|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
WHEN DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute
WHEN DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT?
by Andre Jute Since Carl appears to be asleep on this job, I thought I'd make a modest start on answering the question: Just when did the bicycle become mass transport for the working man, rather than a toy for the wealthy or a tool for sportsmen, which it demonstrably was in its early history? What we want is a decade or even a date and it should be pretty obvious because there will be a sudden splurge in the numbers of bicycles. When we pin that efflorescence of bicycles to a date or a decade, all we need in addition is a spot of demographic history and then the per capita spread of bicycles will define its own turning point. The easiest and earliest place to see this would be in a society where cycling took firm root as the everyday means of transport, and I've chosen The Netherlands, partly because Dutch historians are a pretty lively lot, partly because I already knew the Dutch bicycle-historic sites (I have a Gazelle, and a Trek wannabe-clone of it too, and my Utopia is a copy of one of the longest-running "special" bikes in Dutch cycling history), but in the main because most Dutch sites provide their own excellent English translation (it is common for educated Dutchmen to speak better English than either Englishmen or Americans), so saving me the bother of translating for the monoglot anglophones. **** In the first of these excellent Dutch sites that I open, http://www.rijwiel.net/indust1e.htm we read about the years following 1896: "Prices began to decrease due to batch production and an oversupply of bicycles from America. Whereas initially bikes were largely used for sport and recreation, now that bicycles were becoming more affordable they rapidly gained in popularity with the common folk as a standard means of transport. Tax data from that period shows that the number of bicycles in the Netherlands doubled between 1899 and 1903 to 187,839. In the early years of the 20th century bicycle trading was a prosperous business, and every year about 40,000 to 50,000 more bikes appeared on Dutch streets. In 1912 a total number of 646,925 bicycles was reached (along with 4,000 motorbikes and 3,250 cars). Export to European and non-European countries increased as well." Consider these two facts: 1. The population of The Netherlands in 1900 was 5.1 million, so at the beginning of the twentieth century near enough one in 50 Dutchmen owned a bike. It is often said that the top one or two per cent of people own most of the wealth. So, unless the Dutch rich were absolutely saturated with bicycles, two per cent of Dutchmen owning a bike around 1900 makes the turn of the century almost too late to mark the change. We can probably conclude that by the turn of the century, the bicycle was spreading down to the middle classes. 2. A dozen years later better than one in ten Dutchman owned a bike. That probably means one out of every two or three families owned a bicycle. Thus in 1912, we're already *past* the point where the bicycle was both mass transport, and the workingman's transport. I therefore conclude that the changeover in the bicycle's function from rich man's and sportsman's toy to mass transport happened in first decade of the 20th century, very likely in the first two or three years. (1) Andre Jute A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes (1) Clearly, I also therefore retract what I said earlier about the bicycle becoming the workingman's transport after WW1. In The Netherlands at least it happened before WW1. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
WHEN DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute
On Feb 28, 4:49*am, Andre Jute wrote:
WHEN *DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute Since Carl appears to be asleep on this job, I thought I'd make a modest start on answering the question: Just when did the bicycle become mass transport for the working man, rather than a toy for the wealthy or a tool for sportsmen, which it demonstrably was in its early history? What we want is a decade or even a date and it should be pretty obvious because there will be a sudden splurge in the numbers of bicycles. When we pin that efflorescence of bicycles to a date or a decade, all we need in addition is a spot of demographic history and then the per capita spread of bicycles will define its own turning point. The easiest and earliest place to see this would be in a society where cycling took firm root as the everyday means of transport, and I've chosen The Netherlands, partly because Dutch historians are a pretty lively lot, partly because I already knew the Dutch bicycle-historic sites (I have a Gazelle, and a Trek wannabe-clone of it too, and my Utopia is a copy of one of the longest-running "special" bikes in Dutch cycling history), but in the main because most Dutch sites provide their own excellent English translation (it is common for educated Dutchmen to speak better English than either Englishmen or Americans), so saving me the bother of translating for the monoglot anglophones. **** In the first of these excellent Dutch sites that I open,http://www.rijwiel.net/indust1e.htmwe read about the years following 1896: "Prices began to decrease due to batch production and an oversupply of bicycles from America. Whereas initially bikes were largely used for sport