The Unbearable Whiteness Of Cycling

When a (n-word) comes in with a nice bike, I know he didn't buy it.  I know it's a stolen bike.

The owner of a shop in my undergraduate university town made that pronouncement.  I hadn't thought about him--probably gone--and the shop--long gone--in a long time, until I wrote posts about Black and Native American cyclists being cited at much higher rates than White riders for helmet infractions.

I got to thinking about it, again, when I came across a report of a study, "Where Do We Go From Here?"  People for Bikes conducted it, and Charles T. Brown of Rutgers University's Vooorhees Transportation Center led it.  

Among its conclusions:  The increased popularity of cycling--accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic--in US cities has largely been a White phenomenon.  Focus groups conducted in ten cities reveal that, in addition to economic barriers (something I mentioned in my earlier posts), non-Whites, and Blacks in particular, cite a non-inclusive cycling culture and infrastructure.  Some participants said they saw cycling as a "white thing," in part because of images of cyclists projected, consciously or unconsciously, by the media and the cycling community itself.  "Whenever I see pictures of cyclists or anyone on a bicycle," one participant explained, "I just think it's not for me as someone who is over a size 10 and Black."  

(By the way, I am over a size 10 and probably always will be, no matter how much weight I lose!)

Pedal Possse Divas. Photo by David Swanson, for the Philadelphia Inquirer

The study's conclusions are all valid.  Our culture needs to be more inclusive, and its infrastructure more accessible.  But I also can't help but wonder whether some non-White people--young Black men in particular--are deterred because of how the police and criminal justice system treat them when they ride.  In addition to being disproportionately cited for not wearing helmets in places like Seattle, they are more likely to be ticketed for violations like riding on the sidewalk* --or simply stopped for "suspicion" if they're riding a nice bike.  

In short, as the People for Bikes study concludes, we won't see more non-White cyclists if Blacks, Native Americans and others don't see themselves in images of cycling--or sipping lattes in cycling cafes.  But I think the changes have to include not treating non-White cyclists as criminals when they ride the same bikes in the same ways as White cyclists.

Our bikes come in all sizes and colors.  (So do many cyclists' jerseys!)  Why shouldn't our images of cyclists?

*--Every cyclist I've met, or heard of, who's been cited for riding on the sidewalk in New York City is not White.

Wins

I've held off on saying anything about the election results because, you know, I didn't want to be accused of "stealing" it by calling it "prematurely."  Or someone might think I stuffed my panniers with ballots from dead people and brought them to the Queens County election office.

Seriously, though:  I think you know the way I feel.  Just about anybody has to be better than El Cheeto Grande for, well, almost anything you can think of--including bicycling.

Speaking of which:  According to People for Bikes (an organization I heartily endorse), this year Americans voted more than $1 billion for projects, including lanes and trails,  that support cycling.

From People for Bikes

Although I have complained about the faulty conception, design and construction of many bike lanes (including some I ride regularly), I am glad when a lane or other piece of bike infrastructure is created, or an education program is launched.  Even when these things are done poorly, I try to keep hope that they're steps to "getting it right."  Too many planners don't yet understand cycling; I figure it will take time for them to learn--or to be replaced by people who have experienced our realities.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed about that--and the Senate: If it's split evenly between the Democrats and Republicans, Kamala Harris will be the tie-breaker.

A Scooter In Any Other Bill

When is an e-scooter a bike?

For the moment, it isn't.  But if a few US statehouses have their way, the two could be, for all intents and purposes, equal.

Most cycling advocates and bicycle industry insiders don't have a problem with e-scooters per se.  Like e-bikes, they are seen as quiet and less-polluting alternatives to automobiles, especially in urban areas.  In fact, some electric scooter-sharing companies also run bike-sharing systems and are members of the People for Bikes Coalition.

Here's the rub:  Bills on the table in 27 states seek to provide a legal footing for e-scooter rental and use, which is still illegal in many areas.  The problem, according to Morgan Lommele, is that those basically seek to provide legal parity between bicycles, e-bikes and e-scooters.  That leads to situations like the one called for in California's bill:  Scooter- and bike-share systems would be required to maintain general-liability insurance.  

