Advocacy & Safety - It’s Time to End the Politicization of Cycling

For some reason, cycling has become politicized. If you ride a bike or are in favor of making your community more bike and pedestrian friendly, people assume you must be some kind of a liberal freak.

Far from the truth.

Though there is some conjecture about how this came to be – perhaps it’s because the original ISTEA bill funding bike accommodations was sponsored by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1991? Who knows.

Read the full article:
http://www.vabike.org/politicization-of-cycling/

Where it comes from is the notion that it is somehow anti-American to not drive...

"Cycling is European" somehow goes the thinking of some rather close-minded individuals... never mind that using foreign oil to power your "smog belching rolling living room" really does help fund terrorism.

Funny how some never quite get the connection.

For some reason, cycling has become politicized. If you ride a bike or are in favor of making your community more bike and pedestrian friendly, people assume you must be some kind of a liberal freak.

Far from the truth.

Though there is some conjecture about how this came to be – perhaps it’s because the original ISTEA bill funding bike accommodations was sponsored by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1991? Who knows.

Read the full article:
http://www.vabike.org/politicization-of-cycling/

Cycling has been the subject of political controversy since about 1944, then the law decided that bicycles were not vehicles and therefore that their use could be restricted, through restrictive laws, in ways that would be intolerable to those in political power, the motorists. Some cyclists recognized that obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles was better for them than obeying the restrictive laws, so there was a political controversy between two groups of road users, motorists and cyclists. However, while this was a political controversy, it was very lowkey and was confined to the actual traffic operating subject, because the motorists believed that nearly all cycling was juvenile and insignificant.

The "bike boom" that started in the 1960s caused motorists to recognize that adult cycling had not died. They decided, in California in 1971, to crack down on cyclists by creating a bikeway system that would force all cyclists to obey the restrictive laws (and new ones also). That sharpened the political conflict between motorists and cyclists.

Shortly after the motorists created the bikeway system designs, cycling became extremely political. Groups with any kind of agenda that could conceivably be tied to anti-motoring (oil crisis, air pollution, suburbia, road building, car manufacture, obesity, national defense, you've seen them all) jumped into the controversy on the side of the motorists. They chose to support the motorists' side of the bikeway controversy because they believed the motorists' lying propaganda that bikeways made cycling safe for incompetent cyclists. So, ever since 1975 bicycle transportation has been the field for intense political activity conducted by interests outside the field of cycling.

I agree, but it's not going to happen. Even the fact that roads need to be repaved has now become a political issue, what with one party insisting that we no longer fund our transportation infrastructure. What hope can we possibly have of building bike lanes if we can't even get them to agree to roads in the first place?

Where it comes from is the notion that it is somehow anti-American to not drive...

"Cycling is European" somehow goes the thinking of some rather close-minded individuals... never mind that using foreign oil to power your "smog belching rolling living room" really does help fund terrorism.I usually don't hear "European" from the haters. They tend to prefer to claim that it's like China, because their agenda is to equate cycling with being poor and living under a totalitarian government. Calling it "European" is not negative enough for them.

Of course, the same thing is true of climate change, evolution, history, medicine, ...

Hmmm...I don't see as that politicized in my day to day rides and breaks in coffee shops and diners. Most people know I use my bike or walk to save on gas and auto wear and tear; as well as for health reasons. On my long rides i think most touring people will say ya get OOHS! and AHHHHS! when ya talk to folks about how far ya have gone. Its just that the liberal freaks who want gas at $10 a gallon dominate the debate and are the front face of cycling in the news media.

I usually don't hear "European" from the haters. They tend to prefer to claim that it's like China, because their agenda is to equate cycling with being poor and living under a totalitarian government. Calling it "European" is not negative enough for them.

East coast / west coast thing. Here on the west coast, we hear the China thing, on the other coast or with certain political bent, it is a "liberal European thing."

Either way, it is just yet another excuse.

I usually don't hear "European" from the haters. They tend to prefer to claim that it's like China, because their agenda is to equate cycling with being poor and living under a totalitarian government. Calling it "European" is not negative enough for them.

