Who's Trash Talking Bikes?

Every now and then, someone takes a potshot at bicyclists and bicycling. Sometimes it’s a politician; other times a shock jock. Whoever it is, and whatever their motivation, we don’t like it! So we keep track of who says what, and give you the chance to talk back. For responses to common trash talk, click on the menu to the right (Driving Costs, Pay Your Way, etc.)

Dec. 27, 2008: Joe Soucheray, St Paul Pioneer Press columnist
Oct. 2, 2008: Professor John Cochran, University of Chicago
Sep. 8, 2008: Senator Jim DeMint, South Carolina
July 29, 2008: U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters
July 18, 2008: David Brooks, New York Times
Dec. 6, 2007: Representative John Boehner, Ohio
Sep. 11, 2007: Senator Tom Coburn, Oklahoma
Aug. 4, 2007: Representative Patrick McHenry, North Carolina

Joe Soucheray, St Paul Pioneer Press columnist

What he said:
In a December 27th editorial about winter cyclists, Soucheray wrote “GET OFF THE STREET, YOU MORONS!” and quoted a conversation with fellow journalist Patrick Reusse in which Reusse says, "Well, if they fall down in front of me, I will run over them in their snowmobile suits and squash them like a bug.''

What’s the issue:
In an failed attempt at humor (we can only presume), Soucheray and his colleague go beyond ridiculing the idea of riding a bike in winter and stray into the realm of saying it's OK to hit cyclists just because they are in the way.

What are the facts:
For a northern tier community, the Twin Cities boasts relatively high levels of bicycle use. The 2007 American Community Survey shows that between 2006 and 2007, bicycle use in Minneapolis increased from 2.6% of commute trips to 3.8%, just behind Portland. In St. Paul, the increase was from 1% to 1.4%.

What he could have said:
While still suggesting other vehicles or humorous contraptions to get around in the snow, Soucheray could have provided useful tips on winter riding, such as those provided by the City of Minneapolis. Click here to view.

Professor John Cochran, University of Chicago

What he said:
Speaking on the PBS Evening Newshour, Professor Cochran singled out the Bicycle Commuter Act as the prime example of what was wrong with the $850 billion financial rescue package approved by the US Senate.

What’s the issue:
Congress is considering a mass financial package to rescue or bail out the financial services sector of the US economy. The Senate approved legislation that included not only the $700 billion package of financial measures deemed necessary for this task, but also an additional $150 billion of tax credits and measures related to energy, personal income taxes etc. Professor Cochran is singling out the $10 million Bicycle Commuter Act provision in that additional funding package as the prime example of why this was inappropriate.

What are the facts:
The Bicycle Commuter Act has been in front of Congress for seven years; it’s a simple, equitable provision that puts cyclists on the same footing as people who get tax breaks for taking transit or driving (or parking, actually) their cars to and from work. The total anticipated cost of the provision is a very modest $10 million over several years – hardly a deal-breaker in a piece of legislation with an $850 billion price tag. Ironically, the renewable energy programs (including the bicycle commuter act) in the legislation are all offset by other revenue measures.

What he could have said:
The Bicycle Commuter Act is an important program that deserves our support – the financial bailout legislation may not be most appropriate legislative vehicle to get it passed.

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, South Carolina

What he said:
“We must stop wasteful earmarks for bike paths and museums that divert critical funding away from priority roads and bridges," DeMint said in a September 8 statement addressing a shortfall in highway funding.

What’s the issue:
The Highway Trust Fund, funded from gas taxes and “spent” by state Department’s of Transportation, is running out of money and needs an $8 billion infusion of cash, according to the US Department of Transportation.  Senator DeMint is apparently blaming the shortfall on wasteful bike path projects.

What are the facts:
It’s true that the law approving the spending of the highway trust fund has a lot of Congressional earmarks for “high priority projects” – a total of $15 billion in the 2005 SAFETEA-LU legislation. However, bike paths account for less than five percent of those earmarks, and most of them haven’t even been started yet.