and recreation, now that bicycles were becoming more affordable they rapidly gained in popularity with the common folk as a standard means of transport. Tax data from that period shows that the number of bicycles in the Netherlands doubled between 1899 and 1903 to 187,839. In the early years of the 20th century bicycle trading was a prosperous business, and every year about 40,000 to 50,000 more bikes appeared on Dutch streets. In 1912 a total number of 646,925 bicycles was reached (along with 4,000 motorbikes and 3,250 cars). Export to European and non-European countries increased as well." Consider these two facts: 1. The population of The Netherlands in 1900 was 5.1 million, so at the beginning of the twentieth century near enough one in 50 Dutchmen owned a bike. It is often said that the top one or two per cent of people own most of the wealth. So, unless the Dutch rich were absolutely saturated with bicycles, two per cent of Dutchmen owning a bike around 1900 makes the turn of the century almost too late to mark the change. We can probably conclude that by the turn of the century, the bicycle was spreading down to the middle classes. 2. A dozen years later better than one in ten Dutchman owned a bike. That probably means one out of every two or three families owned a bicycle. Thus in 1912, we're already *past* the point where the bicycle was both mass transport, and the workingman's transport. I therefore conclude that the changeover in the bicycle's function from rich man's and sportsman's toy to mass transport happened in first decade of the 20th century, very likely in the first two or three years. (1) Andre Jute *A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes (1) Clearly, I also therefore retract what I said earlier about the bicycle becoming the workingman's transport after WW1. In The Netherlands at least it happened before WW1. Remarks in the thread "Italian bicycle history" which may be carelessly interpreted as suggesting that cycling took off only after WW2 are given the lie by this, found on http://www.fundinguniverse.com/compa...y-History.html , from Raleigh's official history: "After extensive postwar retooling, cycle production soon recovered. Production exceeded one million cycles in 1951; up to 70 percent of these were exported (compared to less than 40 percent before World War II). However, notes historian Tony Handland, newly affluent consumers began turning to the automobile in droves, halving British bike sales. To compete, in the late 1950s Raleigh again began producing motorized vehicles: mopeds and motor scooters. A second, £1.25 million factory was built in 1952, according to The Emergence of the British Bicycle Industry. A £5 million expansion in 1957 brought the size of the Raleigh compound to 64 acres; however, the third factory went unused for several years." Having to turn away from the core business, leaving a brand new factory stand idle, that doesn't sound like your product is in a growth phase, becoming a mass movement. And this was when Raleigh was the largest bicycle manufacturer in the world! Andre Jute Visit Jute on Bicycles at http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...20CYCLING.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
WHEN DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute
On 2/27/2010 10:49 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
WHEN DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute Since Carl appears to be asleep on this job, I thought I'd make a modest start on answering the question: Just when did the bicycle become mass transport for the working man, rather than a toy for the wealthy or a tool for sportsmen, which it demonstrably was in its early history? ....... I have noticed more than a few times that people who are pro-transportational-bicyclists tend to draw examples from various communist countries--mostly China and N. Korea. This example fails in their cause however, because the people in those places using bicycles had no other options. They were not free to choose how to spend the fruits of their own labor. For the overwhelming majority of people on Earth, the bicycle never has been mass transit, and never will be. Most people readily choose motor vehicle transportation (if they have the means) over slower and shorter-range bicycling. A more-productive question would be "why did transportational bicycling use rise in places where it is highest, but nowhere else?" I dare say if New York city began building bike lanes, they would go unused except for the amphetamine-popping bicycle messengers that don't need them now. ~ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
WHEN DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute
On Feb 27, 11:23*pm, DougC wrote:
On 2/27/2010 10:49 PM, Andre Jute wrote: WHEN *DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute Since Carl appears to be asleep on this job, I thought I'd make a modest start on answering the question: Just when did the bicycle become mass transport for the working man, rather than a toy for the wealthy or a tool for sportsmen, which it demonstrably was in its early history? ....... I have noticed more than a few times that people who are pro-transportational-bicyclists tend to draw examples from various communist countries--mostly China and N. Korea. This example fails in their cause however, because the people in those places using bicycles had no other options. They were not free to choose how to spend the fruits of their own labor. For the overwhelming majority of people on Earth, the bicycle never has been mass transit, and never will be. Most people readily choose motor vehicle transportation (if they have the means) over slower and shorter-range bicycling. A more-productive question would be "why did transportational bicycling use rise in places where it is highest, but nowhere else?" I dare say if New York city began building bike lanes, they would go unused except for the amphetamine-popping bicycle messengers that don't need them now. ~ In the UK, the cost of automobiles was prohibitive to most until the 60s. My parents never owned an automobile during their lifetimes. The close proximity of jobs, schools, shops etc. in most towns and villages made the bicycle a viable transportation option. Populations are resistant to returning to lower technological solutions. The push is to find new resources and technologies to maintain lifestyle. Phil H |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
WHEN DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute
DougC wrote:
On 2/27/2010 10:49 PM, Andre Jute wrote: WHEN DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute Since Carl appears to be asleep on this job, I thought I'd make a modest start on answering the question: Just when did the bicycle become mass transport for the working man, rather than a toy for the wealthy or a tool for sportsmen, which it demonstrably was in its early history? ....... I have noticed more than a few times that people who are pro-transportational-bicyclists tend to draw examples from various communist countries--mostly China and N. Korea. This example fails in their cause however, because the people in those places using bicycles had no other options. They were not free to choose how to spend the fruits of their own labor. For the overwhelming majority of people on Earth, the bicycle never has been mass transit, and never will be. Most people readily choose motor vehicle transportation (if they have the means) over slower and shorter-range bicycling. A more-productive question would be "why did transportational bicycling use rise in places where it is highest, but nowhere else?" I dare say if New York city began building bike lanes, they would go unused except for the amphetamine-popping bicycle messengers that don't need them now. ~ I dare say you'd be wrong: http://www.nytimes-se.com/2009/07/04...-dramatically/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
WHEN DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute
My father used to tell us that when he was young, around the 20's,
owning a bicycle was a clear proof of affluence. Many workers were still wakling to work, 6 or 7 miles away, from Falconara to Ancona, barefoot. They would carry their shoes along, to be worn just before entering town. Sergio Pisa |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
WHEN DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute
Phil H wrote:
On Feb 27, 11:23 pm, DougC wrote: On 2/27/2010 10:49 PM, Andre Jute wrote: WHEN DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute Since Carl appears to be asleep on this job, I thought I'd make a modest start on answering the question: Just when did the bicycle become mass transport for the working man, rather than a toy for the wealthy or a tool for sportsmen, which it demonstrably was in its early history? ....... I have noticed more than a few times that people who are pro-transportational-bicyclists tend to draw examples from various communist countries--mostly China and N. Korea. This example fails in their cause however, because the people in those places using bicycles had no other options. They were not free to choose how to spend the fruits of their own labor. For the overwhelming majority of people on Earth, the bicycle never has been mass transit, and never will be. Most people readily choose motor vehicle transportation (if they have the means) over slower and shorter-range bicycling. A more-productive question would be "why did transportational bicycling use rise in places where it is highest, but nowhere else?" I dare say if New York city began building bike lanes, they would go unused except for the amphetamine-popping bicycle messengers that don't need them now. ~ In the UK, the cost of automobiles was prohibitive to most until the 60s. My parents never owned an automobile during their lifetimes. The close proximity of jobs, schools, shops etc. in most towns and villages made the bicycle a viable transportation option. Populations are resistant to returning to lower technological solutions. The push is to find new resources and technologies to maintain lifestyle. Phil H The less dense the community, the better for autos, the worse for bikes. The real question is what will the future bring regarding density. In the US and the rest of the West, will sprawl continue or begin to reverse? Around the world, the trend in rural areas is dramatic, the countryside is emptying at a remarkable rate. Whether the suburban model will be adopted, at least to the American extreme, is doubtful. At least for now, the future of the world seems to be cities. "Technology" is a broad term. The industrial revolution brought cheap machinery in its first phase. Bikes went from being toys of the rich to citizen transport in a short time, but so did the automobile. In the transportation sector, technology has given us the steam locomotive, automobile and jet aircraft all within little more than a century, but the information technology of the last couple of decades threatens/promises to eliminate a good deal of the need for personal transport. What then? It may be that we will continue becoming ever more mobile, but I think it's just as likely that we're at "peak mobility". Once needs are met, wealth becomes highly subjective. People in Amsterdam and Copenhagen may consider themselves wealthier because they can ride a bike to get around. Happiness isn't necessarily resource intensive. "Less" is often "more". That isn't obvious to those who are just entering into material wealth, but it seems to be a concrete experience in societies that have achieved stable prosperity. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
