Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by SlowCoachOnTheRoad on July 5, 2013 at 6:39pm

Well, it seems obvious enough.  We are doing twice the work of someone who isn't biking so that is a pretty strong argument for us benefiting those who don't bike and can just sit back while we do all the work.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Old Tom on July 5, 2013 at 7:47pm

Why the need to think yourself virtuous? Self interest is reason enough, you need not pat yourself on the back.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SlowCoachOnTheRoad on July 6, 2013 at 3:05am

I know I posted a totally stupid reply earlier that made no sense.  On a more serious note, however, I would warn against the psychological bias that the question encourages, although as a partial educator I would say that of course no question or thirst for knowledge is a waste of time.  I bike quite a bit to work, so clearly those are days in which I am not pumping pollutants into the air, not relying on the grid, not subjecting others to potential lethal accidents, not taking up as much city space, and not subjecting others to road rage.  However, studies show that many people who bike (or who recycle or who eat local food, etc, all of which are inherently good things) think that they are changing the world through their behaviors and that this all they have to do to make a significant dent into protecting their environment.  Obviously, that is patently false, EVEN if you can pinpoint, which I already did, measurable benefits (imagine as an example that my psychotherapy makes people on average feel better but I am part of a culture in which economic woes continue to make people on average feel worse - see what I mean?).  But your question has a tendency to fuel that type of narcissistic and illusionary thinking.  When one considers the amount of destruction being done to the environment, for example, it is also dangerous thinking in a way, as factories, trucks and airplanes are not about to be replaced with bicycles any time soon.  Even cars would not be so nasty if they did not run on fossil fuels.  They would be part of a clean energy future - that is why plug-in cars are supposed to be, but right now they are paradoxically not doing that, since the electricity for them comes from coal I believe, whose health and planetary effects are I believe the worst of all.  I read a great book on energy related technologies and was blown away by its discussion of nuclear energy.  My whole life (under the influence of Green thinking) I have always thought of nuclear power as "evil," presumably because of its potential dangers of contamination wrought by a few accidents (underline the word "few").  However, this book also put the numbers to right - all the bad accidents like Chernobyl or Fukushima have only seriously threatened the lives of several hundred employees - which doesn't mean those deaths weren't tragic, but it does mean the impact compared to the 7 billion lives potentially affected by global warming over the next century is as miniscule as it gets, since no industry has a zero accident rate).  Millions have not died as the anti-nuclear movements tell us from Chernobyl (in fact the great environmental writer for the Guardian newspaper  in the UK George Monbiot (www.monbiot.com) whose articles are well worth reading, last year and the year before lambasted that anti-nuclear movement and Helen Caldicott for allegedly inventing lies that are unsupported by any evidence, and deemed by science organizations unethically inflated simply to elicit fear).  Today there are models of nuclear energy plants that physically cannot feed the production of nuclear bombs by terrorists or the government.  Today there are designs that can actually burn up the entire planet's huge reserve of used up plutonium (one of the storage dangers that anti-nuclear activists rightly warn us of) and produce 200 years of completely clean energy.  We actually know how to build these things with multiple containment structures that cannot leak radioactivity even in an accident - they just turn off - though the question of where to build them obviously remains an ongoing important one, and of course they should probably not be in private hands where there may be incentives to cut corners.  The point I am making is that fears about nuclear energy right now are contributing to global warming (the German government closed all plants in fact owing to protests and is now contributing to global warming at a rate 3 times higher than when those plants were running - now Japan is considering this too).  Humans are pretty good at overcoming problems, given time, even if it takes centuries.  Hundreds of people die every year in the road construction or building construction fields - far more than have died in the world's nuclear power plants since the 1950s.  The reason I am bringing this up is because human emotion and biased thinking can be dangerous - with serious consequences - without reason and evidence to counter them.  I brought up an example of how it can fail to avert our global warming crisis, one of the most serious humans have ever faced.  The question about how how our biking provides benefits for all has that potential of making us all too cozy and narcissistic about us saving the world (when we aren't, whatever the obvious gains to the environment - hell, biking is even better for our physical and mental health than coming to work in the car or bus).  The smooth asphalt paved roads we are biking on, let us not forget, require petroleum, although I am sure there are a few of you trekking to work on mountain bikes along preserve trails.  The question also has the tendency to feed a "me" against "you" mentality which I think is unhealthy - I am not even sure what other purpose the question serves, since we already know biking's numerous benefits.  At a time when we are trying to "coexist" on the roads, and the city is doing a lot to help us in this regard, I am wary of that mentality.  As someone with a family to support, I also know why so many cars are on the road - economics, not ignorance or apathy.  People are working further and further from their homes, and people have large families that can't do the shopping conveniently or lug kids to a hundred locations using bikes and trailers, though it is always good to see those who try to.  The benefits of biking are many, but we are also as much "part of the problem" as those who almost kill us in the morning going to work - after all, when not on your bike, I am sure you are as much an obsessed smartphone or tablet user as anyone else, with the same frantic urge to read books and stay in constant touch with people using precious planetary resources.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on July 6, 2013 at 10:11am

