Imagine the kind of person that bicycles to work.
I am confident you are now picturing a gangly Caucasian dude outfitted in a bowling ball helmet and tight shorts. This apparition is most likely a member of the managerial class, politically liberal, displaying a pithy slogan on his hemp-woven messenger bag; “My cat listens to NPR,” or something. And sure, those folks exist. But the reality of bicycling in 21st-century America is much broader, and much more relevant, than that stereotype allows.
I admit that the loudest advocates for bicycle transportation are typically upper class professionals. They are usually those that have the time and inclination to alter their lifestyle in order to embrace more enriching habits. Regardless, bicycling is a wonderful way to get from place to place: it’s clean, it’s quiet, and it allows the user to get some exercise. It may be true that bicycling has acquired the reputation of being a boutique lifestyle choice, but that perception doesn’t reflect its true utility. In fact, those who would benefit the most from better bike infrastructure may look very different from the figure our assumptions created.
It is no secret that America is the land of the automobile. A staggering 93% of American households had access to at least one car in 2019, according to the Federal Highway Administration. This apparent enthusiasm for personal motor vehicles is belied by other statistics, however.
Recent studies show that U.S. drivers allocate about 20% of their monthly income to car ownership costs. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported in 2022 that households earning less than $25,000 annually spent approximately 30% of their after-tax income on transportation. Simply put, cars cost a lot of money and impose a financial burden on their owners.
The wealthy bike-nerd caricature of our imagination is not the one who would benefit the most from greater bike infrastructure, it is those of lower incomes. Consider a $15,000 used car; even with a $1,000 down payment and a modest 5.8% rate, you’d end up paying more than $22,000 over five years accounting for interest, taxes, and fees. Now compare that to an entry-level bike, helmet, and lock, which can be estimated to run you $500 total. When you remember that a bike requires no insurance, no gas, and no oil changes, you can see that it is not just greener than a car, it’s also much cheaper. For those living paycheck to paycheck, this is a substantial distinction.
This isn’t hypothetical, it’s observable reality. Census data shows people earning under $10,000 per year walk and bike to work at more than twice the rate of those earning $25,000–$35,000. Active commuting follows a reverse-bell curve: the poorest rely on it out of necessity, while the wealthiest do so as a hobby. Clearly, when we expand our bike infrastructure we are empowering our most vulnerable.
Despite the clear link between lower incomes and the practical value of bicycle transportation, those who claim to champion the working class often ignore the infrastructure that would help them most. Those who proudly tout their “salt of the earth” aesthetic often balk at providing substantial support for bike infrastructure. “Everyone drives, no one bikes, it would be a waste of money,” they argue. But why would anyone bike when doing so means exposing themselves to speeding traffic with no protection? Many people default to automobile transportation not out of preference, but because our infrastructure disincentivizes alternatives.
While bicycles certainly are an affordable mode of transportation for the working class, one need not become a communist to see that they offer associated benefits for everybody. For seniors, a bike ride can be restorative. Studies from the National Institutes of Health show that regular exercise can delay the onset of dementia. For teenagers, a bike ride across town can be their first step into independence, without the high accident risk that often accompanies young motorists. For everyone else, riding a bike can just be a convenient way to get your groceries, appreciate the sunshine, and visit neighbors.
Connecticut towns should take a serious look at improving their bike infrastructure, beyond half-heartedly painting pavement and calling it a day. No one would benefit more than lower-income residents if communities across the Nutmeg State put a little extra effort into accommodating the cleanest, cheapest, and healthiest way to get across town: the humble bicycle.
Do some bike advocates fit the stereotype of being over-educated, avocado toast-munching eggheads? Maybe, but allow me two retorts. Firstly, avocado toast is delicious and I’m not ashamed to state this objective fact. Second of all, if you look past the messenger and focus on the message, you’ll see that bike infrastructure isn’t about performative politics, it’s about offering everyone a better way to move. You don’t need to listen to NPR (or own a cat that does) to understand that.
Matthew Silber lives in Norwalk.