One of the tricky tensions when writing transportation alternatives or food subsidies or transit is that, in this country, they've been recast as lifestyle issues.

This is not a mystery. The liberals that embrace these changes have engaged in "smug" to promote them since, until now, there was no real economic reason for doing so.

Also, constantly comparing our culture with Europe's is misleading as if all other variables of culture, infrastuture, etc were held to a constant.

One of the tricky tensions when writing transportation alternatives or food subsidies or transit is that, in this country, they've been recast as lifestyle issues.

This is not a mystery. The liberals that embrace these changes have engaged in "smug" to promote them since, until now, there was no real economic reason for doing so.

Also, constantly comparing our culture with Europe's is misleading as if all other variables of culture, infrastuture, etc were held to a constant.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree with El V - you talk about "lifestyle and infrastructure differences" as if that somehow just happened and just needed to be reversed... but we got here for a variety of reasons and I'm not sure there are just "simple changes" to undo that. We created a car culture for a variety of reasons, but the reality of it is that we are far more far-flung than many European metropolitan areas (really only northeastern cities tend to follow that model), and many who would like to switch to biking for either health or economic reasons (or both) really can't, for practical ones, like distance, or effort required. It' why my own bias tends to be towards more robust (and bike friendly)public transportation options, because they can allow cyclists to move the bike to a more convenient point for riding. Second, and this is really where I agree with El V, this all tends to get presented as a moral/judgment issue - you're not cycling, which makes you fat/ lazy/ unconcerned about our natural resources etc. And, as always, you don't win people to your side by insulting them. Where I am, it's simply impractical for me to bike to work, though I would love to do more cycling. That dilemma - that a bike really has no practical application really does keep me from moving forward.

Cycling has been my primary transport for about forty years, mostly in Colorado. I've been in four accidents involving cars; two were my fault, the other two were the drivers. I've observed a couple of factors that make riding unsafe.
First off, too many cyclists don't follow traffic laws. We must learn to ride more preditably than the average driver. It really helps. Then there is the hostility. Last week I saw a driver make an illegal, unsignalled turn in front of a cyclist on her way to work. She went down and bloodied up her leg her leg. The driver went into the all too familiar that is what you get for being on my road routine. The you got what you deserved defense. Pulling out my phone and reciting his license plate and the local police department numbers back to him helped calm the situation.
And yes, cars are coffins, many drivers are fat and lazy; cyclists are often smug fitness freaks. So what? Neither group is going away. Follow the law, respect each others rights.

I should also note that it has always appeared to be a cultural thing for those who bike, also. Back in the suburbs, most of the people that I asked about why they biked said it was to "help the environment." That's a social choice, too. In this city there is a lot more biking out of neccessity, but I also see biking clubs, a whole social group devoted to biking places and talking about biking. I don't think either culture is very accessible to the average non-biking american.

It's probably worth noting that the Netherlands are also flatter than a- nevermind.

It might be too expensive but maybe what we need are bike lanes and bike overpasses so that the bikes do not need to interfere with traffic at busy intersections.

This of course means that cycling ends up concentrated among the young, who tend to take more risks and feel more physically capable, and males, who tend to take even more risks and feel even more physically capable.

There's a genuine negative feedback loop here. When drivers get a chip on their shoulder about cyclists and treat them as weird, crazy, emasculating -- as ever, El Vag shows up to prove himself a worthy stereotype of the sociopathic wingnut -- then you do get a cycling culture that's built around delivering a fuck-you to drivers.

weboy: you're glossing over the fact that the moral/judgemental stuff cuts both ways. I don't know if you've spent much time in the south, but here you have drivers who not only pass judgement on cyclists, but take their presence on the road as a personal affront.

One ironic thought: compared to other countries, lots of bikers in the US (of the Honda and Harley variety) wear jeans and t-shirts and pudding-bowl helmets rather than leathers and boots, and that normalises the culture to some extent, even as it raises the risk of injury.

If the image of cycling in the US switched from spandex to civilian dress (yeah, I know it chafes) then it might change the perception. But people aren't going to ride on American roads without helmets unless they have a death wish.

Fnor: it might help, too, if you could buy bogstandard Dutch-style clattering road bikes for $100.

This is going to sound bad, but I think part of the reason this has become a cultural issue is because some of the advocates of biking have made it a cultural issue.

I mean it's simply untrue that ONLY well-off people ride bikes. There are at least some people in this country who bike simply because biking is the cheapest form of transport. A new, cheap bike (or a used good one) only costs a few hundred dollars -- less than Metro fare for a full year. I live in a neighborhood with a lot of lower-middle income African Americans and recent Hispanic immigrants, and you see bikes everywhere. This is not the "arugala set."

But you wouldn't know it based on institutions that build "bike culture" like bike shops and forums. My local bike shop does not sell ANY bike under $1000. Their labor costs are close to those of car mechanics. If you do happen to bring in one of those $200 bikes, you will definitely get a lecture (and often a sales pitch).

Similarly, there are tons of forums and internet resources for bikes. But try to go to and ask a question about the $200 Schwinn you bought from Target and watch the response. It's overwhelmingly negative, and often pretty hostile. The recommended method of buying an affordable bike is to obsessively check Craigslist or haunt pawnshop doors until you luck out -- not exactly an attitude that's going to make the hobby all that populist.

On top of that, organized cycling events like Critical Mass very often take on a hostile "culture war" tone. I want to be really careful here, because I know that the organizers of these events are often very nice and well-meaning people who are genuinely interested in promoting biking as a viable mode of transportation. But these events often also seem to attract the "Another Car Off the Streets" crowd -- people who deliberately interfere with traffic (even more than CM does generally), yell things at drivers, and sometimes kick cars and things. Stuff like that is never going to convince people to leave their cars at home.

I think biking can, and really should, be a viable form of transportation for more people. But it's really going to take some big cultural changes on both sides.

