I'm about to get a motorbike and, while this is in no ways reasoning for getting the bike (it's pretty much entirely for fun), it's had me thinking a bit about the social impact of motorbikes/scooters, especially if they were widely used (like they are in India, South-East Asia, and a couple other places) for commuting.
They're obviously more efficient in many ways. Less fuel usage, less material required to manufacture and transport, less space required both when driving and for parking, less infrastructure maintenance cost, etc. However, they're less efficient for all these things than the solutions mostly advocated by this and similar communities - namely public transport, cycling and walking. All of which are significantly better.
In contrast to those alternatives, though, motorbikes need basically no infrastructure development to be used, so it would be far easier to make incremental progress with individuals riding a bike instead of taking the car, rather than requiring organised political action.
Specifically for the USA and, to a lesser extent, the more similar countries like Canada and Australia, it's probably also more socially acceptable to not be riding public transport with the plebeians, or having to do physical exercise. And you can easily overcompensate with a massive bike, while still being far better than the massive cars coming out of the US - a litre bike is big, while a litre car is tiny. Obviously this isn't a 'good' reason, but it does seem to be a real consideration.
The main counter-argument I can think of is safety. But if you look at the countries where motorbikes and scooters are common, they seem safer than riding a motorbike in Western countries (anecdotally, from people who have ridden there on trips but wouldn't think of it at home; if anyone can find statistics for it, I'd love to see them). I'd say this is because of their prevalence. You'd get rid of the selection bias for risk-takers, and for high-power bikes. You'd also reduce the issue that car drivers aren't aware of motorcyclists, and often don't notice them. Any collision that does happen would also be more likely between two motorbikes, which would be less deadly than a motorbike and a car. And if we transpose this prevalence of motorbikes to a western country with stricter regulations around licensing, required safety gear, road rules, etc., surely this would be even less dangerous than it is in those countries.
Also, the safety argument seems quite similar to the safety argument for large SUVs for ferrying kids to school. Inside the car, you're safer, but that's at the cost of safety and health of those outside the car, as well as all the other negative effects we're all aware of. Obviously it's not quite to the same extent, but it just strikes me as similar.
So, those are my opinions, which ended up a bit longer than I was expecting... But the reason for posting is that I'd love to hear yours. Do you think largely replacing cars with motorbikes would be beneficial but insufficient, infeasible, or do you think it would actually be worse?
Yes, I used too many words. In doing so I buried the point.
First - you asked what I thought made Americans different which I answered. Now you're making a different point that better policy options would result in better outcomes. Sure, that's fine, and it's true - but it's not what you asked. My answer is that Americans have a relationship with cars that is not based on rational policy or optimal mobility, or mortality rates - but instead, we have an emotional and cliche warped self-perception that informs our choices, including transit in general and automobiles specifically. We can keep on that thread if you want but that was my answer. I tried to give background by explaining where I think this comes from, and disclosed that I'm basing this on my own experience; it's my opinion.
Next - you seem to start with an assumption that I don't agree with or frankly, even understand; this notion that transportation is somehow organized around mortality or fatality rates. Why? You have not cited anything that credibly makes this connection, and I don't see one, so I dismissed it. It's not a thing. Show me, prove it, explain what you mean at least; I can change my position. Currently, my position is that your premise is false or flawed. Or that "organized" is maybe a bad word choice and you mean something else perhaps.
Also - I absolutely DID provide an explanation: transit is organized around population mobility, and is related to urban development, not death rates. (Again this word organized. I have a problem with this word. Maybe "regulated" is what you're looking for? I feel that I did address the fact that inside the US, individual freedom is sacrosanct. It's politically very hard to get voter support for taking away personal freedom, and the status quo is a high level of personal freedom when it comes to cars.)
I sense a gulf of disconnect here: Americans are choosing to have dangerous infrastructure, when safe infrastructure exists. And I full on guffawed at Simple political choices could be made.... What American political system are you looking at? I would like two orders of that, please!! Don't conflate "simple" with "easy". Playing the flute is "simple" with only two elements, your breath and your finger movement. It's not "easy" though.
A large part of my tome was dedicated to showing how Americans don't make choices based on optimal outcomes, common sense, or what's best for society. I don't want to go down another rabbit hole here, but in the last presidential election nearly 75 million Americans voted for Trump, not because he's the best choice for a leader, not because he was effective in his prior administration for the country as a whole, but - massive oversimplification warning: because he appealed to a narrow sense of self interest and proved extremely effective at delivering self interested results.
Simply put, Americans could choose a less dangerous infrastructure but don't, in the same way they could choose less gun deaths but don't. I don't need a more sophisticated model to explain it because it's not a sophisticated thing; it's the opposite of sophisticated. It's basic. Confounding? Frustrating? Stupid? OK, yes. But sophisticated, it is not. Sorry?
I don't care if no human being is going to do more than scroll my wall of text, by the way, I was talking to you.
Thoughts?