July 25, 2003: Ever few months or so, I plan to post an essay on some aspect of cycling, cycling in western Pennsylvania or cultural commentary. My first effort is a response to Joyce Morrison's vituperativley anti-cycling polemic, "Beware of bicycles—they could be hazardous to your health." While I don't plan on focusing soley on sociopolitical commentary, I believe that it is necessary to respond to this type of writing. If you have any comments, rants or raves, please feel free to respond.

I've posted photographs and a brief report on our 2003 trip to the road world championships in Hamilton, Ontario.

Thoughts on the training of an American consumer.

A response to Joyce Morrison's anti-cyclist editorial.

A critique of The Zone Diet's marketing.

Morons and anti-bicycling: a rhetorical analysis.

West Deer: the end

Bristol Reborn

Red State/Blue State

These angry missives are numbingly similar, virtually precluding the possibility of an original thought. I have recently begun to suspect that all editorials attacking cyclists' right to the road stem from a single template, circulated through the internet for the purpose of easing the task of semi-literate bike bashers. Occasionally, new and different justifications for removing packs of dastardly cyclists from the road may surface, but the general line of reasoning—such as it is—remains very much the same.

"Beware of Bicycles," the most recent argument aimed at the two wheeled threat to peace, liberty and the great American SUV, appeared in the July 15th edition of the conservative Illinois Leader. The author, Joyce Morrison, is a member of Concerned Women for America and Citizens for Private Property rights. Both organizations are noted for their opposition to virtually any action perceived as "government intervention" against private property and the "misuse" of tax dollars. Perhaps this could explain the primary lines of reasoning she chose to pursue in her attack on the great lycra-clad menace.

Morrison manages to rehash virtually all of the same, tired arguments cycling opponents constantly insist on levelling against us: we don't pay taxes, we don't contribute to the economy, we present a threat to law abiding drivers and we refuse to acknowledge our inferiority to motorists. I will address these charges in the course of this response, as they are particularly revealing as to the character of those who employ such arguments against us.

However, Morrison occasionally swerves perilously close to having an original thought. Her closest brush with creativity comes in her assertion that cyclists are part of a vast conspiracy to deprive God-fearing Americans of their divine right to own Ford Excursions and plastic homes in monochromatic housing developments everywhere. Granted, anti-cyclists frequently seem to rationalize their often trivial concerns regarding cyclists by linking them to "radical" causes, but few do it with such blatant fear-mongering.

While I have no intention to dissect the essay line by line, a close reading of the text clearly reveals the series of assumptions that characterize the core of anti-cyclist thought. Morrison opens her argument by informing readers that "There are 55 bicycle trails in Illinois" (This statistic will become increasingly meaningful as we move through her argument). With this abundance of resources, why on Earth would "4,500 bikers (mainly from St. Louis) choose to make a 100 mile bike ride on roads that are already heavy with tourist traffic that are two lane, curvy, hilly roads under construction?" We can rest, assured that Ms. Morrison will enlighten us.

To ensure that the reader grasps the full ramifications of this mass depredation, Morrison gives us an account of the horrors of that day:

Last Sunday on our way to church, we had the "privilege" of having our patience tested. We were behind one batch of these bikers going up a normally busy road with a steep winding hill, blind curves, no road shoulder. And these bikers were not about to budge out of the way. To top it off, the road was freshly milled in preparation for a new surface.

To see these two wheelers peddling up the hill with rear ends stuck in the air in tight fitting britches is a humorous sight. But it wouldn't have been funny to have seen one stretched out along the road with tire marks across him. These Sunday road warriors were literally risking their lives to prove they had the right.

The first line is particularly revealing with respect to the attitude common among anti-cyclists, namely, that inconvenience equals injury. Read in almost any context, those who complain incessantly about the "inconveniences" imposed by others appear as little more than petulant children, whining about the slightest hindrance encountered on the road.

