice them. Any collision that does happen would also be more likely between two motorbikes, which would be less deadly than a motorbike and a car. And if we transpose this prevalence of motorbikes to a western country with stricter regulations around licensing, required safety gear, road rules, etc., surely this would be even less dangerous than it is in those countries.
Also, the safety argument seems quite similar to the safety argument for large SUVs for ferrying kids to school. Inside the car, you're safer, but that's at the cost of safety and health of those outside the car, as well as all the other negative effects we're all aware of. Obviously it's not quite to the same extent, but it just strikes me as similar.
So, those are my opinions, which ended up a bit longer than I was expecting... But the reason for posting is that I'd love to hear yours. Do you think largely replacing cars with motorbikes would be beneficial but insufficient, infeasible, or do you think it would actually be worse?
What do you believe is the critical difference between Americans, and people from countries where they saw the climbing death rate and decided that it was important enough to reorganize their transportation? You've said that it has something to do with the nature of Americans themselves. What is wrong with Americans, then?
Oh boy, this is a complicated answer. Stay with me, there no TL;DR
First, I think the death part has nothing to do with how transportation is organized outside the US. Nor will it influence transit inside the US.
Transportation has been organized by urban development. I don't know of any example where cars were banned or taxed or otherwise discouraged due to death rates. In America, regulation was the response to automobile deaths; seat belts, removal of steel dashboards and steering wheels, inclusion of airbags, crumple zones, and as of 2018, backup cameras are mandatory due to too many deaths of children behind cars. If you have an example of other countries organizing transportation based on automobile deaths, I'd be interested to hear that.
I don't believe that's a thing though, so for the purpose of my response I will be disregarding death as a factor of how countries organize transportation.
I know more about European urban development than anywhere else so I'll stick to what I know and use Europe to compare. It may be different for Asia, Africa, the Middle East, South and Central America, etc.
Here we go.
European countries had been populated with developed civilizations hundreds of years before the US. There were well developed cities and roads prior to the invention of automobiles, and they were not developed with cars in mind. The result is that there wasn't enough room to make big wide roads to accommodate cars.
Trains came first, so some infrastructure that could have been auto centric was already dedicated to rail infrastructure.
European populations were used to living within a confined territory that has already been built out for generations before the car came along. Europeans tend to have a greater sense of shared space, community, and commonwealth; private ownership is less of a priority, and strong/strict government regulation is more common, compared to the US.
Next...
In the US, there were huge swaths of undeveloped land when the car was invented. Henry Ford was an early adopter (some say inventor, I don't know and don't want to look it up so we'll say early adopter) of the assembly line, bringing car ownership within reach of average folks. I can't remember the exact figures, but Harley-Davidsons were more expensive than a Model T. (Fun fact, both companies started in 1903.)
So you have cars being mass produced immediately upon their inception, they're useful and flexible and extend people's sphere of experience, and can even be cheaper than motorcycles, certainly more practical (remeber, roads are more a suggestion for ~50 years after the car was born in most places in the US). They are widely adopted, several other manufacturers join the party, and almost immediately after the invention of the mass produced automobile, the auto industry is a significant part of the economy.
One defining characteristic of America and Americans is individualism. We have all this "freedom" so we make a wide spectrum of choices about everything.
Part of that is private ownership. I am an individual, and as such I have my stuff and it's not for anyone but me.
Now, after WWII, European economies are recovering, European cities are rebuilding within the same constrained infrastructure that was there before, while the American post war economy is flourishing, manufacturing is strong, and soldiers coming home have access to advantageous home buying programs.
In response to this confluence of events, and due to the vast swaths of undeveloped land, communities sprung up outside of, but adjacent to, urban centers. Suburbs have entered the chat.
To connect them, roads are built, and all these new cars are being manufactured now that raw materials are available again after the war. Suburbs have single family homes, not apartments or the kind of housing blocks of flats common in Europe. There's a period of suburban sprawl, enabled by and coexisting with, roads and cars.
Now you have people experiencing an apex of private ownership: their own land, home, car. When they're in their home the Commonwealth is not visible. When they're in their car they're using the Commonwealth, but individually, physically separated by steel and glass. These cars are powerful and relative to what came before, comfortable, and technical marvels.
Ok, still with me?
Branding is a thing. Advertising is a thing. Cars advertise a certain identity. Teenagers start taking old cars from the 20s, 30s, and 40s, customizing and modifying them into Hot Rods. A car is more than a car, it's an extension of self. An exercise of personal agency. AND it's still a vehicle (pun very much intended) for individual freedom - both freedom of movement and freedom from the Commonwealth.
Now you have this recipe where cars are baked into the DNA of America and Americans. Even though the internal combustion engine wasn't invented here, America's coming of age after WWII is inextricably linked to cars.
