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.)

May 16, 2009: George F. Will, columnist, Newsweek
April 8, 2009: Zach Colman, opinion writer, The State News
March 26, 2009: House Minority Whip, Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Feb. 7, 2009: Senator John Ensign, Nevada
Feb. 3, 2009: Senator Jim DeMint, South Carolina

Jan. 11, 2009: Congressman John Boehner, Representative, Ohio's 8th District
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

George F. Will, columnist, Newsweek

What he said:
In his May 16 column, “Ray LaHood, Transformed,” in Newsweek, George Will asks skeptically, “Does [Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood] think 0.01 percent of Americans will ever regularly bike to work?”

What’s the issue:
While most of the column is spent defending car-centered transportation planning, Will takes a swipe at the viability of bicycle commuting.

What are the facts:
Americans already bike to work at a rate 40 times greater than Will thought LaHood’s policies could never achieve – and bike commuting is even higher than the national average in communities where it is encouraged through infrastructure, education, and public policy.

Forty percent of all trips are two miles or shorter, an easily biked distance, and yet 89% of these are done by car.

The supply-side approach to transportation with a singular focus on the automobile has led us to building wider, more expensive roadways that all too quickly become congested. Bicycling, along with walking and transit, is an important part of the remedy to a too narrowly-focused transportation system.

What he could have said:
Investing in a wide range of transportation modes, including bicycling, helps make us leaner and greener, and gives people the freedom to choose the option that works best for them.

E-mail Newsweek's Editor.

Zach Colman, Opinion Writer, The state news

What he said:
In an opinion column entitled “Bicyclists need to stay on the sidewalk,” in The State News, the student newspaper at Michigan State University, Zach Colman wrote, “Black 2001 Saturn SC2. That’s the car I drive — and if you’re a bicyclist on the road but not in a bike path and you see my car, I hope you’re wearing a helmet, because I might run you over. … considering you are where you should not be, I might hit you… Roads are for cars, not bicyclists...”

What’s the issue:
In what we can only hope is a sorry attempt at satire, the author says that bicyclists should get off the road. If they’re not in bike lanes or on sidewalks, Colman promotes distracted drivers running over bicyclists with “big, people-killing cars” to show who rules the road.

What are the facts:
Colman’s suggestion that bicyclists have no legal right to the road is plain false. Michigan’s vehicle code declares that “Each person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, or moped or operating a low-speed vehicle upon a roadway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle”.

Colman’s assertion that bicyclists are better off on sidewalks is misleading as well. Motorists are actually more likely to hit a bicyclist on the sidewalk than one they are passing in the street. Wrong-way riding and riding on the sidewalk are two of the biggest contributors to car/bike collisions. Not only that, but bicyclists are not permitted to ride on the sidewalks in Michigan State University anyways. Check out the university’s bicycle laws here.

What he could have said:
After checking his facts a bit more thoroughly, he could have expressed his opinions about bicyclists’ behavior and presence on the road and then gone on to explore the possibility of Complete Streets and education strategies to encourage sharing the road.

To contact the Editor, go here.

House Minority Whip, Eric Cantor (R-VA)

What he said:
On NPR's morning news program "The Take Away," Senator Eric Cantor said, “To give you just an example, $3 million went to the District of Columbia. You know what they did with that money? They’re going to go build bike paths, and they’re going to increase the number of bike racks in neighborhoods like Georgetown. I don’t think that that’s a stimulative move.”

What’s the issue:
Rep. Eric Cantor joins his colleagues Rep. Boehner, Rep. Demint and Sen. Ensign in unfairly singling out the expansion of bicycling infrastructure as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He further concludes that such spending doesn’t create lasting jobs. Cantor also added the expansion of the Smart Bike program- the first bike-sharing system of its kind in North America- as an additional example of wasteful stimulus spending.