It also speaks of a deeply disturbing sense of entitlement, as though "MY RIGHT TO GO WHERE I WANT WHEN I WANT" (one can almost hear that shrill cries of a five year old) outweighs someone else's right to use public roadways. This is an ironic argument, given Ms. Morrison's rhetorical strategy of championing personal freedom in the face of official intervention.

There is nothing new about this mentality. Writing in 1932, Thomas Sharp noted that

A motorist is apt to complain of the 'overcrowded' condition of the road if he finds he has not continually got a whole mile-long stretch of it to himself, but is one of a widely spaced and rapidly moving queue of half a dozen or so. He will declare there is no pleasure in motoring under such conditions. He will search his map for some alternative route by quiet lanes where he can speed along with the road to himself. And when others find that alternative route and all further alternatives are exhausted, he proceeds to demand a new road system so that his motoring may again become a pleasure. (Quoted in Déja Vu, by Peter Henshaw)

It's probably safe to say that Joyce Morrison feels a similar sense of frustration at having to share the road. However, complaints of "inconveniences" tend to leave one vulnerable to charges of selfishness. Morrison no doubt realizes this, and she expands her argument into new territory when she chooses to fix an activity's worth directly to the amount of cash it contributes to the economy. Her argument employs a classic neo-capitalistic argument by interweaving discourses of "freedom" and monetary worth as surrogates for real choice:

We were in our car. We had our seat belts on as required by the law - our insurance and license fees were paid. We had paid fuel tax when we purchased our gasoline. Now wouldn't you think that would give us a bit of a priority?

What was that biker’s investment that would give him the right to go down the middle of the highway? Bikers have no license, no vehicle insurance, no seat belts, no fuel tax. They are not making any contribution into the local economy in the way of tourism dollars. They had their own manned rest stops that furnished them with food and water, and they certainly can't pack home much from the local shops on the back of their bikes or in those tight britches.

Morrison clearly feels that one's monetary input should have a direct bearing on the "right" to use public roads, with those who pay more occupying the highest steps of privilege. In this ideology, an activity or commodity is only valuable through its economic contributions, and those who place more into the economy clearly have the right to reap the rewards of the system. This is arrogance in its purest sense. By this line of reasoning, those who invest in more expensive, gas guzzling vehicles should be viewed as heroes of the new economy, as they "contribute" more in the way of taxes and fees, and should therefore be entitled to more benefits than we poor peddling plebeians. This is an inherently anti-democratic argument, as it (literally) clears the road for wealthier "citizens," as privilege is linked to ones ability to add to society's coffers. Morrison's thinly veiled elitism stands in stark contrast to her contrived populistic argument, and these passages call into question her later allegations of cycling's "elitism."

If ignorance is bliss, Morrison must lead a very contented life. Needless to say, cyclists do in fact pay taxes to their municipalities, states and nation, and a portion of these funds goes toward the highway system, whether the cyclist (or driver) chooses to use that facility or not. The concept of a "public" road is grounded in the fact the the road is a community resource, to be shared by residents and visitors alike, with no one group having a special claim to the road. Had Morrison bothered to conduct any research on this issue, she would have found herself forced to acknowledge this very fact. However, her defense of a privileged group supersedes any effort to bring something as trivial as factual knowledge into the fray: not when she can inflame the passions of her readers through generalizations and fear mongering!

Perhaps it is best this way, for the "facts" don't really bear out her indignant charges of cyclists engaging in an activity subsidized by the motoring public (I might point out that in her haste to pigeonhole cyclists as road hogging Visagoths, Morrison fails to mention the fact that the vast majority of cyclists own cars). If she conducted a modicum of research, she might have discovered that the automobile is in fact one of the most heavily subsidized modes of transportation in the United States. For instance,

A study of the greater Chicago area conducted by the Metropolitan Planning Council found that $630 million in annual costs are funded from revenue sources that are not paid directly by drivers nor based on automobile use, but are derived from property, sales and other general revenues. The study also found that local governments are responsible for 57% of the area's total spending on road infrastructure. (http://www.iclei.org/co2/Auto/cars.htm)