I'm surprised you get that sophisticated of an answer. Usually here it's "gay", and that's as far as the conversation goes. "Dude, biking is gay", or "you look stupid".

Truly, they have a dizzying intellect.

i like this article -

tom bowden, how to talk about bicycling to a conservative (http://www.commutebybike.com/2010/12/11/how-to-talk-about-cycling-to-a-conservative/)

Tom's got some good fodder in there...


Cycling saves money, saves lives and makes us stronger as individuals and as a nation. Spending money to support cycling is like putting money in the bank–it pays big dividends at low risk. It’s as all American as Mom’s apple pie.

Most cyclists in Texas are Republicans, according to what I've heard (from the advocacy group Bike Texas). Among the cyclists themselves it not so much of a political issue. Outside the cycling community, to make any changes to laws you need the political process, and the left more readily supports that (although, again, here in Texas there is reasonable support from the right as well). Our new mayor in Fort Worth is a 20+ year bike commuting Republican.

Two points:

1. ANY activity that is going to affect the lifestyles of a NOTICEABLE percentage of the population cannot help but become political. Acceptance of cycling as transportation is an effort that will affect the daily lives of 100 million people, in one way or another.

2. The 'politicizing' of cycling is due to the hot-potato, argument point/counterpoint that results from the expression of (sometimes) ignorant opinions. It's an issue that polarizes because people have become one-issue, knee-jerk fanatics to their personal points of view. If a person is against taxing the rich, he/she becomes a 'fellow' with Boehner and Cantor, regardless of any disagreement on other issues. . . until those other divisive issues become known.

People just HAVE to categorize and pigeonhole............

My transportational cycling has nothing to do with my political views, it has 100% to do with the FACT that I love to pedal!

Cycling has been the subject of political controversy since about 1944, then the law decided that bicycles were not vehicles and therefore that their use could be restricted, through restrictive laws, in ways that would be intolerable to those in political power, the motorists. Some cyclists recognized that obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles was better for them than obeying the restrictive laws, so there was a political controversy between two groups of road users, motorists and cyclists. However, while this was a political controversy, it was very lowkey and was confined to the actual traffic operating subject, because the motorists believed that nearly all cycling was juvenile and insignificant.

The "bike boom" that started in the 1960s caused motorists to recognize that adult cycling had not died. They decided, in California in 1971, to crack down on cyclists by creating a bikeway system that would force all cyclists to obey the restrictive laws (and new ones also). That sharpened the political conflict between motorists and cyclists.

Shortly after the motorists created the bikeway system designs, cycling became extremely political. Groups with any kind of agenda that could conceivably be tied to anti-motoring (oil crisis, air pollution, suburbia, road building, car manufacture, obesity, national defense, you've seen them all) jumped into the controversy on the side of the motorists. They chose to support the motorists' side of the bikeway controversy because they believed the motorists' lying propaganda that bikeways made cycling safe for incompetent cyclists. So, ever since 1975 bicycle transportation has been the field for intense political activity conducted by interests outside the field of cycling.

One of the perks of BF membership is reading about this topic from a man who was not only an eyewitness, but probably did the most to politicize cycling. It's very interesting to read your take on it, even if i don't particularly agree with you. Thanks for taking the time!

For some reason, cycling has become politicized. If you ride a bike or are in favor of making your community more bike and pedestrian friendly, people assume you must be some kind of a liberal freak.

Far from the truth.

Though there is some conjecture about how this came to be – perhaps it’s because the original ISTEA bill funding bike accommodations was sponsored by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1991? Who knows.

Read the full article:
http://www.vabike.org/politicization-of-cycling/

In the same way the assumption here is addressed, should also be used to address the assumption that anyone riding their bike legally, on the road does not have a genuine reason for going somewhere by bike instead of in a four-wheel monument to OPEC.

Two points:

1. ANY activity that is going to affect the lifestyles of a NOTICEABLE percentage of the population cannot help but become political. Acceptance of cycling as transportation is an effort that will affect the daily lives of 100 million people, in one way or another.

