That's interesting. His numbers for maximum train speeds are rather misleading, though - those are world record speed tests, not regular service.

For regular service, 300kph (186mph) is top for both France and Japan, 150mph is top for US (Acela Express), and the Shanghai Transrapid holds the top speed of any existing service at 430kph (265mph), but it is maglev. Japan has 360kph (220mph) service in testing to be rolled out in the next decade.

The author appears to be confusing the word "popular" with the word, "numerous".

If your pet dog has 300 fleas, does that mean fleas are 300 times more "popular"?

I'd hazard a guess that if you offered the typical Chinese person to swap their bike for a car, they'd take that deal, 99 out of 100 times. Which, as it happens, is precisely what they do, once they have achieved that degree of prosperity.

Perhaps the author is attempting to project his own value system on the world at large, or indulging in wishful thinking?

Choosing to use the word “popular” or the word “numerous” is really just a matter of semantics. Even if the user's economic condition is the driving factor, bicycles are still the “popular” vehicle choice worldwide. The problem is that, as Marvin points out, bicycle use worldwide is slipping as more people on a global scale accumulate wealth. Unfortunately, in parts of the world the bicycle itself is viewed as a symbol of poverty. Maybe I am a wishful thinker as well, but I would love to see the bicycle hold its position as the number one mode of transportation worldwide. After all, it is by far the most efficient form of personal transportation ever developed.

Milton- Good point and example in regard to China.

On the opposite side you have me. I grew up in a car culture (1970's and 80's LA), but now I choose to bike to and from work whenever I can. Actually, because I live about five miles from work and because there is almost no parking in that area, biking is the quickest way for me to get there. I still need our family car, of course- no question about it.

I suspect that as the US population continues to grow and as greater numbers of people live in greater concentration, then more and more people will settle into mixing it up with cars, bikes, scooters, public transportation and whatever else works.

Even Las Vegas, which was basically designed to handle more cars than I could even begin to imagine, now has a monorail, and me and my wife found ourselves using it on our last visit because it was faster than getting a cab.

"Choosing to use the word “popular” or the word “numerous” is really just a matter of semantics."

"Just" semantics? I read from the author's bio that he was an English major in college. Surely the specific meanings of different words must be significant to an English major? Although this might be a matter of complete indifference to you, I would think the fact that different words mean different things is the very essence of "just semantics".

"Even if the user's economic condition is the driving factor, bicycles are still the “popular” vehicle choice worldwide."

By your logic, we are forced to conclude Fidel Castro must be a very "popular" political figure in Cuba, since he wins every election with a 100% margin.

"The problem is that, as Marvin points out, bicycle use worldwide is slipping as more people on a global scale accumulate wealth."

So you are saying other people accumulating wealth is a "problem"?

"Unfortunately, in parts of the world the bicycle itself is viewed as a symbol of poverty."

Well, that would be because in other parts of the world it is a symbol of poverty. However, I admit from looking at your blog, to someone who owns a $1500 mountain bike, with the prosperity and leisure to enjoy it, this idea might be hard to grasp.

"Maybe I am a wishful thinker as well, but I would love to see the bicycle hold its position as the number one mode of transportation worldwide."

I know what you mean. Some of my friends are avid golfers. They think that everyone else should play golf, too.

"After all, it is by far the most efficient form of personal transportation ever developed."

Sure it is, in a very nearrowly defined way. Unless, of course, you're too old, too young, physically incapable, live in a place that has winter, you need to go more than ten miles, carry kids, groceries, or a sheet of plywood. Add in any of those factors, and your fetish for "efficiency" becomes irrelevant.

Then again, I pressume fleas are probably more "efficient" than dogs in some sense.

Even Las Vegas, which was basically designed to handle more cars than I could even begin to imagine, now has a monorail, and me and my wife found ourselves using it on our last visit because it was faster than getting a cab.

That's strange. The monorail runs behind a bunch of casinos (except the Hilton, which isn't on the Strip), so unless you were going from the back of one casino to another, I find it strange that it was faster than just grabbing a cab.

It's also pretty spendy - $5 per person per trip. A cab can cover the distance the monorail covers for less than $10.

Milton (sorry I used the wrong name in my first comment), like most words in the English language, popular has a variety of similar definitions. Webster’s 2nd definition is suited to the means of the majority. Frequently encountered or widely accepted is the third definition. You could say for instance that Toyota Camrys are more popular in the US than Ferraris. Does that mean that all Camry drivers would not trade for a Ferrari if there were no price difference? Of course not, it simply points to the prevalence of one vehicle over the other.

I never said the fact that incomes are rising worldwide is a problem. I was simply pointing to a byproduct of the problem. If you would rather drop the word “viewed” and say that bikes in China are a symbol of poverty, fine. China has a sharper division between rich and poor than the US or most of Europe, so things are a bit different there at this point in time. As the wealth base in China grows, the market for recreational bikes is emerging. I have seen recreational riders on expensive bikes in China on recent trips. The attitudes about bikes will shift as a larger middle class emerges, but the reality is that bikes will continue to shrink as a form of transportation in that country and worldwide. At the same time, gridlock in Chinese cities will continue to escalate as the rate of car ownership grows.

Several European countries like Holland and Denmark have high rates of transportational cycling despite their wealth. In densely populated areas, bicycles are a good solution for getting around. I never said that bicycles should replace all cars, but I do think that they can be a viable alternative for many. You also pointed out that I have the prosperity and leisure time to enjoy my bikes. You are right, I am lucky, but that does not discredit my opinion that cycling and walking are good forms of urban transportation for many people.

