Bikes vs Cars: An Unnecessary Cold War
By: Sims Volour
Tags: Smart Cities, Cars, Cycling, Environmental Impact, Environmental Issues

Photo by Flo Karr on Unsplash

Recently, I stumbled across a video by television broadcaster, Jeremy Clarkson. In this roughly 6-minute video titled ‘Clarkson Explains Why Cycling is Actually Bad for the Environment’, the television broadcaster mutters, “drive a car, you blithering idiot” to a passing cyclist near Holland Park in London — I can already sense where this is going. For the next 5-minutes, Clarkson shares his sage wisdom on why cyclist are a nuisance to the world and more people should drive. He preaches that it’s absurd to dig up trees to create more bike lanes (I’m assuming he doesn’t mind if trees are dug up for automotive lanes), cyclists don’t contribute to the economy (because if you cycle, you’re obviously poor) and cycling is terrible for the environment because people who cycle also eat a lot of avocados, which are imported from overseas by plane (his argument is puzzling). Contrary to the message from Mr. Clarkson that I would be “better off going to work in a Humvee” than continuing to enjoy avocados and cycling to work — I continue to enjoy avocados and cycle to work. Besides, we grow our own avocados here in Florida.

If you’re familiar with Jeremy Clarkson’s work then you’ll know that he’s a car enthusiast; so I understand his biasness. Unfortunately, Jeremy Clarkson isn’t the only person I’ve stubbled across who despises anyone who dares cycle anywhere that’s not a park trail. There has always been a cold war between cyclist and drivers but nowhere is that more prevalent than in America. In the land were motorists are money, there is a lack of proper incentives for local governments to build safer cycling routes for what they see as a passing trend. Experts say that building cycling infrastructures creates more demand by giving people more options, but yet and still, bike lanes have always come last to the ever-growing automotive lanes. In 1980, New York City began constructing their first protected bike lanes that were immediately met with protests and criticisms — they were promptly removed by 1981. So, why does everyone seem to hate cyclists? And why is it so hard to avoid the atrocious Floridian driver on my cycles through town?

Photo by Nomadic Julien on Unsplash

In the 1920s, when cars became more frequent on the roadways, they were met with a lot of backlash and criticism. The people who once relished in the freedom of open walkways now had to weave through these automobiles that were crashing into people constantly — imagine a town were everybody is just learning how to drive. Horrific. So, to combat the growing anti-motorists movements, automotive leaders and all the Jeremy Clarksons of the time helped to curate laws and guidelines that managed traffic by prioritizing motorists, thus damning pedestrians to the sidewalks and coining the phrase ‘jaywalker’ to shame anyone who would dare step out of line (I feel like there’s a pun somewhere in there).

Fast-forward a century later and most American cities devote up to 50% of their land to parking spaces and roadways for cars. The amount of land dedicated to cars is staggering and unsustainable, so much so that in 2015 the U.S. Department of Transportation launched their Smart City challenge. This challenge asked cities across America to share designs on how to create a more efficient and sustainable metropolis with $40 million being granted to the winning “smart city”. The proposal submitted by San Francisco is a wonderful example of how roadways can be shared by motorists, cyclists and pedestrians efficiently with out catering to only one form of transportation. The San Francisco proposal states that, “when the automobile first arrived, haphazard policies divided cities, spurred sprawl and prioritized vehicles over the needs of people. Health, safety and community cohesion took a back seat. We can either shape these changes to benefit everyday people, or we will be resigned to a system that only works for a few.”

This design from the San Francisco’s Smart City proposal shows how (left) motorist dominated areas can be shared efficiently with bikes, pedestrians and greenery (right).

I imagine Jeremy Clarkson would debate that installing bike lanes would increase traffic in these cities but studies actually show that increased driving lanes are the culprit through a vicious circle called induced demand. Example, in 2009, economists compared the amount of American city highways being built between 1980 and 2000 to the total amount of miles driven in those same cities. They discovered that it was a “perfect one-to-one relationship” meaning whatever percentage the roads expanded, the amount of driving expanded to that same exact percent. If increasing roadway capacity encourages more people to drive then maybe we should try increasing bike lane capacity.

I acknowledge that cars have their place in our society and they have revolutionized our world, connecting us across great distances, giving us this remarkable sense of freedom and exploration — also they’re just super convenient. In the same vein, there’s a price to pay for these conveniences so why combat an alternative solution? At the end of the day, we have to do what’s best for the environment so why is there even a debate? I’m sure Jeremy Clarkson loves his cars, hell, I enjoy my Jeep but I still cycle to work 4 out of 5 days.

So, I implore people to try and cycle for shorter commutes if they can, who knows, you may like it. If cycling is out of your ability, maybe you can help change the culture of motorists vs cyclists by encouraging change in your community and sharing the road. If we can all coexist on the road, then just maybe, we can shape a better future to help us exist on this planet.