Aaron Naparstek

» Thursday, April 20, 2006

Party On

Today's editorial in the New York Times, "How Dare They Use Our Oil!" sounds all of the right notes. It lays down a brief but harsh critique of the Bush administration's continuing failure to address energy policy in a serious way. And on the occasion of the Chinese president Hu Jintao's visit to the White House, it takes the administration to task for "asking other countries to lay off the world's oil supply so America can continue to support its gas-guzzling Hummers." It almost sounds like Bill Maher has joined the editorial board.

Then there is this jarring line: "The United States doesn't have the right to tell a third of humanity to go back to their bicycles because the party's over."

It's just a quick little transition, a throw-away line, probably not something that anyone put a lot of thought into. And yet this one sentence highlights a profound set of assumptions about how a city should be.

It's a little reminder that a significant segment of New York City's decision-making class still views bicycling as something to be done by children, Lance Armstrong and impoverished people in Third World countries. Biking isn't seen as an integral part of the healthy, sustainable 21st century urban metropolis. Rather, it is more often perceived as a disruption, an annoyance, and maybe even a little bit backwards and uncivilized. To the writer of this sentence, a city filled with bike commuters clearly does not represent progress.

That's so different than how I see it. Getting on my bike to drop my son at day-care, run an errand, or go to a meeting isn't a sacrifice. It doesn't mean "the party's over." It doesn't represent some sort of personal or societal failure. The way I see it, a city filled with bike traffic is the party.

4:03 PM | Link |

Comments

Your line of thought is intellectually consistent; theirs is a muddled heap. Talk about cognitive dissonance! This is a perfect example of what happens when the editorial voice is guided by rote liberalism. Sooner or later their heads will explode.

Posted by

Anonymous @ 4/20/2006 7:15 PM | Link

Most people in the US probably do think of bicycling as something that kids do, or something that you do for fun or exercise, but not as a legitimate form of transportation for adults.

This is largely a product of growing up in such a dominant car culture.

The attitude expressed by many NYC motorists via their actions is antagonistic toward bicycles. Drivers seldom extend common road courtesy to bikers in the way that they do to other drivers, perhaps because a collision between a car and a bike is likely to be very asymmetrical. Bikers are too often seen as an annoyance; as self-indulgent; and as an impediment to "real" transportation (e.g. motor vehicles.)

Posted by

Anonymous @ 4/20/2006 8:24 PM | Link

Cycling has been trying to break out of this restrictive and inaccurate social frame for a long time. But it permeates everything.

A favorite NYC example: though it is one of the main bike commute routes in NYC, the bike/walk lane in Central Park is called the "recreation lane." Interesting since the debate over a car-free park is often framed in terms of recreation versus necessary transportation. Yet, a bicyclist on the way to work uses the "recreation lane," while a cab taking someone to a Broadway show is deemed public transportation. You follow?

Posted by

Anonymous @ 4/21/2006 11:12 AM | Link

=v= The Times wants them to switch to ethanol? Are they insane?

Posted by

Jym @ 4/21/2006 2:14 PM | Link

I know. People still really don't understand that ethanol is, in many cases, a net energy loser.

Jym, you kind of point out the thing about this editorial that bugged me most -- It's like the Times, is finally on board with the energy critique, even to the point of ripping on Hummers. But then there's this great divide between critique and solution. It's like these thought-leaders of the American Left (or whatever you want to call our side) still don't understand that we're likely going to have to do a crash redesign of our society to deal with our global and environmental energy crises. And that redesign is going to have a lot fewer personal motor vehicles in it. This divide between critique and solution has been really clear since the 2000 Gore campaign and was painfully obvious in the 2004 campaign. I hope the Dems or someone figures out that there's a national campaign to be made around revitalizing and reinvigorating all facets of American life via a gigantic renewable energy development project.

Posted by

Ar2thelow aka arlo @ 4/21/2006 3:59 PM | Link

"I hope the Dems or someone figures out that there's a national campaign to be made around revitalizing and reinvigorating all facets of American life via a gigantic renewable energy development project."

Naparstek for President!

Posted by

Anonymous @ 4/24/2006 12:25 PM | Link

Well done!
[url=http://lgrywint.com/pnnt/zcfs.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://qvvbkmvr.com/swsu/nhho.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by

Anonymous @ 7/19/2006 5:21 PM | Link

Well done!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by

Anonymous @ 7/19/2006 5:21 PM | Link

Good design!
http://lgrywint.com/pnnt/zcfs.html | http://qpvztgsh.com/otmi/mpsk.html

Posted by

Anonymous @ 7/19/2006 5:21 PM | Link

Post a Comment (You'll be taken to Blogger's site and then returned back to this page.)