Bikes vs. Cars

by Will Wilkinson on July 9, 2008

Interesting discussions at Megan’s and Matt’s. I think Matt does an exceptionally good job of illustrating the arbitrariness of subsidies to car owners simply by outlining an alternative scheme. I’ve always been a bit baffled by a lot of libertarian’s generally pro-car-centric view of transportation matters. Now, if cars, highways, roads, big parking lots, etc., really are the most efficient way to do things, all things considered, then sure. But I never get a clear sense from many libertarians that they grasp the extent of the subsidies, or the very significant crowding-out effects of our massively expensive state-supported auto-based transportation infrastucture.

Also, bikes. People complain about bikers breaking traffic laws. Well, I’m guilty, and I’m damn well going to keep doing it. A lot of traffic regulations make sense for cars, but just don’t for bikes. For example, I ride home almost every day the wrong way up a one way street, and nobody coming the other way gives a damn. Why should they? I honestly don’t give a fig about my carbon footprint (and anyway, since I’m not a breeder, I really should get carbon carte blanche). But I like biking because it’s faster than driving — because I blow through stop signs, go the wrong way on one-ways, etc. Were I suddenly to become fastidious about heeding traffic laws intended to regulate cars, one of the main advantages of biking over driving would evaporate. So I think people who do give figs about carbon really ought to encourage bikers to break traffic laws, or at least promote EXTRA traffic laws for drivers, in order to increase the relative benefit of biking. How about intersections where four-way purple means you’ve got to stop unless you’re on a bike? That would be pretty sweet.

Viewing 54 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Interesting point.
    Concerning traffic laws: in part this is reality in Germany and I guess other European countries. Depending on region/city etc... , going against the traffic in a one-way street is allowed for bikes.
    And concerning the crossroads... well I just do exactly that. Coming from a country where traffic is much more aggressive (and more complexly regulated) than in the U.S., the "everybody has to stop at stop signs and crossroads"-thing is just an invitation, and people in cars even stay friendly when I take their "right of way"... try that in Germany and you die.

    On the other hand biking on larger roads is tricky, primarily because of car driver's a lack of attention...
    • ^
    • v
    The rule against riding on the left side of the road isn't about the oncoming traffic: When someone turns right, their last glance before committing will typically be to their left; whereas, if you are riding on the "wrong" side of the street, you will be approaching them from their right -- which makes it easier for them not to see you, and for you thus to be run over by them.
    • ^
    • v
    I linked to this Department of Transportation Report in a recent post complaining about Amtrak. It shows that cars have a negative subsisidy (i.e. aren't subsidized at all) whereas all other forms of motorized transport are subsidized heavily. I think that accounts for the "pro-car centric" view of many libertarians.

    Perhaps bikes don't receive the same sorts of subsidies, but my anecdotal experience in Chicago suggests otherwise.

    That being said, I agree with the broader point that there are good arguments for rules of the road that treat bikes differently than cars.
    • ^
    • v
    most roads are funded locally or by states. moreover, things like parking lots are mandated by zoning laws and subsidized by tax-paying, god-fearing businesses.

    amtrak is funded nationally.

    this report doesn't tell you anything, unless you really want to believe that we're making money by building roads.
    • ^
    • v
    It is true that the report talks about the net subsidy at the level of the federal government. But this relationship also appears to hold up at the state level (see for example, this report on California.)

    The reason cars show a negative subsidy is not that we are "making money by building roads" (although that proposition can be defended at some level of abstraction!), but rather that the costs associated with roads are more than covered by taxes on drivers (like gasoline taxes).

