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.
We should tax pedestrians who walk on the side walk, they emit greenhouse gasses as well.
I have paid for public schools my whole working life but don't use them.
Also, I wonder what many of the "if you use it pay for it" folks think about illegal aliens receiving a free ride on American's backs.
Or about the notion of women's contraceptives being paid for by all.
@Dax Von Blitzkrieger , good point. thereforeÂ
- I don't use jails, so I shouldn't have to pay for them.Â
although illegal aliens and contraceptives should be reserved for another conversation
There needs to be a public awareness campaign introducing the masses to the fact that bicyclists already DO pay for the roads. Just read through the many comments in this thread alone to find out how.
We need to charge bicycle riders a yearly fee to use the roads. WSDOT has spent millions for tunnel and path construction at and near Sleater Kinney in Lacey for example . I see Bicyclist all over and it's time for the free ride to be over! I can't believe some bike riding crybabies who think it's wrong to charge them ! Really I ride a quad on Washington trails and I have to get a Discovery pass and tab my quad, but I don't complain I have to pay my fair share too.As far as the bycycle has to worth more than 500.00 thats a joke! If you use it pay for it.
@signboy Sounds like your complaining. There are other places to bike that are free.
green house gas pollution  is fake idea to charge morons an extra money . what beneficiaries need , just make a show  to convince Â
payers that it is true . look at the Earth history . there were  always temperature rising and dropping  millions of years ago  . man has no power to affect climate change . but you may believe  if you want .Â
@brigant And Co2 levels rising and falling. The Co2 argument has always been fake. Would be good for the planet to see Co2 levels rise even up to double what they are now. I don't know that we should be charging bikers for bike paths. There is plenty of money in fuel taxes to pay for these things, its just that the legislature is mishandling our taxes.
During top exercise we can exhale up to 100 litre, with about 5 litres of CO2 per minute. At 2grams per L that would be some 10g per minute, or 600g per hour. A more common relaxed ride on the bicycle will yield about 100g of CO2 per hour. An SUV driving some 36miles in that same hour will produce about 14kg of CO2. It easily is a factor 100, or in other words: 1% of the other.
Lastly, consider how it would go when cops would try to enforce laws on cyclists displaying their new license plates.
You think there are some crazy car chases and foot chases now? Imagine a cop car trying to catch a cyclist in an urban setting. Best believe the urge to run while on a bicycle is going to be strong. What will happen if they do catch up to the cyclist? Can you say vehicular assault and attempted murder? We all have seen how cops act at the culmination of a car chase.
But I suppose it will just be a matter of tickets sent in the mail and cameras recording plates. Tickets that will largely not be paid.
@Dax Von Blitzkrieger , like your thinking, this would create jobs in the police department (bike cops).Â
Although traffic tickets from cars generate more revenue for the city than a ticket from a bike.
Charging/taxing cyclists goes against everything that cycling is about and takes away some of its benefit. I know there is a (and if this comment forum is any indication, surprisingly large) contingent that is adamant that cyclists should pony up; I have no personal knowledge of how roads are paid for, as in which taxes and fees go where. I don't need to know.
I know all I need to know: Drivers are afforded many advantages including the ability to go long distances fast, while dry, warm and comfortable, able to spread out, eat, play and relax inside their protective shell. While comfortably protected in relative anonymity, they mete out injustices on fellow drivers and on cyclists. We cyclists endure vastly more dangers and injustices each time we ride than do drivers. Each time a driver passes us too closely and fast, each time a driver goes ahead and turns in front of us because we're just a cyclist, each time we are blown off and endangered by oblivious and distracted drivers â each time â it's unjust.
To take away one of the fundamental advantages of cycling â freedom â by imposing a tax or registration fee on us and making us register and display a tag is, plainly stated, wrong.
I know this justice argument will be shot down half a dozen different ways by the militant out-of-my-way, I'm a car driver set. But I still believe it's true and right.
@KLPÂ While I don't agree on paying to ride, I do applaud you on your thanking Kent drivers. The only riding I have done in Kent has been on the Interurban Trail and over to Airways Brewing and back. Positive reinforcement though is vital in my view. When I have a driver do something friendly, safe and/or respectful I try to give them a nice wave and friendly look. Positive reinforcement!
Next thing we'll put license tabs on shoes.
State of Washington is just getting creative about squeezing those who have the ability to pay. I ride a bike, and if I thought that paying for registration would make a difference in trails, bike lanes, etc. I would do it in a heart beat. I am not against paying a little for all the uses. By the way, I have to give a shout out to Kent car drivers. Thanks for not trying to run me over when I am in the street. Really, I mean it.
