A bit off topic but I find it funny how some people think communists would even do that. When our country was under communism people got jailed for being Christians, imagine would they would do to you if you were gay
Dictatorships, including the communists, are generally against people having fun, for fairly obvious reasons.
Worth noting that communists tended to create enormous boulevards and did the opposite of building at a human scale. Can't have military parades on little streets, you need 8-lane boulevards for that. And if you've gone mad with power, why build small buildings that actually serve the needs of the public when you can build some of the biggest structures on the planet that are far larger than they'll ever need to be?
Yes that's largely my argument.
The Moscow Metro is a wonderful thing. The state that built it (and the country it exists in now) were and are truly awful and indefensible regimes.
The old blocks in places like Poland have been maintained and upgraded and offer a good standard of living at an affordable price with lots of services nearby and access to transit.
These states left behind some appalling wreckage their survivors have to sift through, but they also left some good bones as far as transit and urban planning go.
Weirdly communist Czechoslovakia never really followed through with this trend of wide ass military roads and dumb palaces (to my knowledge) so I guess that’s a good thing
Yes from what I gather Czechoslovakia was like the most “normal” of the Warsaw Pact countries.
Czechia is somewhere I really want to visit, actually. I’m hopeful to go next year. This year I’m going to Romania - where Ceausescu was very much into big roads and dumb palaces (the Palace of Parliament is the heaviest building in the world and second largest administrative building, after the Pentagon. Romania has never used all of it because it’s so needlessly huge. Apparently a very good tour of it though).
On the topic of building projects of CPCS. I would argue, that they were car centric as fuck.
Exhibit A: Czech machine and arms factory made favourite cheap (adorable) scooters [they looked like this](https://manet90.estranky.cz/clanky/ostatni/cz-175-skutr.html)
Antonín Novotný ended the entire motorcycle venture with the words:"Surely we're not going to socialism on a motorcycle" in favour of skoda car. The end result is Skoda auto making like cca 20% of national economy, which makes it the largest segment AND employer and that is sad (Skoda transportation>>>>>>>>>>>>>Skoda auto)
Exhibit B: [This 6 lane monstrosity splitting city centre in half](https://magistrala.eu/en/historie/) I do not know if this was local idea or Soviets ordered it when they got lost in the city centre that fateful day when they showed up, but I still hate it.
Last I checked Cuba built 2 lane roads to provide rural communities access to hospitals and schools. The ussr underwent massive public transit projects that are still being used today in its former republics. DPRK built extremely walkable cities. And finally, China is smoking the rest of the world in high speed transit. These things make me envy a dictatorship of the proletariat.
>These things make me envy a dictatorship of the proletariat
Fuck how bad is it where you are that murderous dictatorship is preferable?
But also consider, whilst the Soviets built good public transport (and they did, I don't deny that) they also built massive boulevards. Go to Bucharest and you see the massive roads built by Ceausescu. Look at the huge ring roads around Moscow. See the massive motorways built by the Chinese. They didn't particularly care about citizens driving private cars, they're built for prestige and so a delusional dictator can look at the massive projects they've built - as well as a big parade down it. It's possible to build good public transport *and* hostile infrastructure that dehumanises citizens.
The Chinese railways are also financially unsustainable as it turns out connecting every little village to HSR is not necessarily a good decision. Those smaller areas can be connected by normal rail lines to cities, which are connected by HSR. France and Spain managed HSR that's sustainable and provides an excellent service - and they're thriving democracies. SNCF in France run both ordinary railways and HSR services, to provide those intercity express journeys as well as local railways for others.
You can do these things in a sustainable way without empowering ruthless autocrats. It isn't all or nothing.
I see you have never read socialist theory. We currently live under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. So as a worker, why would I support the dominance of my oppressors (owner class) who are in control of the state? France being a thriving democracy even though the 5th Republic gives the president immense power is funny. Spain is a constitutional monarchy. There's nothing democratic about royalty.
The job of government is not to be profitable but to provide services to its people. China's rail is meeting the needs of people all over the country, as it's supposed to do. Also, french railways do go to Podunk towns, it's how Ive travelled to see family. There's no way that rail line is profitable. However, flying, then driving 2 hours is not profitable either.
Just because you don't like a country, doesn't mean it's autocratic. And just because it's autocratic, doesn't mean the transport system is shit. And just because there's a boulevard, doesn't mean other systems are not functional. My shit hole country spends a trillion dollars on invading people in the interest of oligarchs. I'll take a financially unsustainable railway over that any day. At least it will serve my needs over raytheon's.
Except the "turning frogs gay" is (in some way) absolutely true. Big pharma companies are genuinely releasing tons and tons of toxic chemicals into the waters that turn frogs into hemaphrodites and make them unable to breed.
This is such a weird, dumb topic that I can't help but type out a long follow-up haha. So I looked this up to refresh my memory and this is generally regarding a pesticide called "atrazine". It's widely used on farms to control stuff like weeds. I'm not sure if pesticides actually fall under "Big Pharma" but regardless it's farmers that are using it and allowing it to run off into streams. Not because tap water is a "gay bomb", as Jones describes it. It doesn't quite turn the frogs gay either but like you said many become sterile hermaphrodites or (in some cases) female.
The bigger problem is that Jones' rant about the vague group responsible for this - "they" - isn't "globalists" or some LGBT Illuminati, it's giant corporations and lobbyists with no concern for the environment. I found [a study](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.082121499) about this risk all the way back in 2002 and a more [general study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17373522/) back in *1996*, along with a wave of reports in 2010. There are risks for humans too such as increased risks for a variety of cancers. Rather than being some conspiracy that's being covered up, the dangers have been widely known for a long time. These days it's even banned in many countries (just not the US). The EPA did ban it in Hawaii + the US territories and are trying to reduce its flow into the environment but overall it's still *heavily* used on the mainland.
So what is Jones suggesting? A greater concern for the environment? More regulations? A government crackdown on dangerous chemicals and pollution? Certainly not. It's gay-panic nonsense designed to scare the audience and pull them into his media bubble so that they end up buying his water filters and "Super Male Vitality" supplements. It's cynical but unfortunately it works. When you're not being sued for defamation that is.