A much more immediate reason for the funding crisis is the dramatic fall in motor vehicle miles traveled (and thus gallons of gasoline bought) in recent months due to rising gas prices. Ironically, of course, bicycle use is soaring because of those same high gas prices, meaning that we actually need more bike facilities, not less.

In August 2007, after the Minneapolis bridge collapse, Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters made similarly unfortunate comments for which she has subsequently apologized. Bicycling and walking are critical components of our transportation system.

What he could have said:
We must stop wasteful earmarks and get transportation funding into the hands of local decision-makers to start solving some of our traffic, energy, environmental and health challenges by getting more people bicycling, walking and taking transit. We also need to change the funding process so that we reward ourselves for reducing the number of motor vehicle miles traveled.

What You Can Do
If you are from South Carolina, drop a line to your Senator and let him know that bicycling and bike paths are pretty important to you. Let him know that while earmarks are generally undesirable, the only reason most of the bike-related projects are even requested in the first place is because state Departments of Transportation still stubbornly refuse to implement them willingly.

If you aren’t from South Carolina, you can still drop him a note, or you can write your own members of Congress and let them know how much you disagree with Senator DeMint’s attack on bike paths – that way we might just discourage them from making this mistake in the first place.

Other useful facts and figures:
What are the true costs of driving?
Do bicyclists pay their way?

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters

What she said:
Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters outlined her Department’s vision for the next transportation bill in a speech July 29, 2008. She said, “Our plan also will reform the nation’s transportation programs. We consolidate the 102 various transportation programs that have sprouted up over the past two decades. These programs dilute the effects of federal funding by forcing state and local officials to fund projects such as recreational trails, while projects that would make a difference for commuters languish. Under our proposal, there will be eight core spending programs that are as targeted as they are flexible.”

What’s the issue:
Everyone agrees that there are too many disparate spending categories in the Federal transportation program and that consolidation, focus and flexibility are key reforms for the future. No-one likes “their” program to be one of those abolished or consolidated. Out of those 102 programs, Peter’s has singled out recreational trails, just as she did when the Minneapolis bridge collapsed and she claimed that 10-20 percent of highways funds were being diverted to bike paths, lighthouses and transportation museums instead of real transportation projects – and that’s even after she apologized to representatives of the bicycle community for those earlier remarks.

What are the facts:
There is a specific recreational trails program that is funded exclusively with off-road vehicle fuel taxes – and it’s one of the very few programs where the express purpose is for recreational travel facilities; the funds must be split between facilities for motorized and nonmotorized users. The program was authorized at $370 million over the life of the transportation bill, out of a total of $287 billion.

If she was referring to recreational trails or “bike paths” in general, the Secretary is overlooking some key facts:

Spending on all nonmotorized projects, including trails, accounts for less than 1.5% of Federal transportation funding under SAFETEA-LU

Social and recreational travel accounts for 27% of all trips compared to just 18% for commuting trips

Recreational trail projects are incredibly popular with state and local officials and the public, especially as gas prices skyrocket.

What she could have said:
State and local agencies need the flexibility to create a transportation system that offers choice, reflects local priorities, and will help alleviate congestion by getting cars off the road. We cannot build our way out of congestion simply by building more, bigger, wider roads that generate even more car traffic.

She might also have been thinking…”I need a new speech writer. Didn’t I make this mistake before?”

What you can do:
Write to Secretary Peters asking her to stop using bicycle, pedestrian and trail projects as examples of wasteful spending – it’s inappropriate, inaccurate, and she has already admitted as much in her apology to bicycling groups in the fall of 2007 for her remarks following the Minneapolis bridge collapse.

David Brooks, New York Times columnist

What he said:
"The high point of his campaign, so far, has been his energy policy, which is comprehensive and bold, but does not try to turn us into a nation of bicyclists. It does not view America's energy-intense economy as a sign of sinfulness..." Brooks was commenting on Senator McCain’s energy plan in a New York Times editorial column.

