Cycling aficionados call it the Lance Effect: Lance Armstrong‘s unprecedented seven-win tear through the Tour de France sparked a surge of interest in bicycle racing in the U.S. — and a corresponding jump in high-end road bike purchases. Armstrong’s influence is credited with upping the popularity of bike commuting as an alternative to driving.
But the Lance Effect began to slacken after his retirement. American TV ratings for the first post-Armstrong Tour de France, for example, plummeted nearly 50 percent. Now Armstrong is coming out of retirement, with plans to race — and win — the 2009 Tour de France.
If the Lance Effect returns to full strength, will it draw more people to biking to work, instead of driving their CO2-spewing cars? And in that case, is Armstrong’s return to cycling good for the environment?
Alas, the Lance Effect probably won’t do much to blunt the greenhouse effect. Cycling industry insiders say there is no evidence that Armstrong has had a significant impact on the number of bike commuters. While Armstrong’s example has made cycling more popular, it hasn’t drawn many more people into the saddle so much as it has shuffled existing patterns in bike retail. The last few years have seen a sizable shift from mountain bikes to road bikes, with little change in the overall number of bikes sold per year (about three million).
One area where the Lance Effect definitely has taken hold: participation in charity rides to benefit the fighting of diseases — for example, the rides to benefit the National Multiple Sclerosis Society — has grown dramatically since Armstrong first took to the Tour.
High gas prices are probably doing more to shift drivers into bicycle commuting than Lance Armstrong is. But Lance is doing his part in Austin, Tex., where he recently opened a bike shop of his own that caters especially to commuters.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Lance made cycling popular in America, which I think had some small effect on attitudes. Where some car drivers used to think “get off the f*ing road!” they instead thought “hey, like that cancer guy!”
Unfortunately, Americans have short memories. Too often it’s now back to “get off the f*ing road!”
Unlike most commenters, I actually see a link between Lance and cyclocommuting.
At least for me, the causation didn’t go: Lance > Commuting via bicycle, the causation went Lance > Racing bicycles > Commuting.
My interest in bike racing led to a much greater knowledge and appreciation for the bicycle. I realized how easy it was for me to build and ride bicycles, and I had the strength necessary to complete a commute every day of the week.
I agree, Lance-watching TV viewers don’t see the Tour and decide they want to commute to work. But Lance brought the bicycle back to the forefront of our attention.
I think the link between Armstrong increasing bike commuting enthusiasm is weak. Still, I think there has been a regrowth of bicycle science recently that can give some credit to Lance. Lance showed that there was more money to be make in producing good bikes.
Some of this was targeted at the high performance racing end, but some are working on improving the commuter bike. There are now dozens of companies playing with gearing and riding positions to make good commuter bikes. Some of these commuting bikes are ridiculously expensive, but the technology and design advantages have trickled down to the $400-$700 range too.
When I recently bought a commuter bike, I was amazed at all the different options to consider. Frequency of bike commuting is definitely related to the quality of the bike and more science going into bike design means more bike commuters.
No way will Lance win the tour again next year.
I agree with Shay at #1
“Correlation, in this case, really isn’t causation”
You can tell that he hasn’t really been the cause of increasing commuting because bike sales have not increased any noticeable amount, rather, higher end bike sales, the kind Armstrong would ride, have risen in comparison.
Also, people who commute would rarely be seen riding real expensive, high-end bikes. I believe they would opt for less expensive bikes since they arn’t really pro cyclists.
It definately seems more plausible that high gas prices and environmental awareness are the underlying factors here.
I see Lance’s cycling successes mainly influencing the use of organized rides as charity fundraisers. The growing popularity of these rides encourages people with some disposable income and an interest in “exercising for a good cause” to sign up for something that requires them to train and get in shape, meanwhile putting their $ towards something more positive than a gym membership. The only link to bicycle commuting is that some of these charity riders will enjoy cycling enough that they may be motivated to make the lifestyle change involved in eliminating a car commute (as Nate discussed).
Unfortunately, the profile of the charity rider often doesn’t match up to the profile of the bike-commuter. Charity riders tend to be well-off suburbanites. They are less likely to get into a biking habit when they live far from work, don’t have a place to shower, and perhaps have kids to drop off at day-care / pick up from school. They are also less affected by rising fuel costs (as they are usually willing/able to drop $2000 on a fancy bike they rarely ride). The people more likely to take up the bike-commuting lifestyle are younger, poorer people who got into a biking habit in college and prefer to live as close to downtown areas as possible.
The factor that will also increase this trend is the availability of showers and such in or near to people’s jobs, so we can hope that Lance’s shop starts a trend.
A far more interesting subject to study would be the impact of Lance’s return to the Tour on the price of EPO.
Just like this Freakonomics entry has said, there is only the slimmest of correlations between Lance Armstrong being at the Tour de France. Armstrong’s influence in increasing number of bike commuters is a temporary boost at best, and an illusionary correlation at worst (probably oil prices were rising as Armstrong was busy pedaling in France)