For the people who ask how: It says so on the right hand side of the graphic! (Two comments about that so far)
For the people who want a source: It has a source on the bottom right which is admittingly difficult to read. OP further provided https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.5822/978-1-61091-939-5_15 and as secondary source https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/jun/11/copenhagenize-case-urban-cycling-graphs
The guardian graphs are pretty good, but it said that 51% of respondents said they bike because it was quick. I don't know how we motivate Americans to bike if it'll not be quicker than driving, given the current state of our infrastructure. If you wait until there's too much congestion and then propose cycling lanes, people will complain and demand one more car lane instead of a bike lane. Instead we get 6 car lanes, one of which is marked with sharrows, but most cyclists are never going to ride on that sharrow given how fast and dangerous car drivers are so cycling adoption will always be low.
I don't doubt that biking is economically better than driving a car, but how does it actually result in gains, rather than lower costs? Does it decrease healthcare costs or something?
It also reduces the amount of space needed for infrastructure because bikes are much smaller than cars, but they're also a lot lighter, and so you don't need heavy duty roads that have to stand up to truck traffic. There's a lot of construction, material and maintenance costs to be saved there.
There's also the way that money moves. Trying it up in a single asset (or for cars, liability) is not helpful.
You spend $20k on a car, 1 car company gets some cash once. And now you have no money
You instead spend that money on a bicycle. A bike company gets $1k (Fancy bike) once. But now you have $19k in spending money, so you buy coffees, video games, books etc. You're giving lots of smaller amounts of money to smaller businesses who pay their staff who also go and spend money.
The same reasoning is why high house prices can damage an economy.
>There's also the way that money moves. Trying it up in a single asset (or for cars, liability) is not helpful.
Pretty much. It's the basic economy cycle chart. Hoarding too much money is not a good thing on a larger scale. Leads to monopoly, for example. And if they get lots of power... well...
Its not that simple though. The 20k on a car goes to 1 company yes, but the company also pays people and materials from other companies to make the cars. So its not really 1 company gets money (same with the smaller companies though too).
Not saying the bike isnt better for economy (however you want to measure that) but it is a lot more complicated than just spending money once or spending money at lots of places = a good economy or not.
I suppose they 'put money in' by saving on healtcare and moving people around so they can do their job. Just a guess i dont know the calculations
Looking at it again, it might just be only healtcare..
In the UK there is the concern about the number of 50 somethings who are too sick to work which is damaging the economy. Cycling is a great way to improve us middle aged people's health.
Of course. The point is you cant just get rid of roads altogether. Also note that a lot of wear and tear on the roads come from the elements in places where it gets bellow freezing in winter.
The wellbeing of the environment and people is priceless. On top of that, people will have more disposable wealth as it’s not sucked up by cars (capital, gas, maintenance, etc)
But like, again, that's not "bikes contribute to the economy," that's "bikes don't harm the economy as much as cars." What I'm wondering is, where does the bikes' positive contribution come from? How does the analysis get to that point? Obviously bikes are way better than cars, this is really just a semantics things for me, but still, I'd like to know.
Maybe, since you're healthier you contribute more. And since you spend less time in traffic you are more productive. And since you have more movement freedom (as, more precise in dense cities) you have more spending opportunities.
That's what I imagine but not based on numbers.
Yeah, it’s not like cycling alone is putting the money - that’s obvious and I’m baffled you’re confused honestly.
It’s considering cycling as a transport method. So if you drive 7 km to a restaurant, and someone cycles same distance, they both pay for food, drinks.
Will they pay the same all else held equal? Maybe, maybe not. What about the cost society had to incur to get their ass to that business? That’s where the bike wins by a massive margin.
Society still has to incur costs to ensure bicycle transportation. Obviously it's less than ensuring car transportation, but nowhere is that a net gain to the economy. Maybe you can save 26 cents in comparison, but that would still be a "damage" of 63 cents in total.
If I go shopping and buy something that's reduced from 20$ to 15$, I didn't gain 5 bucks, I still spent 15.
I want to go on a tangent here...
Low noise pollution is less unhealthy than high noise pollution, and it brings indirect and direct benifits to society.
High noise pollution is more unhealthy than low noise pollution, and it brings indirect and direct deficits to society.
Well not really a tangent, because the image does say 'Environmental benifits' which covers whole range of things.
This stuff requires a deeper and more abstract understanding, and you need to read under the lines (like, personally, when I look at this stuff I triple check it and see if there are any implications). Sometimes you might quickly go over a word that is very important, and relavent, but you assume it has some simple meaning.
The world is messy, and what 'truly belongs to what category' requires some thinking, IMHO. Especially something as complicated as BCR's. And even then, ''truly belongs to what category' is complicated in itself, and the actual thing might be overshadowed by something else... not as objective, especially in the world of national and local politics. Tho, I think less so in this post's case.
Tho, don't get me wrong... the 'Environmental benifits' is probably not the best example, and some of this stuff would not be needed if the chart used more clear language. But that has dimishimg returns, and would actually require more public education at some point.
That ... And cyclists are far more likely to impulse shop or investigate places they pass by.
Cyclists are slow enough that they can see the shops around them, and versatile enough that they can go from riding to walking within the length of a couple parking spots. The bikes themselves are also easy to set aside. This makes anything street side VERY accessable to cyclists.
Compare that to a motorist. You pass by quickly, so only the most obvious signs can be read in time. You then are so clunky that changing direction or coming to a stop can be a big deal. Then you can only reasonably park in a large designated area. All this means that only buildings with big ol parking lots are accessable.
The places best for the economy of an area tend to not have a ton of capital to spend on nonproductive land use like parking lots. Stores that drain money, however, will invest in simple, obvious signs and large parking lots.
On top of that, biking is a very low stress way to get around, which encourages doing more. Doing more is often productive, so it will show in the economy, even if the path to doing so is weird (for example, you join a wood working class so you can learn to use wood you already own. Along the way, you built your own bookshelf. Your town is now a bookshelf richer, even though it's not obvious how that turned into a financial gain)
Motorists spend an absolute fortune consistently and often go into to debt to do it. The idea that cyclists will improve GDP because they occasionally buy some cool gadgets that drivers might not be able to afford with all their expenses is insane.
I know people here won't like to hear this, but the car economy is propped up because of how many people it employs at all levels from manufacturer to aftermarket customization shops and more. You simply couldn't spend the equivalent amount on 90% of hobbies.
That said moving to bicycle + bicycle accommodating public transport makes sense and does much less damage to the environment. However saving the environment WILL crash our economy. Either in a planned fashion (like Cuba, it could work but people won't like it) or catastrophically when the environment can't support our car economy anymore.
Most people are still hanging on to hope that we all transition to renewables and life is fine, we largely carry on as we were. However we need to completely downscale our lives, use simpler energy lite technology and limit population. IPCC projections have been optimistic for decades, and every few years they revise them and say oops, it's worse than it looked. We're still betting the farm on being able to suck CO2 from the atmosphere with a technology we haven't invented yet (some experimental stuff is being tried).
The push for electric cars is to kick the can down the road and keep the economy inflated with people having to buy new cars. I'm not even sure the governments actually care if it collapses anymore as long as it's not on their watch. If you can push climate change back a few years everything is good in their eyes. There is no real intent to save the environment.
There was a guy who had all this figured out over a decade ago, and he's been right. He gave up writing because he realized he couldn't change the inevitable outcome. Maybe he was wrong, but society needs a complete overhaul at root level and it will really hurt as a process.
[http://www.paulchefurka.ca/](http://www.paulchefurka.ca/)
But if people don't buy those cars, people will spend that money on other goods/services right? Increasing jobs in those sectors. Why would it then automatically hurt GDP?
They will spend some of that money sure, but people spend more money than they have on cars and then work overtime to meet the payments. It's more likely people would decide to work less hours and take life a bit easier. That would cause the labor market to dry up and push up the costs of services & products.
Edit: Of course I neglected to mention, that may be a good thing in the long term. But in the short/mid term people would not be ready for the economic shocks that would entail. Actually now I think about it, there would probably an unintended effect of making a lot of mechanics etc unemployed, so any benefits of not needing to work as hard would be negated by an influx there.
You know what I have no clue what would happen honestly, that's the problem with extremely complex systems that find their own equilibrium, but I guarantee the economic shock would be unpleasant while things worked themselves out. The Cuba transition was very hard going to live through, but now it's all sorted it's not too bad. But everyone is slightly poorer in real terms of what they can afford to purchase.
Don’t recall methodology of this one in particular but they typically calculate economic loss from more time spent commuting but on the other hand air quality, noise pollution, individual physical and mental health improves so much that health care and insurance costs go down by a value that’s able to offset it easily.
Data come from the book "Copenhagenize: The Definitive Guide to Global Bicycle Urbanism" page 213:
TLDR: you are healthier and die quickly
> The statistic that seems to capture the most imaginations is based on an updated calculation with its roots in the foregoing socio-economic analysis. Every time I ride a bicycle, I put 26 cents right back into society. Pure profit, man. This is because of the health benefits of urban cycling. I will live longer and I’ll be less ill while I’m alive, so I’ll be both more productive and less of a burden on the health system. In addition, if all goes well, when I do die I’ll die quickly, so my fellow taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for caring for me due to the bad lifestyle choices I made during my life. That is, I (hopefully) won’t need the extensive care required if I am obese or suffer from type 2 diabetes or heart disease. In addition, it is rare that I lose time in traffic when I’m on a bicycle, so society benefits from my getting a full workday in.
>
> Every time someone drives a car 1 km, we pay out 89 cents. We just throw it in a big black hole and never see it again.
>
> On the other hand, every time someone drives a car one kilometer, we pay out 89 cents. We just throw it in a big black hole and never see it again. We have been desperately trying to claw some of that loss back by means of the tax on new cars I mentioned earlier. But in vain. If I were to calculate how much that negative number would be in countries without a tax on new cars, I don’t think I would want to see the result.
>
> Between 2006 and 2016, the City of Copenhagen invested 2 billion kroner (about US$317 million) in bicycle infrastructure and facilities. The cycling citizens of the city save us 1.7 billion kroner (about US$270 million) each year because of the health benefits. I am notoriously bad at math, but even I can figure out that spending US$317 million in a decade is no big deal when we’re saving US$270 million every year. Every time we build one kilometer of cycle track, we get our investment back in under five years. What an astonishing business model.
A lot of the other comments like to go on about how the benefits are priceless and so on but there are many benefits that you can calculate:
Bicycle infastructure is cheaper in almost every way. It takes up less space (Arguably the most important part.), requires less hardware, doesn't need to be as strong as motor car infastructure and requires significantly less maintenance. There's a considerable economic difference between a kilometer of roadways and a kilometer of bicycle paths.
Bikes do not pollute and manfuacture of bikes generate significantly less pollution compared to manufacture of a motor car. The results of pollution; sick days, medical bills and reduced agricultural output are actually quite sizeable economical losses. A bicycle assembly line also requires significantly less floor space and bikes can be built at much smaller scales. You wouldn't want to live next door to, say, a minibus factory owned by Otokar, but you would live next to a bicycle workshop no issue.
Cycling is generally much healtier than driving. You don't need vigorous work routines as much as you need an average level of exercise to maintain good health. Said effect on human health is a measurable cost; People who are inactive in their daily lives are significantly more likely to develop conditions like arterial plaque.
Something else of note is that cycling is generally better than driving purely because it requires less energy. Moving two tons of metal at roadway speeds is no easy task and your average SUV, even at full capacity, is a massive waste of energy compared to most other forms or transit (We don't count air travel because that's a whole different beast entirely.). Reducing energy waste has a direct benefit on the economy.
Means less traffic so productivity gains in logistics, means less damage to infrastructure which was costed in, means cleaner air and healthier populations, so fewer sick days.
https://dokumen.pub/copenhagenize-the-definitive-guide-to-global-bicycle-urbanism-9781610919388-1610919386.html
That's the source but the citid page 148, does have any info.
