Least- talked about public nuisance: Motorbikes
I'm an American living in Marseille, France. Before I got here, I used to think that there was nothing worse than the automobile in the city. You know the drill: the pollution, the noise, the traffic jams, the environmental degradation, etc.. Well, since getting to know Marseille I have found something worse: the motorized scooters and motorcycles that, in combination with the autos, have completely dominated the life of this city.
In Marseille and in many other French cities, cars and motorbikes are allowed to park on sidewalks; Untold thousands of metal poles are planted on sidewalks everywhere in Marseille to maintain some kind of barrier to the autos. But where they succeed in keeping cars off the sidewalks the poles simply guarantee sidewalk space for the smaller motorbikes. And the motorbikes are routinely driven on sidewalks when their progress in the street is impeded by the autos.
And the noise generated by these motorized two-wheelers is unbelievable.
What of the pedestrian, you ask. For all practical purposes the Marseille pedestrian has no rights. You have to tread very carefully on Marseille streets and sidewalks the moment you leave your house. The Marseille population shares the city sidewalks with "les motos." Unless you live in a gated community, it is impossible to get away from these metal monsters.
Why is so little publicity given to the impact of the motorbikes on city life? Why doesn't the movement to control the urban automobile include the motorbike?
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Planetizen picks
Contribute
- Top Cities For Singles Revealed
- Are the Arts Losing Out in D.C. Redevelopment?
- Detroit For Sale?
- Chinese Cities in Desperate Need of Competent Planning
- The Rise of Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing
- What the Feds are Doing to Connect Housing Policy to Health Policy
- Why the Politics of Climate Change Matter
- Waste Disposal Becomes Sexy
- Murky Future for Two of D.C.'s Architectural Gems
- The Story Behind One of the Most Controversial Buildings in the Country
Planetizen Announces New Managing Editor: Jonathan Nettler, AICP
Planetizen
Feb 13, 2012
My Storm, Managing the Recovery of New Orleans in the Wake of Katrina is Required Reading for Planners
U Penn Press
Feb 13, 2012
Volunteerism Plays Critical Role in Reaching World’s Millennium Development Goals
Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University
Feb 10, 2012
www.flickr.com
|
devilish bikes
Americans are lucky to be spared from the haunt of reckless scooter and motorcycle riders. Living in a third world country, I do find the bikes are a nuisance. Bikers here practically break every rule there is in the book: Weaving in and out of traffic, going against the traffic flow, beating red lights, and of course, parking on the sidewalk. The worse thing is, the police themselves flout the rules too.
Bikers here have a habit of riding on the lines separating the lanes of a highway. They thought that by doing so, they are freeing up the lanes for other users. The problem is the bikers would regularly veer into either the lane to his left or his right without warning, posing a hazard.
When the night comes, youths on bikes would race down roads over twice the speed limit, disregarding other road users. They would purposely modify the exhaust pipes so that the noise would be greater. Many accidents have resulted from their reckless riding and will continue to occur.
A common crime here is snatch theft, in which a thief on a bike would zoom down on unsuspecting people walking by the road and snatch away their bags/laptops. Many victims died after being dragged along the road when they can't let go of their belongings. Those who stayed alive were lucky if they escaped with minor injuries. So much so that an entrepreneur came up with a bag with detachable strap which would snap off when pulled hard in an instant.
However, bikes are treasures to the people who can't afford a car. Here, a scooter costs only 1/10 of the price of the cheapest car. Little wonder that the streets are littered with them. I've always wished something more could be done to control them, but so far, there have only been road safety campaigns. I think a crackdown here is unlikely as the heavy hand of the law would chase away many electorates and the election is always near.
Surviving Without A Motor Vehicle
bikes are treasures to the people who can't afford a car. Here, a scooter costs only 1/10 of the price of the cheapest car.
I have managed to survive without owning a motor vehicle in California, where most cities are built around the automobile. Since I live in an older neighborhood where there are nearby services, I find it easy to bicycle as my main form of transportation, to use public transit for longer trips, and to rent a car for recreational trips.
So I wonder why you think owning a motor vehicle - a motor bike if not a car - is essential in developing nations, where most people still live in neighborhoods with nearby services. Wouldn't those cities be more livable without all the cars and motor bikes? Wouldn't people be healthier if they used bicycles instead of motor bikes? Wouldn't they be better off if they spent that money on better housing and health care instead of on motor vehicles? (I myself would probably not have been able to afford to buy a house if I had the extra expense of owning a car.)
