sjanzeir

The automobile is vulgar (utterly or to any other degree) if the price and cost of upkeep for said vehicle is clearly beyond one's means. We're all aware of the stereotype of the single mom who works two shifts and lives in a trailer park, and who refuses to drive a Corolla or a Civic, insisting on a C-class instead (and becomes a total Karen when she's hit with a four-figure repair estimate.) In Saudi Arabia where I live, I've seen countless people who work for the government, military, or the private sector for modest ro average wages, and yet insist on stretching their means to get themselves into vehicles they cannot realistically afford, and then flip out when the transmission fails and they are faced with a multi-thousand-riyal repair bill when the dealer goes out of their way (up to and including outright fraud) so as not to honor the warranty. I must admit that at a much younger age, I was one of those people when I really didn't need to be.

mschwett 

sure. i can refute many of his claims - at least for the cities which i’m intimately familiar with. i can’t speak to london.

in most american cities, the largest share of road/transportation funding is from local sources. in california that percentage has varied from 55 to 60 percent over the last few decades. that local revenue comes from a huge range of sources - most of which have NOTHING to do with cars. local property taxes, infrastructure districts, sales tax increment revenue, and particularly development fees. many of san francisco’s new bike lanes, for example, are funded by per square foot fees on new development in the transbay district.

maybe automobile users do pay slightly more - but they also have the privilege (not right) of using the vast majority of the public right of way. most traditionally-planned cities have around 30% of the their land in the public realm, of which as much as 75% (60’ of an 80’ ROW) is for the near-exclusive use of automobiles and buses. the value of that land is astronomical, could it be used for other purposes. vehicle owners absolutely don’t pay their fair share of that.

nor do vehicle owners pay their fair share of the health burdens imposed on generations of people who had/have the misfortune to live near freeways or expressways before cars got as clean as they are today. take a look at asthma rates, but it’s not just asthma, there are dozens of studies linking proximity to freeways with COPD, other long diseases, even dementia.

let’s not even start to talk about the astronomical costs of foreign policy adventures and large-scale environmental challenges associated with fossil fuels. debatable, of course, but another unfunded obligation that vehicle owners are unlikely to pay their proportional share of.

wear and tear on roads is mentioned. i would love to see a study of the wear to a modern asphalt or concrete roadway from a 200lb bicycle/rider ridden at 10-20mph compared to a 4,000 lb motor vehicle. happy to pay my fair share of that 😂😂

what about parking? vehicle owners seem to believe they often have the right to store their vehicle on public property for free or nearly free. why? why can one person take 250 square feet of public property for their exclusive use for hours at a time? you could park 10-20 bikes in that space.

his arguments - as utterly transparent as the are to anyone who studies urban planning/policy - do raise a few good points. cities with very bad weather need a transport network that works when the weather is bad, which isn’t cycling. that redundancy should be accounted for. there are a few insanely stupid bike infra projects out there - 9 figures for a bridge bike lane, as an example. i have yet to see a good study of the true throughput of a well built bicycle network on an area or cost basis, but my guess is that in an urban environment it’s extremely cost competitive with cars, given the relatively low speeds of urban traffic and the very, very small size of a bicycle compared to a car.

finally, i’ve been lambasted here before for saying this, but if your source of calories for cycling is beef or dairy…. you’re not really doing the planet any favors compared to driving. but that’s easily fixed.

greatbasin

Good counterpoints. To be sure, I don't agree with Mr. Solomon, but hadn't given much thought to it. I live in and do much of my cycling in a rural area in a mostly rural state that has no cycling infrastructure other than shoulders. I toured your city, San Francisco, this last Tuesday and Wednesday. I arrived from Point Reyes where I was touring earlier in the week and rode across the Golden Gate, circling around Sea Cliff, Ocean Beach, through the Park, Panhandle, Civic Center, Market street, Embarcadero, Fisherman's Wharf, Fort Mason, the Marina, and across Crissy Field to Fort Point and away across the bridge. I'm familiar with the city from the past but hadn't experienced its present cycling infrastructure until that time earlier this week. I was impressed that it was so easy to cycle. I have no way to assess the cost or the impact of those accommodations, but they seemed pretty modest to me. While San Francisco isn't one of the cities Solomon cited as having extravagant cycling features, his commentary struck me nonetheless as a simplistic gripe on behalf of people whose city spent on something they won't personally use themselves, who would rather have received something that would benefit their selfish interests. They need only to enjoy some bicycling to partake, but aren't willing and would rather gripe and complain.

I do enjoy beef and cheese.

livedarklions

​​​It's a piss-poor argument. The issue is that the use of cars in inner cities has been over-subsidized and is therefore occurring at a level that can't be sustained. The notion that the piddly amount of taxes paid by drivers covers the actual costs of this absurd level of urban motor vehicle traffic is perfectly ridiculous. Just look at the crumbling state of our roads and bridges and ask yourself who is a) causing that wear and tear and b) is anyone actually covering its cost? Not to mention that is definitely the argument of someone protecting the status quo against the encroachment of increasing cycling use that generally follows improvements in cycling infrastructure.

