Congressman Ridicules Bikes as '19th Century' Technology
During debate over the House of Representatives' energy conservation bill, North Carolina Republican Congressman Patrick McHenry ridiculed bicycling as a "19th century solution."
The US House of Representatives approved an energy conservation bill on Saturday that includes, among other things, a tax break of $20 per month for bike commuters. The vote on HR 2776 was largely split along party lines, and was preceded by inspired testimony from Congressman Patrick McHenry, a Republican representing the 10th District of North Carolina.
Here is a bit off McHenry's speech, as quoted in the Congressional Record:
"A major component of the Democrats' energy legislation and the Democrats' answer to our energy crisis is, hold on, wait one minute, wait one minute, it is promoting the use of the bicycle.
"Oh, I cannot make this stuff up. Yes, the American people have heard this. Their answer to our fuel crisis, the crisis at the pumps, is: Ride a bike.
"Democrats believe that using taxpayer funds in this bill to the tune of $1 million a year should be devoted to the principle of: 'Save energy, ride a bike.' Some might argue that depending on bicycles to solve our energy crisis is naive, perhaps ridiculous. Some might even say Congress should use this energy legislation to create new energy, bring new nuclear power plants on line, use clean coal technology, energy exploration, but no, no. They want to tell the American people, stop driving, ride a bike. This is absolutely amazing."
"Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the Democrats, promoting 19th century solutions to 21st century problems. If you don't like it, ride a bike. If you don't like the price at the pumps, ride a bike."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
Light Rail a Boon for Charlotte and Beyond - Jun 05, 2008
Carolina's Triangle Region Pursues 2020 Transit Expansion - Feb 06, 2008
Light Rail Debuts To Over-Capacity Crowd - Nov 27, 2007
Charlotte Residents Vote In Favor of Transit ... Again - Nov 08, 2007
Art Meets TOD - Nov 02, 2007
"Ford's Model T, which went
"Ford's Model T, which went 25 miles on a gallon of gasoline, was more fuel efficient than the current Ford Explorer sport-utility vehicle -- which manages just 16 miles per gallon."
-- Detroit News, 6/4/03
sure there are some more fuel efficient vehicles coming on the market, but my bike is still WAY more fuel efficient for moving me around than if i bought even a smart car for the same purpose. plus, i take up less room on the road, and chances are very slim i'll kill anyone (besides myself, that is.)
congressman whatever-his-name-is (hope i never hear it again) is obviously a moron. he's pathetic (a great example of "the banality of evil"). bikes are a wonderful technology that has hardly been improved on in the last 100 years precisely because they're close to perfect.
At what cost?
I've driven Model "T"s (and As and Rs and others). The current Explorer is indeed an unnecessary gas hog. Heavy and victim of several other poor design choices. It also lasts for 150k miles and rides faster and safer. A Model "T" wore out in 20k-30k miles. The total energy footprint of a modern Exp is several times lower than the 5 "T"s it replaces.
That said the modern Explorer is an embarrassment. The "T" was sota for its' time so it is better compared to say a CR-V or even Camray hybrid.
I should also mention that far more than the difference in the stated mileage can be attributed to price, safety, durability, and pollution considerations. It can whip out a 2009 Explorer with 40mpg and twice the performance and twice the safety and lasting twice as long for half the price of what a Model "T" cost and performed for its time. It won't be sefe enough or fast enough or last long enough or be comfortable enough and would still be too expensive and pollute far too much for the modern market but it would lay to rest the 25mpg canard.
“19th Century Solution”
19th Century author Mark Twain had a few good comments for this congressman.
Horseless Carriage
Last I checked the horseless carriage aka "automobile" was also a 19th century invention
Check Again
I say check again anytime in the last half century. And not to be autocentric; just about evey aspect of transport technology is many times to even orders of magnitude better in near every performance measure with the SOLE exception of transit. Now, I understand there are probably a few mathematical exceptions that can be teased out of such a large data set but take the claim as a general rule and show why near everything else is getting faster, more energy efficient , safer and popular in the US. This is honestly proffered as a discussion point and not an opportunity to pick a fight. On that note understand that "Dano" is persona non grata until he clears up his trail of AGW faux pauxs.