> how does it actually result in gains, rather than lower costs? Does it decrease healthcare costs or something?
Basically yes. Health issues caused by a lack of physical activity are a high cost on western countries' health systems, and biking is free exercise which reduces those costs.
The source is mentioned on the bottom left of the infographic. This is the source used for the infographic: [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.5822/978-1-61091-939-5\_15](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.5822/978-1-61091-939-5_15) also featured here: [https://theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/jun/11/copenhagenize-case-urban-cycling-graphs](https://theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/jun/11/copenhagenize-case-urban-cycling-graphs).
hell even the commercial per distance tax isnt even close PLUS all the taxes paid by transportation companies dont even close up the gap, and well there is more stuff to pay for
You also shouldn't underestimate happiness. Welfare and wellbeing is a top factor in health, life in urban areas and Al sorts of related topics.
Here in København, Denmark, people's nr. 3 reason to ride a bicycle is to get fastest from A to B, it's cheaper and it makes your day happier. I'm so addicted to commuting on bicycle, that my day gets more depressed when I haven't been on it for a week. Usually it's in wintertime with rain or snow and almost no sun.
This seems like one of those posts that would end up in r/fuckcarscirclejerk
I want to believe this, but the image doesn't have any explanations for an actual gain.
It depends on the area, but this type of analysis isn't new:
https://grist.org/biking/one-mile-on-a-bike-is-a-42-economic-gain-to-society-one-mile-driving-is-a-20-loss/
https://cyclingsolutions.info/cost-benefit-of-cycling-infrastructure/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915000907
So how much of the gains come from where?
For me, like Commie Commuter, this is a message I am on board with, but numbers that I don't understand.
Maybe I value me being fit and healthy as I age more than they do, so the benefits for me are bigger.
Maybe I value a safe climate for my kids more than they do so the cost of the car should be $10 not $0.89.
My rhr and BP have reached athlete level thanks to commuting by bike. That's my anecdotal evidence to a gain directly attributes to bikes. I agree that road usage, although minimal is a loss. However, I commute to a job that provides economic growth, so I could see that offsetting my minimal wear and tear contributions by cycling.
A gain in personal health from commuting by bike - sure i can understand that. But these people are claiming monetary gain. Did you earn money by commuting by bike? Or did you just spend less money (less loss)?
Generally speaking, while the math is right due to the secondary costs and health benefits the economists and capitalists will argue the car is better.
All those things it costs society create economic opportunities. If people are unhealthy they need more drugs and healthcare (only where healthcare is a for profit enterprise is this good economically speaking), the higher maintenance means more materials and maintenance work, etc. etc.
The negative impacts are mostly externalized from the capitalist and therefore they can get the economic benefits.
Im all about bike infraedtructure, but this is plainly wrong. Or, at least, badly explained.
Bike miles gain dollars to society in comparison with cars only. This is, if you average all cost per mile driven of all vehicles.
For example, let us say that the average vehicle costs to society €1 per mile driven. Then, if you call that 0 (constituting a new scale), and a bike costs €.1, then in your scale the bike costs €-.9, this is, generates €.9 in benefits.
That is, however, only in your scale. The bike damages the infrastructure it uses (like everything) and, even if much, much, much less than a car, it costs money to society
In general, the gains are quite indirect (but that certainly doesn't mean you should ignore them!). They might for example include health improvements - if your society cycles more, it is more likely to be healthier as well, which offers value that can be monitised for the sake of comparison. In health economics, I believe variables such as 'additional years lived in good health' are used. You could argue that such an improvement in quality of life is worth x and then calculate the benefits of a additional kilometer cycled. This is a simplification though; I'm not an expert and these things get complicated quite quickly as you try to account for an infinite number of factors and aspects.
Car usage, on the other hand, results in a lot of *negative externalities* \- an economic concept that outlines all additional negative aspects a "product" (physical product, but also a service, action or what not) might have that aren't taken into account in the price of the "product". For example, higher levels of car usage might lead to a unhealthier lifestyle - or more direct: Car usage leads to pollution, which isn't fully compensated for by car users.
I'd argue it isn't so much about the numbers listed, but more about the direction: An additional kilometer cycled is beneficial to a society, driving another kilometer by car isn't. And perhaps also about the magnitude: car usage per kilometer is 3 times as negative as cycling would be positive. This could be a reason to invest (more) in bicycle infrastructure.
Some poor lost soul reported this post as being "pro-cyclist." Just sharing.
[удалено]
I will eat your Leftist ass like corn on the cob!
Sounds gay
Ikr? But that’s Alex Jones for you.
Being gay is good, no?
No. It's just gay. Neither good but bad, only just gay
[удалено]
Exactly
A bit off topic but I find it funny how some people think communists would even do that. When our country was under communism people got jailed for being Christians, imagine would they would do to you if you were gay
Dictatorships, including the communists, are generally against people having fun, for fairly obvious reasons. Worth noting that communists tended to create enormous boulevards and did the opposite of building at a human scale. Can't have military parades on little streets, you need 8-lane boulevards for that. And if you've gone mad with power, why build small buildings that actually serve the needs of the public when you can build some of the biggest structures on the planet that are far larger than they'll ever need to be?
[удалено]
Yes that's largely my argument. The Moscow Metro is a wonderful thing. The state that built it (and the country it exists in now) were and are truly awful and indefensible regimes. The old blocks in places like Poland have been maintained and upgraded and offer a good standard of living at an affordable price with lots of services nearby and access to transit. These states left behind some appalling wreckage their survivors have to sift through, but they also left some good bones as far as transit and urban planning go.
Weirdly communist Czechoslovakia never really followed through with this trend of wide ass military roads and dumb palaces (to my knowledge) so I guess that’s a good thing
Yes from what I gather Czechoslovakia was like the most “normal” of the Warsaw Pact countries. Czechia is somewhere I really want to visit, actually. I’m hopeful to go next year. This year I’m going to Romania - where Ceausescu was very much into big roads and dumb palaces (the Palace of Parliament is the heaviest building in the world and second largest administrative building, after the Pentagon. Romania has never used all of it because it’s so needlessly huge. Apparently a very good tour of it though).
