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.

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

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.
~

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

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/

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

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.

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.

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

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.