While his comments may not be the most eloquent, I am in favor of cyclists getting licensed and tabbed on roads that travel over 30 mph. Cyclists constantly want more bike lanes and this and that, which is fine, and I am all for sharing the road. I am also for equal contribution to being able to use the road. Unfortunately, cyclists want everyone else except themselves to pay for these projects for them. It is time this comes to an end. Cycling isn't just a health and fitness activity: if you are using the road, you are using a method of transportation. However, tabs and licenses that cyclists should pay do not need to cost as much as the ones for motorists. The only areas where cyclists should be exempt from being licensed and tabbed is if they are using residential roads, bike trails, or if there is a sanctioned bike event. You might be wondering, what about kids? Well parents, you wouldn't want your kids riding their bikes on roads going over 30 mph, would you?
@PoweroftheVoice While I don't entirely discount the idea of licensing especially adult bicyclists using public thoroughfares and trails (if only for safety purposes related to knowledge of traffic law) I rather wonder where the effort will really stop. I could foresee this becoming a general usage-fee based system (i.e. like the SR 520 toll and the "hot lanes") where everything is subject to special feed (all collected at considerable extra expense, BTW.) Pretty soon, you could have a license fee for your child to ride his "Big Wheel" trike in a neighborhood park. It is kind of a slippery slope...
@PoweroftheVoice Not a bad idea but it would be hard to enforce. Everyone needs to realize that roads and bike paths wear out on their own even if left unused. The weather and elements take their toll. Plus the type of bicycles most commuter bicyclists prefer to use don't tolerate rough roadway well.
I have been enjoying reading everyone's comments tonight, I must head off to bed as work comes early. Thanks everyone and have a great evening. See you all on the "Road".
Enjoy, and may we all have a brighter tomorrow
@Bike Rider :-)
Let's see, cyclists add to pollution or greenhouse gases due to heavy breathing. Interesting. Well, so do joggers, obese people who puff just by walking, and also we cannot forget heavy breathing during sex. And someone mentioned farting. Perhaps we should install a gas meter on everyone that measures cubic feet of methane released per year and tax that. Oh, then we'd have to do cattle, horses, pigs, chickens?  As for the politician, he is just speaking at the level of most politicians these days, Republican and Democrat, dumb, idiot, uneducated, and the language of self interest, perhaps we should have a greenhouse emissions tax for politicians since they speak mostly hot air, anyway. Oops, I just vented a couple of cubic feet, tax me!
@growlerxrunner Well, as a politician speaking, he is just emitting a bunch of hot greenhouse gasses... yup, like you said!
Time for the Harlem shake and MTB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KAJsfoN26Q
@Bike Rider Harlem shake is ASSININE
So does this guy work out at the gym? If so we better put a carbon tax on his heavy breathing.
@jcman Â
I bet he doesn't even lift
This guy is the dumbest human on earth. Please un-elect him.
Just say the bike tax is for bike lanes...case closed.
@FED__UPÂ Do I get an exemption for my mountain bike because I use it it on dirt? Â Â
But what do I do if I want to take my kids to the park on our bikes, can I buy a daily sidewalk or road tax ticket?  Most importantly however, is the creation of all those "jobs" used to manage all the the bicycle licenses  and law enforcement!   Think of the glorious future your idea entails, oh the utopia!Â
@FED__UPÂ Or perhaps mountain bikes used on pavement should instead be banned? Â Â
My downhill bike is mostly black. Â I wonder if statists like you would label my bike as an "assault bike" and ponder why "anyone needs an assault bike anyways?".Â
@Vertically Inclined @Bike Rider @FED__UP Â
Time to "Get Dirty"
See you up on on trail
@Bike Rider @Vertically Inclined @FED__UPÂ
My max capacity is 9.5", just shy of the ban limits. Â But unfortunately, as a result of the color, spiky tires and sheer terror inducing geometry, my model of bike is definitely and entirely banned. Â And for good reason, or something.Â
@Vertically Inclined @FED__UP Â
As long as your assault bike clip doesn't exceed 10 roundsÂ
My 3 mountain bikes exceed the 10 round capacity and are deemed illegal due to all being black.
@FED__UPÂ Â
The tax isn't just for bike lanes. It is to punish the independent bike shops and reward the big box (Walmart) cheap bike sales. If we are to institute a tax it needs to be evenly applied to all retailers or not at all.
Way to go Dale. Orcutt's a looney.
@Ken Willy Maybe... or just another stupid Republican...
@JLS1950@Ken WillyWell we must have BALANCe RIGHT? I mean with all the ignorance from the LIBERALS, I say TAX the Bikes with a "supercilious tax". I dont drive on the bike trails Yet Im taxed to build the DAMNED things. But those that do SHOULD be paying more to build and maintain them. I really does make sense, except to the liberal who wants the Government to pay for ALL their needs.
