Investment In Cycling In The Equality State?

Wyoming is the least populated state in the US. As a New Yorker, my perspective is that The Equality State has barely more people than Staten Island, the least populated of the Big Apple's five boroughs. And only Alaska is more sparsely populated.

Why is Wyoming nicknamed "The Equality State"?  Well, in 1869--twenty-one years before it became a state, and fifty-one years before the  Nineteenth Amendment was passed--the then-territory of Wyoming became the first government in the world to give women the right to vote.  The reasons for this have long been debated, but almost everyone seems to agree that one motivation was that Wyoming's legislators wanted their territory to become a state and, because there were so few people, women's votes were necessary to get Congress to consider the territory for statehood.

Cheyenne resident Dave Flores riding in his hometown.

But I digress.  Wyoming's stunning vistas and open spaces mean that people travel great distances for work, school or almost anything else in their lives.  So, getting the state to invest in bike or pedestrian lanes can't be the easiest "sell" in the world.  And that is what the Bicycle and Pedestrian System Task Force is telling the state to do.  

Although people often vacation in, or even move to, places like Wyoming because they believe the environment is pristine, there are environmental problems  not found in the larger, denser coastal cities.  Like neighbors Colorado and Montana, much of the state lies two kilometers or more above sea level.  Since the air is thinner at such high altitudes, it doesn't take very many vehicles to pollute the air. (Denver has some of the worst smog of major American cities.)  So, perhaps, Wyoming needs to encourage people to walk and cycle as much as, or more than, even Los Angeles--especially if more people decide to move there and enjoy its "rustic" charms.

Au Revoir, Paris :-(

Sigh...I mean cough, cough...Or do I mean burble, burble?

It's official:  President Donald Trump (I never imagined using that title and that name together!) has withdrawn the United States of America, the world's second largest polluter (and the largest, by far, per capita) from the 2015 Paris climate accord.

I would love to know what he knows that the leaders of 194 other countries don't know.  

Actually, I don't think it's a matter of what he knows or even who he knows--after all, even Rex Tillerson couldn't sway him.

If anything, his action seems to be a result of something that is a personality trait in children but is a personality disorder in a 70-year-old man.

There might be some scientific or clinical term for it.  If there is, I am not aware of it--after all, I am not a professional in mental health or a researcher in neurology or brain science.  So I will describe it as best I can.

Here goes:  He is possessed by a particular kind of petulance:  the kind that causes children to be resentful and throw tantrums when one of their siblings or peers gets anything he or she wants.  That child equates the other kid getting the toy or later bedtime or whatever with not getting it him or her self.  In other words, they think that whatever the other kid got came at his or her expense:  You gave it to him instead of me.

Well, substitute countries (except for Russia, Saudi Arabia or Israel) for kids, and you have Donald Trump's mentality.  If France or Japan or England or China or Germany or, God forbid, Mexico, should get what it wants, then it must mean that his beloved (as long as it profits him) good ol' USA must have been deprived of, or cheated, out of something.

I'm not sure that even Jeff Sessions thinks that way--or if he does, not nearly as pathologically as the guy who appointed him does.

Many in-the-know folks have pointed out that pulling out of the accord will one day (probably sooner than later) cost the US its leadership role in technology:  After all, so many of the forthcoming developments will, by necessity, have to do with reducing the causes of climate change.  This, of course, is bad for business, at least in the US:  All of the new technologies to prevent, combat or deal with climate change are going to come from China, India, Europe and possibly other places.

The Reign of Terror might have been bad for a fabricant de chapeaux, but it was good for folks who made scaffolding and steel blades.  Likewise, even though opportunities will be lost as a result of pulling out of the Paris accord, other entrepreneurs will benefit.  Among them will be the folks who manufacture things like this:

From The Human Cyclist

and this:

From Cyclelicio.us

This Bike Sucks. And That's A Good Thing.

How many times have we heard, or said, that the more people we get to ride bicycles, the cleaner our air will be.

But, you know, that's just one step.  Some of us--especially those of us who live in the major cities--are sucking up the very smog we're trying to combat.  We're not trees:  We can't just inhale the stuff tailpipes and smokestacks belch and exhale air that's as pure as the driven snow.

So what can we do?  Well, since people have used pedal power to sharpen knives, grind grain and generate power for everything from hair dryers to computers, Dan Roosegaarde figured that he could use a bicycle to clean the air.  

Yes, you read that right.  This bike has a mechanism that sucks in dirty air, filters it and lets out fresh air as the cyclist pedals down traffic-clogged streets.  Roosegaarde, a Dutch (what else?) artist and inventor, has designed a series of innovation to help curb air pollution, including a series of 23-foot high towers that essentially act as a massive air purifier.  

The Chinese government is supporting the development of the Smog Free Bicycle.  That makes sense when you realize China has both the largest and fastest-growing urban areas and bike-share programs in the world.  Two decades ago, the bicycle was practically a symbol of China; two-wheelers clogged the streets as impenetrably as cars and trucks clot those same thoroughfares, and those of large metropoli in other countries, today.

Roosegaarde says he wants to "bring back the bicycle, not only as a cultural icon of China, but also as the next step towards smog-free cities".

London: Life In The Bike Lane

Cities in the Western world have seen phenomenal increases in the number of cyclists on their streets during the past few years.  One of the cities in which the increase has been most noted is London.  According to one study, during the peak morning hours (7-10 pm), on some streets, as much as 64 percent of the traffic consists of bicycles.

In other words, at such times on those streets, there are almost two bicycles for every motorized vehicle or pedestrian!

The study also reveals--perhaps not surprisingly--a dramatic increase in the number of accidents, injuries and deaths among cyclists   Most interestingly, it notes that most accidents and casualties occur during daylight hours.

But it also shows increase spending on cycling infrastructure (which include plans for a bicycle "Skyway")--which, with greater public awareness, could reduce, or at least slow the increase in, the numbers.

Perhaps the most thought-provoking statistic of all, though, is this:  If just fourteen percent of all trips in Central London were on bicycles, emissions of nitrogen oxides--the most prominent vehicle pollutant--would fall by nearly a third.  

That is to say, when people ride bikes rather than drive in the central city, it has double the effect in reducing at least one major type of pollution:  no small matter in a city noted for its congestion and fog.

From Fiona Outdoors

Cyclists Cause Pollution

I hate to break this to all of you "tree-huggers":  We are polluting the air, after all, when we ride our bicycles.

Oh, but it gets worse:  the more and harder we ride, the more we fill the atmosphere with a toxin--namely, carbon dioxide.

From The Ottawa Citizen

Now, I'll admit that I haven't taken a science class since, well, before some of you were born.  But the notion that we are fouling the air when we pedal and puff is at least factually and etymologically true--at least in the same sense as another statement made by no less of an environmental scientist than Ronald Reagan.  Back in 1981, he said, "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

Would you expect any less from the man who appointed James G. Watt as his Secretary of the Interior?  

Apparently, Washington State Representative Ed Orcutt learned his science from Professor Ronnie.  Hey, if I had science professors like him, I'd be nominated for a Nobel Prize.  In what, I don't know.

But I digress.  The Hon. Rep. Orcutt revealed his epoch-making discovery about cyclists to a bike shop owner during a campaign for a proposal to charge a $25 fee on bicycles costing more than $500.  That fee would help to pay for transportation facilities.  

Orcutt has since apologized for his remarks.  However, the furor over his remarks remains.

For me, learning of this story has had at least one good outcome: I found it on the BicycleLaw.com webpage.  I'll be visiting it from now on.