In other words, Ms. Morrison herself is most likely engaging in an activity heavily subsidized by her fellow citizens every time she leaves her driveway. However, a niggling fact like this couldn't possibly get in the way of a perfectly good rant, and she continues her critique along the same rhetorical trajectory:

They [cyclists? Citizens?] demand the government to provide and pay for their "entertainment and recreation." The government must provide parks, paths, scenic areas, fishing and boating opportunities, tourism, and all kinds of free outings. To accommodate these provisions, the property is many times taken from private property owners to make public areas. Then, these "recreational demanders" choose not to use those areas but to infiltrate areas not intended for their use.

I don’t know about you, but our recreation and exercise is not paid for. For one thing, we have little time for recreation these days trying to earn enough to pay the taxes that pay for bike trails which bikers choose to avoid. Our exercise comes from our work.

The classical invocation of the Protestant work ethic (work=play) is humorous, as many American's work-related exercise is limited to the walk to the cubicle. Given the information from the Metropolitan Planning Council, it begins to look as though Morrison's problem is not so much with taxes supporting exclusive activities, per se, but rather tax money being spent on projects she doesn't intend to use.

While much of Morrison's logic is questionable at best, the passages above are downright laughable. If, according to her "reasoning," people push for public area for outdoor activities, then such activities should only be performed in those outdoor areas. Of course this would eliminate cycling as a valid alternative means of transportation (funny how freedom to quickly degenerates into freedom from in these arguments).

Morrison claims that her entertainment and exercise "is not paid for," but rather comes from the forced labor necessitated by the obscenely high taxes created by bike paths. This is nonsense. Congress recently considered slashing $600,000,000 in funds for alternative means of transportation in favor of allocating funds to automobile-friendly projects. While there can be no doubt Morrison would applaud this latest act of fiscal wisdom by our esteemed leaders, Illinois' case does little to bolster her argument. In 1999, Illinois allocated $57 million to bike paths. Let's go out on a limb and say that all of this money comes from tax dollars, and that it represents a yearly allocation (while I can't speak to the first assumption, it is safe to assume that this is a one time allocation, but Ms. Morrison needs all the help she can get). Illinois has a population of 12,600,620, meaning that $4.52 per person is spent on bike trails. That again assume that $57 million is the ANNUAL budget. To put this in its proper perspective, $8,606,900,000 in individual taxes in 2001. The amount of funding directed toward bike paths would end up representing a staggering .006 % of the total state individual haul.

While her sense of populistic anger may enable Morrison to claim a position as a speaker for the masses, the underpinnings of her elitism threaten to peak through this facade at the most inopportune times. For example, she accuses cyclists of being arrogant:

Bikers have the reputation of having an attitude of superiority and are not popular in rural communities. Many are very rude. They choose to take the middle of the highway as their right-of-way, disregarding local residents who are trying to get to their destinations... and they refuse to budge. They appear to be saying, "I just dare you." They readily ask for help when they have a problem but show little appreciation.

Yet, as I discussed earlier, she clearly believes that monetary investment should dictate ones right to the road. Her irritation at being "inconvenienced" is quite evident, and she makes it rather clear that her right to travel without the aforementioned "inconvenience" is more essential than the right of millions to have access to the roads.

There are no doubt cyclists who exude this sense of smugness, yet there are clearly enormous numbers of drivers who exhibit a similar degree of arrogance, albeit with far deadlier vehicles at their disposal. No matter how much a cyclist, equestrian or pedestrian might pay to share the roadways, a significant number of drivers become enraged at the suggestion that they might have to share the road with something . . . other. This rage frequently manifests itself even if the object is on the shoulder (horses and pedestrians), or poses no threat or impediment to the driver. Perhaps we shouldn't be arguing about taxes, but rather we should turn our attention toward convincing Americans that roads are indeed public spaces, and the concept of privilege based on fee structure is anathema to democratic ideals.

