We literally destroyed perfectly working pedestrian neighbourhoods to make them better for cars. I can not see how having bicycles earlier would have changed anything. We had trains well before cars and at a massive scale and they did not stop cars either.
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
54 points (95.0% liked)
Solarpunk Urbanism
1790 readers
1 users here now
A community to discuss solarpunk and other new and alternative urbanisms that seek to break away from our currently ecologically destructive urbanisms.
- Henri Lefebvre, The Right to the City — In brief, the right to the city is the right to the production of a city. The labor of a worker is the source of most of the value of a commodity that is expropriated by the owner. The worker, therefore, has a right to benefit from that value denied to them. In the same way, the urban citizen produces and reproduces the city through their own daily actions. However, the the city is expropriated from the urbanite by the rich and the state. The right to the city is therefore the right to appropriate the city by and for those who make and remake it.
Checkout these related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not Just Bikes had shots of 1930s/1940s Houston in one of their videos and it was a pedestrian paradise that got bulldozed so cars could fly through neighborhoods at 40 mph
Bikes need a level of precision manufacturing that means cars and airplanes are just around the corner no matter what alternative history you come up with. If you sent a modern machinist back to 10BC they could maybe make a bike by hand (if they are lucky enough to get a rich sponsor - making a Gingery style lathe by hand is something a modern machinist would be able to figure out it takes a lot of time an materials that are were not cheap), but the cost would be such that the only people who could afford it already have slaves to carry them everywhere. There might be demand for a handful as a novelty for their young sons (sexist world, girls need not apply) but it will soon disappear as those slaves are cheaper than the bike. (it takes a lot of slaves to mine and refine the ore needed to make the bike)
That's a great point, I didn't consider the tech tree that leads to bikes also makes cars more likely :/
In 10BC, it would likely be all wood - frame, wheels, crankset, everything - and be driven by a notched leather belt on toothed wooden sprockets.
I am thinking this:
That would help, but I'm not sure you can make wood and leather belt drive train work well. And without rubber wheels you won't be happy with the ride. Though I guess as a novelty for rich kids who have slaves it would work well enough.
Interesting concept. Not sure it'd last too long though.
Have you ever seen wooden/ bamboo bikes? Renovo was one manufacturer. And currently, (https://www.lightwoodenbicycles.com/) TimberWolf Cycles.
There are others: https://www.treehugger.com/awesome-bikes-made-of-wood-4869156
I saw one in a museum, from the 1880s, made of hickory. It reportedly weighed 18 pounds.
Most of them the frame is wood, but the gears, chain, spokes, brake cables, steering, cranks... are all metal. There are a few all wood bikes, but wood doesn't work well for some applications (it is great for the frame) and so I'd expect the all wood bikes to wear out fast.
One more requirement for cars in addition to the precision manufacturing is a mobile source of energy like the ICE.
Now I'm wondering if an alternative history with industries revolution powered just by water would be possible (once there is steam engine/turbine, internal combustion engine/turbine is just a matter of time).
There was a brief window where ICE cars, electric cars, and steam cars existed simultaneously and all sucked just about equally
Other than the mobile need that same source of energy is needed to turn ore into metal. Refining ore as they did in BC days used a lot of energy - mines were located near forests (ore was more common then the forests and you needed a lot more wood than ore!). Modern refining uses a lot less energy on a per output basis. (It uses a lot more energy now, but produces orders of magnitude more output)
This is essentially what I was wondering about – was it possible to evolve metallurgy with a different principal energy source and charcoal or coal used "only" for redox reactions?
Thinking about it, it would be necessary to discover electric power before industrial revolution in a geography with a product of precipitation and elevation drop like e.g. Norway or Costa Rica have (and this would have to be "normal" geography, not exceptional).
You can make things more efficient, but there is a reason many factories melting metal work third shift only, and close the factory for maintenance in December - the power company gives them a big discount for using the cheapest power. Even if you get 10x more efficient (which implies you are an expert in these processes - there are only a handful in the world) , that really isn't enough to jump start manufacturing.
Don't forget too that modern life is only possible because a large population means we can specialize a lot. The number of different experts to really make a difference is larger than you would guess: someone to refine iron, but they need someone to create electric, which needs an [steam] engine, which in turns needs a metal alloy expert (not the same as the first person though there is overlap). We are now in a circle as you can't do any step without some other step. It took a long time to bootstrap the process.
If you went back to anytime after 1680 with modern knowledge you could bootstrap a lot of things faster - but that only is possible because the industrial revolution is already starting and so you can make a large strive in one area and it will help others who are already working in some other - both by creating demand for what they are producing and also by creating better inputs to what they are doing. Without lots of other parts of the industrial revolution happening at the same time there just isn't enough parts in play for you to do anything alone.