A couple of data points:

In Tegucigalpa Honduras (i lived in Honduras)there is little cycling while in San Pedro Sula Honduras there is a lot more. Topography is the reason. Denmark and the Netherlands are flat.

Here in Florida it is flat but very hot and humid much of the year. Where I live here in Gainesville FL there are bike lanes and paths all over but we are too spread out and it is too hot and humid.

Geez, I don't know where that close link tag went, sorry...

'Interfere'? Judgemental much, Flocky?

You argue that older people don't ride in the US because it is unsafe to do so, and adduce the fatality figures as proof. It's just as likely that the fatality figures are higher in the US because only risk-taking younger people ride. Imagine that in country A, only 18-25 year olds drive cars, while in country B, all adults drive cars. Which country would have more traffic accidents?

Sure, it's flat over there, but the weather is terrible!

It took 40 years of incremental improvements for Copenhagen to get where it is:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/07/02/contented-streets-why-copenhagen-is-the-worlds-happiest-capital/

Let's hope a combination of high gas prices and an Obama administration can speed this up! A billion dollar for bikes would go a long, long way.

Flatness helps. In DC, I bike a lot less than I would otherwise because the hills make it more of a burden than I care for. On the other hand, if flatness were the biggest issue, then Kansans would be bigtime bikers.

Absent a wide consensus on biking (or anything), it becomes a cultural issue because it has to be one. Politicians don't listen to a few polite people expressing what they'd like. They listen to organized groups that have power. Improved biking infrastructure was only going to come from having people get together to demand it: and that happened to be the people with the time and inclination for it, who all happened to share the same cultural background. This will change, however, as the infrastructure comes into place and biking becomes more popular across demographics.

Also, a lot of us aren't biking for economic reasons, it's a matter of convenience: walking more than a mile or two takes too long, parking might not be available, and a place might be poorly served by public transportation. Biking thus becomes the obvious solution... at least it was for me in the situations when I used to bicycle daily.

NS: I've been into those bike shops. Things like the Recyclery set a different tone, but as someone who commuted and toured on the same cheap second-hand Peugeot road bike, I'm annoyed by the $500 fixie brigade.

Still, I'm not convinced by the 'but America is big/hot/has hills' argument: when you have a culture war, the explanation is usually cultural, and when you have marginalisation, a typical response is to recreate the culture with 'marginal' rather than mass characteristics.

As much as I would love to see a more robust bike culture in the U.S., it's true that we just don't have the same advantages that the Netherlands has: flat, concentrated, and with an excellent network of bike trails developed over decades. Old people do ride bikes there, but they are heavy "granny" bikes with fenders, mud guards, and big baskets - ideal for a shopping trip to the village center (often in the drizzle), but impractical for hilly or distance riding.

I wonder if mopeds or electic bikes might have a more practical application in the U.S.? Huge Harley hogs have no appeal to me whatsoever, and I doubt they save much energy. But a petite motorized scooter could get you to a lot of places with a pretty low carbon footprint.

wonder if mopeds or electic bikes might have a more practical application

I am hoping for a tech (electrinic) breakthrough that will make scooters as safe as cars. I like the BMW c1 200 but it was far from perfect. The Paggio MP3 HyS is also very interesting. They do not need to be electric yet they are very low petrol users already.

Expanding on my early flatness comments, I sat down and thought about why riding a bike might, or might not, make sense for me. I came up with the following problems that would have to be solved before it would become a practical option:

1) Work is more than 10 miles.
-That's not a short ride. Also, on occasion I need to be across town in a hurry.

2) It's hot where I live.
-I have to wear a suit to work, and there are no showers there, so I can't ride a bike if it means showing up soaked in sweat.

3) I have to carry stuff to and from work.
-Lots of stuff. Enough to threaten the stability of my bike.

4) There are not safe areas between where I live and where I work.
-No way am I riding through some of these areas after dark.

Yes, the Netherlands are flat.

But so are large portions of the United States. New York City is about as ideal a city, elevation-wise, as you're likely to get in the world. L.A. is even better, except for out around the fringes. Chicago is great. Minneapolis/St. Paul, of course, as well. And yet "the Netherlands are flat" seems to be trotted out as if that explains why they bike everywhere and we don't.

These are just excuses. Other places have hills and bad weather and still manage to be good biking cities. Because people/government puts the effort into making them nice places to bike. That's really just about all that it takes.

North, plenty of people live fewer than 10 miles from work, it's getting to the point where it is expected that a workplace has a shower, electronic bikes require less physical effort (thus take less time and result in less sweat), and few people bring lots of stuff to and from work. No one is judging you for why you don't bike to work, but plenty of people don't face the same constraints you do, and the issue isn't simply about biking to work, it's about using a bicycle to go about one's daily business.

I don't mind taking a 30 minute walk to get someplace I want to go on a Saturday afternoong, but that distance is a good example of a distance plenty of people will opt to drive but could be easily replaced with biking, if biking were more accessible.

Also, the Netherlands has crappy, crappy weather. It's cold and wet and overcast almost all the time. Yet, they love to bike.

Very true, Tyro.

I guess what I was trying to do with my post was point out the reasons I don't bike, in hopes of demonstrating the hurdles we'd have to cross to get this up and running.

I'd wager that almost anyone you talk to would list some of the reasons I did. If we want people to bike, we *MUST* address these concerns.

Telling them "well, they do it in europe" is kinda like the old "when I was your age, we had to walk to school in two feet of snow, up hill, both ways."

Not only does fail to address their concerns, it belittles the person (I realize you're not doing this, much love

Bugger, I think my heart-smilely cut off the rest of my post! Damn you web-coding!

"I am hoping for a tech (electrinic) breakthrough that will make scooters as safe as cars."

you mean you're waiting for relatively low-speed scooters to somehow become even MORE deadly?