WHEN DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute
sergio wrote:
My father used to tell us that when he was young, around the 20's, owning a bicycle was a clear proof of affluence. Many workers were still wakling to work, 6 or 7 miles away, from Falconara to Ancona, barefoot. They would carry their shoes along, to be worn just before entering town. Sergio Pisa Ironically, I've seen people with Look cleats doing the same thing. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
OT - WHEN DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute
Peter Cole wrote:
[...]t as likely that we're at "peak mobility". Once needs are met, wealth becomes highly subjective. People in Amsterdam and Copenhagen may consider themselves wealthier because they can ride a bike to get around. Happiness isn't necessarily resource intensive. "Less" is often "more". That isn't obvious to those who are just entering into material wealth, but it seems to be a concrete experience in societies that have achieved stable prosperity. However; it is not obvious to the average USian, who confuses material standard of living with quality of life. But the US is not a country of stable prosperity, but one of decreasing prosperity for all but the very rich. -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 "The European Union (EU) is the world's largest and most competitive economy, and most of those living in it are wealthier, healthier, and happier than most Americans. Europeans work shorter hours, have a greater say in how their employers behave, receive lengthy paid vacations and paid parental leave, can rely on guaranteed paid pensions, have free or extremely inexpensive comprehensive and preventative health care, enjoy free or extremely inexpensive educations from preschool through college, impose half the per-capita environmental damage of Americans, endure a fraction of the violence found in the United States, imprison a fraction of the prisoners locked up here, and benefit from democratic representation, engagement, and civil liberties unimagined in the land where we're teased that the world hates our rather mediocre "freedoms." - David Swanson |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
WHEN DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute
On Feb 28, 7:35*am, Peter Cole wrote:
DougC wrote: On 2/27/2010 10:49 PM, Andre Jute wrote: WHEN *DID THE BICYCLE BECOME MASS TRANSPORT? by Andre Jute Since Carl appears to be asleep on this job, I thought I'd make a modest start on answering the question: Just when did the bicycle become mass transport for the working man, rather than a toy for the wealthy or a tool for sportsmen, which it demonstrably was in its early history? ....... I have noticed more than a few times that people who are pro-transportational-bicyclists tend to draw examples from various communist countries--mostly China and N. Korea. This example fails in their cause however, because the people in those places using bicycles had no other options. They were not free to choose how to spend the fruits of their own labor. For the overwhelming majority of people on Earth, the bicycle never has been mass transit, and never will be. Most people readily choose motor vehicle transportation (if they have the means) over slower and shorter-range bicycling. A more-productive question would be "why did transportational bicycling use rise in places where it is highest, but nowhere else?" I dare say if New York city began building bike lanes, they would go unused except for the amphetamine-popping bicycle messengers that don't need them now. ~ I dare say you'd be wrong: http://www.nytimes-se.com/2009/07/04...tem-expand...- Hide quoted text - I hate cattle-chute protected bike lanes -- although this one seems to be wider than most. You end up with people crossing in front of you to get to or from their cars, and you have cars turning across (left in the picture) the parked "barrier cars." The drivers of the turning cars cannot see the cyclists who are behind the barrier cars. I ride down one of these types of lanes in PDX, and it is like the f****** killing fields. Idiot do-gooders came up with bicycle "shelters" and not people who really ride bikes.-- Jay Beattie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Andre Jute FAQ v1.1 - May 31 | Antitroll | Techniques | 3 | May 31st 09 01:31 AM |
Andre Jute FAQ | Antitroll | Techniques | 42 | May 24th 09 02:29 PM |
Andre Jute FAQ v1.1 - 24 May | Antitroll | Techniques | 0 | May 24th 09 05:16 AM |
Andre Jute FAQ v1.1 | Antitroll | Techniques | 0 | May 17th 09 07:40 AM |
Andre Jute FAQ v1.1 | Antitroll | Techniques | 0 | May 17th 09 07:36 AM |