2. The 'politicizing' of cycling is due to the hot-potato, argument point/counterpoint that results from the expression of (sometimes) ignorant opinions. It's an issue that polarizes because people have become one-issue, knee-jerk fanatics to their personal points of view. If a person is against taxing the rich, he/she becomes a 'fellow' with Boehner and Cantor, regardless of any disagreement on other issues. . . until those other divisive issues become known.

People just HAVE to categorize and pigeonhole............

My transportational cycling has nothing to do with my political views, it has 100% to do with the FACT that I love to pedal!

The irony is that the end effect (mentioned in your item 1) is likely to positively affect that group of 100 million, but the reaction of that 100 million is to oppose any change.

One of the perks of BF membership is reading about this topic from a man who was not only an eyewitness, but probably did the most to politicize cycling. It's very interesting to read your take on it, even if i don't particularly agree with you. Thanks for taking the time!

Thank you for the recognition, Roody. However, I think that I did little to politicize bicycle transportation. It is true that I opposed the motoring establishment's program for incompetent cycling on bikeways, but that was an argument entirely within the highway transportation field. It was limited to the difference between obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and obeying the anti-cyclist program created by the motoring establishment, and it concerned only the welfare of cyclists. The politicization occurred when people with outside interests jumped in to promote the motorists' bikeways in the belief that bikeways would advance their agendas for goals outside of bicycle transportation.

good thing THAT'S all run its course. :rolleyes:


The current problem with the politicization of bicycling at the federal level is a continued funding crisis, rescissions, and the threat of removing transportation enhancements funds or otherwise funneling them away from bicycling and active transportation projects to fix infrastructure.

good thing THAT'S all run its course. :rolleyes:


The current problem with the politicization of bicycling at the federal level is a continued funding crisis, rescissions, and the threat of removing transportation enhancements funds or otherwise funneling them away from bicycling and active transportation projects to fix infrastructure.

It's quite understandable that Bek is upset because the motoring establishment has started to consider that it has better ways to spend its money than its anti-cyclist program of incompetent cycling on bikeways, the program that Bek desires so strongly.

their agenda is to equate cycling with being poor and living under a totalitarian government.

Well... looking around at the current state of affairs here in the good ol' Yew Ess Ay, we're not far off...

i like this article -

tom bowden, how to talk about bicycling to a conservative (http://www.commutebybike.com/2010/12/11/how-to-talk-about-cycling-to-a-conservative/)

Tom's got some good fodder in there...

Good post, great article, agree with most of it. As someone who is one gun collection to the right of Attilla the Hun, I find cycling's connection with global warming alarmism and progressive politics to be a buzz kill. I now realize that I had unconsciously avoided cycling for years because I had associated it with leftism. Dumb of me.

Of course, I can't agree that spending public money to support cycling or any other non-essential item pays dividends, except to a particular bureaucracy and its vested constituency -- but I know I'm in the lunatic fringe.

oh, it's dividends like 'greater public health', 'improved senior mobility', 'lessened childhood onset diabetes', 'lower cost maintaining the roads', 'better air quality' those types of things.

It's cheaper for communities than planning everyone drive everywhere, and pays a multitude of dividends.

Of course, I can't agree that spending public money to support cycling or any other non-essential item pays dividends, except to a particular bureaucracy and its vested constituency -- but I know I'm in the lunatic fringe.

Cycling is certainly essential to me. I don't own a car. I use a bike to get to work, shopping, entertainment, doctor appointments, and almost everywhere else I go. IMO, bikes are the best transportation mode in my area.

They chose to support the motorists' side of the bikeway controversy because they believed the motorists' lying propaganda that bikeways made cycling safe for incompetent cyclists.
That and that it was a much larger constituency probably helped too.
Why back a proposition with very little public support?
People would rather compromise and point to the gains, rather than lose completely and be righteously indignant.

Promote the benefits of cycling, and meanwhile the market determines if the value exceeds that of motoring.
Hidden costs can be exposed and hidden benefits extolled, but those don't have as much sway as social acceptance and convenience, despite the greater costs.

On the other hand, we politicize healthful eating habits.
So what's the difference? Crunchy granola is attributed to wealthy conservatives or not?
(I'm not stating that crunchy granola is a healthful food.)