North:
Your issues seem to be completely unique. I'm sure that perusing the websites of the League of American Cyclists, Practical Pedal magazine, or any of the multitude of bike-commuter-oriented newsletters and magazines would be completely worthless for you, since no bike commuters could possibly have had to deal with these issues, ever.

not to toot my own horn, but i've been volunteering in an ER a lot over the last few months. i also happen to be a bike-only commuter. while i understand from a theoretical standpoint how our cultural emphasis on cars causes a great deal of death and destruction, it's still really stunning to see how roughly half of all the traumas that come through there are in some way vehicle related.

Bikes here are pretty necessary. We have a 180% tax on cars so our Yaris for example costs over 40.000$. Which means most families have only one car. It's pretty much the norm that whichever parent has the furthest to their job takes the family car and the other parent and the kids bikes to school and work if it's a relatively short distance or uses public transportation if it's a more bike prohibitive distance. In my grade- and high school days everyone biked and we even had a short biking safety course in the fifth grade with a road test conducted by the local police.

OT, for Floccina--when did you live in Teguc? I was there for a few years in the early seventies, and I received my degree from UF in Gainesville in '81. Small world. :-)

Most of the people that think cycling is a cultural issue appear to live in a selected few coastal metropolitan centers. Cycling is just not viable for the vast majority of Americans. I live in Texas and ride extensively myself, but never to work.
No one in their right mind would wear dress clothes on a bike in 90 - 100 degree weather. That accounts for 5-6 months of the year. The alternative is 3 months of winter when cycling also is not viable. Furthermore, very few people live closer than 10 miles to their job. I have 54 people that work for me and only 3 live closer than 10 miles. Cycling is just not viable here.
Unless you live in a tight knit metropolitan center, cycling is not a viable option and pretending that the majority of the US is a tight knit urban center doesn't make much sense.

dominick, as the majority of the population lives within a major metropolitan area rather than a spread-out, rural region with only the wal-mart to shop in, cycling is pretty viable for most people.

I grew up in what was your typical residential suburb: no sidewalks, and it was an entity with no commercial/retail at all. However, within a 2 mile radius (and even within half a mile, over the town line), there were plenty of nearby amenities. For various reasons, everyone's first instinct was to drive to these places, but if you thought about it for a few minutes, it made perfect sense to bike... though some of the streets were too busy, and bikelanes were unheard of at the time.

Maybe my suburban childhood experience was different: maybe most people in the USA really DO live in an area where there are no nearby commercial, retail, or recreational amenites that are used within a 10 mile radius. However, I find this possibility rather difficult to believe.

the problem in America is that, compared to other countries, cycling is incredibly unsafe, and we have little infrastructure dedicated to supporting it:

6 out of 100 million km is twice as much as three out of a hundred million km, but it is still *a very small number*. Of all the things we could be spending money on to improve transportation and/or reduce people dying in this country, increasing spending on accommodating bicycles would be toward the bottom of a very long list.

We are talking less than 750 people per year. This is the rounding error when citing auto death statistics. Or homicides. Or suicides. Or heart attacks. Or cancer. etc.

Also, the Netherlands has crappy, crappy weather. It's cold and wet and overcast almost all the time. Yet, they love to bike.

I'd gladly trade Boston's wet and cold winters for Amsterdam's much more temperate variety. And the coolness of the Dutch summer might not be optimal for going to the beach, but it's better for biking than the humid heat we frequently get.

Seriously:

the benefit per dollar spent on cycling infrastructure, despite the fact that not very many people die from it, is a good deal larger than, say, the construction of new highways or even light rail. highways and light rail do not reduce the prevalence of cancer or heart disease (go to pubmed.org and search for "bicycling public health" and browse the journal articles on the subject. seriously.). and while yes, there are few deaths from bicycle accidents each year, that shouldnt prevent us from further encouraging this mode of transportation - there are other risks than blunt vehicle trauma that we are trying to avoid by promoting cycling.

I'd have to disagree that the issues I'd have personally are anywhere close to unique.

Is it unusual to have to where nice close to work? Not really.

Is it unusual to not have showers at work? Most don't.

Is it unusual to have a commute that's more than 15 minutes even when driving? Not at all.

Is it unusual to have to carry so much stuff that it would be impractical to use a bike? Well, maybe. I'll give you this one.

Is it unusual to live in an area where biking is not so safe, especially after dark? Hardly. Most large cities, where biking would otherwise be more viable, have this problem in areas.

Let me clear, I'd love it biking were more viable, and we should be working toward making it so. We're not going to get there, however, by ignoring practical concerns.

All the anti-bike people here have very short-sighted sense of what it would take to make more Americans ride bikes.

It isn't about getting a lawyer who works lives in a Houston exurb to bike to the city wearing an expensive Italian suit in mid-July.

(And, Dominick, buddy, this may be hard to believe, but the fifty people you work with at your particular company are not a random cross-section of all Americans.)

It's about first creating the infrastructure for the people live close enough to work and in appropriate climes (which is a larger number of Americans than most people here concede, but does not include, I will admit, Texan exurbans). And it's about developing and redeveloping urban areas so that commercial and residential areas are more mixed and closer together.

I think the ideal goal is not an America that looks like 1970/80s-era China where the streets are filled with flocks of bikes, but rather a place where a respectable number of people (but realistically, probably never more than 10% of the population) bike to work and an even larger number of people (again, never a majority) use bikes to run everyday errands and on the weekend rather than using cars or buses, and that there would be a far greater number of bike lanes, bike paths, and bike racks throughout the developed landscape.

Have any medium to big cities in America even considered having a look at this project?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9lo%27v

seriously. it started in Lyon, now it's spread all around France, Spain, etc. It is absolutely amazing. Tie it in with a major overhaul of public transportation system and bam. And yeah, it may sound impossible, but ask anyone how Lyon used to be 20 years ago. Cars all over down town, no pedestrian areas, not very pleasant. Instead of investing in ways to make traffic flow easier in high density areas we should be making it the biggest pain in the ass ever to drive in a relatively large city. Do that and invest in public transportation. Then people will change.

