Most Influential Transportation?

[Cutlass]

The helmets and reflective clothing are new. In the first 100 years of the bicycle, they weren't an issue. The rest, you're comparing one off costs and occasional costs to daily costs.

I don't know what a horse cost 100 years ago. But today they are expensive. And bikes are very cheap compared to a month's feed and lodging of a horse.

 

[Silurian]

I'm well-aware of that. You do, however, have to fill the tyres with air, repair punctures, spend an absolute fortune on bandages for your stupid, uncoordinated children's knees, buy a helmet, reflective clothing if you're biking at night, etc.. Off the top of my head, I'd say horses cost more, but as I said, I'd like to see the numbers crunched, because I doubt bicycles win the fiscal race by nearly as much as you'd think at first glance.

Well the current cost of keeping a horse starts at about £20 per week.

http://www.equine-world.co.uk/buying_horses/cost_horse.asp


The cost of a bicycle is going to be in the region of £3 per week. Service, tyres and repairs.

http://www.halfords.com

The bicycle is also cheaper to buy than a horse.

I do not know the relative rates of inflation over the last hundred years but it seems probable that the relative costs would be similar.




The other problem is the minimum area of land required to keep a horse seems to be in the region of 3000m2 but you would have to give it more feed. So you cannot keep your horses in your terrace house. You have to walk to the land you where you keep your horse. You also have to leave the horse in a place where it has access to food and water when you go somewhere. So a horse is not really a practically means of transport for a person to travel from a terraced house to a factory ignoring the cost.

The bicycle is also faster than the horse.


So yes the bicycle is really just a cheap alternative to the horse but it was a horse that was affordable and useable by the working class.

 

[warpus]

I haven't thought about this too much, but my initial thought is to vote for the airplane.

Without it, it would take weeks to get to Europe from North America for example... The plane has really helped connect the world and make almost any corner of the planet easily and quickly accessible.

 

[Silurian]

Ocean liners have been crossing the Atlantic in less than a week for nearly 130 years.

People were still travelling to Australia by ship from Europe in the 1960s.

The airplane has certainly connected the world more quickly than fast ships.

 

[Agent327]

Two legs.

True though.

 

[timtofly]

Two legs may have been influential in a local setting, but the airplane has connected the globe into one setting. One can evil do mass distruction with one more than two legs ever could.

It may even be possible to fly one without two legs, not that we have come full circle though.

 

[Antilogic]

I consider the jump from effectively infinite travel time to a few weeks much more significant than the jump from a few weeks to a few hours. One is an enabler, the other is an incremental improvement.

 

[Mize]

The bicycle is also faster than the horse.

This is just plain wrong. Maybe the fastest biker with the fastest bike can outrun a horse for a while, but a bicycle still relies on human power, which we all know runs out a lot faster than HP. Anybody that's ridden a bike and, for example has been chased by dogs, knows that it really isn't that fast. You can actually outrun a bike on foot. But I'm digressing.

Boat.

It's a no-brainer. During recorded history, and even before that, boats have transported, and still do transport, most of... whatever there is to transport. I'm a little drunk, so I'm low on nouns. The word I'm probably searching for is 'goods'. See, there's a reason you call your package a 'shipment'. It's how it's done. By ship. For the better part of history.

Neither airplanes, nor trains built empires.* They just came to be in them. Ships did though. I'm in a history forum so I'll just spare myself the time of giving examples. Thalassocracy FTW.

* Horses might count for this one. Mongols and everything...

 

[say1988]

This is just plain wrong. Maybe the fastest biker with the fastest bike can outrun a horse for a while, but a bicycle still relies on human power, which we all know runs out a lot faster than HP.

In 1879 the cycling record (on road) over a 24 hour period was 22.75 km/h covering 546 km.
For horses, the Trevis Cup (a major endurance race) has a record averaging 18.2 km/h for 160 km, without counting the two 60 minute rest stops. By 2011 the cycling record was up to 871 km (averaging 36.3 km/h, twice the horse).

I am going with bicycles over the long distance. Horses would gain an advantage over more difficult terrain and the ability to carry more.

I would also note that while a bicycle uses human power, the gears greatly increase efficiency and multiply the ability of a person several times over.

 

[Princeps]

Walking obviously. Then comes sailing undoubtedly.

It really depends on where you want to go.

 

[Lord Baal]

Well the current cost of keeping a horse starts at about £20 per week.

http://www.equine-world.co.uk/buying_horses/cost_horse.asp


The cost of a bicycle is going to be in the region of £3 per week. Service, tyres and repairs.

http://www.halfords.com

The bicycle is also cheaper to buy than a horse.

I do not know the relative rates of inflation over the last hundred years but it seems probable that the relative costs would be similar.




The other problem is the minimum area of land required to keep a horse seems to be in the region of 3000m2 but you would have to give it more feed. So you cannot keep your horses in your terrace house. You have to walk to the land you where you keep your horse. You also have to leave the horse in a place where it has access to food and water when you go somewhere. So a horse is not really a practically means of transport for a person to travel from a terraced house to a factory ignoring the cost.

The bicycle is also faster than the horse.


So yes the bicycle is really just a cheap alternative to the horse but it was a horse that was affordable and useable by the working class.

