[sustran] Re: Guangzhou bans electric bicycles

Sunny sksunny at gmail.com
Wed Nov 29 02:53:40 JST 2006


Hi again,

I could not resist myself from responding and apologies if annoying 
;)....yes Zvi is entirely right and poses some complicated questions in 
a very simple form. In my opinion i guess (just a hypothesis) my answer 
to why people choose cars or why car sales are more is becoz cars are 
projected to be more fancy and luxurious in the media or the movies 
every where we find actors in cars...do we even find any advertisement 
on the TV or an actor riding a bicycle...(I wish bond did)...this i 
guess creates a psychological effect on the people and people start 
feeling tht bicycles are low grade or are for the lower echelons...

2ndly, the space devouted to cars in our developing cities is actually  
increasing which is making bicycles safe...but people (majority of them) 
dont realise this....and tend to believe tht bicycles are naturally 
unsafe. the contrary is seen in most of the European world where 
bicycles and NMT is given more priority. When this situation is said, I 
personally have experienced from, many people say that it is the culture 
of the west (which i sincerely doubt).

I therefore believe tht normal people are psychologically (and falsely) 
programmed tht bicycles are bad and cars are safe...and govts in many 
cases support this view as they are also comprised of people.

While still we r in the topic, sujit said in his earlier post abt the 
modules of GTZ-SUTP also published a module on Public Awareness and 
Behavioural change and it address some of the issues on how public could 
be convinced

cheers,
sunny

P.S: I would also request the readers to post any studies that they know 
of on the relation between human psychology and car dependency. To add 
to Zvi's questions "What makes people choose cars over bicycles?"

Zvi Leve wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just to reiterate Sujit's plea for greater emphasis on non-motorized 
> modes - this extract is from a note which I sent on the side to Carlos:
>
> For those of us concerned with 'sustainable transport', one can probably 
> agree that transport alternatives should be driven by functionality: 
> mobility is not about 'the ride' but rather the destination (ie the trip 
> purposes). But it is clear that most "normal" people do not subscribe to 
> this 'purely functional' point of view. Cars have become a consumer 
> good, just like any other - in fact they are one of the largest sellers 
> on EBay! Cars are status symbols. People want them, and they choose 
> their car model as an expression of who they are. Why is this OK for 
> cars, but not for bikes? Why is it normal that people should choose cars 
> (or some other sort of motorized vehicle) as their income increases? Why 
> is a luxury car for transport but a luxury bike is not?
>
> Zvi
>
> ps. Sujit, you express yourself extremely well in english!
>
> Sujit Patwardhan wrote:
>   
>> ....
>> .
>> We need to make cycling not just acceptable but also give it a high 
>> social status for being a non-polluting, energy efficient and 
>> sustainable mode of transport. Electric bikes are certainly far better 
>> in this respect than cars or even motorcycles/scooters.
>>
>> --
>> Sujit


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list