North:

heard of sarcasm?

of course your issues are not unique. and yet, people all over the place find ways around them. instead of complaining about how bicycling simply doesnt work for you, why not spend a couple hours researching how other bike commuters avoid these pitfalls you speak of. they are quite common, and thus, there are a multitude of ways that people deal with them.

if you're not just blowing smoke, that is.

Posted by: Floccina | July 16, 2008 9:39 AM

It might be too expensive but maybe what we need are bike lanes and bike overpasses so that the bikes do not need to interfere with traffic at busy intersections.

Bikes are interfering with themselves at busy intersections? Given that bikes are included in the general term "traffic".

Well, often we are. A lot of American cyclists have no clue that, for example, they have not only the right but given the habits and experiences of most drivers, the responsibility to occupy the right lane when preparing to move to the left turn lane at an intersection.

Actually, given that a majority of American cyclists are not trained to ride in traffic, and large numbers are in the age groups that the age groups that contribute a disproportionate share of auto fatalities, clearly the US could bring fatalities per 100km down substantially without any additional investment in infrastructure at all, simply by establishing and subsidizing training courses in riding safely in traffic.

Posted by: North | July 16, 2008 12:22 PM

Is it unusual to have to where nice close (sic) to work? Not really.

Fairly unusual. Its more common to have to wear nice clothes at work than to have to wear nice clothes to work. That's why garment bag panniers were invented. And very few workplaces that require nice clothes are absent toilet stalls where clothes can be changed and wipes used to freshen up.

Bruce, I think your point is well-intentioned, and while better bike training is great and I'm all for it, that's not what's going to change this statistic significantly.

The main reason bikes are deadly is because cars are heavy and armored, bikes and bike riders are light and fragile, when the two collide at any significant speed, the results can be devastating to the bike rider.

Too many people on this thread are preoccupied with either blaming bike riders for with what's wrong with bikes as transportation or making excuses for why they themselves don't bike. They're too focused on individual decisions and ignoring how higher-level infrastructure and planning decisions are what pro-bike advocates really care about.

It's not about whether you have to wear spandex to work or if some death-defying bike messenger once cut you off in traffic. That's the point Ezra is trying to get to here: too many people see bikes as some sort of fashion statement and that kind of thinking doesn't really do the issue justice.

This reminds me of discussions I have had with Brits about why noone walks in Houston and how great they are for walking so much. The fact is that most of the places in Europe used as comparison points are much more mild (generally) than the US in terms of weather and topography. Houston is pretty flat, but it's hotter than hell most of the year. If everyone started biking tomorrow, the fatalities would come from heat stroke, not cars. Bikes are dangerous to ride until everyone else is on one too. And they suck in the rain. The last thing I want to do every day is show up to work sweaty with helmet head, sorry. Guess I'm a lazy moron.

JAB, it may surprise you, but lots of people don't live in Houston.

In fact, many of us having this very discussion right now are talking about why in our own neighborhoods it would make more sense to promote more bicycle riding. Why are we getting so many people chiming in with, "well, *I* live in a desert area where I need to commute 50 miles to work each way and need to arrive fresh in my Prada suit, so I could not possibly use a bicycle." Really, who cares? I'm not asking you to. Just please be quiet while the rest of us try to get our own cities and communities more bicycle friendly. And for the Houstonians who want some bike lanes, help them out.

Here's my particular whine. It would take three buses for me to bus to work, so instead I bike/bus/bike, and get there 20 minutes faster.

Most days.

But increasingly, when I get to the bus stop, the bus already has three bikes on the bike rack, and I have to wait for the next bus, 20 minutes later. Wah.

Someone up thread said:
my own bias tends to be towards more robust (and bike friendly)public transportation options, because they can allow cyclists to move the bike to a more convenient point for riding.

Me too. Now figure out how to get more than 3 bikes on each bus.

Posted by: Philly | July 16, 2008 12:50 PM

The main reason bikes are deadly is because cars are heavy and armored, bikes and bike riders are light and fragile, when the two collide at any significant speed, the results can be devastating to the bike rider.

Except that argument gives no basis for determining whether the major risk factor is the speed or the crossing of paths. If the greatest risk factor is the crossing of paths, then the subsidy for the establishment of through cycle lanes to the right of turning motor traffic lanes is a recipe for increasing cycle fatalities, rather than a recipe for reducing them.

And, indeed, given that riding the wrong way on the sidewalk has so much greater risk of fatality than riding the correct direction in the public right of way, it would seem that crossing of paths where the motorist is not looking is a significant risk factor ... given that a healthy caution of the motor traffic in the road tends to deter motorists from backing out of their driveways at 30mph-50mph.

Forrester argues (section 1.2.1)

The first view is named vehicular cycling. The vehicular cyclist operates according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, just as do all other vehicle drivers. Vehicular cycling is that specified by the traffic laws (with minor exceptions that should not be present). Because vehicular cyclists operate in the same way as other drivers, conflicts are minimized, and therefore also collisions are minimized.

Vehicular cycling is required by the traffic laws. The traffic laws require vehicular operation because enacting different movements for cyclists and motorists causes collisions. This is so obvious that such efforts get regularly invalidated. The exception is when cyclists are outright prohibited from doing something that motorists are allowed to do, which is the extent of the differences allowed.

The cycling populations whose members are most likely to operate in the vehicular manner have accident rates only 20%-25% as large as those of the general cycling public.

Vehicular cycling is as easy to learn as driving a car; after all, the traffic skills are the same. This does not mean that only persons over sixteen can learn vehicular cycling. We restrict the privilege of motoring to licensed persons because of the excessive speed and public danger so easily produced with a motor vehicle. Because bicycles present very little public danger, we allow unlicensed persons of all ages to use them, with the result that children of age eight, with proper training, demonstrate the ability to drive a bicycle in the vehicular manner.