That requirement would be especially onerous for non-profit bike-share systems or small bike-rental companies, which usually require riders to sign a waiver when they hop on a bike. The California bill, Lommele says, "implicates bikes and lumps bike share with scooter share."  In other words, bicyclists would bear the blame for the high cost of sharing or renting a scooter.

Spin e-scooter share system, Jefferson City, Missouri.  Photo by Tony Webster

As bad as California's bill is, one in Florida is even worse:  it would lump "motorized bicycles" into the same category as "micromobility devices" for the purpose of regulating electric scooter-share systems.  Lommele wants "motorized bicycles removed from that definition" to "avoid any negative consequences for bike-share operators in the state.

Of course, it's hard not to imagine that the consequences of Florida's bill, if passed, could be as bad for bike-share programs as the potential outcomes of California's bill--and similar legislative proposals in other states.  One reason why they are even being discussed is something I didn't realize until yesterday:  The scooter-share companies are "massive multi-billion dollar operations, heavily backed by venture capital," according to Lommele.  They are "aggressively seeking market share" from bicycles and e-bikes.

Pedaling Away Pollution

After having my ride detoured by a brush fire--and, more important, seeing how much that fire darkened the sky--I can't help but to think about some of the possible environmental effects of cycling.

Here's one:  If just 5 percent of all New Yorker who commute by car or taxi were to switch to cycling, it would save 150 million pounds of CO2 emissions per year.  In other words, it would have the same effect as planting a forest 1.3 times the size of Manhattan.

Or this:  Half of all US schoolchildren are dropped off at school from their family cars.  If 20 percent of those kids living within two miles of the school were to bike or walk instead, that would prevent 356,000 tons (712 million pounds) of C02 from being released into the air.  It would also prevent 21,500 tons (43 million pounds) of other pollutants from ending up in the air we breathe.

You can read more about the environmental benefits of cycling here.

Why Do--And Don't--Women Ride?

In late 2014, People for Bikes commissioned a study on women's participation in cycling.

Its findings confirmed some things I'd suspected but revealed other things that surprised me.

My own experiences and observations have shown me that more males than females cycle.  According to the study, 45 million women ride a bicycle at least once a year, compared to 59 million men.  In other words, about 43 percent of all adult cyclists are women.  Given what I've seen, I'm not surprised by those statistics. 

Nor am I surprised by another PfB finding, interesting as it is:  Boys and girls ride bikes at the same rate at ages three to nine.  At ten years of age, girls and women start to ride less than men and boys. The gap grows as they grow older, and is its widest at ages 55 and older.

That, in spite of something else the surveys revealed:  Almost the same numbers of women and men say they would like to bike more often.  One of the reasons women most commonly cite for not cycling is simply not having a working bicycle available at home.  This is a factor for somewhat higher of numbers of women than for men. 

Safety concerns are another deterrent to cycling for many women. While the numbers of women who worry about being struck by a car is roughly equal to the numbers of men who express such concerns, women are much more likely than men to cite fears about their own personal safety as a reason for not cycling.

One of the study's revelations that surprised me somewhat is that 94 percent of female cyclists rode for recreation while  68 percent rode for transportation to and from social and leisure activities.  Actually, I'm only somewhat surprised by the second figure, but more so by the first, based on my own observations and impressions here in New York City.

The most surprising part of the study (at least to me) is this:  A much higher percentage (31) of women with children than without (19) rode at least once a year.  Then again, the study found the same held true for men (46 vs. 31 percent).  These contradict a UCLA study that suggested women don't ride because they need their cars to handle childcare responsibilities. 

Knowing about the People for Bikes study leads me to wonder whether women's actual and perceived barriers to cycling can be overcome--and whether doing so would change the ways in which women ride.  If more women started to ride to work, and if more of us started to ride our bikes to social and other activities, would more women take up long-distance touring, racing and other genres of cycling in which the gap between women's and men's participation is even greater?