Lydia DePillis, who often writes on bicycling matters for the Washington Post, had a column on Friday (yes, April Fool's Day) as part of the Post's "Five Myths..." series. It was more good than bad, but some of the bad is glaring.
First of all, the myths themselves were a little weak. No one really says that bike share will make roads less safe, for example, at least not anymore. It would have been nice if she had found actual claims from recent, main stream publications (I'm sure the Post has some thanks to Courtland Milloy) and then shot those down.
1. Mandating helmet use is the best way to keep riders safe. - People do advocate for this at times, but I feel like it's more or a larger myth which is that "the most important thing a cyclist can do for safety is wear a helmet." I think helmets, on average, probably improve survivability of crashes and mitigate certain types of head injuries, but I'd say it's less important than a bike in good working order, a sober and confident cyclist and a good pair of bike lights (if riding when those are needed). Still, this myth is in the same vein. And she largely makes the same point, that there are better ways and that helmet laws are likely counter-productive.
Unfortunately, she kicks it often with the since publication withdrawn claim that "Studies show [that helmets] reduce the risk of cyclist head injury by 85 percent" which I found surprising, but it is a widely repeated claim so I'll let it slide (though she should correct this).
3. If more people rode bikes, there’d be noticeably less traffic and pollution. I guess she's trying to be balanced here by knocking down a myth of cycling evangelists, but it's not a myth. If more people rode bikes there would be less traffic and pollution - in proper relation to the number "more" we get. No one says that doubling bicyclists will end congestion and pollution, they say that to the extent that you transition rides from cars (and to a lesser extent transit in some case) you see a reduction in congestion and pollution.
Sure, if everyone gave up their cars tomorrow, the health of our cities and our climate would improve. But this is wishful thinking. Just 1 percent of Americans regularly commute by bicycle. Even if that number doubled, cycling wouldn’t significantly cut smog and congestion.
Actually, it probably would. Both congestion and smog are concentrated in the same areas - cities. Exactly the places where cycling is most prevalent. If bike commuting doubled, DC would go from 3.9% to 7.8%. I'm certain an overnight change like that would be noticeable. A place like Berkeley would get to nearly 20% and San Francisco (#7 in air quality) to 8.8%. I think that would result in a measurable reduction in air pollution.
Even the posts she linked to make this point. The Streetsblog post is about an actual study.
In a scenario where 14 percent of travel in the world’s cities is by bike or e-bike in 2050, carbon emissions from urban transportation would be 11 percent lower than a scenario where efforts to promote sustainable transportation sidestep bicycling.
That's doable. That's noticeable.
On congestion, she misreads the research. She writes that
Studies have shown that congestion increases in cities where there are more bike riders but no new bike lanes.
But that isn't what the study shows. It shows that on some roads, if bicycle use goes up, travel times goes up too. Mostly those are the uphill segments of narrow roads where drivers can't pass cyclists - and it's worse if there are buses too. It does not translate citywide and they don't even study what happens to the whole city. Other studies meanwhile, show that - on average - a bicycle causes about 28% as much congestion as a car, and that goes down as there are more bike facilities added. But 28% is the maximum.
This was by far the worst myth on the list. It was a complete strawman, and not even supported by her own facts.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
Every time I read one of those myths articles at the Post I'm annoyed. It's like they can't think things through, or perhaps they try too hard to be even that they make absurd counterclaims. I still shake my head remembering the writer that said that isn't pollen you see on your car in the spring because pollen is microscopic and too small for the eye to see. Perfect example of how you can be right on the details but still wrong because you didn't think it through.
I am not going to write anything about helmet laws. I am not going to write anything about helmet laws. D'oh!
Posted by: DE | April 05, 2016 at 08:48 AM
The modeshare point was so glaringly obvious. Sure, going from 1% to 2% is not going to make much difference. But going from 1% to 30% (e.g. Amsterdam) would make a huge difference.
Also, once we stop thinking of infrastructure as only for cars, we start to think more creatively of other modeshare. More peds, bikes, etc. With greater emphasis on safety, perhaps drivers would not feel the need to drive SUV behemoths and so we get less pollution from smaller cars.
Posted by: SJE | April 05, 2016 at 11:46 AM
It should be renamed "5 strawmen" about X topic. This one was especially poorly thought out.
Posted by: Crickey7 | April 05, 2016 at 11:56 AM
The mistakes, misinterpretations, and straw men, not withstanding, I still believe that the cumulative and subliminal effect of mainstream discussion of cycling as a utilitarian activity--even negative coverage--is a net good thing.
Posted by: Smedley Burkhart | April 06, 2016 at 10:37 AM
And both of these things are the sort of thing that have been settled for a while now to the point where its almost dangerous for cycling advocates to debate it as if there are still legitimate claims. Kind of like when scientists say they won't do high publicity climate change debates.
But when it comes out in the post you can't actually let it stand either.
Posted by: drumz | April 06, 2016 at 03:48 PM
The title "Five Myths" is deceptive because it implies that it's presenting facts when it's really just an opinion piece. I actually wrote to the Post ombudsman once to complain about the title of the series. If you saw an article called "Myths About Tornado Safety" you would justifiably assume that it presents life-saving information, not someone's opinion. So when used to present an opinion, the title is misleading and confusing.
Posted by: Jack | April 08, 2016 at 08:40 AM