His argument is backed up by accident statistics breaking down cycling fatalities by the type of accident that occurred.

It only took one look at the risk factor for riding on the sidewalk to get me to swear off sidewalk riding whenever it could be avoided, despite the fact that its legal in this particular city in NE Ohio.

Posted by: rageahol | July 16, 2008 12:12 PM

the benefit per dollar spent on cycling infrastructure ... is a good deal larger than, say, the construction of new highways or even light rail.

But the devil is in the details.

If the cycling infrastructure in question is recreational hike and bike paths, that is not a transport issue, its a recreational issue, and yes, the payoff should be substantial.

If the cycling infrastructure in question is intended to support transport cycling, its important that it is not just bike lanes painted to the outside of existing traffic lanes ... those may encourage some additional cycling in the short term, but since they encourage unsafe curb-hugging riding and encourage the attitude among motorists that there is no reason to share the road, they can easily contribute to an increase in cycling fatalities, which is not a good way to encourage cycling in the long term.

Part of the issue is that the best places in the US to bicycle are high-density cities that young people tend to live in. These cities tend to be liberal and have decent public transit, if not great public transit. When you live in one of those cities, you'd be much more likely to bike, use public transit, and then rent a car whenever you need one.

As to the cultural issues, wouldn't it follow that--given that these bicycle-friendly cities and towns are mostly on the liberal side of the ledger--bicycling is associated with liberals, when in fact it's just a better form of transit?

It's not about whether you have to wear spandex to work or if some death-defying bike messenger once cut you off in traffic. That's the point Ezra is trying to get to here: too many people see bikes as some sort of fashion statement and that kind of thinking doesn't really do the issue justice.

But that creates a chicken-and-egg situation. While the perception of cycling in adulthood remains 'something weirdos do', it'll be harder to push for the social benefits of improved infrastructure. If people saw the classic Dutch mother-kid-bike combo more often -- and got over the cultural proclivity to want those mothers arrested -- they might be more amenable to supporting projects that enable more mother-kid cycling.

On that note, I found an interesting editorial, arguing that helmet laws are bad for promoting cycling:

For one thing, helmet use symbolically puts the burden of safety on the shoulders, or rather the head, of the cyclist. While this fits right in with the American ethos of individual responsibility, it's not realistic: It's primarily the conduct of others, particularly the drivers of automobiles and trucks, that ultimately determines a bicyclist's safety.

Posted by: sherrold | July 16, 2008 2:40 PM

But increasingly, when I get to the bus stop, the bus already has three bikes on the bike rack, and I have to wait for the next bus, 20 minutes later.

When I started cycle commuting, in Newcastle Australia, I used a Dahon folder ... so I could cycle in and bus home, or if it was late at night take a cab home (it easily fit into the trunk, even for the natural gas powered cabs with a big gas cylinder in the trunk). If I was cycle-bus-cycle commuting here, I would get a 6-speed folder.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 3:09 PM

On that note, I found an interesting editorial, arguing that helmet laws are bad for promoting cycling:

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 3:09 PM

Forrester's argument is that, based on accident statistics (and this being the United States, they do take down the details of the accident when there is a fatality), roughly half of accidents are caused by cyclists, and another 25% to 30% are accidents with the driver at fault that can be prevented by engaging in safe cycling with traffic instead of unsafe curb hugging cycling.

Now, for that remaining 20% to 25% risk factor ... between making a symbolic point and adopting the three pieces of safety equipment that most reduces the risk of getting killed or seriously ... a helmet, a front light, and a rear light ... I'm going with the equipment, thank you very much.

Posted by: greencowboy | July 16, 2008 2:57 PM

Part of the issue is that the best places in the US to bicycle are high-density cities that young people tend to live in.

Heck, no, the best places to cycle are old towns and small cities that have had exurbia grow up around them, so that they have a supermarket and a range of other amenities in (or at the edge) of town.

Come to think of it, with a bit of a boost from zoning easements for multiple use residential / commercial / professional space in the quarter mile around stops on newly establish transport corridors, it would be possible to substantially increase the share of suburban housing in cycling distance of a useful place to go.

That was me at 3:09.

I'm going with the equipment, thank you very much.

And the editorial writer agrees, but there's something to be said about his argument that bike helmets communicate risk. If Harley owners had to wear full-head helmets -- as required in the UK, for instance -- rather than pudding bowls, it would change the perception of hog-riders.

You're right, though, about small towns and older suburbs being great for cycling: I once had a ten-mile roundtrip commute that was almost entirely on bike paths or quiet residential streets.

Posted by: Philly | July 16, 2008 12:50 PM

Too many people on this thread are preoccupied with either blaming bike riders for with what's wrong with bikes as transportation or making excuses for why they themselves don't bike. They're too focused on individual decisions and ignoring how higher-level infrastructure and planning decisions are what pro-bike advocates really care about.

I will note that higher level infrastructure and planning decisions are exactly where my focus is at ... wasting resources on danger-amplifying infrastructure like the majority of cycle lanes that could be used to eliminate the majority of the risk of fatality by training cyclists to ride effectively in traffic is one example ... including zoning easements within a half mile of major stops and a quarter mile of all stops on a dedicated transport corridor to create a wide band through a suburb where cycling is an effective transport option for some local trips is another example.

Actually useful bikeways that provide well-graded, well-separated transport route is a third example ... and there are much greater opportunities to invest in the useful bikeways if money is not spent on danger-amplifying infrastructure like the majority of on-road bike lanes.

The main reason bikes are deadly...

Right, but according to the statistics, this is absolutely *not* the case.

Six deaths per 100M km cycled? Dangerous? You're kidding right?

Posted by: ibc | July 16, 2008 5:19 PM

The main reason bikes are deadly...

Right, but according to the statistics, this is absolutely *not* the case.

Six deaths per 100M km cycled? Dangerous? You're kidding right?