Faster Is Not Necessarily Better
"just about evey aspect of transport technology is many times to even orders of magnitude better in near every performance measure with the SOLE exception of transit. ... near everything else is getting faster, more energy efficient , safer and popular in the US."
Look at the history of the American city, and you will see that, as the vehicles got faster, the distances people traveled got longer, so people ended up spending about the same amount of time traveling (as Zahavi showed in the 1970s and other studies have confirmed since).
The question is whether people are better off spending all this extra money and causing all this environmental damage in order to travel faster and further. Looking at the history of the American city once again, I would say that neighborhoods became more livable through the days of the streetcar suburbs, and then became less livable as people moved to sprawl suburbs. Neighborhoods are less livable when you drive to a strip mall to do your shopping, rather than walking to Main Street.
The longer distances traveled also negate the other supposed advantages of the automobile. Cars are safer per mile traveled, but people travel more miles, and accidents per capita remain about the same. Some cars (though not most) are more energy efficient per mile traveled, but people travel more miles, and overall energy use increases.
Even apart from the larger environmental concern of global warming, our lives would be easier and more pleasant if we lived in compact neighborhoods, where we don't have to travel as far, and where you can get everywhere you need to by walking, by driving very slowly on traffic calmed streets or even - hold on, wait one minute, wait one minute - by bicycling.
Walkable neighborhoods are another nineteenth century solution that is better than the usual twentieth century solution.
Denmark has a high standard of living: they live better than Americans, if you count the fact that they have more free time than we do. And the most common commute vehicle in Copenhagen is the bicycle. They also have lots of utility bikes in Copenhagen that you can use to carry your children and groceries.
Charles Siegel
Scientists: personae non gratae.
On that note understand that "Dano" is persona non grata until he clears up his trail of AGW faux pauxs.
I am aware of no mad-made climate change faux pas on this board. If you're speaking of the GISS recalibration, or get your information from somewhere other than Faux network, which BTW isn't reporting that society is adapting and mitigating for AGW. Or perhaps you need to ignore all of science or maybe some don't take medicine or use electrcity or eat food either.
But back OT, autocentrism aside, bikes are getting faster, safer, popular in the U.S., and bicycle sales worldwide far outpace autos, so its difficult to see what the argument is.
Best,
D
"...show why near everything
"...show why near everything else is getting faster, more energy efficient , safer and popular in the US."
There is no need for automobiles to get faster. They were able to reach 70 miles per hour, which is about as fast as they should ever go, nearly a century ago. They were able to reach 25 mph, which is as fast as they should ever go within an urban area, around the time they were invented.
As for your claim that automobiles have gotten more energy efficient and safer, that is demonstrably false; with the advent of SUV's they have regressed in both measures.
As for #4, more popular. This also may not be true in the short term (some studies indicate that transit has risen in popularity while auto use has declined in some areas over the past 10-15 years - we will have to wait and see if this is a continuing trend). However over the long term of say, the past century, it is certainly true. The reason is simple. Both transit and automobiles require subsidized infrastructure in order to function well in urban areas. And by and large, our local and state governments and especially the federal government has chosen repeatedly to bestow subsidies upon the automobile rather than transit. So it is no surprise that it has functioned better and become more popular.
Bikes aren't cars
They cannot be used interchangably since they fulfill different roles as transportation modes. Bikes are good for short trips providing you are in physical shape. They aren't much good for longer distances. Nor can they carry a shopping cart of food.
"As for your claim that automobiles have gotten more energy efficient and safer, that is demonstrably false; with the advent of SUV's they have regressed in both measures."
Wrong. When speaking in the aggregate, yes , SUVs have negated the CAFE standards of more fuel efficient models. Safety standards (body design, ABS, air bags. . .)are better now and there's no evidence more SUVs have resulted in an equal rise in traffic fatalities. National traffic fatalities have dropped nearly every year despite far more SUVs on the roads. See http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/.
"This also may not be true in the short term (some studies indicate that transit has risen in popularity while auto use has declined in some areas over the past 10-15 years - we will have to wait and see if this is a continuing trend)."
