Lawmaker apologizes for comment on bicyclists' breath
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - A Washington state lawmaker apologized Monday for asserting in an email last week that bicyclists pollute the air with their heavy breathing.
But while Republican Rep. Ed Orcutt of Kalama, the ranking minority member of the House Transportation Committee, said that his statement was "not a point worthy of even mentioning," he didn't retract his claim that cyclists contribute to climate change with their "increased heart rate and respiration."
"What I was trying to say is bicyclists do have a lower footprint but not a zero footprint in relation to automobiles," Orcutt said. "I didn't close that thought out very well. It was poorly worded."
Orcutt's initial statement came in a response to an email sent to more than 30 state lawmakers from Dale Carlson, the owner of three South Sound-area bike stores. Carlson was upset about a proposal to create a $25 fee for all new bicycle purchases of $500 or more as part of a transportation revenue package.
Orcutt, a conservative who opposes most tax increases, told Carlson by email that cyclists should help pay for the upkeep and construction of roads.
In support of his view, he wrote that "the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride."
Carlson said he appreciated Orcutt's subsequent apology, but said the lawmaker's views "still seems way out there."
"Cycling has so many positive attributes to society," Carlson said. "It should be encouraged and not discouraged."
Dr. Lonnie Thompson, a climatologist and glaciologist at The Ohio State University, called Orcutt's line of reasoning "crazy."
"We have to breathe whether we're riding a bike or not," said Thompson, who added that burning through a 12-gallon tank of gas releases 314 pounds of carbon dioxide into the air.
A 2011 study by the European Cycling Federation found that bicycle riding is not emission-free, but is more than 10 times less polluting than driving a car. That study took into account the manufacture of the raw materials of a bicycle and the increased food consumption that fuels the physical activity, but did not factor in increased rates of respiration.
But while Republican Rep. Ed Orcutt of Kalama, the ranking minority member of the House Transportation Committee, said that his statement was "not a point worthy of even mentioning," he didn't retract his claim that cyclists contribute to climate change with their "increased heart rate and respiration."
"What I was trying to say is bicyclists do have a lower footprint but not a zero footprint in relation to automobiles," Orcutt said. "I didn't close that thought out very well. It was poorly worded."
Orcutt's initial statement came in a response to an email sent to more than 30 state lawmakers from Dale Carlson, the owner of three South Sound-area bike stores. Carlson was upset about a proposal to create a $25 fee for all new bicycle purchases of $500 or more as part of a transportation revenue package.
Orcutt, a conservative who opposes most tax increases, told Carlson by email that cyclists should help pay for the upkeep and construction of roads.
In support of his view, he wrote that "the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride."
Carlson said he appreciated Orcutt's subsequent apology, but said the lawmaker's views "still seems way out there."
"Cycling has so many positive attributes to society," Carlson said. "It should be encouraged and not discouraged."
Dr. Lonnie Thompson, a climatologist and glaciologist at The Ohio State University, called Orcutt's line of reasoning "crazy."
"We have to breathe whether we're riding a bike or not," said Thompson, who added that burning through a 12-gallon tank of gas releases 314 pounds of carbon dioxide into the air.
A 2011 study by the European Cycling Federation found that bicycle riding is not emission-free, but is more than 10 times less polluting than driving a car. That study took into account the manufacture of the raw materials of a bicycle and the increased food consumption that fuels the physical activity, but did not factor in increased rates of respiration.
Mandatory registering of bicycles? You know what you can do with that registration form and fee don't you Ed...
This sort of stupid remark by a stupid Republican politician  confirms my belief that neither party is worth a bucket of warm spit (as a former VP once said).  I don't know how people this stupid get elected or stay in office for that matter.
I bicycle every day, and put on a lot of miles in a year. Frankly I have no problem paying some kind of annual fee towards the upkeep of bicycling lanes, paths and markings. Obviously these do cost money, and just as obviously bikes do little to degrade roads like autos do, so an appropriately adjusted fee rate is in order. To respond to other points, I find a fair amount of bicyclists are indeed as unaware to safe operation of their rides as any texting, cell phone using, dog on the lap, face stuffing, non turn signal using, anger infused, alcohol and meth powered driver is. And if I should comment to the bicyclist, that a red light means stop, I get a new one chewed into me. The same way a car driver flips me off after turning abruptly in front of me with no indicator on. Its a two way street out there. I wish all vehicles from skateboards to semi trucks would just obey the traffic laws. I do, its not that hard. And a lot more defensive driving from bikes and cars and less offensive driving would probably save a lot of lives.
Dr. Lonnie Thompson, a climatologist and glaciologist at The Ohio State University, called Orcutt's line of reasoning "crazy."
-----------------------
Good. Because all Orcutt was doing was pointing out the absurdity of the globull warming nuts' anti-CO2 fanaticism.
Nice to see that a climatologist agrees with him on that.
Â
Screw bicyclists. They act like they own the road. And they look fkn goofy in that stupid-asz gear they wear.
If the number of riders continues to increase, then it would a good idea to license bike riders and charge a fee for that. Bikes must already obey all the rules of the road, but many do not and are a danger to other bike riders, vehicles and pedestrians. The statement about the breath and carbon dioxide is totally whacky. Just another weird science fact from the right.
 Valid points, I think from Rep. Orcutt. Why shouldnât bicyclists pay their fair share?Â
They do, after all, have dedicated lanes and nearly dedicated paths for their exclusive use, costing funding from, my guess, road funds. As more and more funding is used for bike paths and lanes, they need to get off their narrow minded thinking that they should be free from and excluded from paying for those ârightsâ, just as drivers have been obligated to pay for the roads they use via taxes on fuel.
Maybe the comment regarding their breath could have been worded in a more appropriate way, but even that thought is valid in terms of relating to pollution.
@angelgabe
I disagree that the point made was valid. By simply bicycling those people are already paying their debt (of sorts) to society. There's less cars on the road, therefore less pollution and traffic congestion. The riders are probably healthier than most drivers, so their burden later in life will also be decreased. I don't think cyclists are doing any more damage to a road than a pedestrian would be doing to a sidewalk. Chances are any deterioration of a bike lane or its lines are caused by cars crossing over the line. Should there be toll booths on sidewalks?
Cycling should be encouraged, not discouraged.
@aliqui @angelgabe I am not a cyclist (too old for one thing), but I was when in Europe and strongly support the use of bicycles here.  I am also against a tax on bicycles or bicycling because we have two many taxes now and we should encourage ecologically sound practices.
@aliqui I enjoy biking. I love how well it is engrained into our culture in the Willamette Valley. I have to disagree though on them paying their way. Bikes use the road, the roads cost money. Money comes from (typically) gasoline tax. Being healthy is not paying their (our) share of that. Medical costs are not relevant to the cost of road upkeep. Â
Roads degrade regardless of what type of traffic is used. Car, bike or pedestrian. Granted, cars do cause more degradation than a bike would. So it would be wrong to attempt to charge a bike rider as much as a car. Â
Then again, I'm still on the fence with this issue. To charge or license cycles is an issue I've been mulling over for years now and still have no real answer. I could easily argue for and against it. My point though is no one is discouraging cycling.  Â
@aliqui Not until they start paying for bicycle lanes. Tax payers first. Takers second.
@aliqui @angelgabe Not saying bicycling should be discouraged. Please re-read my post. Iâm just saying that bicyclists need to pay their fair share to enjoy what they have: dedicated lanes and bike paths paid for by the funds that are being sidelined to THEIR projects, leaving less for roads.