What’s the issue:
Brooks was writing about major societal trends, the pace of change and reform in a historical context, and the lessons that can be learned for the Presidential candidates. He singled out McCain’s energy plan as one example of progressive reform – and suggested “creating a nation of bicyclists” as the unpleasant alternative.

What are the facts:
Transportation accounts for 29% of our primary energy consumption and 96% of that comes from petroleum. More than half the petroleum we use in the United States is imported. A balanced energy policy will clearly address transportation issues – and may recognize that other “nation’s of bicyclists” such as the Netherlands and Denmark use one quarter of the amount of gasoline per capita as we do in the United States.

The Federal Highway Administration reports that Americans drove 12.2 billion miles fewer in June 2008 than June 2007, a drop of almost 5 percent. That kind of change can be eclipsed in the future by enabling people to make short trips by foot or by bike: more than one quarter of all trips in the United States is one mile or less, and yet two-thirds of those very short trips are made by car. Forty percent of trips are two miles or less and yet almost 90 percent of them are made by car.

John Boehner, U.S. Representative, Ohio

What he said:
"And although this is not an earmark, what I really liked in the bill was the $240 tax credit that we are going to provide every 15 months for people who regularly ride their bike to work for the purchase repair or storage of their bicycle. Now, amongst us, I know there's one of my colleagues that would probably benefit from this. I hope he's going to recuse himself when we vote.” Boehner’s heavily sarcastic remarks were aimed at Congressman Earl Blumeanuer and his proposal to extend commuter tax relief enjoyed by drivers and transit users to bicyclists.

He concluded: "This is not going to solve America's energy problem. I think we ought to get serious as a country about energy independence and saving our future and the future for our kids."

What’s the issue:
The proposed Energy Bill being debated by Congress included a provision known as the “bicycle commuter act” that would provide tax relief for bicyclists on certain expenses related to bicycle commuting. The $20 per month benefit would help offset the cost of bicycle parking, maintenance, or purchases of commuting equipment (lock, lights, etc).

Congressman Blumenauer is one of the very few (if not the only) member of Congress who routinely rides his bicycle to work on Capitol Hill.

What are the facts:
The U.S. tax code currently offers subsidies for car parking and transit use. Commuter tax benefits currently provide tax-free parking (up to $210/month) and transit passes (up to $115/month) for eligible employees and participating companies and government agencies – including the House of Representatives. That tax benefit does not extend to those who choose to bicycle to work.

Congressman Blumenauer’s proposal would rectify this, up to a maximum of $20 per month. The total cost to the IRS of this change is minimal (less than $75 million if every existing bicycle commuter got the benefit) compared to the $4.4 billion currently given each year to drivers and transit users.

What you can do:
Write to Representative Boehner expressing your support for a commuter tax benefit provision that includes bicyclists.

The U.S. Senate may move forward this fall with a “tax extenders” bill that could include the bicycle commuter provision. Please ask your Senator to support the inclusion of this important benefit.

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, Oklahoma

What he said:
“We should not be spending money on bicycle paths for our own leisure, comfort, and exercise when we have bridges that are falling down. It is very straight forward.”  Coburn said in a September 11, Senate floor debate on the FY08 Transportation Appropriations.

What’s the issue:
The issue is that Senator Coburn is using bicycles as a scapegoat for the failure of State DOTs to fix our nation’s bridge infrastructure.

What are the Facts:
It is true our nation has a significant problem that must be addressed to ensure the overall safety of our bridges, but it is DISINGENUOUS to think that halting funding for bicycle paths is going to solve the problem.

A look inside the numbers reveals that, of the 599,766 bridges in the National Bridge Inventory, 25.4% of America's bridges––more than one in four––are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. However, we should also point out that "functionally obsolete", means only that they want to widen or add lanes to the bridges, not that it is structurally deficient. Approximately half of the 25.4% fall into the “functionally obsolete”.