@OVURTYME @JLS1950 @Ken Willy The only excuse for taxing in retribution is to try to suppress unwanted behavior. And it rarely works: consider the stiff federal tax on marijuana as a prime example.Â
The way I look at it is that bike trails and bike lanes offer some help in keeping bicyclists out of general (motor) traffic lanes. As a motorist, I consider that a very good thing. I am inclined to be grateful to anything that reduces the stress of my daily commute, and trading a number of motor vehicles competing for lane space in favor of a herd of bicycles on their own path that I race past as I go is most certainly a stress reducer!
I suppose it is permissible to hate "LIBERALS" and "DAMNED things", but I do not think I at least would than attempt to label such sentiments as either "BALANCe" or "RIGHT" (right-wing maybe.)
This is stupid and laughable, NO APOLOGYÂ REQUIRED, anyone offended should grow some thicker skin or if they must, fill out a HURT FEELINGS REPORT.Â
If you drive a car BIKES ARE A REAL PAIN TO DEAL WITH, but we're not supposed to talk about that, its not PCÂ
@Evilmidget A great informative video about Peak Oil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umBRR2gi4xY
@EvilmidgetThe average American personal motorist emits 4.5 tons of CO2 greenhouse gas emissions per year.Worldwide personal motorists are responsible for 3 Gigatons of CO2 emissions every year.It's about 10%% of the worldwide CO2 emissions problem.The average mileage as well as the number of operational ICE motor vehicles worldwide are increasing also at an alarming rate.
It's responsible for severely damaging climate change (we are at 390 PPM CO2 levels and quickly rising (because of human activity causation) as well as very harmful Ocean Acidification.It's currently now the number one threat to life on Earth and responsible for extreme  species extinction level events.
We are past post peak oil too so although the worldwide oil will never run out it will become prohibitively expensive in the decades to come and cause economic and International collapse of nations as well as mass starvation and likely wars.It takes energy to extract and refine petroleum.
Eventually it will reach the level to where it will take more energy to obtain petroleum than what the energy content of the petroleum is worth (Gasoline for instance will still be valuable because of its high energy density).
The infrastructure for ICE motorists too is exorbitantly expensive as well like super expensive bridges,tunnels,multi lane highways and roads.This also has created an additional unsustainable problem called sprawl.
Cars use a tremendous amount of road space as well as having undesirable parking needs Â
Personal Internal Combustion Engine  Motor Vehicles usage in their numbers worldwide are absolutely unsustainable for the environment and life on Earth.Likely within two decades from now ICE motor vehicles will become too prohibitively costly for the average U.S. citizen to fuel at current driving and commuting habits..People will have to adapt to living closer to where they physically work if that is the case.
Basically the world of ICE motors vehicles and the foolish costly infrastructure will becoming to an end in several decades to come for most.
There are some future transportation alternatives though.However they will have to be extremely energy efficient and will have limitations.Those whom adapt to future conditions will fare much better than those whom refuse to adapt or adapt later on.
Bicycles themselves may become extremely expensive in the future as well as other goods.
Benefits of cycling are that you get to your desired destination in a environmentally sustainable way,get exercise and lose excess body weight.
A must see video about Peak Oil (this explains a lot of things and is very easy to understand as well as very informative)
@Evilmidget
@m9078jk3 @Evilmidget So how many millitons (2 pounds) does the average bicyclist emit in a year? ;-)
@JLS1950 @m9078jk3 @Evilmidget I don't know however an article on human physiology in respect to carbon emissions (carbon dixode -wikipedia)
2.3 pounds per day per human (likely an average figure no mention of cycling in that)
At 365.25 days per year that's 840.65 pounds per year per human.
In comparison the average U.S Passenger vehicle motorist for his/her vehicle and average usage emits around 9,000 pounds of CO2 basically equivalent to the emissions of more than 10 humans.I think that the 9,000 pounds per personal vehicle figure is a little old though and it's likely more now
@Evilmidget Â
If you ride a bike, cars are a pain to deal with also. It goes both ways
Clearly too much attention is being given to the CO2 aspect of this story when the real problem is that people like Orcutt are wasting Oxygen.
pj57Better tax chili too because it makes me fart and that adds greenhouse gasses.Â
By the way..just taxing something doesn't make it not pollute. Just ask Al Gore what the energy bills are for his seven estates..but hey..he makes up for it by buying carbon credits!
@Ankle Biter And your farts are made up of methane gas which is a lot bigger contributor to global warming than CO2.
@jcman @Ankle Biter I know. Gets really bad if I eat Kim-chi. Good thing I don't like the stuff much but I tried it once at a office party and got banished from the building for the rest of the day.
The statement wasn't poorly made. It was just stupid.
@mac14Â It was just Republican.