If Forrester is right, that implies a rate of around 1.5 deaths per 100M km cycled by people trained in effective cycling techniques ... equivalent to Sweden, better than France, Germany, the UK or Italy.

"incredibly dangerous.."

ick.. 6 per 100 MILLION km cycled is incredibly dangerous? Do you have your bathtub in some kind of containment forcefield to protect yourself?

Comparatively more dangerous then european countries yes.. yet we are less then 50% higher on this then countries who do use it as regular transport, have high cultural acceptance of it, and greater infrastructure for it. Not bad, especially for the notoriously free-wheeling american culture.

You know if this was a healthcare debate, or a tax debate, or any other kind it would be souted that these are apples to oranges comparisons about bicycle atitudes and safety records.

We have a car based culture, one that has been nurtured since the 40's. Nearly ALL our roads and cities are designed and built with the common assumption of cars as the major mode of transportation.

This is not the case in Europe.. many of the roads in cities and towns are simply too small for cars by our standards. MANY areas are pedestrian only, and/or bike only.

These people live closer together then we do, this includes all the amenities, and their perceived need for them. When in Germany I walked from town to town, and was considered somewhat insane by my freinds for walking this 'great distance' when it was actually only about 4 miles.

These people dont eat at drive-throughs.. they just dont. They frequent smaller stores more often, and buy quantities that can be carried on bikes more often. Costco is nearly inconceivable to many of them.

The people who bike and walk stay out of the way of cars. They know precisely where they should and should not be, and they stay there. Cars WILL hit you if you vary from that. This is not the case.. bikes will often be where they should not be, and cars will most often try to avoid you even then.

Our cultural understanding of time is different. 'time is money' et al. All the people that drive 75 instead of 65 to get there 5 minutes faster even if it is more dangerous dont want to move to an even slower mode of transport. we are an incredibly stressed, long working, and sleep deprived society. The am latte after 4 hours sleep and packing the kids' lunch before a 12 hour shift is not going to happen with a bike involved.

I rode a bike for around 5 years as my sole transportation. I avoided accidents by avoiding cars.. it works, even when the cars are swerving on icy roads and the bikelane markers are obscured, it works. (Im from alaska)

All this about driving like a car is crap, and DOES get people killed. Yes it makes the people with their spandex wardrobes feel important so they can puff up and tell the car drivers to go to hell.. but when it comes to broken bones, the car is always right no matter what the law says.

..and the statistics say its safer. Well how is that normalized for the number of idiots out there? How does it normalize for bicycle couriers zipping in and out of traffic? How does it normalize for the militant bike riders? They dont. IF everything were based on the numbers none of us should get out of bed, take a bath, or drive to work, but we do.

david b,

You make some interesting points, but it does sound like your experience in AK is different from my experience in the east coast megalopolis. Here, "driving like a car" as you put it, *is* driving in a predictable manner. And it's the hiding from cars (i.e. riding on the sidewalk, skulking in the gutter, etc...) that will get you killed.

The other benefit of riding in the city is that drivers are *more* respectful of cyclists. Sounds counter-intuitive, I know, but let me explain:

In a city like NYC or DC, a car that cuts you off, or throws something at you, or whatever is going to make it about a block or two before you catch up with them.

So, for your general cowardly bully, there are repercussions to your actions that you don't have when you speed by someone on a highway.

The dirty secret is that in *most* car/cyclist confrontations, it's *not* the cyclist who comes out the loser.

But the high-profile cases are the ones where the cyclist has been intentionally or unintentionally run down. And that's rare.

ragehol
You wish (for the DC govt, for instance) to spend more money on upwardly mobile 20 and 30 year olds, to (potentially) save 2 a year (the apparent rate of bike deaths in DC).

I rather them spend money to make public transportation better, that would benefit the upwardly mobile 20 and 30 year olds - and the elderly, and the poor, and the handicapped, and everybody else, and the environment. For that matter I'd rather them spend the money to take the lead out of the water and paint in the schools. And children's health care in general.

Oh an ditto on more than two or three bike spots on the racks on buses, i've been stuck waiting in the last half a dozen times i've biked/bussed to work.

rage-
let me also make a clarification. I have no problem adding bike lanes to new road projects, or when existing ones require extensive repairs/upgrades.

What I am against, is the impression that I get from Klein and Yglesias, that we should immediately and with priority retrofit existing transportation (i.e. street) infrastructure. This is a waste of money. And they are clearly wrong when they call bicycling 'dangerous' when it is clearly not statistically. Such mathematical shenanigans are insufferable when the hackish right makes them on the economy and the environment; i am against such hackery on both sides.

One of my colleagues relocated to Los Angeles from Copenhagen a few years ago after spending over 20 years in Scandinavia . For the first 18 months he made the 10 mile commute to work solely on his bike. He rode in the rain, at night, and carried all of his stuff in a backpack. Everyone in the office was amazed at his commitment and fortitude since he was in his late 40's. When his Danish wife joined him in LA, they moved to the suburbs and purchased an SUV. He now drives to work everyday.

Posted by: david b | July 16, 2008 6:50 PM

All this about driving like a car is crap, and DOES get people killed. Yes it makes the people with their spandex wardrobes feel important so they can puff up and tell the car drivers to go to hell.. but when it comes to broken bones, the car is always right no matter what the law says.

What does it have to do with spandex? I have never worn spandex ... I have actually never seen a picture of an effective cyclist wearing spandex. Vehicular cycling is cycling following the ordinary rules of the road ... not cycling pretending that you are in the peleton of the Tour de France (goodonya Cadel Evans).

The statistics on bike accidents causing cyclist fatalities are that a large majority are car/bike collisions. The statistics are that the large majority of those are when a bike crosses a car's line of travel in a way that another car would not ordinarily cross a car's line of travel ... passing on the right when the car is turning right, turning left across one or more lanes of traffic, riding the wrong direction, running through a light or stop sign, riding the wrong way on a sidewalk.

