![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This post is inspired by Ivan Illich, but with my own numbers from scratch.
Say the average American driver drives 10,000 miles a year, and averages 1 hour of commute for each of 250 work days, and 150 hours a year of non-work driving. 400 hours, 10,000 miles, average speed 25 MPH. Not too bad.
But. According to the AAA, the average driver spends more than $9000 a year on car ownership, too. Let's say the driver earn $30/hour. That's 300 hours -- 400 considering taxes -- to pay for the car.
Now the driver is spending 800 hours a year of their life, in or working for the car. Net speed 12.5 MPH -- hardly faster than bicycling. At $600/year on new bikes or maintenance, a bicyclist would spend only 27 hours a year paying for the bike.
"Hey, I've got a great deal for you" says the devil. "You can spend an extra 400-27 = 373 hours -- over 9 work weeks -- of your year, to pay for the right to go no faster overall than a bicycle. Wanna sign?"
Oh, and this is in the context of a society that engineers itself for free car parking, by spacing out uses or by dedicating curbside space to parking rather than sidewalks or bike lanes or bus lanes. A fair cost of ownership should probably be at least $100/month higher, taking another 53 hours a year to pay for.
If you earn less than $30/hour, this deal is even worse for you. If you live in a dense city and don't drive that much, then it's also even worse for you (and the current parking subsidy is likely even bigger, up to $300/month).
The car sometimes lets us go faster -- but because the car makes things further apart, and because it is highly space inefficient in motion and gets stuck in congestion very easily, it ends up not saving any time on our overall trips, compared to a foot/bike oriented lifestyle. _And_ it costs more time, irreplaceable hours of your life, paying for that.
As Illich notes, bicycles are pretty much peak efficiency for personal transport. Faster and almost as flexible as walking, and far more energy efficient. Not as fast (for most people) as an unimpeded car, but allowing things to be placed closer together without being impeded, and also far more energy efficient than driving too, since you're not hauling excess mass at excess velocity.
[Edit: elevating from a comment:
I may need to clarify that I meant this as a social cost criticism rather than a personal one. Not "an individual is wasting their money by buying a car instead of a bike", because things are so spaced out that they probably _can't_ use a bike (and get the same travel times, anyway). But "we're collectively wasting our money (and life-time) by orienting around cars instead of bikes".]
Say the average American driver drives 10,000 miles a year, and averages 1 hour of commute for each of 250 work days, and 150 hours a year of non-work driving. 400 hours, 10,000 miles, average speed 25 MPH. Not too bad.
But. According to the AAA, the average driver spends more than $9000 a year on car ownership, too. Let's say the driver earn $30/hour. That's 300 hours -- 400 considering taxes -- to pay for the car.
Now the driver is spending 800 hours a year of their life, in or working for the car. Net speed 12.5 MPH -- hardly faster than bicycling. At $600/year on new bikes or maintenance, a bicyclist would spend only 27 hours a year paying for the bike.
"Hey, I've got a great deal for you" says the devil. "You can spend an extra 400-27 = 373 hours -- over 9 work weeks -- of your year, to pay for the right to go no faster overall than a bicycle. Wanna sign?"
Oh, and this is in the context of a society that engineers itself for free car parking, by spacing out uses or by dedicating curbside space to parking rather than sidewalks or bike lanes or bus lanes. A fair cost of ownership should probably be at least $100/month higher, taking another 53 hours a year to pay for.
If you earn less than $30/hour, this deal is even worse for you. If you live in a dense city and don't drive that much, then it's also even worse for you (and the current parking subsidy is likely even bigger, up to $300/month).
The car sometimes lets us go faster -- but because the car makes things further apart, and because it is highly space inefficient in motion and gets stuck in congestion very easily, it ends up not saving any time on our overall trips, compared to a foot/bike oriented lifestyle. _And_ it costs more time, irreplaceable hours of your life, paying for that.
As Illich notes, bicycles are pretty much peak efficiency for personal transport. Faster and almost as flexible as walking, and far more energy efficient. Not as fast (for most people) as an unimpeded car, but allowing things to be placed closer together without being impeded, and also far more energy efficient than driving too, since you're not hauling excess mass at excess velocity.
[Edit: elevating from a comment:
I may need to clarify that I meant this as a social cost criticism rather than a personal one. Not "an individual is wasting their money by buying a car instead of a bike", because things are so spaced out that they probably _can't_ use a bike (and get the same travel times, anyway). But "we're collectively wasting our money (and life-time) by orienting around cars instead of bikes".]