The point is conceded.

Two legs may have been influential in a local setting, but the airplane has connected the globe into one setting. One can evil do mass distruction with one more than two legs ever could.

It may even be possible to fly one without two legs, not that we have come full circle though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Bader

 

[Agent327]

Two legs may have been influential in a local setting, but the airplane has connected the globe into one setting. One can evil do mass distruction with one more than two legs ever could.

It may even be possible to fly one without two legs, not that we have come full circle though.

You are missing the obvious point that without man walking on two legs, none of those magnificent inventions of mankind would have come about. (Monkeys still use sticks and stones.) So two legs stand.

 

[Mize]

In 1879 the cycling record (on road) over a 24 hour period was 22.75 km/h covering 546 km.
For horses, the Trevis Cup (a major endurance race) has a record averaging 18.2 km/h for 160 km, without counting the two 60 minute rest stops. By 2011 the cycling record was up to 871 km (averaging 36.3 km/h, twice the horse).

I am going with bicycles over the long distance. Horses would gain an advantage over more difficult terrain and the ability to carry more.

I would also note that while a bicycle uses human power, the gears greatly increase efficiency and multiply the ability of a person several times over.

Point conceded. Still, not all humans are professional cyclists, some can't even ride, whereas all horses are horses even if they don't run the Trevis Cup. And that's why I listed horses as an influential and, possibly, empire-building means of transportation.

Although the crusades on bikes would've been an interesting sight to see.

 

[Silurian]

Point conceded. Still, not all humans are professional cyclists, some can't even ride, whereas all horses are horses even if they don't run the Trevis Cup. And that's why I listed horses as an influential and, possibly, empire-building means of transportation.

Although the crusades on bikes would've been an interesting sight to see.

Very few horse are race horses. (and most bikes are not professional racing bicycles) Horses have mostly been used to carry or pull stuff.
AS Say1988 noted above Horses are better than bicycles if you need to go off road or carry stuff.

Horses have had an influence far longer than the bicycle but they were generally used by the rich for personal transport. Poor people walked.

Oxen were also widely used for draft animals. Other animals such as the donkey have also been used as pack animals and to a lesser extent for personal transport.

I would agree that the horse is influential because of its use in warfare and the building empires. The bicycle influenced the social changes in the first half of the last century.

Bicycle mounted troops were used in WW1 and WW2. The Japanese used bicycles to transport their infantry quickly towards Singapore.

The ship (and boat) has had greatest influence over the course of human history.

 

[timtofly]

You are missing the obvious point that without man walking on two legs, none of those magnificent inventions of mankind would have come about. (Monkeys still use sticks and stones.) So two legs stand.

Or they came about despite man having two legs.

 

[MajKira]

technical vessels, which involves using animals too I prefer taking important
in former times
horses on land/boats on sea
later times
auto on land or bycycle, air plane, ships sea, submarines under water or trains on land

Horses takes you further in a certain time than by feet and boats were used in Ocean regions like pacific to come across the isles by Polynesians or assumed Atlantians using ships to cross the Atlantic, in deserts camels were used and also important

So be largest impact I assume horse on land and boats on sea to take you farther in a given time than foot

the most lengthy time since humans start to develop whether with help of extraterrestrials or not also being vexed and to carry goods,tools,equipment also

 

[Silurian]

Coastal and riverine shipping was faster than the horse for the transport of goods. Until the introduction of mail/ stage coaches, ships were also quicker for passenger transport between points near the coast.

 

[Agent327]

Or they came about despite man having two legs.

Again, it´s not about having two legs (all birds do, but they haven´t invented anything yet), it´s about standing on two legs. Meaning not having trees as primary habitat, but walking around freely; in association with changes in brain size, this gave man the possibility from being hunted to becoming top predator on this planet. Whichever way you look at that, it was a throroughly revolutionary step in human evolution. Had we still be living gathering and scavinging around trees, it´s hard to imagine any technological invention occurring beyond the use of sticks and stones (which isn´t even an invention really, more of an adaptation), such as our closest of kin still employ.

 

[Plotinus]

Well the current cost of keeping a horse starts at about £20 per week.

http://www.equine-world.co.uk/buying_horses/cost_horse.asp

Of course, that assumes you live near a livery yard, which I suspect most of us don't. For most people keeping a horse is almost impossible from a practical point of view, never mind the cost. You certainly couldn't leave a horse chained to the hallway bannister like my wife does with her bike.

Now of course in, say, the nineteenth century, facilities for stabling horses were surely far more widespread and readily available in urban environments. Nevertheless, I'm sure that for most ordinary working people the notion of keeping their own horse at home to be able to ride off on whenever they wanted would have been impossible. The bicycle really did make individual instant travel much easier for ordinary people who otherwise would have had to rely on trains, omnibuses, and hired carriages.

However, I'd say that its effect on society was probably smaller than that of the car, because the bicycle held this position for only a relatively short period before being eclipsed by the car as most people's major desirable private vehicle.

 

[Cutlass]

The practical limit of how far you can go in a short period of time, and what you can carry with you, is much smaller with a horse or bike than with a car. And doing so in bad weather is at best unpleasant, and potentially dangerous. So both mattered less in changing the way people lived than the car or train.