Please show us anywhere in the US where the installation of bicycle infrastructure actually created a traffic flow problem that wasn't already there. Bike lanes become a convenient distracting scapegoat for the industry shill you're citing here, but it's really a load of crap.

mschwett 

yes. if you create a system that consumes all available resources (land, money) and still provides inadequate service (traffic, pollution, etc) then you can speciously say that the introduction of ANY alternate system which uses those resources is somehow contributing to the “problem.” the problem is actually the system in the first place.

the private automobile is a HORRIBLE system for transportation within any reasonably densely populated area. extraordinarily inefficient in terms of energy, money, land, time, pollution. some of those problems are being partially addressed by EVs, self driving, automated parking, etc, but there’s a very, very long way to go.

mschwett 

glad you got some good riding in! i’ve done point reyes from SF a few times, beautiful country but the wind up there can be BRUTAL. the loop you describe is one i ride several times a week, basically whenever i can take a long lunch or start a bit late. lots of variation in terrain, scenery, speed, etc. i also do a variant where i cut north from the park before the panhandle and go back through the presidio and eastbound across crissy field, making less of a full loop but avoiding most of the vehicle traffic and intersections.

livedarklions

You were doing so well, then you had to post this nonsense. No, you can't possibly eat enough to equal the impact of driving an internal combustion vehicle. Also, it's a heroic assumption that people who cycle actually increase their calorie intake as compared to people who don't. People who don't cycle may either work out in some other manner, or just sustain their weight at a higher level. You want to rail about beef and dairy, fine. It really, really has NO logical connection to cycling.

wolfchild

One of the stupidest things I've heard

mschwett 

we can agree to disagree about the science behind the greenhouse gas impact of the meat/dairy industry. it’s fairly well documented and there’s no need to debate it here, we’re far enough off topic already.

but are you saying that the energy (calories) used cycling comes from some magical place and does not need to be balanced with food intake? otherwise cyclists would just keep getting skinnier and skinnier and skinnier … which i think we know doesn’t happen.

mschwett 

the truth hurts, i know.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...-gas-emissions

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...te-agriculture

https://amp.theguardian.com/environm...oduction-study

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-env...t-46459714.amp

if you’re going to say something is stupid, at least you could bring some facts/studies/conjecture to back up why. and yes, i like cheese too.

tomato coupe

wtf?

wtf^2?

livedarklions

Maybe reread what I actually wrote. The problem is you're not even wrong, you don't understand what the question is. The question is whether someone will actually eat more if they are cycling for transportation. You're assuming that is true because you're not considering what they would be doing and/or eating if they weren't cycling. People burn calories for any form of physical exercise. When I am not cycling (every winter, for example) I work out on an elliptical machine. I need fuel to work that machine, I'm just not traveling anywhere when I burn that fuel. People run on treadmills, jog, swim, ride stationary bikes, etc. My local Planet Fitness has a parking lot full of cars people have driven there just for the purpose of burning calories. It is obviously a huge gain for the environment if some of those exercise calories are actually harnessed to replace driving miles.

Also, all other things being equal, any individual will require more calories to maintain their weight at 220 pounds than if they weigh 170 pounds. There's absolutely nothing magical about thinking that if the 220 pound individual kept his calorie intake constant but added 90 minutes a day of bicycle riding to his daily routine, he would initially drop some weight, but then just hit a new equilibrium at a lower weight. He will get skinnier, but the notion he will get "skinnier and skinnier and skinnier" is entirely a fabrication. You've just forgotten that manufacturing, maintaining and transporting a higher level of body fat also requires calories, so all that's happening here is that some calories that would've gone to those fat creation and maintenance functions are now being used for transportation instead.

You'll notice that I haven't actually argued with your issues about the beef/dairy industry, I am just saying that there's nothing inherent about calories burned during cycling that connects cycling to those issues in any way. I honestly don't remember if you're the person I've had this argument with before, but I'm very vehement about this because I have seen similar specious connections made this way to argue that bicycling is not better for the environment than driving. It's a completely bogus argument that is being used by petroleum apologists, please stop doing it if you gaf about ecology.

livedarklions

So which one of those articles suggests that the drive-up window at the Wendy's doesn't have a much larger carbon footprint than the hypothetical bike rack in front of the store?

mschwett 

i actually would really like to understand this - we may be talking about slightly different things here. i'd love to be wrong about it. let's take a hypothetical person very much like me. normal body weight. 6'2, 185lb. based on my base metabolic rate, normal activities throughout the day, let's just say a 2,000 calorie diet maintains my body weight. obviously there are ways to get those 2,000 calories that will have all kinds of other effects, but not really relevant here - i'm a healthy (in the digestive/metabolic sense) individual with a stable diet and a stable weight.

if i had a job 20 miles away, and took the bus, it really doesn't change that 2,000 calorie figure. i'm just sitting on the bus reading bf on my phone.

