From: JForester@cup.portal.com (John - Forester)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Cycling and Environmentalism
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 10:35:47 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

                    CYCLING AND ENVIRONMENTALISM

   The question here is to what extent cycling and environmentalism
agree or disagree. I say that cycling is an environmentally benign
form of personal transportation. I say that doing good for cyclists
by making cycling safer, faster, more convenient, with higher
psychological rewards and with higher social status is likely to
increase the amount of cycling done and decrease the amount of
motoring done, which is a good effect.

   Environmentalists typically have a different program. They
advocate bikeways that make cycling more dangerous, slower, and with
lower social status, in the expectation that this will encourage many
people to cycle. They even advocate making cycling appear more
dangerous than it is. Michael Smith has written that cyclists should
fear being hit by cars because "of the existence of a significant
social problem, namely our grotesque overreliance on cars, with all
the evils that cars bring in their train -- waste, pollution, sprawl
.... ," even though these factors have nothing to do with the cyclist
accident rate. When I replied that the connection did not exist,
Smith accused me of pursuing an anti-environmentalist agenda with an
uncandid form of car advocacy and warned all readers to sift my
apparently factual writings for that bias. 

   For a formal statement of this environmentalist combination of
fear, exaggeration and bad decision, read Peter Harnik's article in
Sierra (the magazine of the Sierra Club) some years back. Harnik
cycled across Washington, DC, making practically every mistake
possible, and then blamed all his troubles on the motorists and
advocated separated bikeways to cure the troubles caused by his own
incompetence. Those are the errors of the article. How did the Sierra
Club correct them? When many cyclists complained to the management of
the Sierra Club, giving facts from well-accepted studies of cycling
and of car-bike collisions, the management replied that the new
information was "incredible" and that the Club would not allow its
writers to be criticized. In other words, the Club's agenda is more
important than truth or thoughtful discussion.

   Cycling is a vital part of the kind of transportation change that
environmentalists want to see. The other choices present many
difficulties and may take decades to establish, but cycling can be
done by almost anyone at any time, although its range, speed and load
limits are tight. It seems illogical, almost incomprehensible, that
environmentalists should oppose ways of cycling that are safer, more
convenient, and faster while advocating ways that are less safe, less
convenient, and slower, and beliefs that are more frightening.
Illogical, but true; that is the fact.

   My motivation should be clear to all: I aim for the good of
cyclists. So far as I can see, that is an environmentally sound
position, and I care about the environment. If that upsets the
environmentalists, so much the worse for them. Any time that
environmentalists want to adopt a program that is good for cyclists,
they need only say so, because it is all ready for them.

JForester@cup.portal.com               John Forester
                                       726 Madrone Ave
408-734-9426                           Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA