One of the tricky tensions when writing transportation alternatives or food subsidies or transit is that, in this country, they've been recast as lifestyle issues. For some reason, it's assumed that liberals get a Decemberist's CD for every biker they sign up, or maybe a voucher for a free round of brie every time they convince an otherwise sane American to forego meat. Sadly, I can tell you it doesn't happen. But I'm sure I'll get a lot of links of that sort when I post this next video, a lecture by John Pucher, a professor of planning and public policy, at Rutgers University. His presentation is called "Cycling for Everyone: Lessons for Vancouver from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany" (it comes from a Canadian public policy conference), and it's a useful exploration of why cycling in some countries is a demographically specific pursuit while in other countries, it's a broadly used form of transportation favored by substantial chunks of both genders, all age groups, and all income levels. The overarching point is simply that, in societies where cycling infrastructure is intelligently planned, there's nothing elitist, or liberal, or uncommon, about it. Take this graph showing percentage of transport by cycling, by age:
In America no one cycles, and when you're over thirty, really no one cycles. In the Netherlands, a quarter of the old make their trips by bike. Which is just to say, everyone cycles. It's like walking, or driving: A mode of transportation that's often the best for a given trip. Not some sort of radical lifestyle statement. Meanwhile, the problem in America is that, compared to other countries, cycling is incredibly unsafe, and we have little infrastructure dedicated to supporting it:
This of course means that cycling ends up concentrated among the young, who tend to take more risks and feel more physically capable, and males, who tend to take even more risks and feel even more physically capable. But there's no reason it should be that way. It's a public policy choice, and given the energy and public health benefits of cycling, it's an odd one. Indeed, I think Pucher makes a persuasive argument that it's the wrong one. But it's gotten so you can hardly talk about whether we should make a different choice, because suggesting that we should make biking into a safer and more readily available alternative is like suggesting the government legislate that everyone turns gay, or takes a cultural studies course.Anyway, you can watch the whole presentation here.
In America no one cycles, and when you're over thirty, really no one cycles. In the Netherlands, a quarter of the old make their trips by bike. Which is just to say, everyone cycles. It's like walking, or driving: A mode of transportation that's often the best for a given trip. Not some sort of radical lifestyle statement. Meanwhile, the problem in America is that, compared to other countries, cycling is incredibly unsafe, and we have little infrastructure dedicated to supporting it:This of course means that cycling ends up concentrated among the young, who tend to take more risks and feel more physically capable, and males, who tend to take even more risks and feel even more physically capable. But there's no reason it should be that way. It's a public policy choice, and given the energy and public health benefits of cycling, it's an odd one. Indeed, I think Pucher makes a persuasive argument that it's the wrong one. But it's gotten so you can hardly talk about whether we should make a different choice, because suggesting that we should make biking into a safer and more readily available alternative is like suggesting the government legislate that everyone turns gay, or takes a cultural studies course.Anyway, you can watch the whole presentation here. 