What are the facts:
It has been proven that dollar for dollar, bike infrastructure has a higher return on investment than road expansion. In fact, for every $1 million invested in an FHWA-approved paved bicycle or multi-use trail, the local economy gains 65 jobs. The modest expansion of the Smart Bike system will not only reduce co2 emissions by 1.5 tons every day (based on current usage rates), it will stimulate job growth. In addition to the numerous construction jobs created, the system expansion will not only create 20 new full-time jobs, they’ll also be green jobs that contribute to a healthier, more environmentally sound Washington. Another tourist-heavy area saw a 9 to 1 return on its investment in bike related infrastructure. Similar gains may be seen in Washington, D.C. as a result of this investment, as well as increased dollars in the local economy as a result.

Washington, D.C. was recently ranked the 3rd highest in increased traffic congestion in the nation. The average Washington metro area driver loses over 46hrs more a year to congestion than in 1982. This is even with over a 1/3 of Washingtonians living without a car. Expansion of the bike network, bike parking and bike sharing allows these residents increased, and more affordable, access to work and shopping, and is vital to decreasing congestion for all roadway users. In the first six months of the modest Smart Bike pilot program of 100 bikes over 11,000 trips were taken, resulting in fewer vehicles miles traveled and reduced strain on the overtaxed transit system. With over 50% more trips taken during the weekday hours than on the weekend, this is not about recreational riding. The planned 10-fold increase in the system will clearly have an impact on the way Washington residents travel to work.

What he could have said:
Expansion of the Washington bike network and Smart Bike program will not only boost the economy, it will help mitigate the current congestion within the city, reduce co2 levels and improve public health. Given neighboring Virginia’s struggle to address its own transportation issues, such expansion of non-motorized projects should not only be encouraged, but expanded throughout the entire Washington metro region.

Write Congressman Cantor and ask him to stop trash talking bikes.

Senator John Ensign, Nevada

What he said:
During a Senate debate on 2.7.09, Senator Ensign said, “I cycle. I like bike paths. I love to see them out there…This is not the time to build these kinds of things. If we are going to invest in infrastructure, invest in infrastructure that actually makes the economy more efficient, such as roads that are needed.”

What’s the issue:
During Senate debate of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Senator Ensign complained about “pork” that would still be allowed in the economic stimulus package. He singled out $8 million for citywide bicycle facilities in Miami, $15 million for pedestrian ways in St Louis, and $47 million for new bike paths throughout the country. He repeated his belief that “when we rush through bills, we are going to see bridges to nowhere, we are going to see bicycle paths that people feel good about riding, but it is not going to help the economy.”

Ensign continues the same line of thinking of Senators DeMint and Coburn, and Representative Boehner in singling out investments in bicycling improvements as examples of wasteful spending in the stimulus package.

What are the facts:
Improving conditions for bicycling and walking not only makes the transportation system more efficient but also helps tackle several massive inefficiencies in our economy: climate change, air pollution, oil dependence, sprawl, and spiraling health care costs. Investment in sidewalks, trails, bike lanes, and other non-motorized infrastructure is cost effective, efficient, and helps meet various sustainability goals into the bargain. Fixing our nation’s crumbling roads, and improving transit service are equally important components of a smart, green investment program that will help get our economy moving and is what the American public want to see happen.

Senator Ensign also makes the mistake of equating bicycling with non-productive leisure activity. The facts are that:

a) the majority of all trips (including car trips) are for family (44%), social and recreational (23%) and other non-work related travel. Less that 15% of trips are associated with getting to and from work.
b) bicycling generates $133 billion annually in economic activity already
c) investment in bicycling does generate jobs and economic return – the North Carolina DOT reports a 9-1 Return on Investment on facilities in the Outer Banks.

What he could have said:
Investment in our communities today should equip us for a sustainable, healthy, and economically viable future where walking, bicycling and transit are viable and attractive ways of getting around our communities. Stimulus funding should be focused on fixing existing infrastructure and building choice back into the transportation system by improving conditions for transit, bicycling, and walking.

Write Senator Ensign and ask him to stop trash talking.