if, instead, i cycle to and from work, and it takes an hour each way, and burns 800 calories each way, is it not true that without an intake of an additional 1,600 calories a day, i'm going to have some major issue? weight loss, at first, but that only works for a little bit. at some point, calories in have to be calories out, and there is only so far that the body can adjust. i understand your point that if we started with a much heavier person, they'd drop weight from cycling, reducing their total caloric requirement, but again, they reach a new equilibrium which is much better for themselves and the environment.

i would actually like to be wrong about this, but my (admittedly basic) understanding of metabolism as well as my own personal experience says differently. i was about 200lb before i started cycling a lot, and i know what i ate to stay at approx that level. i'm now at 185, ride around 150 miles a week, and eat MUCH MORE - approximately as much more as the basic math around the efficiency of cycling and my power meter suggest.

mschwett 

i think we're in agreement that driving is bad for the environment. you can crunch the numbers many different ways, but a good basic number is 400 grams of C02 per mile. personally, when cycling, i burn around 50 calories per mile (average of many rides, lots of hills.)

assuming this oft-referenced chart is even close to correct, there is a point at which the car wins. by a lot. the CO2 equivalent if my diet consisted solely of wheat and potatoes would be a mere 30g. (600g per 1000cal divided by 20). but if i ate a cheese stick to make up those 50 calories, we're up to 300. hamburger patty... 1,800.

also: what's up with tomatoes?!?!?!

GhostRider62

Where did I say cyclists can't use the road? I don't associate with urbanite cyclists like you. You can use your urban road with whomever you want.

GhostRider62

You think weird. Forcing people what to eat or fixing it. Please stay in San Francisco.

livedarklions

And if you didn't bicycle 150 miles a week, you wouldn't be doing something else for exercise? Basically, the implications of this is that people shouldn't exercise because it burns calories. Where your reasoning goes off the rails here is that you're not considering what people who aren't cycling are actually doing. Again, lots of people drive to the gym. It's a fact that's absolutely devastating to your line of reasoning.

Also, there's an awful lot of relatively inactive people carrying enough body weight that it isn't really much of an answer to point out that your particular example doesn't fit the pattern I'm describing. People's weights fluctuate constantly. No one is really operating in perfect balance.

livedarklions

Again, it's absurd to connect this graph to cycling. These numbers are the same whether I'm burning the calories riding my bike or walking to my parking space, or jogging, or lifting weights, or swimming, or running on a treadmill. You're just fixating on cycling because the fact that you can measure the activity in miles makes the comparison to car usage tempting, but it's a ridiculous argument no matter which way you cut it. What evidence do you have that people who drive to the gym consume less meat and dairy than people who cycle? The "beef-powered cyclist" is an absurd assumption.

The problem with this is you're using a rhetorical strategy to illustrate the harmfulness of cows that's premised on minimizing the actual environmental harm caused by too much driving. And how about instead of comparing greenhouse gas emissions by mile, you compare it in terms of emissions per hour? You really think people don't increase the number of miles they travel when they rely more on their car for transportation?

Again, feel free to campaign against cow farming. Just stop making it easier for the driving industrial complex to lie with statistics while doing so.

tomato coupe

If you live and breath and reproducing you're not doing the planet any favors. That's also easily fixed.

mschwett 

please don’t put words in my mouth - i’ve said nothing absolutely nothing - about forcing people to eat or not eat anything. there is a TON of data about the environmental impacts of various types of food. everyone is then free to make their own choices about what to eat.

mschwett 

you’re missing my point. i’m not saying that cars are good, that people should drive rather than bike or walk or take transit. i’m saying very simply that the climate implications of food should be considered, especially if we’re burning tons of calories. many people don’t care about this (greenhouse gases) at all, many do.

i have spent most of my adult/professional life engaged in work to give people places to live and work that don’t require they drive everywhere they go. my point would have perhaps been better made simply by pointing out that there’s a significant climate impact of, as you put it, “beef powered cycling,” but it’s tempting to have a yardstick to measure against.

if we accept your point that if someone wasn’t cycling for exercise then they’d do something else that burned as many calories, i agree completely with you, 100%.

that is/was absolutely not true for me - i’m not able to do most kinds of exercise that burn as many calories as cycling, so it is actually a very clear, black and white increase in food consumption. i would never go to the gym (by foot or car) to sit on a treadmill for four hours. i’d just eat a lot less and do something sedentary by interesting.

i’d be very surprised if my cycling friends found something equally energy intensive to replace cycling if they couldn’t do it. they’d either get fat or eat less, likely the latter. but everyone is different.

mschwett 

to bring this circuitous “debate” full circle, the discussion above is exactly why things like my initial observation matter to me. because cycling is a great way for people to get around and get exercise, good for health, the environment, and our cities. and when people do inconsiderate **** like block nearly an entire sidewalk in a busy pedestrian area, it chips away at the possibility for cycling to meaningfully replace other modes of transit, even if it’s just 10 more people who walked around that bike and thought to themselves “people on bikes are so rude.”

stardognine

Amen, brother. Way too many people think they "deserve" to be rude to others, just because they have a little experience. 🙄

holytrousers

Very few people try to think in a holistic way.
Being a cyclist means more than just riding a bike: it's also having a sane, rational and healthy mindset.