Oh really? Care to share with us a reputable website for this whopper?
"And by and large, our local and state governments and especially the federal government has chosen repeatedly to bestow subsidies upon the automobile rather than transit. So it is no surprise that it has functioned better and become more popular."
It's a chicken and egg arguement. The U.S. has the highest ownership of cars so naturally voters want to use them. Increases in spending on transit (on the whole) have not resulted in great numbers of people ditching their cars for transit. The only thing that will change this situation would be a big increase in gas prices.
"Oh really? Care to share
"Oh really? Care to share with us a reputable website for this whopper?"
It is not a "whopper" since I did not present it as a fact or use it to back up my argument. I used the word "may" and followed with a comment in parentheses to the point that we would have to wait and see if it is of any significance. It may just be a statistical blip or a result of poor methodology, etc. In other words, I basically agree with you that over the long term, in the vast majority of places, driving has increased in popularity and transit has decreased. (I thought that was clear)
But anyway, here is one article from Planetizen about the decrease in gas usage in California: http://www.planetizen.com/node/26125
There are others on decreased driving/increased transit that I don't have the time to look up, but if you sift through the Planetizen archives you will find them.
No whopper, just cheese
For someone who seemed certain a another poster is "demonstratively false" about advances in auto technology seems to backpedal faster than Lance Armstrong when asked about his or her argument.
"I did not present it as a fact or use it to back up my argument."
Then why mention something that adds nothing to the discussion? Sure there could be trend toward lower gasoline usage nationally in the future but a two year(?)drop in consumption in a single state (California) is one thin reed to base your hopes on. Between the "mays", "buts" and parentheses, I got lost on your caveats. Pigs may fly one day (they could be biogenetically engineered) but I'm not using this as valid point, I just like the way it sounds.
In any event, you could have acknowledged you were factually wrong about autombile safety nationally based on the link I used.
"For someone who seemed
"For someone who seemed certain a another poster is "demonstratively false" about advances in auto technology seems to backpedal faster than Lance Armstrong when asked about his or her argument. "
The demostrably false bit was about cars becoming safer and more fuel efficient, not about the relative popularity of transit and autos.
"Then why mention something that adds nothing to the discussion? "
Mainly I intend to cast doubt on absolute statements about the relative popularity of transit and autos in the short term. I think that there is enough evidence that we should avoid making statements in either direction. So for example, a blanket statement that "autos have always and everywhere become more popular than transit" should be avoided or qualified that it is long-term, but may not be true recently. OTOH, until we have some time to see how these trends go, it would also be wrong to start saying simply that "transit is becoming more popular" which is what you seem to have thought I said.
"Sure there could be trend toward lower gasoline usage nationally in the future but a two year(?)drop in consumption in a single state (California) is one thin reed to base your hopes on. "
It is more than that, there have been numerous indicators in numerous places. Look through the Planetizen archives.
"In any event, you could have acknowledged you were factually wrong about autombile safety nationally based on the link I used."
[referring to]
"National traffic fatalities have dropped nearly every year despite far more SUVs on the roads. See http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/."
There was an increase in fatal crashes in six out of the twelve years in the table. The was an increase in traffic deaths per 100,000 population in three out of twelve years. That does not indicate that traffic fatalities have dropped nearly every year, as you say. Especially since the most recent year in the study shows an increase in both indicators.
It isn't just California
Nationally, VMT have begun to decline.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-17-gas-prices_N.htm
By contrast, transit ridership is increasing:
http://www.publictransportation.org/news/features/070312_ten_billion.asp
Of course, this may not last. The political class in many cities is busy sabotaging transit systems, especially in stagnant or slow-growing metro areas like Pittsburgh and Chicago.
Fun with numbers
The number of commuters using mass transit on their journey to work is 4.7% nationally so any increase will appear significant. A trend is best supported by some long-term data. A single year of lower gas usage in the face of 26 years of rising consumption doesn't mean a counter trend has begun. If I gain weight for 20 years, then lose some pounds, does this mean I'm on the way to being thin. Probably not but it is wishful thinking.