It is quite possible that Morrison recognizes the inherent weaknesses in her argument when she resorts to the real scare tactic: depicting cyclists as the vanguard of radical environmentalism:

Are these groups really into recreation and exercise, or are they being mentally trained for the Sustainable Communities where bicycles will be a way of life? Automobiles are not popular in Sustainable Communities. They may never be totally outlawed as people would protest too much, but they can price the middle class out of affording a vehicle. If there is no gasoline, or it is so expensive you cannot afford it, what good is the car? Only the rich and elite would own and drive cars in a Sustainable Community.

This is a bizarre tactic, given that public funds directed toward alternative means of transportation could in fact serve to bring an even greater means of transportation to the poor and working classes, but I suspect that the driving force behind this argument is not her concern for the working classes, but rather a fear that restrictions on currently almost unfettered development could limit upper class flight from "less desirable" areas. Such a logical trajectory also forces the author to commit a fundamental logical fallacy. In this case, the flaw lies in her willingness to ignore the vast distinction between a political movement with distinctive goals, and a hobby pursued by millions of Americans. Her "groups" of cyclists appear to consist of latent "Critical Massers," and she makes no attempt to identify cyclists as a diverse body of individuals beholden to a variety of political ideologies.

Her arguments are strongly reminiscent of the rhetoric Concerned Women for America and The Heritage Foundation, its close ally, invokes when environmental issues come to the forefront of public discourse. CWFA's primary concern is the United Nation's perceived threat to consumerism and national sovereignty:

The U.N.'s hidden agenda is environmentalism and sustainable development. They blame ”global warming“ on population growth, and claim that the consumption powers of the wealthy nations are ruining planet Earth for everyone. (United Nations)

Morrison parrots this logic when she discusses the threat rail-to-trail programs pose to private landowners, who, on an ideological micro level, occupy positions analogous to nation states:

The Rails to Trails program has presented major controversy. Railroad tracks that run through private property were intended to revert back to the property owner upon abandonment by the railroads. All across the nation these abandoned tracks have been taken over to be used as bicycle trails. Law suits are popping up everywhere by property owners who border the route where their property has been confiscated for bicycle trails (www.railtrail.org).

This is hardly the response of a populist thinking of the masses' freedom to venture out of the cities by utilizing inexpensive and healthy means of travel. The tone indicates the sense fear the owners of a wealthy local housing development projected when they learned of the possibility that a bike path might wind its way through their street. The concern is not for the well being of the people, so much as it is for the sanctity of privilege. It is this very defense of privilege that drives Joyce Morrison's screed, and her rhetorical slips serve to expose her elitism. She attempts to portray cyclists as economic deadbeats who contribute nothing to the economy by utilizing a cheap means of transportation, but paints them as part of a greater movement to strip the middle class of its freedom. She justifies her sense of superiority on asphalt and stone by alluding to the cost of maintaining a vehicle, and clearly believe that bikes have place on the road, as indicated by her concluding remarks: "If you are a rider, please ride responsibly on a trail that has been provided for your entertainment, and for your safety and the safety of others, please keep off the highways." And yet she opposes public funding of rail-trail programs, viewing them not only as fiscally wasteful, but also part of an insidious plot to undermine private property rights. She ponders the possibility that cycling "is purposely being placed into an elitist status with no restrictions and licensing in an effort to lure people" into accepting the bicycle as the only means of transportation, yet she ignores the historical fact that bicycles predate cars, and that cyclists have seldom paid for licences and registrations. Finally, she fails to acknowledge the bicycle as a viable alternative to the automobile, and in doing so, she fails to concede the harsh reality that access to automobiles has not produced economic equality or mobility for all, or that she herself might be buying into a deeply woven ideology that equates automotive power with freedom, authority and status, and woe to those in the way.

8/2/05