Bike to Work...or Not

The week of May 15-19 is being promoted as Bike to Work Week by the League of American Bicyclists. According to the League, Friday May 19 is Bike to Work Day, but for some reason, it's being observed on Thursday May 18 in the Bay Area (just gotta be different, I guess). On that day, we will be treated to the sight of politicians teetering on ten-speeds to demonstrate their support of this worthy cause. These are the reasons why the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition thinks you should bike to work:

Energizer Stations

Volunteers will cheer you on at 24 Energizer Stations around San Francisco! Stop by one of the stations to load up on free coffee, snacks, and convenient tote bags for future commutes. We'll also be passing out info about how you can get involved in making San Francisco a better bicycling city.

This is a good reason if you are already a bicycle commuter, but what about the other 364 days of the year when there are no volunteers to hand out free coffee, snacks, tote bags and Bicycle Coalition propaganda? What then?

You'll be in good company

You'll be joining bike commuters new and old in making a statement about the importance of supporting the two wheeled way. Join our mayor, supervisors, and thousands of San Franciscans in moving proof that bicycling is a viable form of transportation in this city.

This is revealing. It shows that Bike to Work day is nothing more than a propaganda event for the Bicycle Coalition..."making a statement"..."the two wheeled way"... since when did bicycles become an ideology? And just how viable is bicycling as a form of transportation, anyway?...Not very.

• It's expensive. Check out this Gary Fisher Montare at Lombardi Sports marked down from $1,099 to $999. Bicycle Coalition propaganda may be populist, but bicycle prices are anything but. Plus, add to that all the accessories that a well turned out bicyclist needs: jerseys, tees, shorts, tights, shoes, helmets, car racks, trainers, watches, computers, headlamps, etc.  It all adds up.
• It's not practical. Bicycling is a great recreational activity and a fine sport, but as a form of every day transportation it is distinctly lacking. Extremes of heat, cold and elevation change make bicycling unsuitable for daily commuting. It may be possible to bike to work in level terrain on a fine spring or autumn day when it's sunny and mild, but what about when there is torrential rain, snow or searing heat? Or what about hills, like the one I live on in San Francisco where it's a 160' change in vertical elevation in the two blocks from my house to the store?
• It's not for everybody. Bicycling requires that one be in fit physical shape. It may be a great way to get into shape, but it's not for anyone who is physically impaired as the result of disease or disability. Plus, bicycling requires that one have a degree of mechanical ability.  When your derailleur goes out on the road, you can't call AAA; you need to fix it yourself.

But this doesn't stop bicycle advocates from diverting transportation funds to projects that will benefit an elite few.  Like the $25 million in federal TEA funds that will be spent over the next four years to build a network of bicycle trails in Marin County--one of the wealthiest counties in the United States where average home prices are in excess of $900,000.  If the people of Marin want a network of bicycle trails that is second to none, fine, but they should pay for it themselves, through property tax assessments or bond initiatives.  If bicycle advocates were really serious about bicycling as a form of transportation, they would support a tax on bicyles and bicycle-related gear.  After all, motorists pay gasoline taxes that support the roads and public transit riders pay fares--why should bicyclists get a free ride?

It doesn't help that bicycle organizations (and many bicyclists) take such an inflated view of themselves.  They align themselves with pedestrian and public transit organizations, yet they compete with public transit for scarce federal transportation funds.  Bicycle organizations are avid supporters of the "rails to trails" movement, which converts unused railroad easements to bicycle trails, thus making them unavailable for use as light rail lines. Bicyclists constantly attack automobile drivers for poor driving manners; yet from what I've seen, they routinely ignore traffic rules, run down pedestrians and behave badly themselves.

And the Bicycle Coalition's final reason for biking to work?

It feels good!

Do you need a better reason?

Frankly, yes.

Comments

[Jamison]

You're right, biking to work isn't for everyone, or for the entire year, but there is more than just the few militant bike riders the Bike Coalition represents who have an easy commute and could easily ride there bikes.

Cycling is a hugely popular recreational sport, and there are probably tens of thousands who already own bikes, physically fit and could easily ride to work a few times a month.

I'm one of those people, and I don't ride to work mainly because of other bike riders (note I'm differentiating bike riders from actual cyclists) doing incredibly stupid and illegal things. My friends who've ridden in an AIDSRIDE or the AIDS/LifeCycle, and have trained following not just the traffic laws, but our even stricter safety rules, all feel pretty much the same about the Bike Coalition.

I went on a Bike Coalition lead ride, the ride leader at one point advocated making illegal turns because it was "easier" than waiting for the light. A few months ago I met their executive director (and now MTA board member) Leah Shahum and told her about this. She did seem to be concerned with safety, but tried to justify that anyway saying their rides are all volunteer and they can't help it if their volunteer ride leaders don't want to follow traffic laws.

As a volunteer training ride leader for the AIDS/LifeCycle, I know you can hold volunteer leaders to stricter rules, we do it all the time.

Back to your entry though, there is a benefit to striped bike lanes, even if you don't use them: they narrow streets, calm traffic (a psychological effect of narrower lanes) and create several feet of additional buffer between sidewalks and moving cars.

And if you didn't see it, check out Curbed "Drive Your Bike to Work Day" entry:

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2006/05/18/unhealthy_thursday_drive_your_bike_to_work_day.php

[Patrick]

I actually stopped to chat with someone at the Bike Coalition Energizer Station at Battery and Market. He seemed a lot less aggro than Bike Coalition advocates have in the past when I politely challenged some of his points. And some of the projects he talked about were commonsensical enough, such as developing separate bike-centric and transit-centric streets.

I don't ride a bike myself (never learned), but then neither do I drive a car (never learned that either) so when it comes to the whole car vs. bike debate I'm on the sidelines. Jamison makes some good points about the calming effect of bikes on city streets, but if road improvements on 101 in Marin County will help get my bus to San Rafael there quicker I'm all for it!

[Terry Kaufman]

I fail to see what motivates anti-bike folks in this city. Are you just a malicious ass? Why don't you move to LA if you want to be in your car all the time.

[Patrick]

If you read the post more carefully, you would have noticed that I don't drive a car, Terry. And I wouldn't call myself anti-bike. Just anti-bike supremicist.