A banker made the economists think this when [they] said:
“A cyclist is a disaster for the country’s economy: [they don’t] buy cars and doesn’t borrow money to buy. [They] don’t pay insurance policies. Don’t buy fuel, don’t pay to have the car serviced, and no repairs needed. [They don’t] use paid parking. Doesn’t cause any major accidents. No need for multi-lane highways.
[They are] not getting obese.
Healthy people are not necessary or useful to the economy. They are not buying the medicine. They don’t go to hospitals or doctors.
They add nothing to the country’s GDP.
“On the contrary, each new McDonald’s store creates at least 30 jobs—actually 10 cardiologists, 10 dentists, 10 dietitians and nutritionists—obviously as well as the people who work in the store itself.”
Choose wisely: a bike or a McDonald’s? It’s something to think about.
:D:D:D
Bicycles might now make the same direct economic contributions as cars or fast-food restaurants, but their indirect benefits shouldn’t be overlooked.
Wow, that’s quite a provocative viewpoint about cyclists and the economy! While I understand the logic behind the “cyclists are bad for the economy” argument, I’d argue that it’s a bit short-sighted. Yes, cyclists might not contribute to the auto industry or healthcare in the way you described, but they contribute in other essential ways.
Regarding insurance, cyclists aren’t entirely off the hook. Many cyclists opt for cyclist liability coverage, which covers them in case they are involved in an accident that harms someone else or damages property.
So while I get the humor in saying that each new McDonald’s creates jobs (including cardiologists!), I think we need a more nuanced conversation.
Easy. Choose the bike for personal use and encourage others to choose McDonalds. Win-win.