It is a misappropriation of government funds to subsidise fresh fruit and veg. Only rich people eat unprocessed food. Poor people eat big packets of potato chips and 12-packs of doughnuts. Governments should subsidise those.
If that sounds fallacious to you, consider this report out of RMIT University (or this summary thereof), arguing public funds should not be spent on infrastructure for bikes, because it’s mostly men doing the cycling. Women prefer buses and trains, Australian census data would tell us, so those are the modes that deserve public funding. Funding bike infrastructure is “sexist”.
Poor people don’t eat fresh fruit and veg in countries like Australia, because fresh foods provide fewer calories relative to their cost. Women don’t cycle in Australia, because the negligible bike infrastructure we have in this country demands masculinity of those who ride in our dangerous bike lanes that mix bikes and cars. And surprise surprise, we have more masculine men than we do women.
In defence of the authors, Paul Mees and Lucy Groenhart, their remarks about cycling come as asides in a report that is mainly focused on public transport investment. What I do find surprising, is that Mees could have written a book on European transit networks, yet write now as though he has never encountered European bike infrastructure. The bike is not a weak variation on driving in Europe, powered by skinny men who like to mix it with traffic, but a powerful variation on walking, powered by office girls in high heels and mums leading children to school. Many trips, in fact, are made to the train station, making cycling integral to the systems Paul Mees has written a book on.
Of course I’m dismayed but I’m also intrigued that people with a voice on transport issues do not have a constructive picture of cycling locked in their thinking. They could pass a written test on all the key issues, but would forget it all the next day. They’re like GPs, and cycling is like an exotic disease. Mees’s report on Melbourne’s 2009 Ride to Work Day, shows how his own perceptions of cycling are coloured by his experience as a male cyclist, using that city’s dangerous bike lanes. His experience leads him to categorise cycling with driving, not walking. It is from that taxonomy that all his other fallacies follow.
When I rode 130km on Saturday, my racing bike was more like a car than some shoes, I admit, especially with the tailwind back home from Delorsomewhere to Launceston, here in verdant Tasmania. But for commuting I cycle in a way I see more and more people doing in Sydney, using footpaths, waterways, parks, and Clover Moore’s kid-friendly cycle-tracks. I ride an upright bike with a bell, slowing to pedestrian pace when I have to, and speeding to more than an a car’s average speed when nothing impedes me. I believe the photo on the right is of Paul Mees, cycling in a manner that the unsafe bike lanes in Melbourne decree. I have never seen anyone commuting on a touring bike, wearing day-glow or a helmet, in a city that has real bike infrastructure, of the kind that attracts women. Paul knows women outnumber men on the bike paths of Denmark and the Netherlands. Did he have amnesia when he said bike infrastructure investment is sexist? Have his memories of European style cycling been eclipsed by what he sees there in Melbourne, the way Plato says the ideal realm of pure forms can’t be seen for all these present distractions filling our eyes?