    Sure, this analysis may not be perfect, but I don't think there are good reasons to believe that cars are not one of the least subsidized form of transportation out there.
    • ^
    • v
    link in my response should have been to http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/osp/ctp202...
    • ^
    • v
    Yes! It's flat crazy that bikes are supposed to follow the same traffic rules as cars. In a street environment populated with cars and bikes, bikes have to worry intensely about getting killed by a car, but it's not the other way even a little. (Where pedestrians are concerned, that changes the calculus a bit.) A further point is that bikes are ten times more maneuverable than cars, so again should be allowed much greater flexibility.
    • ^
    • v
    The whole "cars emit less carbon than cars" thing is bunk anyway, unless you get %100 of your calories from factory-farmed meat, and wouldn't replace biking with any other form of physical exercise (such as going to the gym... in your car). It's doubly bunk if you buy groceries with your bike, since _all_ transportation, including that from the store to your house, is included in the food carbon footprint figures.
    • ^
    • v
    should have been "cars emit less carbon than bikes"
    • ^
    • v
    Pedestrians have a right to expect that they can cross when they've got the light, or at a stop sign. They cannot do that when bicyclists violate the law. I don't see how complicated it is. I've yet to hear any mass transit-supporter offer to totally do a way with subsidies of any kind to transit. Let's sell off the highways. Offer curb rights on streets. Who knows? Maybe a private market would result in elevated/protected bike paths? Somehow it's always about pouring lots more cash into buses and rail. Not my idea of a good time.
    • ^
    • v
    But I never get a clear sense from many libertarians that they grasp the extent of the subsidies,

    I never get a clear sense from many bike-loving or car-disliking libertarians that they grasp the true extent of the subsidies, either. They tend to assume that the subsidies must be huge (perhaps because they don't like it), but the numbers just aren't there. Please take a look at the BTS report linked earlier in this thread.

    Certainly not federally. State and local, some states get lots of road funds from gas taxes, but others do subsidize by using federal funds. However, I'm not enamored of an argument built around state and local funds subsidizing roads either-- to me, it doesn't speak well for transit when local and state governments refuse to spend on them without massive federal subsidies, especially since the net federal subsidy on cars is slightly negative.

    There are exceptions, of course-- North Carolina is spending money on rail upgrades because the SEHSR is actually definitely worth it. The EIS is still holding them up, though.
    • ^
    • v
    One of the biggest "subsidies" to roads is the National Environmental Policy Act. It takes ten years to get the Environmental Impact Studies done for any major changes. Upgrades, like adding a lane to an existing road, requires less study. In addition, there's an existing pipeline of already studied road additions just waiting for construction, but less so for rail.

    So everyone continually faces the question of being able to upgrade existing roads now, or studying a new rail line for 10 years and opening it 3-5 years after that. The NEPA makes it really hard to change old infrastructure decisions.
    • ^
    • v
    Oddly enough, Chinese bikers don't seem to feel the need to follow traffic laws either, but since they are the majority of vehicles on the road here, it tends to yield a giant, dangerous mess. I think that your flagrant disregard for traffic laws is only workable in an environment where biking is comparatively rare.
    • ^
    • v
    Having looked at the subsidies chart it becomes clear that it is meaningless without absolute expenditures.

    In fact, one could imagine the government actively sponsoring urban sprawl to inflate was is clearly a money making operation. If every year more roads are built and expansion leads to greater inlays, then the government has an incentive to continue this cycle.

    We would have to look at miles per capita, and see if that is expanding.
    • ^
    • v
    Also, bikes. People complain about bikers breaking traffic laws. Well, I’m guilty, and I’m damn well going to keep doing it.

    After my brother was in a bad cycling accident (a van turned right in front of his bike, even though he had right of way), I started looking out with deep suspicion for cyclists and found myself amazed at how many cyclists don't have lights or even reflective clothing on at night and in heavy rain.
    • ^
    • v
    In fact, one could imagine the government actively sponsoring urban sprawl to inflate was is clearly a money making operation. If every year more roads are built and expansion leads to greater inlays, then the government has an incentive to continue this cycle.

    What, you're claiming that it's inefficient because it's profitable? Of course the government has an incentive to continue to build roads if people pay more in taxes to use the roads than it costs to build them. That doesn't mean that it's inefficient, or a subsidy, though. By contrast, that's an argument that it's efficient and the best use of resources to build roads; that's what being profitable means. Absolute expenditures has almost nothing to do with whether or not it's efficient at the margin to choose transit or roads, or nor with who is subsidizing whom.