Personally I find cycling far more beneficial (greater distances traveled, increased trip count, more fun had) if I can use the roadways. So I do that.

Just saw this, JF and thought of you:http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/100823-Sidewalk-bicycling/page91#post13355838

Cycling is certainly essential to me. I don't own a car. I use a bike to get to work, shopping, entertainment, doctor appointments, and almost everywhere else I go. IMO, bikes are the best transportation mode in my area.

I should clarify -- what I meant is that it is not essential for the government to spend public money in order for you to engage in cycling.

The whole "the government should spend money on <insert pet cause here> because we will save money / receive benefits" is a sham to me. I've watched government spending drastically increase as a percentage of GDP over my entire life, and believe it will continue to do so until we collapse. I'm aware of no historical precedent to the contrary.

I should clarify -- what I meant is that it is not essential for the government to spend public money in order for you to engage in cycling.

The whole "the government should spend money on <insert pet cause here> because we will save money / receive benefits" is a sham to me. I've watched government spending drastically increase as a percentage of GDP over my entire life, and believe it will continue to do so until we collapse. I'm aware of no historical precedent to the contrary.

And where exactly would this country be if the government had never built our highway system? Do you really believe that anybody besides government could have or would have built I-94? Then why should the free market system be responsible for building bicycle infrastructure? Government is the most effective and most efficient provider of infrastructure for the common good. And yes, IMO bicycle infrastructure is for the common good.

As long as cycling remains a social activity, it will remain politicized. Look at this sub-forum of a general biking forum--helmet and VC debates have devolved into politics.

Outside, as long as cyclists want their meager crumbs from the public trough or a say in transportation matters, cycling will remain political.

Curse it all you want, like uphills, headwinds, rain, and mechanical failures, but just so, you won't avoid the politics of cycling.

This will do wonders to dispel the image of cyclists as left wing hypocritical windbags who say lets you and him recycle and lets you and him share the road!

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2011/10/13/mi-occupy-wall-brookfield30.jpg

Maybe we can start occupying bike shops.

And where exactly would this country be if the government had never built our highway system? Do you really believe that anybody besides government could have or would have built I-94? Then why should the free market system be responsible for building bicycle infrastructure? Government is the most effective and most efficient provider of infrastructure for the common good. And yes, IMO bicycle infrastructure is for the common good.

I think that we should return to the original issue. What kind of bicycle transportation system do we want? What we have today is a discriminatory system of bicycle transportation operated in accordance with laws and bikeways designed by motorists for the convenience of motorists. Of course, the whole thing is a confused mess, because it operates under two sets of laws: under one set, cyclists obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles; under the other set they are prohibited from doing so lest they get in the path of motorists. This system is wildly praised by enormous numbers of people because it will, for example, reduce national obesity, to offer the latest excuse. There is a link. That link is that this hybrid system of anti-cyclist discrimination is supposed to be so popular that it persuades a great many motorists to switch a great many trips from motor to bicycle transport. However, this system is paid for by motorists, who do so in the belief that it makes motoring more convenient.

The coercive nature of this anti-cyclist system has always been the source of the controversy within the bicycling community. Those cyclists who recognize that obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is best for them have a very good basis for their belief; after all, those rules have been worked out to provide a good balance between safety and convenience for all drivers, while the anti-cyclist discriminatory laws, and the bikeways designed to implement them, improve neither safety nor convenience. These cyclists dislike, even hate, being pushed around by police and public to do what they know is neither for their safety nor convenience but serves only the discriminatory desires of motorists.

Before the start of the bikeway era, bicycle transportation politics was relatively quiet. Those cyclists who chose to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, vehicular cyclists, were largely unmolested, while those cyclists who chose to obey instead the prime command to stay out of the way of motorists, even though this meant disobeying the rules of the road, were not only not molested, they were actively encouraged. But when more adults took up cycling in the 1960s, motorists decided to clamp down with a bikeway system that, wherever built, would force all cyclists to operate in the cyclist-inferiority mode that motorists desired. Hence the rebellion by vehicular cyclists.