Senator Jim DeMint, south carolina

What he said:
On Tuesday, February 2, 2009, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), chair of the Senate Steering Committee, told Newsmax, that the stimulus bill is a “sham” and that “When people see bike trails and hiking trails and golf courses, they know this is not designed to stimulate the economy and create jobs,” DeMint says.

What’s the issue:
Congress and the incoming Obama administration are considering a number of strategies for boosting spending in the economy, including massive spending on infrastructure. States and local communities are generating lengthy lists of "ready to go" or "shovel ready" projects on which they would spend such infrastructure funds, and there is a major concern that many of those projects will be highway expansion projects that have been shelved for years due to lack of local support and funding. In addition, fueling a major expansion of highways will make it almost impossible for the Administration to tackle climate change, oil dependence, health and other issues that are a priority. By contrast, investing in local bicycle, pedestrian and transit infrastructure projects will not only create jobs and boost the economy but will also improve our communities and better equip them for a sustainable future.

What are the facts:
American's have repeatedly said that they value more livable communities, transit, bicycling and walking improvements ahead of new highway capacity. They also favor fixing our existing infrastructure before adding more to it.

Smart Growth America: Americans Prefer to Spend More on Mass Transit & Highway Maintenance, Less on Nnew Roads

Transportation for America
: Americans Overwhelmingly Support New Transportation Investments
AARP
: Is the Cost of Gas Leading Americans to Use Alternative Transportation?

In fact, the South Carolina State Department of Transportation (SCDOT) states on its website that “As South Carolina continues to increase in population and in numbers of vehicles on our roads; we need to look for ways to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled. Motor vehicles generally have the highest level of pollution output per mile in the first few miles of operation-those miles before the engine has warmed up. That is why it is important to be able to use walking or cycling as substitute modes for more and more short trips.”

What he could have said:
Investment in our communities today should equip us for a sustainable, healthy, and economically viable future where walking, bicycling and transit are viable and attractive ways of getting around our communities. Stimulus funding should be focused on fixing existing infrastructure and building choice back into the transportation system by improving conditions for bicycling, walking. Senator DeMint might take a moment to read the excellent New York Times story on some of his fellow members of Congress.

Click here to write Senator Demint and ask him to stop trash talking bike paths.

Congressman John Boehner, Representative, Ohio's 8th District

What he said:
In an interview on a Sunday morning talk show, Boehner was discussing different proposals for economic stimulus spending on infrastructure. He said "I think there's a place for infrastructure. But what kind of infrastructure? Infrastructure to widen highways to ease congestion for American families?...But if we're talking about beautification projects or we're talking about bike paths, Americans are not going to look very kindly on this."

What’s the issue:
Congress and the incoming Obama administration are considering a number of strategies for boosting spending in the economy, including massive spending on infrastructure. States and local communities are generating lengthy lists of "ready to go" or "shovel ready" projects on which they would spend such infrastructure funds and there is a major concern that many of those projects will be highway expansion projects that have been shelved for years due to lack of local support and funding. In addition, fueling a major expansion of highways will make it almost impossible for the Administration to tackle climate change, oil dependence, health and other issues that are a priority. By contrast, investing in local bicycle, pedestrian and transit infrastructure projects will not only create jobs and boost the economy but will also improve our communities and better equip them for a sustainable future.

What are the facts:
American's have repeatedly said that they value more livable communities, transit, bicycling and walking improvements ahead of new highway capacity. They also favor fixing our existing infrastructure before adding more to it.

Smart Growth America: Americans Prefer to Spend More on Mass Transit & Highway Maintenance, Less on Nnew Roads

Transportation for America
: Americans Overwhelmingly Support New Transportation Investments
AARP
: Is the Cost of Gas Leading Americans to Use Alternative Transportation?

What he could have said:
Investment in our communities today should equip us for a sustainable, healthy, and economically viable future where walking, bicycling and transit are viable and attractive ways of getting around our communities. Stimulus funding should be focused on fixing existing infrastructure and building choice back into the transportation system by improving conditions for bicycling, walking. Rep. Boehner might take a moment to read the excellent New York Times story on some of his fellow members of Congress. Click here to email John Boehner.

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.”