100% Car ownership globally=gridlock?

[Dynamite_funk]

Whatever oil reserves are remaining in 2025, will be channelled to electricity generation with carbon-capture. There will be no tolerance for carbon emitting private surface transport vehicles. Other vehicles will be fitted with carbon-capture.

This is what happens in the film Looper starring Bruce Willis....

[661-Pete]

We need *more* folk in ordinary clothing using bikes for everyday stuff.

I certainly wear ordinary clothes every time - in fact I seldom even change into shorts. I do have some lycra apparel which I used to wear, too small for me now - but even if I got some to fit me, I reckon I'd look silly in it.

Nor do I wear fashion shades. I got myself some prescription tinted glasses at my last eye test, because the optician said I really ought to wear them in bright sunlight, but they're ordinary frames with tinted lenses.

And there's another thing I don't wear, but discussion of that is not for this thread...

[Ayesha]

The problem is, even if you give away bikes to folks and ask them to ride eight miles across a town that’s not ‘Holland flat’ in civvie clothes, they’ll arrive a ball of sweat, and they ain’t gonna do it again.

Take for example the IKEA commute scheme. IKEA gave away 20” bikes for employees to ride to work. Two days later, there were two hundred IKEA bikes on ebay.

[Ant]

I think that predictions of oil reserves are so difficult as to be currently irrelevant. What is certain is that they WILL run out (if not actually, then economically) and that the various uses of oil render it far too valuable to be wasted on cars. This fact has been recognised by most and steps are being taken to shift from burning fuel locally, to utilising electricity from fuel (of whatever type) "burned" elsewhere.

Interestingly (or not) this reminds me of the shift away from PC's to cloud computing...However I digress.

What is clear is that the car is so entrenched in the modern psyche that the shift away from fossil fuel propelled cars doesn't alter anything in any radical sense. Cars of alternative propulsion will still be produced and still cause gridlock in any urban setting.

Economics is much more likely to be the limiting factor; as with any other "undesirable" activity (like having a pint in a local pub for example!) car ownership could be priced out of existence for the majority. This is not necessarily a bad thing, indeed personal cars were priced out of reach for the majority for much of the 20th century (in Western countrie).

I am not particularly anti-car. I own two. My partner needs one as part of her work and therefore has to suffer both the commute and daytime traffic! I would not consider driving in rush hour though (or rush day as it seems to be becoming) as long as I was physically able to cycle or walk. That said I find having an extra car (which is worth very little and yet still so comfortable and reliable as to be hardly worth selling) very useful and on occasion it gives me the option to take much longer journeys when the other half is working. Economically this is viable at present. If and when it is not then I will probably have only one.

The point is owning a car (or at least having convenient access to one) is both useful and pleasant, as long as it doesn't cost too much. For most people it will always take preference over cycling, because cycling is thought to be pretty hard (and occasionally is). I love to cycle, but sometimes it's just not practical, so I drive.

As costs increase, perceptions change and we seem to be just in the early stages of a paradigm shift in the cost and convenience of personal motoring.

Predicitng the future is impossible, but that it will be quite different from the present is almost certain!

[AlaninWales]

I think that predictions of oil reserves are so difficult as to be currently irrelevant. What is certain is that they WILL run out (if not actually, then economically) and that the various uses of oil render it far too valuable to be wasted on cars. This fact has been recognised by most and steps are being taken to shift from burning fuel locally, to utilising electricity from fuel (of whatever type) "burned" elsewhere. ...

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences isn't too optimistic that fuel usage can be reduced by the target levels: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... utomobiles

"Such a transition [to make alternative fuels cost-effective and reduce greenhouse emissions] will be costly and require several decades.... On its own the market would not make this transition,"
Interestingly it still "noted the economic benefits of such a transition outweigh the costs". Car manufacturers claim to be doing their bit, but the infrastructure for alternative vehicles that is missing, along with a willingness amongst consumers to buy the new vehicles.