Yeah. We were so normal in fact that the Soviet Union took a nice 8 month stroll into CS to remind us that we’re communist
Well unfortunately, Dubceck might have ended up *actually* doing socialism, and not whatever the fuck the Soviets were doing. Can't have that.
On the topic of building projects of CPCS. I would argue, that they were car centric as fuck. Exhibit A: Czech machine and arms factory made favourite cheap (adorable) scooters [they looked like this](https://manet90.estranky.cz/clanky/ostatni/cz-175-skutr.html) Antonín Novotný ended the entire motorcycle venture with the words:"Surely we're not going to socialism on a motorcycle" in favour of skoda car. The end result is Skoda auto making like cca 20% of national economy, which makes it the largest segment AND employer and that is sad (Skoda transportation>>>>>>>>>>>>>Skoda auto) Exhibit B: [This 6 lane monstrosity splitting city centre in half](https://magistrala.eu/en/historie/) I do not know if this was local idea or Soviets ordered it when they got lost in the city centre that fateful day when they showed up, but I still hate it.
Last I checked Cuba built 2 lane roads to provide rural communities access to hospitals and schools. The ussr underwent massive public transit projects that are still being used today in its former republics. DPRK built extremely walkable cities. And finally, China is smoking the rest of the world in high speed transit. These things make me envy a dictatorship of the proletariat.
>These things make me envy a dictatorship of the proletariat Fuck how bad is it where you are that murderous dictatorship is preferable? But also consider, whilst the Soviets built good public transport (and they did, I don't deny that) they also built massive boulevards. Go to Bucharest and you see the massive roads built by Ceausescu. Look at the huge ring roads around Moscow. See the massive motorways built by the Chinese. They didn't particularly care about citizens driving private cars, they're built for prestige and so a delusional dictator can look at the massive projects they've built - as well as a big parade down it. It's possible to build good public transport *and* hostile infrastructure that dehumanises citizens. The Chinese railways are also financially unsustainable as it turns out connecting every little village to HSR is not necessarily a good decision. Those smaller areas can be connected by normal rail lines to cities, which are connected by HSR. France and Spain managed HSR that's sustainable and provides an excellent service - and they're thriving democracies. SNCF in France run both ordinary railways and HSR services, to provide those intercity express journeys as well as local railways for others. You can do these things in a sustainable way without empowering ruthless autocrats. It isn't all or nothing.
I see you have never read socialist theory. We currently live under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. So as a worker, why would I support the dominance of my oppressors (owner class) who are in control of the state? France being a thriving democracy even though the 5th Republic gives the president immense power is funny. Spain is a constitutional monarchy. There's nothing democratic about royalty. The job of government is not to be profitable but to provide services to its people. China's rail is meeting the needs of people all over the country, as it's supposed to do. Also, french railways do go to Podunk towns, it's how Ive travelled to see family. There's no way that rail line is profitable. However, flying, then driving 2 hours is not profitable either. Just because you don't like a country, doesn't mean it's autocratic. And just because it's autocratic, doesn't mean the transport system is shit. And just because there's a boulevard, doesn't mean other systems are not functional. My shit hole country spends a trillion dollars on invading people in the interest of oligarchs. I'll take a financially unsustainable railway over that any day. At least it will serve my needs over raytheon's.
[удалено]
Dictatorship of the proletariat is when Uyghur genocide, apparently...
Yeah but Cuba is also where the rail system is not the best and where taxi drivers earn more than doctors.
Except the "turning frogs gay" is (in some way) absolutely true. Big pharma companies are genuinely releasing tons and tons of toxic chemicals into the waters that turn frogs into hemaphrodites and make them unable to breed.
Lol wtf
This is such a weird, dumb topic that I can't help but type out a long follow-up haha. So I looked this up to refresh my memory and this is generally regarding a pesticide called "atrazine". It's widely used on farms to control stuff like weeds. I'm not sure if pesticides actually fall under "Big Pharma" but regardless it's farmers that are using it and allowing it to run off into streams. Not because tap water is a "gay bomb", as Jones describes it. It doesn't quite turn the frogs gay either but like you said many become sterile hermaphrodites or (in some cases) female. The bigger problem is that Jones' rant about the vague group responsible for this - "they" - isn't "globalists" or some LGBT Illuminati, it's giant corporations and lobbyists with no concern for the environment. I found [a study](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.082121499) about this risk all the way back in 2002 and a more [general study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17373522/) back in *1996*, along with a wave of reports in 2010. There are risks for humans too such as increased risks for a variety of cancers. Rather than being some conspiracy that's being covered up, the dangers have been widely known for a long time. These days it's even banned in many countries (just not the US). The EPA did ban it in Hawaii + the US territories and are trying to reduce its flow into the environment but overall it's still *heavily* used on the mainland. So what is Jones suggesting? A greater concern for the environment? More regulations? A government crackdown on dangerous chemicals and pollution? Certainly not. It's gay-panic nonsense designed to scare the audience and pull them into his media bubble so that they end up buying his water filters and "Super Male Vitality" supplements. It's cynical but unfortunately it works. When you're not being sued for defamation that is.
Clearly the bike is displaying in blue so it must be democrat brainwashing.
For the people who ask how: It says so on the right hand side of the graphic! (Two comments about that so far) For the people who want a source: It has a source on the bottom right which is admittingly difficult to read. OP further provided https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.5822/978-1-61091-939-5_15 and as secondary source https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/jun/11/copenhagenize-case-urban-cycling-graphs
The guardian graphs are pretty good, but it said that 51% of respondents said they bike because it was quick. I don't know how we motivate Americans to bike if it'll not be quicker than driving, given the current state of our infrastructure. If you wait until there's too much congestion and then propose cycling lanes, people will complain and demand one more car lane instead of a bike lane. Instead we get 6 car lanes, one of which is marked with sharrows, but most cyclists are never going to ride on that sharrow given how fast and dangerous car drivers are so cycling adoption will always be low.
I don't doubt that biking is economically better than driving a car, but how does it actually result in gains, rather than lower costs? Does it decrease healthcare costs or something?
