Bike to Work Day Blowback

This Friday (May 20th) is Bike-to-Work Day, which I only know because I made the mistake of reading Danny Westneat's short column on "bike bitterness" this morning. The mistake wasn't in reading the column, actually. It was in reading some of the comments that followed. I don't know why I do that, but I'll save that personal psychology for later.

I've covered this over at my Real Running Blog, but it deserves a little more attention here in part because I see the battle being waged over cyclists on city streets as a mere symptom of a larger problem we have with civil discourse and community.

First let's deal with the anti-bike arguments, of which there is one somewhat valid claim to be made: Some cyclists are assholes. After that, the arguments against cyclists make no sense. Let me be clear about this: hate cyclists all you want, but don't wage war against them based on false, pseudo-political arguments that don't hold up to even the most elementary scrutiny.

One of the most common arguments against cyclists on city streets is some variant of the following:

They don't pay road taxes/They don't have to be licensed/Roads are for cars/They should have to pay their own way...

This convenient but flawed argument against cyclists is actually a derivative of the anti-tax movement championed by conservative politicians, pundits, and initiative sponsors like Tim Eyman. It isn't a call for fair taxation (which would require an upward gaze at radically unfair corporate and high-earner tax rates) but rather a misguided attempt to make everyone suffer equally at the base level. Put simply, "If I have to pay a gas tax, so should you!" (See also: arguments against public employee pensions, retirement plans, and health benefits.)

As for cycling, let's take the most extreme example possible. A cyclist owns a cheap, second-hand Huffy dirt bike, doesn't have a car or a driver's license, and rents a small apartment. He has never bought a gallon of gasoline in his life. Even this guy pays taxes that are used, ultimately, to build, pave, and maintain roads, most of which he will never, ever use. Road maintenance money comes from the general fund. It comes from property taxes, sales taxes, and other fees. Gas taxes make up a tiny portion of the transportation budget of ANY city. 

Our fictional cyclist is actually doing more to support the driving habits of his neighbors than they are supporting his access to the roads and bike lanes around the city. And in reality, the vast majority of cyclists are homeowners, consumers, and participants in the economy at a scale far higher than our fictional Huffy rider. Most own cars and put fuel in them on occasion. Most choose to ride once in a while, or only to work and back, only to gas up the car in the evenings to go out, to shuttle kids from place to place, or to generally be "normal" people who pay for and use the highways and roads.

It is also a fiction that roads are for cars. Roads are, by definition and in practice, transportation corridors. They are used by trucks, cars, machinery, pedestrians, and bicycles. That's the law. Because personal automobiles are the dominant users does not empower car drivers to claim their use solely for themselves (though I recognize this as a very American ethic when it comes to space and resources. Every user-group that has interest in the wilderness, for example, seeks to exclude the others).

As for licensing cyclists and/or their bikes, the idea itself isn't a terrible one, but it is a political and implementation impossibility. If the argument here is based in "paying your own way" in terms of license fees, there is no way the income generated would come close to covering the infrastructure and overhead needed to implement such a plan. Would a cyclist need a license only if she rode on the streets? What about kids? What about those who only ride on bike trails? See, for example, the clumsy attempt to license boaters in this state. It will not generate any revenue in the final accounting, and most current users are exempt.

Or perhaps you add a fee to the purchase of every bike in the state, a portion of which would go directly to the transportation fund? We already have that. It's called sales tax. Would double-taxation be fair in this case? Acceptable to the anti-tax wonks only because it targets a hated group?

And just to add an injury here, not one of us "pays our own way" on the streets. Your use is subsidized by those around you. And truth be told, the trucking companies pay the bulk of it. So if you think your daily commute is covered in terms of wear and tear on the streets, etc., by your individual taxes, you are wrong. If you had to pay for it yourself, you wouldn't be able to afford to drive anywhere.

Another common thread is some version of this gem:

Cyclists don't follow the rules/Cyclists are assholes/Cyclists are dangerous

These are all true if you put the words "some" or "a few" in front of each claim. I agree. Some cyclists don't follow the rules. On Tuesday this week, I watched a hip, urban fixe chick leave traffic on 2nd Avenue downtown, hop onto an empty sidewalk and slip back into traffic four cars ahead. While I was running on the Burke Gilman Trail yesterday a three-man peloton rushed passed me at over 20 mph and one of them clipped me on the shoulder. I've seen cyclists run stoplights and narrowly miss pedestrians in intersections. I've even seen a cyclist spit on a car. All true.

But didn't we learn in elementary school not to condemn an entire group of people based on the actions of the few? But what the hell, let's go ahead and do so for the sake of this little exercise.

This morning on my drive to work, I had to slam on my brakes when a woman in a Toyota Camry (which is an automobile, not a bicycle, for those who might not know) decided at the last minute to pull out of the espresso stand, making a left-hand turn across traffic.

My neighborhood has one of those automated "you are going too fast" signs on a street that is posted as a 35 mph zone. I regularly see numbers in the high 40s and even low 50s on that sign as I run up the sidewalk, and that isn't my foot speed, I assure you.

And the other day, moments after I saw our hip urban fixe chick hop the sidewalk, I was almost hit by a young man in a small sports car as he crossed all lanes of 2nd Avenue from right to left to get into a parking garage, rather than driving once around the block to do it legally.

So if ALL cyclists are assholes based on the actions of some, then all motorists are as well. Neither is true, but if one is, so is the other, and there goes the argument. No motorist follows every law. We pick and choose based on our sense of safety, control, and need. Ditto cyclists. Is 30 mph too slow for your needs and wants? So you go 35 instead, deciding you probably won't get caught and if you do you can afford the ticket. For a cyclist clipped into his pedals, maybe it is a worthwhile gamble to roll a stop sign rather than stop and restart. Each is choosing which laws to obey and break.

Further, in most cases cyclists are only a danger to themselves. If you are driving a car and a cyclist runs a light in front of you, he is going to suffer the worst of that transaction. Granted, the motorist is not unharmed emotionally and there is a chance the car is damaged in some way, but the law of tonnage suggests that cyclists usually lose. I have heard arguments but seen no evidence offered of car crashes caused by cyclists (where a car swerves into another or rear-ends someone in their attempt to avoid a rider).

And since I so love hypocrisy, it would be negligent of me to not include this argument:

Cyclists should stay in bike lanes/Cyclists should stay on trails/Cyclists should ride on the sidewalk/They can't have it both ways

You have to decide which way you want this one. Do you want cyclists off the roads? Then stop complaining about the mayor's pro-cycling budget and attitude. If you want cyclists to use bike lanes and trails, build more of them (and no, stenciling a bicycle on the pavement doesn't make the right lane a bike lane).

But if your argument is that "transportation taxes" should only be spent on pavement for cars, you have to allow for cyclists on the road. Make up your mind.


The bigger issue underlying all of this rhetoric and venom is what is best described as a massive disconnect between emotion and information. Facts be damned, if we perceive something to be true, it is true. There is no incentive to become informed, no reward for doing one's research.

In the case of motorist anger at cyclists, falsehoods about fairness and taxation dominate the rhetorical landscape despite that fact that none of the arguments hold water. Cyclists pay as much or more into the transportation budget as many motorists, and potentially use less of the system and cause less wear and tear on it. Cyclists require less infrastructure. But in part because they are a very visible minority (often dressed like clowns on space-aged looking machines) they are targeted by the largely anonymous majority.

This argument of convenience pops up everywhere. In the "debate" over funding for higher education, for example, you don't have to wait long to hear someone claim (falsely) that if we would stop subsidizing health care and education for illegal immigrants we could afford to pay more for education. No one making that claim is prepared to show how much is spent educating and caring for illegal immigrants, nor are they prepared to show that whatever that sum comes out to would be available for other uses.

In the end it comes down to a question I will never be able to answer and which will continue to baffle me.

Why don't people want to live in a community that is good for everyone and that meets the needs of the many? If we all act myopically and in our own self-interest, the systems suffer and the general health of the community goes down.

Even if you don't ride a bike, don't you want to live in a community that has miles and miles of recreational trails for your neighbors to use and for kids to get to and from school? Even if you don't have kids, don't you want to support schools so you have a community that raises educated, safe children? If you hate sports, can't you see the benefit of having athletic fields and stadiums so that those who get pleasure from sports can have a nicer life? I don't have a dog, but my taxes help fund dog parks, and those dog owners sure do seem happy to have them.

If my neighbor decides a long commute is desirable or necessary for his lifestyle, why would I begrudge him that and battle against roads? It seems contrary to the whole concept of living in a community.

And maybe therein lies the heart of it all. We don't want to live in communities. We want to live in little, fenced off, gated worlds of our own where we can delude ourselves into thinking we are off the social grid, going it alone, and paying our own way.