Sidestep the culture war

Sometimes we need to remember the values that we share.

I’m a true believer in the power of safe biking to improve quality of life, increase equity, and perform small miracles for families. I’ve written about this one or two times (or maybe three or four).

But sometimes, talking about bikes can be a trap.

Recently, I was invited to join a panel discussion about transportation in Pasadena. The panel also included a local anti-bike advocate who is known to spread misinformation and fight against proven safety improvements.

I was ready for a fight. I prepared notes on how 60% of people would like to bike sometimes and need safe routes. During the event I dumped on unsafe bike lanes. I debated with a participant who claimed families with kids don’t have time to bike (wow!). I made all kinds of great points about how biking is in demand and why safe bike routes are necessary. I was hoping to educate the audience about induced demand and explain why more car lanes always, always, always leads to more people driving, not reduced congestion.

And you know what? I think I should have done that differently.

The bike-haters want to frame transportation discussions as some kind of culture war. In their worldview, our streets are a zero-sum game where bikes, cars, and pedestrians are battling for space, and any benefit to one group is a cost to the other. For them, more space for bikes means less space for driving. Opposing groups could fight about this forever.

If we buy that narrative, then we have a serious problem. In that world, where different factions are fighting for each foot of street space, progress is bound to be slow at best, and maybe change will never come at all. Endlessly battling factions is a recipe for preserving the status quo. I think that’s why the bike-haters love to frame it this way.

But maybe as advocates, we should learn to sidestep culture wars. In fact, the culture-war framing is largely irrelevant, and can distract us from building the types of communities that help people thrive.

To see past this distraction, we (especially me) sometimes need to relax a little about the value of biking. The reality is that some people (60%) like riding bikes, and some people don’t. The last thing we should be doing is arguing about the best way to get around. 

Instead, we can focus on the changes we want to see, and how those changes can help everyone.

• Everyone wants transportation to be comfortable and convenient.

• Everyone wants the freedom to choose how they move around.

• Everyone wants to reduce injuries and deaths

• Everyone wants to live in a place where they can take walks and talk with neighbors.

• Everyone wants our kids to play outside.

• Everyone wants to save money and live within their budget.

• Everyone wants a city that is equitable and accessible.

So how do we talk about that? I think we should talk about the physical changes we want to see and how those changes support our values.

Greenways may be the best example of this, as the benefits for people who live along traffic calmed streets are obvious. Everyone wants slower traffic in front of their home, and that’s what Greenways will deliver. We should talk about how Greenways will help build safe, connected, family-friendly neighborhoods.

We should talk about making network connections for people walking and biking. Most people understand the challenge of trying to cross a busy road without a signal or stop sign. Targeting intersections with safety improvements for safe crossing helps everyone, regardless of whether they are biking, walking, or driving.

We should talk about reducing traffic collisions. Drivers don’t want to hurt or kill people, or be injured themselves. Improved safety helps everyone.

We should talk about accessibility. Intersection improvements include modern ramps that allow people using wheelchairs or walkers (or with strollers or grocery carts) to get up and down from the curb, while also slowing turning traffic to reduce collisions. People who walk slowly can take extra time to cross a street, so a shorter crossing with safer traffic is especially helpful. A Greenway is a great place for slow travel, both for people with disabilities and kids on bikes. In many cases, protected bike lanes double as safe spaces for people using electric wheelchairs or other mobility devices. Accessibility is essential for our aging population.

We should talk about affordability. The cost of living in Pasadena (and many cities) is skyrocketing, as the costs for housing, fuel, and food are increasing at jaw-dropping rates. Transportation is the second biggest expense for American households (behind housing), so some families decide every month to pay the rent or pay transportation related bills like car payments, repairs, and gas. Walking or biking for even a fraction of trips can save thousands each year for a typical household. Many people don’t own a car at all (or don’t own a working car) due to the costs, and our streets should treat them with dignity and respect.

We should talk about following best-practices in design. This one gets a little wonky, but it is important. Pasadena has many car lanes striped to 12 feet instead of design-standard 10 feet, and that encourages speeding. Right-sizing those lanes creates space for protected bike lanes or other improvements. All Ages and Abilities guidelines are supported by state and federal agencies. When we build bike routes, we should agree that those bike routes comply with the All Ages and Abilities Guidelines.

I’m not afraid of a fight. I think the data show there are many benefits to improving conditions for active transportation, both here in Pasadena and around the world. But sometimes, the best way to win a fight is to side-step it altogether and remind people what brings us together instead of what drives us apart.