Check out the USA Today article at the bottom. It backs up my assertion that a change in modal choice will come as a result of increased prices at the pump. Some of the demographics seem plausible. Older people are less apt to drive so that could drive a long-term trend. It's going to take a lot yuppies moving downtown and ditching their cars to shift gas consumption nationally but it could make a dent at the local level.
Right. Bikes are better.
"They cannot be used interchangably since they fulfill different roles as transportation modes. Bikes are good for short trips providing you are in physical shape. They aren't much good for longer distances. Nor can they carry a shopping cart of food."
Bicycles can carry groceries home, in a basket. It is possible to imagine bicycles designed to carry much more. And in many cities it is easy to bike to almost any destination, even if you're not in the best shape (though after some time on a bike, instead of in a car, your shape might improve).
But of graver concern is the following:
"National traffic fatalities have dropped nearly every year despite far more SUVs on the roads. See http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/."
Your own statistics show exactly the opposite: 2005 had the highest number of traffic fatalities (over 43,000) since 1994. But the tragic fact is that between 40,000 and 44,000 people die in the U.S. EVERY YEAR. Is this acceptable collateral damage?
How to read a chart
Yes, there were more traffic fatalities in 2005 but if you looked at the national rates at the bottom of the chart you'd figure it out. There are more vehicles on the road traveling more miles and the population has grown considerably; however, the deaths per mile or per person has dropped nearly every year.
Unfortunately, traffic deaths are inevitable when millions of people are driving around. I'm not sure how you would prevent these deaths when you consider people would sooner die behind the wheel than serve as a target on a bike. I have no stats on this but my guess is more bikers are dying every year as well.
On reading tables...
Of course, that's not what you claimed. As soon as someone called you on it you change the subject to fatality rates. The point to keep in mind is that the current rate is still high and the total is appalling. You are right about one thing: the carnage will continue if our infrastructure priorities don't change.
About this:
"I'm not sure how you would prevent these deaths when you consider people would sooner die behind the wheel than serve as a target on a bike."
You seem to realize that fatal traffic accidents tend to involve cars. Bikes on people and bikes on bikes rarely lead to death.
Deaths Per Person And Per Mile
Deaths per person are declining a bit, correct.
Deaths per mile are not a good measure of safety. If VMT per capita increases, then deaths per person could be increasing even if deaths per mile are decreasing. Deaths per person are the measure of how safe or unsafe the average person is are.
"I'm not sure how you would prevent these deaths when you consider people would sooner die behind the wheel than serve as a target on a bike."
Very difficult (if not impossible) in practice. Very easy in theory, if only the political will existed. For example:
- Raise the gas tax to European levels or higher.
- Use most of that tax money for public transportation.
- Use some of that tax money for safe bike routes (an example is our Slow Street in Berkeley, where speed humps slow cars down to 15 mph, making it safe to bicycle and even to walk)
- Zone to require pedestrian-oriented development around transit stations.
These all move us back to those nineteenth-century solutions: walking, bicycling, and public transportation. And I think we would be better off.
Charles Siegel
Christiana Bikes
Here is a picture of a Christiana bike in Copenhagen, and you can see that there is enough room for groceries and a couple of small children.
http://www.nazcapictures.com/feature_photo.php?id_foto=2518&vers=p&trave...
Click Previous and Next for more pictures.
You can do the same thing with a bike trailer.
Charles Siegel
"Bicycles can carry
"Bicycles can carry groceries home, in a basket. It is possible to imagine bicycles designed to carry much more. "
By affixing a simple crate to a rack, I have been able to carry a week's worth of groceries for a two-person household on a bike (about four canvas bags' worth).
I would not recommend bikes as a primary source of transportation in cities due to their inadequacy for many people (families with small children, elderly, etc). However as a secondary transportation they can accomplish much more than they currently do. Consider cities such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam where 30% of commuters go by bike, as compared to 2% in American cities.
Or maybe not...
Its still the exact same thing... a gasoline powered carriage, 19th century or 21st century.
Ooh, now they come in multiple colors and have power steering and power doors... oh wow now its so radically different, please I'm not buying it.
Plus its not like bikes dont also use new technology and have minor improvements too, the point is bikes and cars work the same as they always have with just little enhancements over the years.