Comments on: Bikes Cause Pollution? SF Gadfly Says ‘Yes’

By: James D

James D — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:38:24 +0000

Another thought

The idea of bicycles holding up cars and thus causing pollution, is almost the same as a homacidal gunman claiming that the reason so many people were killed is not because he was shooting at them, but rather that there were more people in the vacinity and by crossing paths they were killed more often. They got in the path of the bullets.

The argument is just plain dumb!
The best way to clean up pollution from cars, is to have less cars. If any city is serious its simple, you just impose a congestion tax on cars. Anyone who drives a private vehicle into the city pays $20.

By: James D

James D — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:40:03 +0000

I find this a bit absurd.
This Anderson bloke, suggests that bikes cause pollution because they hold up cars. The basis of this argument is that the cars which are the ones creating the pollution, are creating more pollution because cyclists are holding them up. This is a stupid argument on 2 counts.

Firstly, the cars are the ones CREATING THE POLLUTION. Get rid of the cars and you dont have the pollution.

The best answer is to simply ban cars from the city, with the exception of emergency services, and some cargo vehicles. Public transport, and bicycles are a more efficent method of ravelling in a city anyway.

Secondly, if cities are designed correctly you lower the amount of cars in existance and if less people drive cars and switch to bikes you have less cars on the road. You can also structure a cities traffic so that bicycles dont hold up the fewer cars that are there.

Reducing the number of cars and increasing the number of bikes creates LESS POLLUTION. You cant blame the pollution on someone driving a vehicle that creates NO Pollution in its use.

By: Dave Cohoe

Dave Cohoe — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:59:34 +0000

Glad you chose my photo for your blog post. Can you attribute me as photographer? It’s CC licensed, attribution req’d. Thanks.

By: Christopher Wing

Christopher Wing — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:04:40 +0000

How about taking cars off the road? If you need a car in the city, you’re not doing it right.

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:06:26 +0000

Funny how so many people, including other cyclists, want to talk about scofflaw cyclists. Show me a single hour at a single intersection where no motor vehicle violates a single law, then we can talk about how cyclists who break the vehicle code disrupt the flow of traffic. As far as all the research I’ve ever seen, in auto-bike accidents, the car driver is much more likely to be at fault or to bear a greater share of the fault. Cyclists are no more dangerous, no more likely to disobey the traffic laws than car drivers are.

By: Shirley Siluk Gregory

Shirley Siluk Gregory — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:26:41 +0000

Here's an interesting note: a study by an injury expert at the University of New South Wales has found that the more bicycles there are on the road, the safer cyclists are. And, most surprising of all, this holds true whether or not a community has adopted bike-friendly laws or constructed new lanes or paths just for cyclists.

By: More Bikes on the Road Mean Greater Safety, Not Less : Ecoscraps

More Bikes on the Road Mean Greater Safety, Not Less : Ecoscraps — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:21:59 +0000

[...] this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.Attention, all car-loving anti-cyclists who claim two-wheelers are making streets less safe: a recent study has found that the more bicycles [...]

By: william

william — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:05:34 +0000

I agree with Anderson and I do believe that he has a point. An environmental impact study should be done first. How can you tell in advance if adding bicycle lanes would actually help or harm the environment? Decades ago, old tires were tossed into the ocean as coral reef builders. It was a noble idea, but unfortunately they were far more disasterous to the ocean than not having done anything. No study was done prior to dumping all those old tires into the ocean. Now, we know better, after the fact.

I bicycle and I also drive. Bicyclists need to follow the rules of the road. Bicyclists need to stop at stop signs when there’s traffic behind the other signs. When too many idiot cyclists run stop signs, it makes us law abiding cyclists look bad. Unfortunately, I think having too many bicyclists will increase the idiot factor of cycling. I’m against too many other people cycling. They don’t know the rules of the road and confuse drivers and other cyclists. They block other cyclists and don’t signal their turns.

When I first got on a bicycle as a kid in the 1980′s, I had an easy time of it. Most people allowed me my space. I didn’t get run over because I followed the vehicular rules of the road. These days, drivers are fed up with all the scofflaw cyclists, as I am also. The rogue cyclist make drivers more likely to do something that endangers me while I’m riding. Many bicyclist are also doing things that endanger themselves while riding.

If you look up the sfgate database for bicycle accidents, you’ll see that about 2/3 of them are caused by bicyclist. About 1/3 are caused by a driver with a small amount caused by pedestrians. http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/bikeblame/index.shtml

There’s just too many people who don’t belong on bicycles. They mess it up for those of us who have been bicycling for decades and enjoy cycling.

By: John

John — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:40:04 +0000

I strongly support bicycling. But I must agree that under many circumstances bicycles disrupt traffic flow and so cause increased use of fuel. There are many ways this happens. Every car must brake, and then accelerate to pass every bicycle using the same road way. This causes a huge waste of gas. And if bicycles are given their own lanes, then there are all the other problems mentioned. I think the impact report is taking a long time because the problem is complex. In many parts of SF, bicycles probably already increase net pollution. Bicycle traffic simply does not mix well with car and truck traffic. Many bicyclists refuse to obey traffic laws, and even refuse to stop at red lights. In Green New Zealand bicycles are not allowed on highways with cars.

It would be better to reserve whole sections of SF for bicycle and foot and cable car traffic only. That might actually reduce air pollution, and certainly would reduce noise pollution.

By: Jon Spangler

Jon Spangler — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:28:26 +0000

Anderson’s beef with cyclists apparently stems from his experience as both a pedestrian and as a (former?) driver. He dislikes walking on sidewalks and feeling threatened by cyclists riding in ways that he feels are reckless and dangerous. And, of course, bikes in the streets disrupt auto traffic. (Anderson does not own a car, but his comments indicate that he feels that motor vehicle traffic is slowed and endangered by those of us on two wheels and under our own power.)

City officials are probably being overly cautious with the pending Bike Plan EIR (perhaps knowing that Anderson is going to sue SF over it, no matter what it says or how carefully written it is). In the interim, a big part of reducing SF’s greenhouse gases has ground to a halt.