Conservatives call bull on UW bicycling study
Last week, a local financial executive called me a “stooge.”
I was somewhat insulted, but mostly curious.
There was no question what I had done to inspire the vitriol. It was my reporting on research that projected the physical and environmental benefits to be gained if Midwesterners turned to biking or walking for 50% of their trips under five miles. (The report can be found here).
For that, I was deemed a “pawn of the left.”
The criticism mirrored that of other self-described conservatives and made me wonder again why advocating for bicycling is deemed a liberal pursuit.
In an email to the critic, I posed the question this way: “It would seem that cycling, as a cheaper alternative to driving, would be a transportation option embraced by conservatives. It's cheaper for the individual and the required public investment, compared to road-building. In most debates, though, it seems conservatives view cycling as a liberal enterprise. I realize you're probably busy, but your insights into that divide would be welcome.”
He did respond, at some length, but later asked that I not share his dissertation on the blog. He explained that it might cost him clients, who hold an opposing view.
Fortunately, conservative blogger James Wigderson posted a somewhat similar critique on the MacIver Institute web site. Another post, in the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, argues bike lanes add to traffic congestion.
Wigderson has previously ridiculed investments in cycling infrastructure, and he followed a similar path in critiquing the study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
For a number of reasons, Wigderson found absurd the idea that Midwestern residents would bike or walk upwards of five miles to run errands.
“If I took a bicycle everywhere I went, I wouldn’t be able to use my cell phone,” he wrote. “The gasping for air would get me arrested for making obscene phone calls.”
His larger point was more practical than physical:
“My wife’s trips today to the grocery store, Menards hardware store and for take-out pizza all should have been on her bicycle. But of course that wouldn’t work. It’s hard to carry the latest Christmas outdoor decorations from the hardware store on the back of a Schwinn, even with a basket. Two gallons of milk, cereal for a week, bacon, eggs, bread, and light bulbs weren’t going to fit on the back of the bike, either. As for the carry out pizza, that might have worked. Just leave the two-liter of soda and the breadsticks behind.”
Wigderson ably expressed his view that the study’s preposition – that 50% of trips under five miles could be managed in non-motorized fashion – was unattainable.
But his post, and my financial friend’s response, failed to answer my larger question about conservatives and their opposition to investments in cycling.
I think it’s worthy of discussion, preferably in a thoughtful, fact-based, non-insulting manner.
74 Comments for "Conservatives call bull on UW bicycling study"
"progressives" want to move things forward, even if that means sometimes adopting "old" technology, sometimes
are "conservatives" saying they wouldn't light a candle if the power went out?
(or was forecast to go out, or was forecast to be vastly more expensive, destructive, whatever)
Greg F Nov 08, 2011 4:30 PM
I simply hold that improving health is a general economic good for all of society - regardless of whether the payment system is private or public.
Similarly, air quality concerns a shared resource. We are all impacted by the quality of the air and that quality in turn has an impact on health.
If it is possible to make economically quantify the cost of those things they SHOULD be factored into the decision-making process.
With respect to the additional deaths of cyclists there are countless studies that have demonstrated that an increase in the number of cyclists actually decreases the mortality rate. While there would undoubtedly be a rise in cyclists deaths you then also have to look at any corresponding decline in automobile deaths as fewer people drive cars and there are fewer opportunities for collisions. From what I have read of this and other studies I believe that the difference in mortality would be statistically insignificant. But that is my opinion, not a fact.
If you disagree with the premise or conclusion of the report then you SHOULD challenge with it. That is the basis of science and peer review. But please do it with evidence and facts rather than simply assert a belief that it is all bunk made up to promote an agenda.
BDWIRunner Nov 08, 2011 4:30 PM
what do you want to conserve?
the air?
the water?
the deer population?
or the dominance of cars/trucks as the main taxpayer subsidized form of transportation?
oil companies are subsidized
car/truck manufacturers are regularly bailed out
roads are built largely with property taxes (even from those who walk, bike, bus/train to work, the store, school, dinner out)
so what "conservatives" like Wigderson are saying is that Wisconsin's $6.5 billion budget for roads (for 2011-2013) is fine by them; and ZERO dollars for sidewalks and bike lanes/paths is their ONLY happy outcome.
and that's exactly what the current Republican WI govt is (trying to give) giving them.
Greg F Nov 08, 2011 4:38 PM
New York City installed protected bike lanes on Columbus Avenue. After the did that bicycling increased 56%, all traffic crashes decreased 34%, speeding decreased, sidewalk biking went down, vehicle traffic flow remained the same, and double parking decreased.
Chicago experienced similar results this past summer when they added a low cost (<$200K) protected bike lane on Kedzie Avenue.
BDWIRunner Nov 08, 2011 4:43 PM
the thing that is outlandish is the knee jerk reaction from some conservatives
some of the time
on some issues
like this one here
Greg F Nov 08, 2011 4:43 PM
for some people
some of the time
why do "conservatives" who can't bike to all things all the time
want no one to be able to bike (safely)
to some things
some of the time?
Greg F Nov 08, 2011 4:46 PM
and the benefits mentioned in the study will come to fruition
Greg F Nov 08, 2011 4:47 PM
Our daughter spent a semester in Amsterdam, which is a biking city par excellence. She biked ten miles each day across the city for classes and martial arts...with just about everybody else in Amsterdam. Business people in their suits (people still dress up there) holding a latte in one hand and an umbrella in the other. People do their shopping on their way home from work...fresh bread, veggies and meat each day. The laws protecting cyclists are very strict. Fines are heavy and accidents rare. This is possible. Other cities do it.
..
LostintheUS Nov 08, 2011 4:49 PM
But that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Using that same logic we should not spend money on roads for cars.
Why?
The crash rate for motorists is significantly higher than the crash rate for bicycles and buses.
The mortality rate for motorist accidents is significantly higher that for bicycles.
Looking at the traffic flow and control data from the DOT you learn that every day motorists break more traffic laws than cyclists do. The AVERAGE speed over the Hoan bridge - which has a traffic volume in the tens of thousands each day - is 5 miles over the posted speed limit.
I wholeheartedly encourage enforcing the laws for both motorists and cyclists. And I do not oppose registering my bike. I already do that in my community.
BDWIRunner Nov 08, 2011 4:52 PM
incorrect
exaggerated
yes
all of the above
I bike
I stop at stop signs and red lights
ALL motorists drive over the speed limit ALL the time
always
the Joint Finance Committee want(ed) ZERO dollars in the state budget for sidewalks and bike lanes/paths - and that is in a $6.5 billion state transportation budget.
so zero state dollars for pedestrians and cyclists, $6.5 billion for motorists
and who's panhandling?
and you're right - no one in Middleton uses the bike lanes and paths
no one
whenever I'm out there biking on them I never see anyone else biking...
Greg F Nov 08, 2011 4:57 PM
nass713 Nov 08, 2011 6:44 PM
james wigderson Nov 08, 2011 6:52 PM
If you think that bikes are slowing down, it's because they don't have brake lights. Additionally, it's easier to notice a car slowing down -- from 35 mph to 5 mph -- than it is to notice a bike slowing down -- from 14 mph to 5 mph. I guarantee that when I am "rolling through a stop sign," my speed is no different than a car that does the same thing.
Start looking at the bigger picture.
yesman1000 Nov 09, 2011 7:45 AM
T. Held Nov 09, 2011 9:48 AM
The Sage Nov 09, 2011 12:46 PM