    If you want to make an argument that there's somehow a subsidy, you would be better off arguing that there are externalities-- that somehow the additional roads make non-road users worse off but additional transit makes non-transit users better off. There is a real argument there (the Onion's take makes the point amusingly), and that's where the small absolute amount of transit miles makes a difference, as a small increase in benefit changes the subsidy ratio a lot.
    • ^
    • v
    There are some other reasonable pro-transit and train arguments. Things like "Well, if the government actually funded them where they were useful (like SEHSR) instead of not (Buffalo light rail, long distance trains) it would look a lot better," "Well, additional transit makes the entire rest of the transit system more valuable, so perhaps if you built more it would pay for itself/decrease the relative subsidy," or the combined argument, "It's politically necessary to have a national train system with long distance trains connection everywhere, but don't worry, since we're past that fixed cost any additional spending would go into the actually fairly efficient corridors."

    In other words, various arguments about increasing returns together with an assumption that the government has funded less efficient routes first for political reasons but "it'll all be different this time."
    • ^
    • v
    Of course, note that just because the road system isn't overall federally subsidized doesn't mean that the method of revenue collection is the best. Taxes that hit just drivers are a good start, but taxes on gas and congestion are better than, say, property taxes and registration fees on cars that hit people regardless of how much or even if they drive and create traffic.
    • ^
    • v
    I'd like to add two more layers to this.
    Cyclists tend to be physically fitter and healthier than their car-driving neighbours. Surely there are economic benefits to costing the health-system less because of their healthier lifestyles. I ride my bike to work every day (in Canada this can be a challenge sometimes) and the 40 minutes (20 minutes each way) of exercise I get drastically reduces my likelihood of developing heart disease or diabetes.
    Secondly, think of the economic real estate that parking lots occupy. Let's say you can park 5 bikes in the space it takes to park 1 car. Imagine what a congested centre like Chicago, Minneapolis, Boston or San Francisco could do with the space created by bulldozing a few parking garages.
    Just my two (Canadian) cents.
    • ^
    • v
    Hey Fysh - I agree totally with your pro bike stance, but gee what a Canadian you are. When you mention that bike riding "drastically reduces" your likelihood of developing heart disease or diabetes, the reason you think that's a benefit is because then it costs the "health-system" less.
    • ^
    • v
    The "rules" are there as much for your safety as they are for the safety of car drivers and more importantly the poor pedestrian who runs the risk of injury if you happen to be riding in their area.

    Living in San Francisco I have witnessed more pedestrians being injured by bike riding fools who believe the side-WALK is intended for their bike riding. I've also witnessed serious accidents caused by bike riders ignoring the rules of the road thus causing injury and death to those who happened to be in their path, and following traffic laws.

    So many folks now-a-days think the rules only apply to others, yet scream bloody murder when others ignore those same rules. Another sad effect of the "ME ME ME Society".

    Well, if you have no regards for the law regarding bike traffic laws, please ask your family members to be aware of that fact and to not sue the poor fool who runs you over and kills you. I also hope if you are ever disabled or injured by a motorist while you are on you bike, that they don't have a copy of this article that states you disregard the laws. I doubt any jury or court would find in your favor.
    • ^
    • v
    I commute by bike in Los Angeles and almost never come to a complete stop at a stop sign. I treat them as yeild signs. Of course, that means that I yeild when it's someone else's turn to go through the interesection. I hear a lot of anti-bicycle people complain about the lawless bikers. "They're always running red lights!" Really? I hardly ever see that happen. You'd have to be crazy to run most red lights in Los Angeles. Experienced bikers know better. I've been doing 20- and 25-mile round-trip commutes by bike in L.A. for about eight years now. No sense in waiting for bicycle Utopia with elevated bike paths and other such infrastructure. I try to find routes with bike lanes or streets that are wide enough to accommodate bikes amongst the cars (i.e. Santa Monica Blvd.), or I try to find side streets to ride on. Follow Liz Taylor's advice to young starlets: "Take Fountain".