..and the statistics say its safer. Well how is that normalized for the number of idiots out there? How does it normalize for bicycle couriers zipping in and out of traffic?

They would show up as part of the large number of fatalities caused by cyclists failing to follow the rules of the road. Vehicular cycling is not "ride on the road like you are in a mountain bike race on a logging road" ... its riding following the ordinary rules of the road.

How does it normalize for the militant bike riders?

It doesn't. If they are militant but also obey the traffic laws and avoid passing cars on the right, stop at stop signs and traffic lights, signal, ride to the right when safely practicable, they don't show up in the traffic fatalities as often, because they do not put themselves in as many of the situations commonly associated with fatalities.

If they are militant about imagined special rights to violate the rules of the road because they are on a bike, or are curb huggers and are militant about getting safe passing distance even though they are encouraging unsafe passing ... well, then they show up in the fatalities with the non-militant unsafe riders.

IF everything were based on the numbers none of us should get out of bed, take a bath, or drive to work, but we do.

If traffic engineering was not based on numbers, fewer motorists would come back from that drive to work than do at present.

What has been left unsaid is the social stigma of biking, and I don't mean that cyclists are environmentalist/fitness freaks. Many Americans look down on cyclists.

As a 30 year old cyclist (with no need for a car), being a cyclist can affect people's impressions with bosses, dates, etc. Relying on a bicycle for transportation has the connotation of immaturity, or financially unsuccessful to most people, even when it may be the wisest and most financially responsible decision one could make.

Off the top of my head, I think of the Mark Wahlberg and Steve Carrel characters in I Heart Huckabees and The 40 Year Old Virgin as examples of how cyclists are portrayed as weird losers.

Since the only demographic that bikes regularly are young teenagers, someone who still bikes is thought to have some of those negative teenage characteristics.

I work for a major corporation and not a day goes by when someone doesn't give me a weird look as I enter the elevator with my bike helmet in hand.

PS. unless you have a fixie, the peddle, peddle, coast, coast, coast, style of biking most people do results in very little sweating. And if you sweat right after showering (like in the morning), there is no bacteria on you to produce body odor. Also, most people would be biking to work between 8-9am. Even in warm climates, its rarely blazingly hot at that hour.

The whole, "I don't want to arrive at work all sweaty" thing isn't really an issue for most bike commuters. Heck, I arrive to work much sweatier on the days I'm packed like a sardine on public transportation than on the days I bike.

And, you will go down two belt notches, at least, and you arrive at work with blood pumping and an active mind (biking requires much more mental alertness than driving). On the days I don't bike to work, I feel much more sluggish and tired.

And to think some people PAY to go bike in place at a gym before going to work.

Maybe I'm being "smug" but I also know how many dirty looks I get by people who think I must be a failure or something for not having a car.

One more point...

Biking is much faster than a car for non-freeway routes under 10 miles.

I recently convinced my girlfriend to bike and she loves how her former 25 minute commute now only takes her 12 minutes as she bikes past all the cars stuck in traffic.

Obviously if one's commute involves lots of freeway driving (or any driving over 40 mph) this wouldn't be true. But for people whose commutes are defined by stop lights, traffic jams, and merging lanes, a bike is much much quicker.

In NYC where they have the race between a car, the subway/bus rider, and a cyclist to see which is fastest and the cyclist always wins.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/some-reasons-the-bike-always-wins/

North - of course I can't address your specific situation, but I can tell you how I overcame some of the same problems you face on my bike commute.

1. I live 20 miles from my office. If I drive to a nearby train station, it takes me about an hour to get to work and costs around $12/day in gas, parking and fare. I can also drive to a free parking lot in the next town and bike 13 miles to work, which takes a total of an hour and fifteen minutes and costs about $2/day in gas. The tradeoff works for me. Here in Boston a trip across town that would often take 30 minutes on a car or train often only takes me 10-15 minutes on my bike, which is just one reason I like having it at work.

2. I'm not allowed to wear athletic clothes at work either. So I keep a change of clothes in the office and change when I get there. If it's a really hot day I try not to overexert myself so that I don't show up too sweaty, but in any event I can freshen up in the restroom when I arrive.

3. In order to carry my laptop, notebook, network cables, camera, change of clothes, and whatever else I may need at work, I keep them in a set of waterproof panniers. An inexpensive set of bags from Performance Bike cost me about $40 and carry all of these things, plus a spare tube, pump, and tools for fixing the bike on the road.

I can't answer #4 without knowing more about where your cycling route would take you, but I do often find that I prefer navigating around a sketchy section of town even if it adds an extra couple of miles. Something like that might be possible where you live.

I won't dispute that cycling is not a suitable solution for everyone, and please don't think I'm trying to convince you to start cycling. I'm just pointing out some of the ways people who face the same problems have solved them. Personally, I love my bike commute -- there isn't a day when I do end up driving or taking the train, for whatever reason, that I don't regret not taking the bike.

Dominick: if you have 54 people working for you, it sounds like you might be in a position to agitate to have shower facilities installed at your company. That would certainly help with the dress-clothes problem. Please consider it.

About cycling safety in the USA. It is in part a consequence of cycling being considered an elite sport. The culture of cycling for transportation is not there.
People spend lots of money on high end gadgets but ignore basic common sense.

Specifically, most bicycles here come without a light and a bell. When I started cycling in my hometown (Bucharest) I recall that kids were emphatically told to have not only reflectors, but also a powered headlight and a bell on their bike on any public roadways.

It is amazing to me that some people have these $2000 bicycles, with the $500 gear to go with it, but they still have to yell to be noticed and are in constant danger of being run over because they are nearly invisible at night.

Let me explain this: reflectors work only if light shines on them. They are fine in the back and on the side where a car would most likely intersect your path head on, and their headlight would shine on you. Even then it may be too late if you are outside their headlight beam (e.g. there is a bend in the road).

However, if you are slightly behind or on the side of a car (e.g. you are in the bike lane and they are making a right hand turn), they just can't see you if you don't have a powered light.

