[sustran] Motorcycle discussion

[Obwon]

J.H. Crawford wrote:
> 
> >I found the debate about environmental impacts of motorcycles very
> >interesting. The actual question was raised by Barbara, quoting GTZ
> >that the bicycles are often replaced by motorcycles if income
> >increases. A research from Ouagadougou corroborates this thesis.
> >Bicycles are regarded as transport for the poor, while French
> >mobylettes are preferred by the middle class. This is not only an
> >image problem but also a physical one, especially when the
> >temperature rises above 40 Celsius in the summer time.
> 

 The major part of the problem in comparing bike use to motorized
tranport, it seems to me is the division factor of distance to be
traveled.  Where many long trips have to be made with and frequency or
with variable demand, motorized tranportation wins simply because it's
easy and available on instant demand.

  Where more leisurly travel requirements can 'fill the bill' and trips
are frequent but short.  The bicycle wins, especially in area where
congestion impedes competeting vehicles, such as urban/ and local
suburban neighborhood travel. In these areas, if motorized travel wins
out it's probably due more to the availablity of an already acquired
motor vehicle rather than any considered choice. 

 Many people living in downtown new york city, and you can't consider
them poor, will use bicycles to get from club to club, the library
schools visiting and shopping. Then get their car only when it's time to
go out of the city or carry passengers with them and/or make trips
outside the neighborhood. 

  As I said a long, long time ago, most people first choose to purchase
a vehicle that is capable of satisfying the largest variety of transport
needs.  Then they continue to apply that vehicle (usually it's purchase
precludes the purchase of a secondary or alternative means of travel) to
all their tranportation requirements even when it's efficiency falls far
below any set of operational 'optimums' concievable.  It's seen as a
neccessary trade off.  So, if for example a part of the day's auto use
involves tolerating 6 m.p.h. travel at 8 or so m.p.g., then so be it. 
These instances of ineffective/inefficient use are tolerable because of
better performance over all.

  Only when such inefficiencies become less escapable, do people find
some 'breakpoint' were they are no longer tolerable and so seek
alternatives to escape them. For example, if you had the same commute to
the office as a co-worker who came in by train.  You discovered he was
there everyday, earlier or more reliably on time than you who relied on
your car.  You found that his routine 30 min. commute, was competitive
with your often vexing 45 - 50 minute variable commute which routinely
encounter traffic jams and unexpecting shortages of parking when the
city had special events in town.  You'd probably begin to seriously
consider the alternative offered by the train.

  But without an easy comparison available to be made, you'd probably
simply accept your situation as normal, and continue to deal with it as
best you could. If someone accomplished the same trip as the two of you
by bike, without apparent difficulty and at appreciably lower costs. 
Then it's entirely possible that you'd give serious consideration to
that option as well as the train option.  Of course, in a world where
status symbols are overly important, and cars continue to be the symbol
of status, no such comparisons are likely to be made.  It will simply be
assumed that the best way to display status is to spend more money to
accomplish the same tasks as others do cheaply.

  Thusly, inefficiency becomes the most sought/highly prized mode to be
emulated. Which in turn allows those offering 'environmentalist'
considerations to be branded as either poor or cheap. 

  Obwon