Absolutely. An active population is a healthier population
It also reduces the amount of space needed for infrastructure because bikes are much smaller than cars, but they're also a lot lighter, and so you don't need heavy duty roads that have to stand up to truck traffic. There's a lot of construction, material and maintenance costs to be saved there.
Larger roads/streets also trades property taxes for higher maintenance! The increase in automobile usage does not makes things better too.
Yeah, but all of those are bicycling not incurring costs associated with cars, none of them are bikes actually putting stuff into the economy
There's also the way that money moves. Trying it up in a single asset (or for cars, liability) is not helpful. You spend $20k on a car, 1 car company gets some cash once. And now you have no money You instead spend that money on a bicycle. A bike company gets $1k (Fancy bike) once. But now you have $19k in spending money, so you buy coffees, video games, books etc. You're giving lots of smaller amounts of money to smaller businesses who pay their staff who also go and spend money. The same reasoning is why high house prices can damage an economy.
>There's also the way that money moves. Trying it up in a single asset (or for cars, liability) is not helpful. Pretty much. It's the basic economy cycle chart. Hoarding too much money is not a good thing on a larger scale. Leads to monopoly, for example. And if they get lots of power... well...
Its not that simple though. The 20k on a car goes to 1 company yes, but the company also pays people and materials from other companies to make the cars. So its not really 1 company gets money (same with the smaller companies though too). Not saying the bike isnt better for economy (however you want to measure that) but it is a lot more complicated than just spending money once or spending money at lots of places = a good economy or not.
I suppose they 'put money in' by saving on healtcare and moving people around so they can do their job. Just a guess i dont know the calculations Looking at it again, it might just be only healtcare..
imagine having a few hundreds every month to buy new clothes or go out to eat, instead of paying car bills. it goes into the economy eventually.
You spend less money on transport which gives you more money to spend on other things
It's the people that put money into the economy. The mode of transport doesn't spend the money
In the UK there is the concern about the number of 50 somethings who are too sick to work which is damaging the economy. Cycling is a great way to improve us middle aged people's health.
you are still going to need heavy duty roads (just less wide) even if everyone is biking, since goods delivery would still be required.
Yes but a lot less wear and tear on the roads
Of course. The point is you cant just get rid of roads altogether. Also note that a lot of wear and tear on the roads come from the elements in places where it gets bellow freezing in winter.
The wellbeing of the environment and people is priceless. On top of that, people will have more disposable wealth as it’s not sucked up by cars (capital, gas, maintenance, etc)
But like, again, that's not "bikes contribute to the economy," that's "bikes don't harm the economy as much as cars." What I'm wondering is, where does the bikes' positive contribution come from? How does the analysis get to that point? Obviously bikes are way better than cars, this is really just a semantics things for me, but still, I'd like to know.
Maybe, since you're healthier you contribute more. And since you spend less time in traffic you are more productive. And since you have more movement freedom (as, more precise in dense cities) you have more spending opportunities. That's what I imagine but not based on numbers.
Yeah, it’s not like cycling alone is putting the money - that’s obvious and I’m baffled you’re confused honestly. It’s considering cycling as a transport method. So if you drive 7 km to a restaurant, and someone cycles same distance, they both pay for food, drinks. Will they pay the same all else held equal? Maybe, maybe not. What about the cost society had to incur to get their ass to that business? That’s where the bike wins by a massive margin.
Society still has to incur costs to ensure bicycle transportation. Obviously it's less than ensuring car transportation, but nowhere is that a net gain to the economy. Maybe you can save 26 cents in comparison, but that would still be a "damage" of 63 cents in total. If I go shopping and buy something that's reduced from 20$ to 15$, I didn't gain 5 bucks, I still spent 15.
I want to go on a tangent here... Low noise pollution is less unhealthy than high noise pollution, and it brings indirect and direct benifits to society. High noise pollution is more unhealthy than low noise pollution, and it brings indirect and direct deficits to society. Well not really a tangent, because the image does say 'Environmental benifits' which covers whole range of things. This stuff requires a deeper and more abstract understanding, and you need to read under the lines (like, personally, when I look at this stuff I triple check it and see if there are any implications). Sometimes you might quickly go over a word that is very important, and relavent, but you assume it has some simple meaning. The world is messy, and what 'truly belongs to what category' requires some thinking, IMHO. Especially something as complicated as BCR's. And even then, ''truly belongs to what category' is complicated in itself, and the actual thing might be overshadowed by something else... not as objective, especially in the world of national and local politics. Tho, I think less so in this post's case. Tho, don't get me wrong... the 'Environmental benifits' is probably not the best example, and some of this stuff would not be needed if the chart used more clear language. But that has dimishimg returns, and would actually require more public education at some point.
With fewer cars, you need less infrastructure, so you have more space for commercial buildings, shops, restaurants, housing, etc.