The obvious way to remove the causes of the controversy that has split the bicycle transportation community is to remove the coercive nature of the current system; to return to the comparative quiet that existed before the motoring establishment created the bikeway system to force compliance with its motorist superiority desires. That is, remove the laws that prohibit cyclists from obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, so that those cyclists who chose would be legally free to obey them. Whether bikeways are a good or a bad idea, they could be used by those who preferred them, while those who preferred to use the roadway while obeying the rules of the road for all the drivers would be free to do so. And those who believe that bikeways reduce national obesity could advocate bikeways without jeopardizing other cyclists.

For some reason, cycling has become politicized. If you ride a bike or are in favor of making your community more bike and pedestrian friendly, people assume you must be some kind of a liberal freak.


Oh, man, I hate being mistaken for a liberal when I'm on my bike. That's why I wear my Ann Coulter T-shirt (http://www.thoseshirts.com/coulter.html) every time I ride.

The obvious way to remove the causes of the controversy that has split the bicycle transportation community is to remove the coercive nature of the current system; to return to the comparative quiet that existed before the motoring establishment created the bikeway system to force compliance with its motorist superiority desires. That is, remove the laws that prohibit cyclists from obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, so that those cyclists who chose would be legally free to obey them. Whether bikeways are a good or a bad idea, they could be used by those who preferred them, while those who preferred to use the roadway while obeying the rules of the road for all the drivers would be free to do so. And those who believe that bikeways reduce national obesity could advocate bikeways without jeopardizing other cyclists.

John I snipped this down to just this to ask this one question... The "comparative quiet" you are speaking off, would that in anyway have anything to do with the reduced number of motorists (and cars) and lower speeds said motorists typically drove "back in the day?"

The "comparative quiet" you are speaking off, would that in anyway have anything to do with the reduced number of motorists (and cars) and lower speeds said motorists typically drove "back in the day?"

Back in the day, they all kept off your lawn. Damn kids.

John I snipped this down to just this to ask this one question... The "comparative quiet" you are speaking off, would that in anyway have anything to do with the reduced number of motorists (and cars) and lower speeds said motorists typically drove "back in the day?"

The road system was as crowded as today. Lower speeds? My family, and I, drove up and down California at 90 mph wherever possible, in the rural areas, of course. So your suggestion fails for lack of supporting evidence.

And where exactly would this country be if the government had never built our highway system? Do you really believe that anybody besides government could have or would have built I-94? Then why should the free market system be responsible for building bicycle infrastructure? Government is the most effective and most efficient provider of infrastructure for the common good. And yes, IMO bicycle infrastructure is for the common good.

I'll respond here, and then I think we should take further discussion to the Politics Forum, out of consideration for the other forum users.

I think establishing and managing an interstate highway system is a legitimate function of government, as it is an essential requirement of an industrialized economy which cannot be established by more efficient means. Bicycle infrastructure is not a necessary feature of an industrialized nation.

Would it be for the common good? Yes, but every single government program is justified as being for the common good. Just ask Greece.

Government is the most effective and efficient provider of bicycling infrastructure? Really. Come to Orange County and ride on the hundreds of miles of pristine cycling infrastructure implemented with zero public money by The Irvine Company, a PRIVATE land company that can teach the government a thing or two hundred about efficient public administration.

The road system was as crowded as today. Lower speeds? My family, and I, drove up and down California at 90 mph wherever possible, in the rural areas, of course. So your suggestion fails for lack of supporting evidence.

The number of cars on US roads doubled between 1960 and 1980.
Passenger Cars: 1960... 61,671,390 ; 1980... 121,600,843

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html


According to cumulative data[1] by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) the number of motor vehicles has also increased steadily since 1960, only stagnating once in 1997 and declining from 1990 to 1991. Otherwise the number of motor vehicles has been rising by an estimated 3.69 million each year since 1960 with the largest annual growth between 1998 and 1999 as well as between 2000 and 2001 when the number of motor vehicles in the United States increased by eight million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

The number of highway road miles in the US has not kept pace.
1960... 3,545,693; 1980... 3,859,837
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/pdf/entire.pdf

Therefore there are more cars per roadway space from 1960 to 1980, meaning the roads are more crowded today than they were "back in the day."