Nylund - the notion that "Biking is much faster than a car for non-freeway routes under 10 miles" is a gross generalization. I live only 1.5 miles from work and the route between my house and my office is riddled with stop signs and traffic lights, but it's still a wee bit faster to drive than to bike. My situation may be unusual, I admit -- I always commute later than the norm, and my city's grid street pattern tends to ensure a remarkably free flow of traffic -- but I'm sure it's not unique.

I ride to work when I can, I walk when I can, and I drive when I have to. It's good to have options.

Patrick: Chicago has been reported to have investigated a Vélo'v-style ad-supported bike-sharing program. Mayor Daley is a pretty bike-friendly mayor and would probably relish having America's first program. And what he likes--whether good or ill--tends to happen.

OT: litbrit,
I lived in Tegucigalpa in 1985. Good bakeries and great fruit. Was El Patio Restaurant there in the 1970's.

Well, I might as well jump in. First the bona fides: 50+ rider, not super fit, usually bike to work a couple times a week. Have done this in Boston, Austin, Orange County (CA), San Jose, DC, and Phoenix. Rides distances have varied from 7 to 20 miles. I carry clothes, towel, sometimes a laptop (even carried a Wii home one time).

So, some observations. 1) I would to see more bikes on the road, for whatever reason, but I won't blame anybody for not using one to commute to work. It takes commitment. 2) A large part of the country is hot for a considerable chunk of the year(but because of humidity, 105 degrees in Phoenix was better biking than 95 in DC). Another, almost equally large part is freaking cold for an equally long part of the year. It's amazing how in both you can wind up sweaty or make it just impossible to ride. 3) You're lucky if your workplace has showers. Usually I have to enroll in a gym that is near the office and clean up there. (Wipes in the toilet stall just don't work for me.)

Most importantly, the US is a large place with a wide diversity in things like urban design, climate, terrain, local funding, population density, etc. It's a lot easier to craft a transportation policy in a relatively homogeneous country were things like climate conditions and geographic considerations fall within a narrower band of possibilities. Increasing bicycle use in the US needs to be treated as a local issue where local needs and challenges can be addressed. Charts of US vs. Netherlands are inherently misleading because of the difference in the scale of the variables, let alone the number of variables. It would be better to compare similar homogenous regions and see what insights can be gained there.

It amazes me how easily people feel dissed.

I ride a bike to work. (In fact, I ride a recumbent trike to work, so obviously I have no fear of seeming weird.) I'm very fortunate. I live less than three miles from work. Santa Fe is hilly, but dry; a little sweat is not a huge problem. Going to work is uphill, so exercise helps wake me up. Coming home is a downhill slide. It's fun. I'm lucky.

Not everyone can commute like I do. Some can. More could, if there was more public investment in cycling infrastructure. Separating cycles and cars, especially in crowded areas, will undoubtedly gratify both drivers and cyclists. That's not hard to figure out.

Some people have had bad experiences with snooty bicyclists. So what? I had food poisoning once, but I didn't give up food.

So here is a means of transportation that is quiet, non-polluting, doesn't drink gasoline, cheap, provides exercise and is fun. Some people use it now. More could be encouraged to do so. They too could discover how much fun it is, too.

Why is this a focus of argument?

Grant Franks
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Floccina, topography may well be part of the story, but there's more to it.

Denmark and Holland are flat, but even in the more hilly parts people widely use bikes.

And besides both countries are often cold, windy and rainy. Not ideal conditions for biking, but people do it anyway.

I think other factors besides topography count:

- Urbanisation: DK and Holland are both heavily urbanised. Distances are typically short.
- Bicycle infrastructure and safety as Ezra mentioned.
- And finally I think that our public transportation system complements cycling well. When weather is good you can bicycle, when it's not you can take the bus or train. If we didn't have good public transit, you would still want a car for the rainiest, snowiest or coldest of days and then you would end up always taking the car.

Keep in mind, The Netherlands are flat, but you can do a round trip bike ride and have a head wind the whole time.

I've lived over here for 15 years, and the first Dutch TV joke I got was "Do you want to take the car, honey?" "No, I'm in a hurry - I'll take the bike".

In general, it's just the most efficient way to get around for a trip in a city. There's also a completely separate bike infrastructure outside the city - separate signage, roads, traffic lights, and everything.

Of course, gas is about EUR 1.50 a liter here, so there's a bit more of an incentive...

Recreational bicyclists are a menace on the roads, which are not wide enough for cars and bikes. In order to make them wide enough, we would need millions of tons more asphalt, a petrochemical product. I shudder to think of how many car-miles would have to be replaced by bike-miles to offset that carbon footprint.

Otherwise, although some careful bicyclists do otherwise, most recreation cyclists use their vulnerability as a weapon on the roads. Wonder why drivers are hostile? I worry every time I cross the center line to give wiggle room to a cluster of biko-tourists.

Coming late to this very interesting discussion, but I have to take issue with Seriously's argument, above, that a bicycle fatality rate of "6 out of 100 million km" is a "very small number" and "the rounding error when citing auto death statistics. Or homicides. Or suicides. Or heart attacks. Or cancer. etc."

In 2007, the fatality rates for cars in the US was 1.5 per million miles driven, or .852 per km driven.
This means that you are roughly 7-8 times more likely to get killed traveling by bike than by car.

People often cite the 35,000+ auto fatalities a year as an argument against cars. But the sad fact is that traveling by bike is at present even more dangerous. In large part this is because of the presence of cars, but not entirely so. According to the most recent analysis of fatalities in NYC, roughly 10% were "non-traffic deaths."

Oh, and 97% of fatalities involved people who were not wearing helmets.

Sherrold said: "Now figure out how to get more than 3 bikes on each bus."

Easy. Add another rack behind the bus. It's not ideal, since you have to make *sure* you have the driver's attention, but it does work.