Something that blew my mind is that for a while bike were the fastest means of transportation !
@BastingChemina Biking is still faster than driving for many short trips, since you avoid congestion, routes can be more direct and you can park closer to your destination. Under one mile it is probably quicker to bike than drive. Under two miles if you live where cars clog the streets.
@lobsterofrevenge @BastingChemina under one mile wouldn't you just walk?
@stark @BastingChemina depends on physical ability and how much you might need to carry home from the store. One mile bike ride takes me a few minutes—say 10 minutes including locking up, but one mile walking takes me about 20 minutes at least. That said I usually walk the half mile to the store if I’m just getting a few things. Less trouble than getting the bike out.
This is great - I kinda want to build one for hauling groceries now. There are sidewalks all the way to the big grocery store here but they're so messed up that those collapsible shopping carts with their little wheels are more trouble than they're worth. I've thought about getting/building a cargo bike but I don't like my odds on that road, though it'd be useful elsewhere. Mostly we settle for just limiting it to what we can carry or driving once in a while. Might be a fun project though, I'll have to look up modern designs.
I guess on modern paved side-walks these Chinese wheelbarrows don't offer that much of an advantage, but I can easily see how great they would be on a typical well walked natural footpath.
Definitely agreed it'd work well on footpaths. I think given what frost heaves and the city budget have done to local sidewalks, it might still be useful (I'm not sure they count as modern or well-paved). If I can find some more square tubing, and some mesh or perforated metal for the guard around the wheel, I think it could be a fun bit of welding practice. It's too bad the larger bike wheel sizes seem to be very expensive.
Maybe look for a modern horse-cart wheel. There are some pretty lightweight ones that are very tall.
That's a good idea, I'll see what I can find!
Bikes suck without rubber tires.
Early pneumatic wheels were made with a leather outer tube.
Not as good as rubber, especially in the wet, but better than walking and cheaper than a horse.
The bike industry doesn't want to destroy society the same way the car industry does, so this wouldn't have made any difference.
And it's a combination of lobbying by the oil/gas industry + the car industry that created an unstoppable force. Just look at the tens of millions the auto industry spends lobbying.
Yeah if bicycles had been discovered before fossil fuels I think history would look very very different and it is a great point.
It is interesting looking forward too, 20th century might have been all about fossil fuel burning cars but the future is electric bicycles and tricycles. After all, the bicycle as a form of human powered transportation was perfected in the development of mountain bike, road bike and cruiser bike types during the later half of the 20th century, and so as a “cutting edge” technology electric bicycles take almost no new development and R&D to figure out what works.
Certainly a myriad of forms of electric bicycles will arise (like the bakfiets), but it is interesting how titanic a shift the adoption of electric bicycles will be and yet they didn’t require the development of totally new technologies to make this transportation technology function. Take a mountain bicycle, strap a battery to it and boom you have by far the most effective form of transportation ever developed in terms of a human carry-able vehicle that can transport you hundreds of miles over virtually any kind of terrain (so long as people have at least walked that route enough to make a trail).
The battery pack slots on electric bicycles will become the place people strap the power banks everyone is increasingly carrying around to power their mobile devices. I heard someone describe their perspective as a tank crewman about how infantry carrying around big heavy rifles is silly, they pointed out “why carry a gun when your gun can carry you?” and I feel the same exact way about electric battery banks on electric bicycles.
I know most of this reply has been in relation to the future of the bicycle, but the incredible explosion of electric bicycle use that is happening (and will continue to happen all over the world in rich and poor countries) I think necessarily points to the fact that bicycles were an innovation with a lot of latent possibility that was passed over by history for quite a long time (and bicycles just kept getting better mostly in the background). I think it points to the validity of your question, what would have happened had history focused on the bicycle sooner?
We had bikes before cars, that wasn't the problem. People wanted the luxury of cars. You could go faster in heated comfort along with your entire family and cargo for hundreds of miles with next to no effort in virtually any kind of weather, something bikes still can not do.
Even if we had modern tech with bikes 200 years ago the rise of cars was inevitable due to their convenience and low cost at the time. Combine that with the push of the car industry and that most people were unaware of the true cost of the damage cars were causing, and bikes never stood a chance. Even now, bikes simply can't replace cars for everyone but at least they can make a dent in the problems that got us here.
Modern armies still have infantry despite what the tank and artillery crews say because they are useful.
If bikes had been built earlier they would have been the exclusive property of the rich.
It's like transistor radios and computers in the 1960s; you needed the same sorts of factories to produce both.
The world would still be burning, though.