The Environmental Politics of Sacrifice

11. Bikes, Sticks, Carrots

11 Bikes, Sticks, Carrots Justin Williams Frequently, the idea of mass bicycling is met with a skepticism that approaches ridicule: “People aren’t going to give up their cars. They are just too lazy and too attached to them.” Although many people undoubtedly herald the bicycle as a solution to environmental problems, enthusiasm for a transportation revolution is tempered by a cynicism rooted in the belief that people prefer to drive: “That’s nice; everyone should ride bikes. But nobody will ride their bikes as long as they can drive.” If one subscribes to this belief, voluntary sacrifice appears impossible ; Draconian policies or “the end of oil” remain to force people out of cars. So bicycling captures what the editors of this book call “the political stickiness of sacrifice,” the widespread conviction that although social change might be desirable, it is also impossible if people are left to their own devices. The methods for bringing about social change seem tethered to lifestyles only forcefully abandoned: people want the world they have and will not give it up. Thus claims about the impossibility of sacrifice focus on personal preference and fail to examine constraints on those very preferences. Regarding bicycles, calls to sacrifice assume the preference to drive. In this chapter, I explore the interaction of bicycles, preference, and sacrifice. First, I argue that cycling has been made difficult and unlikely through a series of structural decisions that place cars at the center, thereby pushing most people toward automobiles. Applying Herbert Marcuse and Matthew Paterson, I challenge that assumed preference for driving. To demonstrate how cycling might overcome driving, I briefly examine cycling’s recent, albeit marginal, resurgence. This resurgence was caused partially by carrots that entice cyclists and sticks that deter cars, carrots and sticks that alleviate some of cycling’s highest costs and 248 Justin Williams open the substantive possibility for widespread cycling. This discussion suggests a serious limitation to calling for sacrifices: regardless of the normative value of sacrifice—whether sacrifice ought to be celebrated as a democratic impulse or condemned as impractical and shortsighted—the concept of sacrifice can unnecessarily burden our choices and obscure our ability to implement solutions to social and environmental problems. Because calls to sacrifice focus attention on preference, and the legitimacy of preference is approached only cautiously in democratic societies, sacrifice can limit political possibilities. Before sacrifice enters the rhetorical field, people must have meaningful freedoms. I challenge appeals to sacrifice, suggesting that sacrifice, whether coerced or voluntary, is a misguided default position. Obstacles to Cycling The U.S. Department of Transporation’s (USDOT) National Bicycling and Walking Study describes the stakes involved in riding a bike; in other words, it demonstrates what one sacrifices to ride a bike. This study compiled survey data from twenty cities in the United States1 and found that respondents reported a consistent list of obstacles to cycling: distance, traffic safety, convenience, time, physical exertion, family circumstances , habit, and social stigma.2 These are obstacles to cycling, those impediments which, if removed, could promote bicycle usage. The consistent chart toppers—trip distance, lack of facilities, and safety—are worth exploring in more detail. First, trip distance hampers utilitarian cycling. Researchers, reviewing bicycle commuter statistics, have arrived at various ideal cycle-commuting distances, ranging from two to six miles.3 Available research describes the work commute, and similar factors probably inform the decision to run errands by bicycle. Assuming that most people are pressed for time in grocery shopping, visiting the doctor, and picking up the kids from school, greater distances between these destinations will diminish the probability of cycling. Although trip distance might prevent bicycle commuting, it does not typically deter recreational cycling.4 We should expect this discrepancy regarding perception of trip distance. The recreational cyclist, traveling a self-determined distance for fun, values equally the journey and the des- Bikes, Sticks, Carrots 249 tination. On the other hand, the destination is the primary aim for commuters , who cycle a set distance to arrive at work. The commute rarely achieves recreational status. Thus, as the commute distance increases, the likelihood of cycle commuting decreases.5 Second, a lack of cycling facilities deters cycling. These facilities include lockers, parking, showers, and adequate routes.6 Both cyclists and noncyclists cite these facilities’ improvement as a way to encourage cycling.7 Especially in urban areas with bicycle theft problems, the absence of secure parking prevents cycle use...