The real issue is not that we are funding bicycle paths but that, despite the overwhelming need to rehabilitate our bridges, States transferred over $4 billion in Highway Bridge Program funds to fund other projects between 1992 and 2006. Given the overwhelming bridge needs across the country, it does not make sense to allow these funds to be transferred until core bridge safety needs are met.

Additionally, States have chosen to disproportionally send back to Washington over $3.4 billion in Highway Bridge Program funds when they have been required by Congress to return uncommitted highway dollars that had previously been authorized by Congress.  Although the Highway Bridge Program represents only about 11% of the overall highway program funding level provided in the current transportation bill, the $3.4 billion of Highway Bridge Program sent back to Washington represents about one-third of the total federal highway program rescissions.

What He Could Have Said:
The Senator could have shown leadership in this area and urged his colleagues to give some thought on how Congress might establish higher levels of accountability in the bridge repair and replacement programs to ensure that States are using these funds to invest in upgrading those bridges that are critical to safety, as well as freight and passenger mobility.

What you can do:
Write to Senator Coburn reminding him that there are three main reasons that our national transportation policy recognizes the role of bike and pedestrian paths; those being safety, mobility, and health.   When we put in adequate bike paths and walkways, what we are essentially doing in many of our communities is protecting the safety of our families and our neighbors. In many of our communities, without those paths, many more bicyclists and pedestrians would be forced to commute with regular vehicle traffic.

You may also want to point out to Senator Coburn that, as a physician he should be well aware that the costs to our country resulting from the negative health impacts of transportation are astronomical. We spend $76 billion a year on health care costs related to physical inactivity partly because many individuals cannot safely walk, bicycle, or access public transit, another $164 billion a year on health care costs associated with traffic injuries and deaths; and between $40 and $64 billion a year on health care costs associated with asthma and other health conditions related to high rates of air pollution.

Patrick McHenry, U.S. Representative, North Carolina

What he said:
“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. Stay tuned for the next big idea for the Democrats: Improving energy efficiency by the horse and buggy.” McHenry was speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives on an Energy Bill that included a “conserve by bike” pilot study to determine the effectiveness of education and encouragement programs in getting people to bicycle instead of drive.

The full text and video of his lengthy harangue is provided below.

What’s the issue:
Congress was considering a massive energy bill designed, in part, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and promote alternative energy supplies. There were just a handful of provisions relating to bicycling, including $1 million for a series of pilot projects in communities to determine the effectiveness of “conserve by bike” education and encouragement programs.

What are the facts:
Transportation accounts for 29% of our primary energy consumption and 96% of that comes from petroleum. More than half the petroleum we use in the United States is imported. A balanced energy policy will clearly address transportation issues – and may recognize that other “nation’s of bicyclists” such as the Netherlands and Denmark use one quarter of the amount of gasoline per capita as we do in the United States.

The Federal Highway Administration reports that Americans drove 12.2 billion miles fewer in June 2008 than June 2007, a drop of almost 5 percent. That kind of change can be eclipsed in the future by enabling people to make short trips by foot or by bike: more than one quarter of all trips in the United States is one mile or less, and yet two-thirds of those very short trips are made by car. Forty percent of trips are two miles or less and yet almost 90% of them are made by car.

What he could have said:
Bicycling and walking can play a significant part in reducing the energy currently consumed by short motor vehicle trips, as part of an overall and balanced energy policy. In addition to the energy benefits, getting people more physically active will also help with health costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

What you can do:
McHenry’s comments were made some time ago, but it’s never too late to encourage him to repent and embrace the role of bicycling and walking in balanced energy and transportation policy. And you can keep an ear open for any similar comments by him or other members of Congress.

Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-NC (Windows Media Player Video)
“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.

Apparently, the Democrats believe that the miracle on two wheels that we know as a bicycle will end our dependence on foreign oil. I cannot make this stuff up. It 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.

Stay tuned for the next big idea for the Democrats: Improving energy efficiency by the horse and buggy.”