Blaming the rider on the wheel

Here's a little something to get your blood pressure up this morning, genteel cyclist.

Apropos of last week's dustup between Minneapolis police and Critical Mass, some nitwit at the St. Paul Daily Fishwrap has penned an editorial with a dubious rhetorical twist: The Pioneer Press dismisses Critical Mass as hypocritical because, you know, it takes lots of oil and coal and plastic to build a bicycle these days.

Further, not all of the antecedents of bicycle production would necessarily pass moral muster with the Critical Mass folks. Bicycle production depends on mining the Earth's resources (not always in environmentally friendly ways) and using vast amounts of energy (not always clean). Building bicycles relies on the mobility of thousands of people driving automobiles to jobs in factories where bicycles are manufactured.

We have very little tolerance for this sort of flapdoodle, particularly that last bit. So let's see if we get the argument straight: It is self-evident that bikes are universally built by drivers of cars. (Check!) Bikes would not exist without cars and car drivers. (Check!) Therefore, bike riders should support cars and car drivers, not try to impede them by taking up a lane once a month in five or six cities in the USA. (Check.)

Luckily, we do arrive at a putative point to the editorial:

Our point is simply this: Riding a bike when and where one can is a healthy alternative to jumping, without a second thought, into a 2,500-pound automobile. But doing so does not confer moral authority on bicyclists.

We've said it before, and we'll say it again: Bikes are morally superior to cars, if for no other reason than they use far fewer resources in their manufacture. But bicyclists are not morally superior to car drivers. Especially the ones with badges, guns, and mace.