Your rebuttal fails the test of obvious. Anyone that has been alive for oh say 50 years or so can tell you that the roads are more crowded than ever before.

I'll respond here, and then I think we should take further discussion to the Politics Forum, out of consideration for the other forum users.

I think establishing and managing an interstate highway system is a legitimate function of government, as it is an essential requirement of an industrialized economy which cannot be established by more efficient means. Bicycle infrastructure is not a necessary feature of an industrialized nation.

Would it be for the common good? Yes, but every single government program is justified as being for the common good. Just ask Greece.

Government is the most effective and efficient provider of bicycling infrastructure? Really. Come to Orange County and ride on the hundreds of miles of pristine cycling infrastructure implemented with zero public money by The Irvine Company, a PRIVATE land company that can teach the government a thing or two hundred about efficient public administration.

Why would a suitable and well designed bikeway system not also be "justified as being for the common good?" Such a system to encourage transportation by cycling would also reduce the use of imported oil, and encourage exercise.

Politics=Money. Money=Politics
Once upon a time roads were built/maintained only at the local level.
Motorists pay for roads at the local level with taxes collected at the gas pump. The Feds are supposed to match local dollars with funds from the national budget(excepting special projects and pork).
Cyclists do not pay a road specific tax.
There's the rub.

For some reason, cycling has become politicized. If you ride a bike or are in favor of making your community more bike and pedestrian friendly, people assume you must be some kind of a liberal freak.


I beg to differ. They generally assume you're either a health nut or can't drive.

What's unclear to me is how the writer expects to further his political agenda of advocacy and shared infrastructure while "ending politicization".

Government is the most effective and efficient provider of bicycling infrastructure? Really. Come to Orange County and ride on the hundreds of miles of pristine cycling infrastructure implemented with zero public money by The Irvine Company, a PRIVATE land company that can teach the government a thing or two hundred about efficient public administration.

The Irvine Company did indeed put in a lot of cycling infrastructure without public money...because it was a private development on undeveloped land. They were starting from scratch. Comparing that to adding bike infrastructure to existing on public roads, in suburbs, cities, etc. isn't even apples to oranges, it's apples to potatoes.

This whole topic is laughable. In the article cited by the OP, the writer says that 'both sides' in Washington should work together to include cycling in transportation planning and funding. Well, one side is already doing that, and the other throws cyclists and their interests under the bus at every opportunity. And they do so quite obviously and publicly, with cyclists as a symbol of what they hold in contempt. The writer recognizes that, and doesn't like it, but somehow feels that 'both sides' are to blame.

The whole thing reminds me of tearful late night conversations I used to have with a female friend, which usually ended with me asking 'if he treats you so bad, why don't you leave him?' 'But I know he really loves me!' would be the answer. Hopefully the writer of that article will, like my friend, wise up someday.

Politics=Money. Money=Politics
Once upon a time roads were built/maintained only at the local level.
Motorists pay for roads at the local level with taxes collected at the gas pump. The Feds are supposed to match local dollars with funds from the national budget(excepting special projects and pork).
Cyclists do not pay a road specific tax.
There's the rub.

Federal gas tax pays for interstate highways, local roads are paid for by property taxes and developer fees.

I think the politicization of bicycles has barely begun.

One basic function of politics has to do with the allocation of scarce resources. Space on streets is a scarce resource in the world today. The number of transportation cyclists seems to be increasing, while the number of cars has probably leveled off and may start to decline. Cyclists obviously want more space on the roads and a backlash from motorists also seems inevitable.

This is already happening in New York City. Look at the increase in bike lanes, the strife over a carfree Central Park, CM and harassment by police, bikes being an issue in city elections, etc.

Federal gas tax pays for interstate highways, local roads are paid for by property taxes and developer fees.all states now receive more money in highway funds than they send to the federal government in gas taxes. There is a lack of will to tax gas at a rate that pays for the roads. Given the pathetically small amount spent on bike infrastructure, it isn't even a factor in the equation.