At this point, its hard to conceive of being American without at least access to a car, if not direct ownership of one. Our urban planning lost out in many ways to the suburban dream, and suburbs are too far flung and disconnected to link via rail. Suburbs then grew into their own population centers, but not in an urban manner with density. The population is all spread out. Public transit isn't effective without density.
In order to find cheap enough housing and good enough jobs, one has to live many miles away from work, necessitating a car. Suburbs were built for cars, not walking and biking. Many don't have sidewalks at all. Suburbs have big driveways and big garages, for big cars.
It's also shockingly easy to get a driver's license. Because it's understood that you need a car.
In Europe, there's less room to accommodate wide streets, driveways, garages. Gas is more expensive. It's costly and more regulated to get a driver's license.
SO!
It's not that there's something wrong with Americans that makes them addicted to their cars, it's that there's something very American about car ownership. So much so that our built environment logistically makes public transit difficult to be efficient, and people have strong relationships with their cars.
That's my oversimplified but long winded OPINION based on my subjective experience as a former certified Harley-Davidson mechanic, former Tesla mechanic, and son of a 50+ year mass-transit city planner. I love cars and motorcycles. And I also love buses trains and trolleys.
Well, that's privilege speaking. Poor people do not own cars. When you lose your income and calculate your runway before you starve to death on the street, the first thing you sacrifice is your car. The car's primary function for the working class is to serve your employer. There are an entire class of Americans who do not drive.
Fair point. Thank you for that perspective.
Dude... Dude. Come on. This is like a cliche about American's warped self-perceptions. You denied the premise without explanation ("I think the death part has nothing to do with how transportation is organized outside the US," a truly absurd thing to say) and then went .. away. Far, far away.
It isn't about whether or not Americans are "more addicted" to automobiles. Simple political choices could be made regarding road infrastructure that would save lives without requiring that people drive any less! You don't even mention that in your multi-story wall of text that frankly no human being is ever going to do more than scan briefly. Americans are choosing to have dangerous infrastructure, when safe infrastructure exists. Driving deaths are going UP in the USA, dramatically up, while every other major jurisdiction is continuing to bring them down, some from levels a fraction of what the USA had before the recent spike. You need to have a more sophisticated model to explain it than, "Driving is American."
Yes, I used too many words. In doing so I buried the point.
First - you asked what I thought made Americans different which I answered. Now you're making a different point that better policy options would result in better outcomes. Sure, that's fine, and it's true - but it's not what you asked. My answer is that Americans have a relationship with cars that is not based on rational policy or optimal mobility, or mortality rates - but instead, we have an emotional and cliche warped self-perception that informs our choices, including transit in general and automobiles specifically. We can keep on that thread if you want but that was my answer. I tried to give background by explaining where I think this comes from, and disclosed that I'm basing this on my own experience; it's my opinion.
Next - you seem to start with an assumption that I don't agree with or frankly, even understand; this notion that transportation is somehow organized around mortality or fatality rates. Why? You have not cited anything that credibly makes this connection, and I don't see one, so I dismissed it. It's not a thing. Show me, prove it, explain what you mean at least; I can change my position. Currently, my position is that your premise is false or flawed. Or that "organized" is maybe a bad word choice and you mean something else perhaps.
Also - I absolutely DID provide an explanation: transit is organized around population mobility, and is related to urban development, not death rates. (Again this word organized. I have a problem with this word. Maybe "regulated" is what you're looking for? I feel that I did address the fact that inside the US, individual freedom is sacrosanct. It's politically very hard to get voter support for taking away personal freedom, and the status quo is a high level of personal freedom when it comes to cars.)
I sense a gulf of disconnect here: Americans are choosing to have dangerous infrastructure, when safe infrastructure exists. And I full on guffawed at Simple political choices could be made.... What American political system are you looking at? I would like two orders of that, please!! Don't conflate "simple" with "easy". Playing the flute is "simple" with only two elements, your breath and your finger movement. It's not "easy" though.
A large part of my tome was dedicated to showing how Americans don't make choices based on optimal outcomes, common sense, or what's best for society. I don't want to go down another rabbit hole here, but in the last presidential election nearly 75 million Americans voted for Trump, not because he's the best choice for a leader, not because he was effective in his prior administration for the country as a whole, but - massive oversimplification warning: because he appealed to a narrow sense of self interest and proved extremely effective at delivering self interested results.
Simply put, Americans could choose a less dangerous infrastructure but don't, in the same way they could choose less gun deaths but don't. I don't need a more sophisticated model to explain it because it's not a sophisticated thing; it's the opposite of sophisticated. It's basic. Confounding? Frustrating? Stupid? OK, yes. But sophisticated, it is not. Sorry?
I don't care if no human being is going to do more than scroll my wall of text, by the way, I was talking to you.
Thoughts?