[reohn2]

In a capitalist society based on a greed and profit motive,why would those in the position of making those profits and being greedy ever want to do anything to hinder that profit motive unless they can make more profit elsewhere?
Consider that car sales are heralded as one of the major factors in a buoyant capitalist economy.

Consider that motorcars are a very inefficient way of transporting people around,both for the planet and for personal costs.That position can only become more efficient when cars are full of occupants and then it's limited to vehicle capacity and car sharing.
It's accepted that mainly most cars are occupied by one person most of the time.

The answer is reliable,clean,affordable,efficient,public transport in whatever forms needed and run as a service to society and not for profit motives.
Living closer to the workplace or more working from home is another consideration.
Cycling more than 4mile round trips are,for most people unreasonable and only then during favourable weather conditions.

[snibgo]

In a capitalist society based on a greed and profit motive,why would those in the position of making those profits and being greedy ever want to do anything to hinder that profit motive unless they can make more profit elsewhere?

While I wouldn't use those words, I think that's a major factor in the very low rates of active travel in the UK.

The fact is, there is hardly any revenue (or, thus, profit) in the act of cycling, and even less in walking. Promotion of motoring -- all these TV adverts, loans of cars for TV shows and cinema films -- it ain't cheap. The OP comments on a very slick animation about how small automated cars might reduce gridlock when everyone owns a car, but why isn't walking or cycling seen as a solution? Because there's no money in it, that's why. Who would pay for a slick animation promoting reduced car use?

[Geriatrix]

The fact is, there is hardly any revenue (or, thus, profit) in the act of cycling, and even less in walking. Promotion of motoring -- all these TV adverts, loans of cars for TV shows and cinema films -- it ain't cheap. The OP comments on a very slick animation about how small automated cars might reduce gridlock when everyone owns a car, but why isn't walking or cycling seen as a solution? Because there's no money in it, that's why. Who would pay for a slick animation promoting reduced car use?

Yes but there is an element of the broken window fallacy in the assumption that cars stimulate the economy more than bicycles do (I know your post just makes an observation & isn't promoting that viewpoint).

There is no evidence that a private journey taken by bicycle is of any lower value than a private journey by car, the car just consumes more resources and does more damage to the environmental to do the same thing. Yes you spend more money to do the car journey and someone profits from that, but that expense is analogous to the broken window fallacy.

[reohn2]

In a capitalist society based on a greed and profit motive,why would those in the position of making those profits and being greedy ever want to do anything to hinder that profit motive unless they can make more profit elsewhere?

While I wouldn't use those words, I think that's a major factor in the very low rates of active travel in the UK.

The fact is, there is hardly any revenue (or, thus, profit) in the act of cycling, and even less in walking. Promotion of motoring -- all these TV adverts, loans of cars for TV shows and cinema films -- it ain't cheap. The OP comments on a very slick animation about how small automated cars might reduce gridlock when everyone owns a car, but why isn't walking or cycling seen as a solution? Because there's no money in it, that's why. Who would pay for a slick animation promoting reduced car use?

So you are in agreement with me?
Multinationals exist to make profit that profit has to be worthwhile,when there's no profit they look to elsewhere.
Why did we invade Iraq or take great interest in Afganistan.
The main instigator of those invasions was the USA,the two presidents of the USA at the time of those invasions were the father and son Bush dynasty.
Their main business interests are in arms and oil.
Tony Blair also has business interests in Iraq
Iraq has vast oil reserves
Afganistan has vast mineral and gas reserves.
It isn't rocket science to see where I'm going on this.................