I don’t expect you to agree with me, but come on; how can you argue that I am out of touch with reality because I am not living in poverty? I would love to elaborate on why I think that argument is weak, but I need to go right now. My expensive mountain bike needs a little maintenance and my pet fleas could use a walk.

Give us a break, Milton. Your overly literal reading of the original post and subsequent comments does nothing to further the discussion.

The "problem" is that having 785 cars per 1000 people (US) is unsustainable. And now the rest of the world is creeping toward that same ratio. The question is how to reinforce the utility/sustainability of the bicycle?

And as to your response to the efficiency of a bicycle: what exactly do you mean by "too old" or "too young"? You should get out there on the bike paths and streets and see who is actually riding, and what they are carrying as they do it. There have been a lot of innovations in bicyling which make it pretty easy to tote a kid or two with you, carry groceries home from the store, even tow a canoe down to the river.

I read Milton's first post and basically agreed with his comments. Then I read James' post and realized that I also basically agreed with his comments. I saw no inherent contradiction in them, even though one could interpret them that way. Then I read Milton's second post and saw unneeded flaming. From my perspective, James did not provoke Milton in his reply. I did not see his comments as insulting and denegrating, contrary to Milton's second post. So I will take time to respond to Milton's second post.

'"Just" semantics? I read from the author's bio that he was an English major in college. Surely the specific meanings of different words must be significant to an English major? Although this might be a matter of complete indifference to you, I would think the fact that different words mean different things is the very essence of "just semantics".'
Main Entry: pop·u·lar
Pronunciation: 'pä-py&-l&r
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin popularis, from populus the people, a people
1 : of or relating to the general public
2 : suitable to the majority: as a : adapted to or indicative of the understanding and taste of the majority b : suited to the means of the majority : INEXPENSIVE
3 : frequently encountered or widely accepted
4 : commonly liked or approved
synonym see COMMON

Semantics: the study of language.

Milton, for one willing to give a grammar lesson to an English major and others, you should have done some research first. According to the dictionary, popular can mean the same as numerous. And you were indeed playing semantics with the words. I suggest that next time you don't have the arrogance to lecture an expert in grammar on grammar unless you know what you are talking about.

'By your logic, we are forced to conclude Fidel Castro must be a very "popular" political figure in Cuba, since he wins every election with a 100% margin.'

Again you play with semantics and attempt to 'teach' grammar with inappropriate examples. Cubans do not have a choice over Castro. Chinese can choose to walk rather than bike or go by donkey or take a rickshaw. Bikes are not free to anyone. They are an investment for Chinese which they have to seriously consider. The vast majority of people can not afford personal jet planes like Tom Cruise. By YOUR logic, we would all prefer planes to cars. I suggest you use coherent reasoning.

'So you are saying other people accumulating wealth is a "problem"?'
I think James' point was clear. The problem is dumping bikes for cars. Not that people become wealthier. Are you saying that it is impossible to be wealthier without owning a car?

'Well, that would be because in other parts of the world it is a symbol of poverty.'
I live in the West, in a relatively rich country and surrounded by family and friends from all over the rich world. I don't know of anyone that considers bike ownership a symbol of poverty. Or using one an act of poverty. Or advocating their use support for poverty. You seem to be the first one. More to the point, I am quite at a loss as to what you are getting at by this statement. How exactly does your statement contradict James'. What is the price of eggs in Paris?

'However, I admit from looking at your blog, to someone who owns a $1500 mountain bike, with the prosperity and leisure to enjoy it, this idea might be hard to grasp.'
You are right. Rich people are incapable of obtaining a decent education and understanding situations in other parts of the world. Again, how is meat produced in Argentina?

'I know what you mean. Some of my friends are avid golfers. They think that everyone else should play golf, too.'
Really. Nice to know. Do you have friends who are advocating solutions to the world's problems? Because golfers wishing there were more golfers does not sit on the same level as people who bike wanting others to bike. Just as the comparison to war criminals wanting more people to be war criminals should not be used to ridicule peace activists wishing that there would be more peace activists. But there it is. Another argument from left field.

'Sure it is, in a very nearrowly defined way. Unless, of course, you're too old, too young, physically incapable, live in a place that has winter, you need to go more than ten miles, carry kids, groceries, or a sheet of plywood. Add in any of those factors, and your fetish for "efficiency" becomes irrelevant.'
I see people using bikes all the time. And what a coincidince. Today I saw a small kid using a bike to get to the store. I saw an old man taking a leisurely ride. I saw a fat man doing a cross country ride. And even incapacitated people can ride specially modified bikes of one form or another. Unless of course they have severe incapacities, in which case it doesn't matter if it is a bike or a car, they can't drive either. Oh, I lived in Finland and biked in the snow. The bike paths are regularly cleared of snow. Oh, and I regularly travel more than ten miles on bike. If you are in good health, it is not a problem. Oh, and have you heard of kid chairs? They are used often in Europe - they are used to carry kids on the back of bikes. And shopping carts - they go on the front or back to carry stuff...oh, like groceries. And have you heard of bike trailers? I have one. It can handle 50kg of weight. Good enough to go to town and get a couple of small bags of cement. The bike remains the most efficient transport mode in the world, if not always the fastest or most comfortable. So your arguments against bike 'efficiency' are simply another misguided play of semantics on your part. And what of this dogs vs. fleas thing? Is that like Argentinian meat vs Paris eggs comparison thing?

Reciprocity, look it up.

Okay, this is getting a bit out of hand. Lets all move on to more constructive things please.