Politics=Money. Money=Politics
Once upon a time roads were built/maintained only at the local level.
Motorists pay for roads at the local level with taxes collected at the gas pump. The Feds are supposed to match local dollars with funds from the national budget(excepting special projects and pork).
Cyclists do not pay a road specific tax.
There's the rub.

Not true, at least not in Michigan where we both live. None of our counties, cities, townships or villages collect a fuel tax at the pump. Loal roads are financed through general revenues obtained from property tax, income tax and business tax. So cyclists do help pay for the roads we use the the most.

In fact, it has been said that we pay more than our share, since our vehicles take up less space on the road and cause less wear and tear.

The number of cars on US roads doubled between 1960 and 1980.
Passenger Cars: 1960... 61,671,390 ; 1980... 121,600,843

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

The number of highway road miles in the US has not kept pace.
1960... 3,545,693; 1980... 3,859,837
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/pdf/entire.pdf

Therefore there are more cars per roadway space from 1960 to 1980, meaning the roads are more crowded today than they were "back in the day."

Your rebuttal fails the test of obvious. Anyone that has been alive for oh say 50 years or so can tell you that the roads are more crowded than ever before.

The metric that you offer, the ratio between the number of motor vehicles and the number of highway miles, is hardly an accurate metric. A more nearly accurate metric would be the ratio between the number of motor-vehicle miles in a period and the number of lane miles.

However, there was congestion from early on, which is the substance of my comment. If your hypothesis is not directed at the effects of congestion, then to what is it directed?

all states now receive more money in highway funds than they send to the federal government in gas taxes. There is a lack of will to tax gas at a rate that pays for the roads. Given the pathetically small amount spent on bike infrastructure, it isn't even a factor in the equation.

But it is a factor, because the vast majority of people are largely uninformed about both how our roads are paid for and how little money is spent on bike improvements. And our politicians are now such unethical opportunists that they will exploit that ignorance for political gain. So the actual real situation matters little, as long as the public perception is different. And furthermore, as many have said already, some of the political attacks on cyclists are not really motivated by serious competition for scarce funding, so much as they are motivated by cultural/symbolic issues. The politicians who are anti-bike don't really think they can solve road funding issues by taking some already pathetically low amount of money away from cycling infrastructure. Instead, they are just pandering to a large group of people who perceive cycling negatively, for whatever reason, whether that's because they view it as some sort of attack on the American way of life, because they are annoyed at having to share the road, because they don't like how cyclists dress, or because a cyclist stole their wife. It doesn't have to be rational for politicians to be willing to exploit it.

While I think it's sad that cycling in the U.S. is becoming increasingly a partisan issue, I also think it was inevitable. I think one major reason for this is that we're seeing an increasing partisan political divide between urban areas (trending towards liberals/Democratic Party) and rural areas (trending towards conservatives/Republican Party). Since much of the growth of cycling in recent years has also been in urban areas, it was inevitable that it would become identified as a "marker" for liberalism in some people's minds (on both sides), even though it really has nothing to do with politics. With many conservatives apparently in a mood to "punish" anything they view as associated with liberalism, it's unsurprising that they would go after cycling.

It's also unsurprising that this would happen in a funding crisis/recession. Small programs are easier to cut/kill without serious political risk than big programs are, simply because they have a smaller constituency behind them. So things like cycling programs are an attractive target, even if killing funding for them has a very minimal impact on the budget. Politicians don't really care about cutting spending; instead, they just want to be PERCEIVED as being spending-cutters.

Why would a suitable and well designed bikeway system not also be "justified as being for the common good?" Such a system to encourage transportation by cycling would also reduce the use of imported oil, and encourage exercise.

When you have designed and offered a prototype of a suitable bicycle transportation system that can be generally implemented in American cities, then your efforts will be worth considering.

I think the politicization of bicycles has barely begun.

One basic function of politics has to do with the allocation of scarce resources. Space on streets is a scarce resource in the world today. The number of transportation cyclists seems to be increasing, while the number of cars has probably leveled off and may start to decline. Cyclists obviously want more space on the roads and a backlash from motorists also seems inevitable.