There is a better way than the private motor vehicle for people to move around this small country we live in,that way is public transport for the most part,if that were to be propagated as a service or at a slight profit for the good of the nation,road space would be freed up,less cars more space more chance of a more cycle and pedestrian friendly enviroment,which would result in people using bikes and walking.
The main stumbling block is unbridled capitalism and the vast profits made by the few,if there weren't so much money made from private motors there wouldn't be such much money available to promote them.
If I were to say to anyone 25years ago that the vehicle of the future was a vehicle that was only used by the army,farmers and people to go on safari,people would have considered me nuts.
However in a world of high fuel prices and tighter budgets these gas guzzling high maintenance vehicles are what people aspire to.
Those people didn't think that up for themselves,in the same way people didn't think to all take up cycling after last years UK successes in cycle sport and the Olympics.

[661-Pete]

Yes but there is an element of the broken window fallacy in the assumption that cars stimulate the economy more than bicycles do (I know your post just makes an observation & isn't promoting that viewpoint).

I remember the occasion of Maggie cutting the tape on the last section of the M25 back in 1986, and vociferously proclaiming "The continual snarl-ups merely prove how successful the motorway is" (Ok those weren't her exact words, but it was something to that effect). As everyone else knew, even then, before completion, it had been branded the world's biggest circular car park...

And so, the extra car traffic which it generated has 'stimulated the economy', ever since?! Where is the economy then? Cue Mr Was-born and his imminent pronouncements...

[Mark1978]

The fact is that our economy relies on people spending money for it to work. What they spend money on doesn't really matter, as long as it's spent. Cars are big ticket items so spending on those is relatively important. Cars do allow more spending to happen as quite simply you can stuff more things in the boot of a car than you can carry on a bike*

*Yes I know you can get trailers etc but most people don't have them.

[reohn2]

The fact is that our economy relies on people spending money for it to work. What they spend money on doesn't really matter, as long as it's spent.

It does when we're all choking on the fumes and suffering from breathing related illnesses asthma,cancer,etc!

Cars are big ticket items so spending on those is relatively important. Cars do allow more spending to happen as quite simply you can stuff more things in the boot of a car than you can carry on a bike*

*Yes I know you can get trailers etc but most people don't have them.

There's a flaw,we only have so much to spend(2010 ring any bells) and we only have so much fuel to go at,soon or later.......................

[Mark1978]

It does when we're all choking on the fumes!

I wasn't talking abouut cars per-se, just that the economy relies on consumer spending - rightly or wrongly.

[Geriatrix]

Cars do allow more spending to happen as quite simply you can stuff more things in the boot of a car than you can carry on a bike*

Yes but this isn't a debate about car vs. bike. Cars and bikes are complimentary technologies not mutually exclusive. I wouldn't consider using a bike to transport my sofa to work. Fortunately I don't need to take my sofa to work so a bike works just fine.

The thing is for every modal form of transport to gain acceptance it must be an attractive option, or at least more attractive than the alternatives. For that it must work as a system. London public transport leaves much to be desired but for me it is a more attractive option than travelling by car. When I lived in the countryside however public transport was over priced, infrequent, slow and unreliable so it was a last choice option.

In a UK context what causes gridlock isn't car ownership, but having too many of them on the road at the same time. The more of those journeys you can convert to bicycle journeys by making the bike journey a more attractive option the better. Perhaps I'm an optimist but I think that big cities like London will start moving the full circle back to bicycles, or at least having bicycles as a significant part of the solution.

In a developing world context its worryingly different because car ownership is still so aspirational.

[reohn2]

It does when we're all choking on the fumes!

I wasn't talking abouut cars per-se, just that the economy relies on consumer spending - rightly or wrongly.

Everything is related(google "interbeing") what matters is how it affects our health "interbeingly"
both directly and indirectly.
What matters most in a capitalist society is how much money can be made,that is the driving force everything else is secondary,until humanity realises that and stops it,or at least limits it's powers so it isn't to the determent of the whole(earth)we don't stand a chance.
I realise I'm widening the discussion but it is very relevent when the aspirations of car ownership and the belief that it's unlimited use doesn't affect everyone.
NOTE:- I've edited and reworded the last sentence.