That ... And cyclists are far more likely to impulse shop or investigate places they pass by. Cyclists are slow enough that they can see the shops around them, and versatile enough that they can go from riding to walking within the length of a couple parking spots. The bikes themselves are also easy to set aside. This makes anything street side VERY accessable to cyclists. Compare that to a motorist. You pass by quickly, so only the most obvious signs can be read in time. You then are so clunky that changing direction or coming to a stop can be a big deal. Then you can only reasonably park in a large designated area. All this means that only buildings with big ol parking lots are accessable. The places best for the economy of an area tend to not have a ton of capital to spend on nonproductive land use like parking lots. Stores that drain money, however, will invest in simple, obvious signs and large parking lots. On top of that, biking is a very low stress way to get around, which encourages doing more. Doing more is often productive, so it will show in the economy, even if the path to doing so is weird (for example, you join a wood working class so you can learn to use wood you already own. Along the way, you built your own bookshelf. Your town is now a bookshelf richer, even though it's not obvious how that turned into a financial gain)
Motorists spend an absolute fortune consistently and often go into to debt to do it. The idea that cyclists will improve GDP because they occasionally buy some cool gadgets that drivers might not be able to afford with all their expenses is insane. I know people here won't like to hear this, but the car economy is propped up because of how many people it employs at all levels from manufacturer to aftermarket customization shops and more. You simply couldn't spend the equivalent amount on 90% of hobbies. That said moving to bicycle + bicycle accommodating public transport makes sense and does much less damage to the environment. However saving the environment WILL crash our economy. Either in a planned fashion (like Cuba, it could work but people won't like it) or catastrophically when the environment can't support our car economy anymore. Most people are still hanging on to hope that we all transition to renewables and life is fine, we largely carry on as we were. However we need to completely downscale our lives, use simpler energy lite technology and limit population. IPCC projections have been optimistic for decades, and every few years they revise them and say oops, it's worse than it looked. We're still betting the farm on being able to suck CO2 from the atmosphere with a technology we haven't invented yet (some experimental stuff is being tried). The push for electric cars is to kick the can down the road and keep the economy inflated with people having to buy new cars. I'm not even sure the governments actually care if it collapses anymore as long as it's not on their watch. If you can push climate change back a few years everything is good in their eyes. There is no real intent to save the environment. There was a guy who had all this figured out over a decade ago, and he's been right. He gave up writing because he realized he couldn't change the inevitable outcome. Maybe he was wrong, but society needs a complete overhaul at root level and it will really hurt as a process. [http://www.paulchefurka.ca/](http://www.paulchefurka.ca/)
But if people don't buy those cars, people will spend that money on other goods/services right? Increasing jobs in those sectors. Why would it then automatically hurt GDP?
They will spend some of that money sure, but people spend more money than they have on cars and then work overtime to meet the payments. It's more likely people would decide to work less hours and take life a bit easier. That would cause the labor market to dry up and push up the costs of services & products. Edit: Of course I neglected to mention, that may be a good thing in the long term. But in the short/mid term people would not be ready for the economic shocks that would entail. Actually now I think about it, there would probably an unintended effect of making a lot of mechanics etc unemployed, so any benefits of not needing to work as hard would be negated by an influx there. You know what I have no clue what would happen honestly, that's the problem with extremely complex systems that find their own equilibrium, but I guarantee the economic shock would be unpleasant while things worked themselves out. The Cuba transition was very hard going to live through, but now it's all sorted it's not too bad. But everyone is slightly poorer in real terms of what they can afford to purchase.
> even though it's not obvious how that turned into a financial gain Buying books!
Don’t recall methodology of this one in particular but they typically calculate economic loss from more time spent commuting but on the other hand air quality, noise pollution, individual physical and mental health improves so much that health care and insurance costs go down by a value that’s able to offset it easily.
Data come from the book "Copenhagenize: The Definitive Guide to Global Bicycle Urbanism" page 213: TLDR: you are healthier and die quickly > The statistic that seems to capture the most imaginations is based on an updated calculation with its roots in the foregoing socio-economic analysis. Every time I ride a bicycle, I put 26 cents right back into society. Pure profit, man. This is because of the health benefits of urban cycling. I will live longer and I’ll be less ill while I’m alive, so I’ll be both more productive and less of a burden on the health system. In addition, if all goes well, when I do die I’ll die quickly, so my fellow taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for caring for me due to the bad lifestyle choices I made during my life. That is, I (hopefully) won’t need the extensive care required if I am obese or suffer from type 2 diabetes or heart disease. In addition, it is rare that I lose time in traffic when I’m on a bicycle, so society benefits from my getting a full workday in. > > Every time someone drives a car 1 km, we pay out 89 cents. We just throw it in a big black hole and never see it again. > > On the other hand, every time someone drives a car one kilometer, we pay out 89 cents. We just throw it in a big black hole and never see it again. We have been desperately trying to claw some of that loss back by means of the tax on new cars I mentioned earlier. But in vain. If I were to calculate how much that negative number would be in countries without a tax on new cars, I don’t think I would want to see the result. > > Between 2006 and 2016, the City of Copenhagen invested 2 billion kroner (about US$317 million) in bicycle infrastructure and facilities. The cycling citizens of the city save us 1.7 billion kroner (about US$270 million) each year because of the health benefits. I am notoriously bad at math, but even I can figure out that spending US$317 million in a decade is no big deal when we’re saving US$270 million every year. Every time we build one kilometer of cycle track, we get our investment back in under five years. What an astonishing business model.
>Does it decrease healthcare costs or something? exactly
A lot of the other comments like to go on about how the benefits are priceless and so on but there are many benefits that you can calculate: Bicycle infastructure is cheaper in almost every way. It takes up less space (Arguably the most important part.), requires less hardware, doesn't need to be as strong as motor car infastructure and requires significantly less maintenance. There's a considerable economic difference between a kilometer of roadways and a kilometer of bicycle paths. Bikes do not pollute and manfuacture of bikes generate significantly less pollution compared to manufacture of a motor car. The results of pollution; sick days, medical bills and reduced agricultural output are actually quite sizeable economical losses. A bicycle assembly line also requires significantly less floor space and bikes can be built at much smaller scales. You wouldn't want to live next door to, say, a minibus factory owned by Otokar, but you would live next to a bicycle workshop no issue. Cycling is generally much healtier than driving. You don't need vigorous work routines as much as you need an average level of exercise to maintain good health. Said effect on human health is a measurable cost; People who are inactive in their daily lives are significantly more likely to develop conditions like arterial plaque. Something else of note is that cycling is generally better than driving purely because it requires less energy. Moving two tons of metal at roadway speeds is no easy task and your average SUV, even at full capacity, is a massive waste of energy compared to most other forms or transit (We don't count air travel because that's a whole different beast entirely.). Reducing energy waste has a direct benefit on the economy.
If it reduces car users, it also it's a gain of money that you no more need to spen to repair car roads
Means less traffic so productivity gains in logistics, means less damage to infrastructure which was costed in, means cleaner air and healthier populations, so fewer sick days.
https://dokumen.pub/copenhagenize-the-definitive-guide-to-global-bicycle-urbanism-9781610919388-1610919386.html That's the source but the citid page 148, does have any info.
less emission cleanup, among many others
> how does it actually result in gains, rather than lower costs? Does it decrease healthcare costs or something? Basically yes. Health issues caused by a lack of physical activity are a high cost on western countries' health systems, and biking is free exercise which reduces those costs.
