Local Coverage on the “Energy Crisis”
First off, I have to express admiration for fellow local blogger Chris Hardie, of the internet consulting firm Summersault, for his recent adventure in podcasting: The Richmond News Review. Chris promises regular audio coverage of local news related issues, and so far, he has delivered interesting and insightful stuff, so head over there and tune in.
I was impressed by the high quality production that Chris has achieved. In Sunday’s edition, Chris touched on a letter to the editor of the Pal-Item by Tim Bain (What do trails have to do with transportation?) the letter criticizes use of transportation funds to extend biking trails in the state, claiming those funds should be used solely to improve the roadways. Chris expresses my exact reaction to this letter: automobiles cannot be the only form of valid transportation supported by our society anymore.
As we seem to be reaching peak oil production (i.e. the ultimate limit on supply) and increasing demand for oil from developing nations (i.e. China), energy costs will continue to eat up more and more of our wealth, unless we decrease our usage. Even former oilman George W. Bush started out this year noting that we have to break our "addiction" to oil. One way to do this is to live closer to work, and rely on a car only for those occasions when you have to travel great distances, walking or biking at other times.
Drop in on another local web poster (I can’t call him a "blogger" as he forsakes the standard format) Mark Stosberg, who has recently posted the results of his research on calculating your true miles per hour in a car versus a bike. Mark uses a formula to add in the actual time we spend driving around (including waiting for oil changes) and factors in the amount of time we have to work just to pay all the expenses associated with running a vehicle. His conclusion is that, for people who live and work in the same community, biking is just as time efficient as driving, plus, if you do not maintain a car, you will either have a bunch of extra money, or about 3 extra hours each week (the amount of time it takes to earn the money to pay for the car) to do whatever with.
The problem with bike transportation currently is that there is no safe way to do it (read Chris’s When people driving cars kill people riding bikes). The transportation priorities have resulted in making biking around a real threat to health of bikers. Roads are made for cars. Face it, even motorcycles are not safe on our roadways. People just keep driving over pedestrians and bikers of all sorts. When I used to ride a motorcycle, I quickly learned that there is a whole population of drivers who do not see ANYTHING on the road under 1,500 pounds. Most people do not want to run over bikers, small children, or even dogs and cats, but the possibility does not seem to make people more careful.
Nothing will change our engrained attitudes when we get behind the wheel. Cars will always rule the road. The only viable solution to making a community more biker friendly is bike trails. More people relying primarily on bikes for routine transportation means less energy consumption, and potentially, healthier people. Bike trails could save us both from the energy costs and the ever widening obesity crisis.
July 11th, 2006 09:20
I’m moving to a spot in Lafayette that will only be 3.5 miles from work — a fairly easy bike ride during much of the year. But the need for professional attire and possibly a shower once I get to work seems cumbersome.
July 11th, 2006 18:01
I’ve been bicycling regularly around Richmond for the last eight years, and
from personal experience, I disagree. Not owning I car, I bicycle around town
for all manner of reasons, from going to work and getting groceries to
recreational riding.
I’ve been on roads all over town at all times of day as well as night, I can’t
think of a time I’ve felt particularly unsafe. Sure, I avoid busy roads such as
40 and 27. Often on a bike there are a quieter routes that are more pleasant and take
about the same amount time anyway.
Overall, I’m impressed with with the respect that Richmond motorists give me
while I’m cycling. They even behave well when I exhibit behavior they may not
be used to seeing from cyclists, such as passing them at 25 MPH in moving traffic.
Frankly, it’s more often that I’m disappointed with other bicyclists in the
equation than other motorists. Too often other bicyclists are see aren’t
obeying the rules of the road or ignoring safe principles. I would like to see
a stronger bicycling culture that fosters bicycling etiquette and education.
Again, as veteran area cyclist, I disagree. This is an open debate, not an absolute.
Wikipedia even has a page
for cycle path debate including several reasons why they are bad ideas.
I see merits to both sides.
July 11th, 2006 18:16
Responding to Doug:
Bicycling can take about the same amount of exertion as walking, so it need not involve sweat for short distances. (Although, I realize some people are more prone to sweating anyway!)
Regarding the professional attire: At slow pace, you might get away with wearing a suit on a bike. Otherwise, you may be interested in some of the garment bag panniers, which can carry a suit, shoes, and even a laptop!
July 18th, 2006 08:33
Mark, I will defer to your view on the bike safety issue. You have much more experience than I, but when I see news like this, it makes me feel unsafe on the road:
“New Haven Road offers a straight, flat route with a wide shoulder. But about halfway into their 32-mile jaunt Sunday, a driver rammed into a mailbox, crossed the double yellow lines and plowed into the group of cycling enthusiasts.
Amy Gehring and Terry Walker, two of the 10 cyclists, were killed.”
These cyclist were experienced, and where they should have been.
July 19th, 2006 21:47
Thomas,
Unfortunately, that’s not the first I’ve heard of experienced cyclists being killed by motorists. It’s unfortunate. In the snippet you posted, the driver crossed the double yellow line, hitting the cyclists head-on.
Hitting another motorist head-on would could kill them in their car, too. Dangerous driving is a problem. But it’s not a bicycle-specific issue.
The speed difference with cyclists and cars on a highway is comparable to the speed difference with cyclists and pedestrians on a multi-use path. Should we then have a separate set of walking paths and bike paths to avoid the dangers there?
The fact is that when you go out on the road, there is risk. The faster you go, the more dangerous a crash is. The large, heavy, metal cage of a car can offer some protection, but it usually comes at great expense to the owner, the environment, and our collective health.
In my years of experience, the reward of saved money, freedom and health has outweighed these risks.