This is already happening in New York City. Look at the increase in bike lanes, the strife over a carfree Central Park, CM and harassment by police, bikes being an issue in city elections, etc.

A backlash from motorists also seems inevitable? Considering that you are advocating removing bicycle traffic from normal roadway space that then becomes motorists' space, which is exactly what the motorists desire, why would a backlash occur? Oh, I see, you want space in some locations where motorists think it is not in their interest to kick cyclists aside? I suppose that as long as you advocate that cyclists should be accommodated and should operate as motorists desire and require, there are likely to be some locations of disagreement about the priority of such efforts.

So, is that the substance of the political controversy? I prefer to oppose the discriminatory status that motorists force upon cyclists to make motoring more convenient.

The metric that you offer, the ratio between the number of motor vehicles and the number of highway miles, is hardly an accurate metric. A more nearly accurate metric would be the ratio between the number of motor-vehicle miles in a period and the number of lane miles.

However, there was congestion from early on, which is the substance of my comment. If your hypothesis is not directed at the effects of congestion, then to what is it directed?

I found this regarding vehicle-miles driven from U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) research programs. I'll confess I haven't read enough to know what the contention is about but I thought the last couple of points were interesting.

http://www.project.org/images/graphs/Vehicle_Miles_Driven.jpg

It does appear that the trend has been a dramatic rise through 2006. Compared to the number of road miles from the previously linked it's evident that congestion has increased considerably, unless some countervailing evidence is brought up.
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=222822&d=1318612821

While on the DOT research site I found a stat that initially floored me, although it may only be peripheral to the discussion. The mean number of auto trips in the US was 4.1 trips per day, for over 40 miles! Special Reports and Issue Briefs > October 2007 (http://www.bts.gov/publications/special_reports_and_issue_briefs/special_report/2007_10_03/html/table_02.html) This seems very high to me, although I suppose that commutes are dominating in the statistic.

I found this regarding vehicle-miles driven from U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) research programs. I'll confess I haven't read enough to know what the contention is about but I thought the last couple of points were interesting.

It does appear that the trend has been a dramatic rise through 2006. Compared to the number of road miles from the previously linked it's evident that congestion has increased considerably, unless some countervailing evidence is brought up.

While on the DOT research site I found a stat that initially floored me, although it may only be peripheral to the discussion. The mean number of auto trips in the US was 4.1 trips per day, for over 40 miles! This seems very high to me, although I suppose that commutes are dominating in the statistic.

The statistic does seem very high to me too, but well within the realm of believability. If true, that's an extraordinary figure, and a sign of how inefficient our society has become. If people are "needing" to drive that many miles per day just to accomplish basic life tasks like getting to and from their job, getting groceries, and taking their kids to school, then we have a serious problem that needs to be addressed. As long as that figure stays that high, it seems to me that any efforts to reduce our energy consumption or deal with congestion are doomed to failure. It shouldn't be necessary to live 20 miles from your job to find affordable, decent housing.

You hit the nail on the head mnemia. Americans overwhelmingly agree according to a survey I surfed up a moment ago. Given choices of addressing congestion 75% of those surveyed preferred improving public transport and (re)building communities that didn't require as much driving, to adding and expanding roadways. My take on that is that we'd rather drive less.

That's not necessarily the same as cycling more.This figure is sobering, showing as it does that the preferred alternative is simply walking, and by an enormous margin even for distances as far as 6 or 7 miles: http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2004/images/figure_02_05.gif

Combine that with the US DOT estimate that 60% of all bicycle trips are under one mile, and we really don't swing much weight politically. If I were a politician advocating for cyclists, I think I'd be careful to group it always under the umbrella of the whole gamut of alternative transport.

all states now receive more money in highway funds than they send to the federal government in gas taxes. There is a lack of will to tax gas at a rate that pays for the roads. Given the pathetically small amount spent on bike infrastructure, it isn't even a factor in the equation.

That is true... in other words, "gas tax" is NOT paying for the roads... either local or long distance... however, the point that was brought up by the relative newcomer catmandew52 was that "Motorists pay for roads at the local level with taxes collected at the gas pump."

This we know to not be true. And you have further confirmed that. Thank you.