"Biofuels Raise Beer Prices." OK, this headline from ProBrewer.com, is perhaps a little exaggerated, but it nonetheless adds to the growing evidence that the otherwise reasonable push toward alternative fuels--alternative to coal and petroleum--carries its own social and environmental side effects. In this case, it seems European farmers have planted significantly less barley this year as they chase the lucrative subsidies their governments are offering to grow rapeseed (canola) and other raw materials for making biodiesel. With less barley planted, less will be harvested and prices for maltsters and brewers are already on the rise. Besides the economic implications for beer producers and consumers such as myself, there is mounting evidence that the rush to grow other biofuel crops such as maize and, especially, palm oil is having a variety of environmental consequences, with accelerating tropical deforestation topping the list.
While I think biofuels nonetheless offer a lot of potential, let's not forget there is an even better alternative to petroleum-guzzling engines: the human body. We can walk and, of course, bicycle in far more energy-efficient a manner than we can drive, with absolutely no worrisome side effects to deal with--other than helping fight obesity, stress, etc., and living happier, healthier lives as a result. Why is it we so often search for new technologies and techniques to fix our current problems, when sometimes the simplest ideas, such as conservation, provide the most elegant solutions of all.
Friday, June 08, 2007
reason number 42 to bike commute:
"Biofuels Raise Beer Prices." OK, this headline from ProBrewer.com, is perhaps a little exaggerated, but it nonetheless adds to the growing evidence that the otherwise reasonable push toward alternative fuels--alternative to coal and petroleum--carries its own social and environmental side effects. In this case, it seems European farmers have planted significantly less barley this year as they chase the lucrative subsidies their governments are offering to grow rapeseed (canola) and other raw materials for making biodiesel. With less barley planted, less will be harvested and prices for maltsters and brewers are already on the rise. Besides the economic implications for beer producers and consumers such as myself, there is mounting evidence that the rush to grow other biofuel crops such as maize and, especially, palm oil is having a variety of environmental consequences, with accelerating tropical deforestation topping the list.
While I think biofuels nonetheless offer a lot of potential, let's not forget there is an even better alternative to petroleum-guzzling engines: the human body. We can walk and, of course, bicycle in far more energy-efficient a manner than we can drive, with absolutely no worrisome side effects to deal with--other than helping fight obesity, stress, etc., and living happier, healthier lives as a result. Why is it we so often search for new technologies and techniques to fix our current problems, when sometimes the simplest ideas, such as conservation, provide the most elegant solutions of all.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
stay off the sidewalk
Once again, a major media story portrays urban cycling as dangerous and cyclists as hapless victims of a car-driving society that treats them as second-class citizens. This time, it's the Chicago Sun-Times reporting--under the headline "Vicious Cycle"--that a "war" is brewing between cyclists and pedestrians near that city's Northside lakefront. Last month, Alderman Mary Ann Smith led the restoration of an expired 2002 ordinance that fines adult cyclists $250 for riding on the sidewalks lining Sheridan Avenue between the lakeshore campus of Loyola University and the northern end of Lakeshore Drive. Apparently, we're supposed to be outraged by this allegedly bike-unfriendly action because, in the words of author Monifa Thomas, "You'd face a lighter fine if you drove your car on a Chicago sidewalk."
Now, I have no idea if that statement is true, and if it is, Alderman Smith needs to get seriously busy on revising at least one more city ordinance. But back to the point: Bicycles don't belong on the sidewalk! Especially if it's a pedestrian-crowded sidewalk in a dense urban environment. Bicycles are vehicles, and bicyclists are most certainly not wheeled pedestrians. Like cars, trucks, and motorcycles, bicycles belong both legally and practically on the street. Unfortunately, it seems that neophytes such as those pictured at right--a wannabe Euro jersey and no helmet?!--are allowed to speak for all cyclists in complaining that the new law reduces their safety, when any experienced urban cyclist knows that just the opposite is true. Sure, this statement smacks of elitism, but it's an elitism rooted in years of humble and continuing instruction and training, not a sense of naive entitlement.
To be fair, the Sun-Times article does include some voices of reason. Most notably Rob Sandowsky, executive director of the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, points out that alternative street routes exist just a block or two away from the lakefront route in question. Perhaps the city could do more to advertise these alternatives via signs, and perhaps the city could improve the bike-friendliness of Sheridan by enforcing speed limits and marking the right lane with "sharrows". But it's still up to bicyclists to educate themselves and learn how to ride their freakin' bikes! Riding safely, comfortably, confidently, and efficiently, alongside of motorized traffic isn't hard, nor is it limited to the "strong and brave"; it just takes a little practice and a humble willingness to learn. And if one is ever not comfortable riding on a particular street, there are always alternative street routes that are far safer than the sidewalk, which study after study demonstrates is the absolutely most dangerous place to ride.
