Lawrence Solomon: 'How cities made a huge mistake in promoting cycling'

Credit: Getty Images

Any normal person who lives and works in Southern California is not going to take their bike to work everyday. Unless you live within a few miles of your job, you're going to take your car. But eco-scolds like Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti have this warped dream of turning the city and other parts of Southern California into a bike haven.

It's not going to happen, and we can't let them try to force us out of our cars by taking away lanes. Lawrence Solomon has a piece in the Financial Post where he explains how the big push for bikes is actually costing us more and contributing to pollution.

Here's the beginning of the article:

"The bicycle has come a long way since the 1980s when bicycle advocacy groups (my group, Energy Probe, among them) lobbied against policies that discriminated against cyclists. In the language of the day, the bicycle epitomized “appropriate technology”: It was a right-sized machine that blessed cities with economic and environmental benefits. At no expense to taxpayers, the bicycle took cars off the road, easing traffic; it saved wear and tear on the roads, easing municipal budgets; it reduced auto emissions, easing air pollution; it reduced the need for automobile parking, increasing the efficiency of land use; and it helped keep people fit, too.

Today the bicycle is a mixed bag, usually with more negatives than positives. In many cities, bike lanes now consume more road space than they free up, they add to pollution as well as reducing it, they hurt neighbourhoods and business districts alike, and they have become a drain on the public purse. The bicycle today — or rather the infrastructure that now supports it — exemplifies “inappropriate technology,” a good idea gone wrong through unsustainable, willy-nilly top-down planning..."

Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content