AHC: The privately owned car as a "Rich men toy"
- Thread starter ScorchedLight
- Start date
Sidecars help. My grandad used to take the family (him, his wife and two kids) camping every year in one.
highly unlikely, although it is possible if it goes from city center into some kind of separate community where the rich live. but then it would not be about difference, but more to keep separate from them.
You would need a very different society for that though.
Good public transport won't kill mass produced autos. It didn't OTL as the US had decent public transport until the 1950s and had mass produced autos long before then. The problem is that mass production of autos is pretty much inevitible.
I think we already established that totally preventing is impossible, but sidelining is possible.
option to do that are:
1. restrictions on buying on credit
2. planning restrictions (so there is almost no parking space in city centers, like japan does)
3. less or no actions that benefit cars (less roads to use cars makes it less attractive
4. authorities that favour public transport instead of cars
the other things mentioned like car accidents could give the car a certain stigma to make it far less favourable.
the pod has to be early though somewhere in the 10s or 20s.
In the end the car would be seen more as luxury product, and not a general item like it is now. Especially car use in cities would be strongly reduced.
in the more rural areas would still see car use, but it would be more a family car type of thing.
Personally i think the credit limit would be most effective, it would severe limit the amount produced, therefor also limiting the success of the automotive industry and thus also limiting their power.
option to do that are:
1. restrictions on buying on credit
2. planning restrictions (so there is almost no parking space in city centers, like japan does)
3. less or no actions that benefit cars (less roads to use cars makes it less attractive
4. authorities that favour public transport instead of cars
the other things mentioned like car accidents could give the car a certain stigma to make it far less favourable.
the pod has to be early though somewhere in the 10s or 20s.
In the end the car would be seen more as luxury product, and not a general item like it is now. Especially car use in cities would be strongly reduced.
in the more rural areas would still see car use, but it would be more a family car type of thing.
Personally i think the credit limit would be most effective, it would severe limit the amount produced, therefor also limiting the success of the automotive industry and thus also limiting their power.
good one, but think 60s/70s is way to late to stop it, it would just be a temp slowing.
but when cars are more expensive to own/operate you would see this a lot more . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_sharing
but when cars are more expensive to own/operate you would see this a lot more . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_sharing
The London underground had first class cars in its early days.
And then during the war in occupied Poland there were seperate upper class section of trams for Germans.
A totally seperate system is a bit mad (unless it just goes to rich areas) but segregation is perfectly possible.
Decentralised services is very much a result of and an unfortunate side effect of motorisation.
That would only add to the need for cars.
Cars were still generally for the rich at that point.
Decentralised services is very much a result of and an unfortunate side effect of motorisation.
That would only add to the need for cars.
The post WW2 suburban comunities were the first were everything (the movie houses, the schools, work, etc) could only be reached by car. The small house with garden and a two car garage was the motor industry better selling argument. people who couldn't afford a good house in a properly developed place with shops, schools, etc, could afford to buy, for less money, houses in places wihout all those facilities and have money left for two cars...
The suburbs created the soccer mum, and doubled the need for cars.
If you live within walking distance or a short confy subway ride away from everything you need, the car is a luxury toy and car money might be spent on other things, like holidays, etc...
That would only add to the need for cars.
The post WW2 suburban comunities were the first were everything (the movie houses, the schools, work, etc) could only be reached by car. The small house with garden and a two car garage was the motor industry better selling argument. people who couldn't afford a good house in a properly developed place with shops, schools, etc, could afford to buy, for less money, houses in places wihout all those facilities and have money left for two cars...
The suburbs created the soccer mum, and doubled the need for cars.
If you live within walking distance or a short confy subway ride away from everything you need, the car is a luxury toy and car money might be spent on other things, like holidays, etc...
In 1949? There were over 61 million registered automobiles in 1950, which, for a population of about 150 million, is about one car for every 2.5 people. Doesn't sound like 'just the rich' to me.
History Today has this quote (CTRL-F 'Muncie' to find it), which I wish I could source:
The rest of the article is fascinating as well, given the kids of effects on culture that government brutalizing the automobile business could have.
EDIT: And it suggests a possible way of accomplishing that: who's up for an anti-automobile crusade based on attacking extra-marital sex?
Last edited:
Exactly. The roads were built because of the cars. If the cars didn't exist, there wouldn't be more roads built for the automobiles. Suburban development isn't the issue.On the car numbers issue issue: Males over 21 are about 30% of the population in 1920, so 86 cars per thousand is slightly more than one car for every four or so adult males.
On car safety: I don't think having a few notorious accidents is going to kill off interest in the automobile. It didn't do it for the train, for ocean liners, hasn't done it for airplanes . . .
And while the suburbs developing as they did might have seen car ownership grow even faster, it's already not a toy of the rich by 1920. It's already used for holidays etc. by 1920.
Last edited:
I could see a development where the suburbs still develop, but where they are not car centric, public transport centric, ie the suburbs get built on extensions of railroads/tramways/underground etc.
Is there a possibility to delay development of the car in the early 10s with earlier war entry of the us (other president maybe) where the car gets either taxed heavy (for the war effort), or ownership restricted (cars or production facilities needed for war effort). Especially taxes once stuck to it for a while, hardly get repealed.
Is there a possibility to delay development of the car in the early 10s with earlier war entry of the us (other president maybe) where the car gets either taxed heavy (for the war effort), or ownership restricted (cars or production facilities needed for war effort). Especially taxes once stuck to it for a while, hardly get repealed.
Last edited:
Here in California where the individual car is king, one of the major problems is in accessibility. The freeways are overcrowded. As time passes it becomes more difficult to increase the number of lanes on the freeway to accomdate the growth in the number of cars/drivers. (for the most part, 1 car = 1 person)
On the east coast, many of the major population centers were developed when the elevator was the primary means of "mass transportation" and as a result the cities grew up first, then out.
On the west cost, there was much vacant land, and in the post war years, the car was the way to go, so the cities expanded outward.
Regional shopping centers took over from the local store outlets. You needed a car to just survive.
It is hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Public transportation is costly. (And here in San Diego, it covers only a small percentage of the city - there are many jobs you could not reach without a car)
Also, public transportation (busses) is much slower than most cars. (It takes 10 - 15 minutes to drive from my home to work, the bus could take up to 30 minutes)
On the east coast, many of the major population centers were developed when the elevator was the primary means of "mass transportation" and as a result the cities grew up first, then out.
On the west cost, there was much vacant land, and in the post war years, the car was the way to go, so the cities expanded outward.
Regional shopping centers took over from the local store outlets. You needed a car to just survive.
It is hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Public transportation is costly. (And here in San Diego, it covers only a small percentage of the city - there are many jobs you could not reach without a car)
Also, public transportation (busses) is much slower than most cars. (It takes 10 - 15 minutes to drive from my home to work, the bus could take up to 30 minutes)