To that end, another recent news item is more constructive. A personal-health feature in the New York Times this week, provides a nice summary of guidelines for both drivers and cyclists in learning how to share the road. And while the article starts out in the common sensationalist style of anecdotally describing a bicycle accident or two, followed by statistics that overstate the dangers of urban cycling because they fail to acknowledge the equivalent dangers of driving an automobile--or to standardize the data in any sort of way (per capita? per mile? per hour?)--at least the article carries the more rational and helpful headline that "Cars and Bikes Can Mix." Of course they can.
If you want to learn more about bicycle education, a great place to start is the League of American Bicyclists. I also highly recommend the "effective cycling" program of bicycle transportation engineer John Forester and the phenomenal website of the late Ken Kifer. The fact that Ken was killed in 2003 while riding his bike should in no way dampen his message as to the safety of cycling; he was tragically and unluckily struck by an obscenely drunk driver, a criminal who just as easily could have taken the life of a fellow motorist or pedestrian as that of a man on a bicycle. In recognizing the non-zero, but still quite small, risks of cycling, we must also acknowledge the comparable risks of the alternatives, especially the daily carnage that occurs within motor vehicles. No user of the streets, regardless of how many wheels they have under them, is completely safe. But fortunately, we're all extremely safe, especially when we know what we're doing.
Now, I have no idea if that statement is true, and if it is, Alderman Smith needs to get seriously busy on revising at least one more city ordinance. But back to the point: Bicycles don't belong on the sidewalk! Especially if it's a pedestrian-crowded sidewalk in a dense urban environment. Bicycles are vehicles, and bicyclists are most certainly not wheeled pedestrians. Like cars, trucks, and motorcycles, bicycles belong both legally and practically on the street. Unfortunately, it seems that neophytes such as those pictured at right--a wannabe Euro jersey and no helmet?!--are allowed to speak for all cyclists in complaining that the new law reduces their safety, when any experienced urban cyclist knows that just the opposite is true. Sure, this statement smacks of elitism, but it's an elitism rooted in years of humble and continuing instruction and training, not a sense of naive entitlement.
To be fair, the Sun-Times article does include some voices of reason. Most notably Rob Sandowsky, executive director of the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, points out that alternative street routes exist just a block or two away from the lakefront route in question. Perhaps the city could do more to advertise these alternatives via signs, and perhaps the city could improve the bike-friendliness of Sheridan by enforcing speed limits and marking the right lane with "sharrows". But it's still up to bicyclists to educate themselves and learn how to ride their freakin' bikes! Riding safely, comfortably, confidently, and efficiently, alongside of motorized traffic isn't hard, nor is it limited to the "strong and brave"; it just takes a little practice and a humble willingness to learn. And if one is ever not comfortable riding on a particular street, there are always alternative street routes that are far safer than the sidewalk, which study after study demonstrates is the absolutely most dangerous place to ride.
To that end, another recent news item is more constructive. A personal-health feature in the New York Times this week, provides a nice summary of guidelines for both drivers and cyclists in learning how to share the road. And while the article starts out in the common sensationalist style of anecdotally describing a bicycle accident or two, followed by statistics that overstate the dangers of urban cycling because they fail to acknowledge the equivalent dangers of driving an automobile--or to standardize the data in any sort of way (per capita? per mile? per hour?)--at least the article carries the more rational and helpful headline that "Cars and Bikes Can Mix." Of course they can.
If you want to learn more about bicycle education, a great place to start is the League of American Bicyclists. I also highly recommend the "effective cycling" program of bicycle transportation engineer John Forester and the phenomenal website of the late Ken Kifer. The fact that Ken was killed in 2003 while riding his bike should in no way dampen his message as to the safety of cycling; he was tragically and unluckily struck by an obscenely drunk driver, a criminal who just as easily could have taken the life of a fellow motorist or pedestrian as that of a man on a bicycle. In recognizing the non-zero, but still quite small, risks of cycling, we must also acknowledge the comparable risks of the alternatives, especially the daily carnage that occurs within motor vehicles. No user of the streets, regardless of how many wheels they have under them, is completely safe. But fortunately, we're all extremely safe, especially when we know what we're doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