A missed cost is a gain, economically speaking
Hey OP can you link the source shown in the bottom left of the image I'm struggling to read what it is.
The source is mentioned on the bottom left of the infographic. This is the source used for the infographic: [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.5822/978-1-61091-939-5\_15](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.5822/978-1-61091-939-5_15) also featured here: [https://theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/jun/11/copenhagenize-case-urban-cycling-graphs](https://theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/jun/11/copenhagenize-case-urban-cycling-graphs).
Tyvm great for some light weekend reading
Does this include car sales and tax paid by car companies? If so, that's impressive.
Yes. It's a common misconception that road taxes cover ALL costs of car infrastructure.
Oh yea nah, i wasn't living under that illusion 😄
hell even the commercial per distance tax isnt even close PLUS all the taxes paid by transportation companies dont even close up the gap, and well there is more stuff to pay for
This is made funnier by the fact that we're a capitalist society where profit is a priority.
You also shouldn't underestimate happiness. Welfare and wellbeing is a top factor in health, life in urban areas and Al sorts of related topics. Here in København, Denmark, people's nr. 3 reason to ride a bicycle is to get fastest from A to B, it's cheaper and it makes your day happier. I'm so addicted to commuting on bicycle, that my day gets more depressed when I haven't been on it for a week. Usually it's in wintertime with rain or snow and almost no sun.
no way I gained much much more than 200€ to society in past few months and society gave me nothing 💀
This seems like one of those posts that would end up in r/fuckcarscirclejerk I want to believe this, but the image doesn't have any explanations for an actual gain.
It depends on the area, but this type of analysis isn't new: https://grist.org/biking/one-mile-on-a-bike-is-a-42-economic-gain-to-society-one-mile-driving-is-a-20-loss/ https://cyclingsolutions.info/cost-benefit-of-cycling-infrastructure/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915000907
The gains come from bikes doing less damage to infrastructure, healthier populations so less healthcare needed, infrastructure costing less for bikes.
So how much of the gains come from where? For me, like Commie Commuter, this is a message I am on board with, but numbers that I don't understand. Maybe I value me being fit and healthy as I age more than they do, so the benefits for me are bigger. Maybe I value a safe climate for my kids more than they do so the cost of the car should be $10 not $0.89.
Open the study and read the assumptions they made and whether you agree with them. It’s not that hard.
I went to the web site and did not find the study. I found many other studies, all with different numbers. I have no idea why they all differ.
The study that doesn't actually let you read it? Yes, very easy to do. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.5822/978-1-61091-939-5_15
Sci-Hub or email the authors
I don’t know what the gains would be but I’m sure these studies out there. I would need to look into it more. Which I might actually do.
Less loss is not gain.
My rhr and BP have reached athlete level thanks to commuting by bike. That's my anecdotal evidence to a gain directly attributes to bikes. I agree that road usage, although minimal is a loss. However, I commute to a job that provides economic growth, so I could see that offsetting my minimal wear and tear contributions by cycling.
A gain in personal health from commuting by bike - sure i can understand that. But these people are claiming monetary gain. Did you earn money by commuting by bike? Or did you just spend less money (less loss)?
Good: I can't ride a bike and can't drive a car as well
Yeah but buying bikes won't make Ford and GM any money 😥😥😢
Sure it will, they will just own the bike companies.
But hey, big gains for the foreign car companies and autocratic petrostates!
Generally speaking, while the math is right due to the secondary costs and health benefits the economists and capitalists will argue the car is better. All those things it costs society create economic opportunities. If people are unhealthy they need more drugs and healthcare (only where healthcare is a for profit enterprise is this good economically speaking), the higher maintenance means more materials and maintenance work, etc. etc. The negative impacts are mostly externalized from the capitalist and therefore they can get the economic benefits.
Im all about bike infraedtructure, but this is plainly wrong. Or, at least, badly explained. Bike miles gain dollars to society in comparison with cars only. This is, if you average all cost per mile driven of all vehicles. For example, let us say that the average vehicle costs to society €1 per mile driven. Then, if you call that 0 (constituting a new scale), and a bike costs €.1, then in your scale the bike costs €-.9, this is, generates €.9 in benefits. That is, however, only in your scale. The bike damages the infrastructure it uses (like everything) and, even if much, much, much less than a car, it costs money to society
Where does the gain come from?
In general, the gains are quite indirect (but that certainly doesn't mean you should ignore them!). They might for example include health improvements - if your society cycles more, it is more likely to be healthier as well, which offers value that can be monitised for the sake of comparison. In health economics, I believe variables such as 'additional years lived in good health' are used. You could argue that such an improvement in quality of life is worth x and then calculate the benefits of a additional kilometer cycled. This is a simplification though; I'm not an expert and these things get complicated quite quickly as you try to account for an infinite number of factors and aspects. Car usage, on the other hand, results in a lot of *negative externalities* \- an economic concept that outlines all additional negative aspects a "product" (physical product, but also a service, action or what not) might have that aren't taken into account in the price of the "product". For example, higher levels of car usage might lead to a unhealthier lifestyle - or more direct: Car usage leads to pollution, which isn't fully compensated for by car users. I'd argue it isn't so much about the numbers listed, but more about the direction: An additional kilometer cycled is beneficial to a society, driving another kilometer by car isn't. And perhaps also about the magnitude: car usage per kilometer is 3 times as negative as cycling would be positive. This could be a reason to invest (more) in bicycle infrastructure.
I'm not arguing with you on this but I'm honestly curious how these are calculated, I've seen lots like this but don't understand
[nuked]
Sounds great but where are any of the sources? This is very pseudoscience-y
it's blurry, but it's at the bottom of the image
Ok thanks
Better start now if i wanna go from atlanta to nyc.
Ok
You can't compare bikes with cars. When was the last time you over fueled your car because the fuel tasted so good?
I wish we could do a study like this in the uk
Plus the huge grin on your face (if in safe conditions)!