Originally Posted by GriddleCakes

No, but cycling does provide a partial solution to the list of moral issues that B. Carfree posted (as I read it: maintaining a healthy populace, reducing environmental pollution, increasing personal financial stability, and resource conservation through reduced energy consumption). If one were to agree that these are moral issues, and that increased cycling rates and reduced driving rates would positively affect society with regard to these issues, then one could conclude that choosing cycling over driving is moral issue.

It's this mindset that keeps my fiancé riding her bike to work through the winter; once the temp falls below freezing it certainly isn't the sheer pleasure of cycling that keeps her on the bike. If it gets/keeps people on bikes, then let folks like B. Carfree keep preaching. I would say that promoting the positive effects of cycling is likely to be more effective than condemning automotive transport, though. The former encourages people try something new by showing that cycling is both good and fun, where the latter orders people to stop doing something by casting judgement and heaping guilt and gloom upon them (and even though it might be deserved, that doesn't mean that is will be accepted or considered).

The list in the OP is condemning automotive transport, legitimately, I think; but I don't think that it would gain much traction in the minds of those who aren't already convinced that addiction to the automobile is bad for society. It's useful for those who already agree to help identify the problems that define the issue, which allows them to formulate better arguments to help convince those who don't agree or, more importantly, those who are neutral. But, as far as effective advocacy goes, I like Doohickie's list better. My only gripe with it is that #1 should've been: Cycling is fun. That's the most important privilege of cycling to me, that I get to enjoy my commute.