Parking uses up land that could be purposed for other things that provide services or otherwise contribute economically, and cars put far far more wear on the pavement than bikes ever could hope to. There's pretty solid financial analysis showing that a car is a net loss on a city's budget and a bike is a net gain, even factoring in the vehicle tax and licensing revenue. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fran Kondorf on July 6, 2013 at 11:08am

Not just less air pollution- there's far less oil run-off to leach into the water table from using bicycles.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SlowCoachOnTheRoad on July 7, 2013 at 9:29am

I liked your main point Jeff that even with the health and other advantages of biking, distribution of resources to meet a community's transportation needs is a more complex, and in any case another, issue.  I agree with you too that we should not accept all the claims of the nuclear industry either - sorry for my rather lengthy waffling in that response, longer than I should have had on this sharing forum which shouldn't be a mere soap box - I was only highlighting how easy it is for emotions to counter reason using the example of feelings about that form of energy - like what you said about  biking and cars, the same question should apply there: what overall are the risks and benefits compared with those of all sources of energy - and similar to what you said, the answers should come from dispassionate scientific study, not from fear or disgust reactions alone (though if those reactions play a part in guiding concerns about safety, all the better, as long as they don't override our analytical findings).  And actually my information (and I am a layman, not a scientist) came from a science book, which did not sufficiently address the corruptions of the existing nuclear industry. That is why I recommended that if science finds its benefits considerable, the industry would likely be better off in the hands of the community than in private hands, where safety and science may take the upper hand without the corrupting influence of economic gain.

Jeff Schneider said:

The question does serve a purpose.  We as a society have to decide how our resources are used for transportation and other infrastructure, health care, etc.  In order to make choices, it is useful to have some knowledge of the risks, benefits and quality of life issues associated with the various alternatives.  I don't agree that the benefits to society of increased cycling mode share are well-quantified at all.  We all know exercise is good, and we think using less energy (vs driving a car) is a good thing, but how is that anywhere near enough info for a society to decide how much to spend on bike infrastructure, riding instruction in schools, etc.?  How is it enough to inform decisions about zoning and urban planning?

Aside - As a former worker in the nuclear power industry, I will also say that your comments about nuclear power seem somewhat simplistic.  I don't think it's "evil", either, but it's good to be suspicious of the claims of this industry just as with any other.  Everybody has something to sell...

SlowCoachOnTheRoad said:

The question also has the tendency to feed a "me" against "you" mentality which I think is unhealthy - I am not even sure what other purpose the question serves, since we already know biking's numerous benefits.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle S on July 7, 2013 at 3:36pm

Hi Naomi, I think one of the biggest benefits that non-bikers get when others ride bikes regularly is the reduced healthcare costs. There are many statistics about that and other topics that you might find interesting on the Bikes Belong website's Statistics and Research page.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christine (5.0) on July 8, 2013 at 4:13am

Cycling is healthy.  It's better to have a healthy population.  For employers, their employees will take fewer sick days, and their health insurance premiums will go down.  For family members, their loved ones will live longer.

Cycling is cheaper than owning a car.  And it also limits distance/how much one can buy at a time.  While this does mean that some people might fill the void with ordering online, it may also mean that they may shop local (rather than driving out to the suburbs).  Plus, without car payments/maintenance/etc there's more disposable income to be wasted elsewhere.

Cycling is relaxing.  While it can be stressful (near misses with cars, non-cyclists in bike lanes, etc), in general I think it improves people's moods.  I would much rather be helped by a shop person who had a lovely bike trip to work, than someone who was grouchy from driving through traffic.

• ▶ Reply