Since I have never lived in a third-world city, I am genuinely interested in your answer.
Charles Siegel
At the risk of putting words
At the risk of putting words in his mouth, he did not say that motor vehicles are "essential", only that they are "treasures" to people who own them. E.g. the difference between want and need.
Furthermore, your statement that "most people live in neighborhoods with nearby services," as if getting around without a car is easier in these places, is completely false from experience. Third world cities are huge, exponentially expanding with zero rationality or planning involved. NOTHING is easier in them, getting around by foot, car, bus, bike, whatever. For example, I spent some time in large Brazilian cities, where traveling a distance of four or five miles can easily take over an hour by bus. You could walk which would take about the same amount of time and leave you drenched in sweat, you could ride a bike and ditto on the sweat with the added bonus of certain death on the roadways, or you could take a cab and sit in the same traffic while paying through the nose. Many working class live in favelas (not served by regular buses) and must use van services, followed by one or more bus routes. The commute is hot, crowded, uncomfortable, long, loud, and difficult. Also, their neighborhoods do not have "nearby services" if that is meant to include jobs or medical care.
Motor Vehicles In Developing Nations
"traveling a distance of four or five miles can easily take over an hour by bus. You could walk which would take about the same amount of time and leave you drenched in sweat, you could ride a bike and ditto on the sweat with the added bonus of certain death on the roadways, or you could take a cab and sit in the same traffic while paying through the nose."
It sounds like you are saying that the buses and taxis are very slow because they are stuck in traffic, and bicycling is deadly because of all the traffic. So wouldn't it make sense to restrict private motor vehicles dramatically and reduce the traffic enough to make the buses move more quickly and make bicycling safe? Wouldn't that be easier for everyone (including the people with cars, who are now stuck in traffic and who could get around more easily by bicycle or bus)?
You are right that I should have said "want" rather than "need." I think people have a hierararchy of wants, beginning with necessities such as food and basic shelter, moving to important products such as health care and basic transportation, and finally reaching luxury items such as private automobiles. It does not make sense to me for a society to spend significant resources on the luxury of private motor vehicles when that money would do more good if it were spent on health care or public transportation. (Our overuse of the automobile does not make sense even in the United States, where we have the basics, and it doesn't seem to make any sense at all where people lack the basics.)
Incidentally, I spent seven years commuting 5 miles by bicycle, which took about a half-hour each way. Of course, I would not have done this if I had to bicycle on streets where there was so much traffic that my life was at risk.
So I can certainly see why individuals in developing nations want to have private motor vehicles rather than risking their lives by bicycling in traffic. But I can't see why the societies as a whole would allow themselves to become so auto-dominated.
Charles Siegel
travelling in third world
thank you isoquinophlex for answering a big part of the question.
Of course you can survive without a car here, but it'll be very inconvenient. People like to go where they want, whenever they want. Buses don't run after 11pm, and their schedules can't be trusted. Count your lucky stars if one comes 10 mins late. Unless your destination is near, you would need transfers. This would be confusing to people who are not very good with directions. Many people do not take buses simply because they don't understand the route system.
Although taxis are available, the surcharge after midnight makes them less desirable. I wouldn't allow any of my female friends to travel at night in a taxi: taxi rapes are not too far-fetched. To the average person, the comfort and safety of a personal vehicle is too tempting.
Motorbikes are speedy in jams, as they can just zip through the lines of cars waiting helplessly in their lanes.
For cyclists, there is no bike lanes, no sidewalks. I frequently have to watch out for cyclists on the road while travelling on a three-lane highway marked "90 km/h".
In our auto-centric societies, I do agree that for public transport to win over private vehicles, we need to subsidize the former more and develop it to make it more convenient, while at the same time make the latter more inconvenient, such as restricted entry into the city center. But these measures are not easy. Just ask NYC Mayor Bloomberg.
I'm not a sociologist, but I am thinking social status and pressure may play a part in wanting a car. Humans do tend to want something don't have when they see others having it. Cars included.
It's true that what we want may not be what is good for us. If everyone chooses the goods over the wants, I believe planners would have an easier life than what they are having now.
Surviving Without A Motor Vehicle
deleting the duplicate. Sorry for the error.
Charles Siegel