Okay, I'll violate my original comment to state the purpose of the post. After Neil and I discussed liberal vs conservative views on cycling (at least that was what the issue seemed to revolve around), and the liberal view that conservatives in political office tend to vote against cycling and bike trails, I found this useful really for liberals who find themselves trying to convince some types of conservatives, who might not care about cycling, to back pro-cycling laws and efforts.
I do agree with you and many of the conservative comments in the article that cycling isn't or shouldn't be a partisan issue. However, since some in politics feel conservatives could do more or even believe some hate bikes, it would help them to know what kinds of things may not cause a conservative to become interested in cycling. Of course, this and any discussion of the two rough political side paints a broad brush that many do not sign up to, but there are some tendencies.
For example, many conservatives don't feel global warming is man made. So the author simply says that if you're trying to convert to cycling a person who hates Al Gore or thinks he's a blow hard, then don't try to sell cycling by saying it will help reduce global warming. He might just roll his eyes at you and you'll get nowhere. Instead, the author recommends focusing on other issues that everyone can agree on, such as the health benefits of cycling or how it reduces congestion or how bike trails make great recreational paths for families. Then, you both will be on common ground.
Of course, the opposite course would be appropriate if you know your listener is fanatical about reducing CO2. So you'd score points by pointing out how bikes do not produce carbon, except for what you exhale.
I hope that helps. My intention was not to make conservatives feel insulted, but rather to point out how people on both sides of the issue can find common talking points to advance cycling, rather than ending up trying to sell global warming issues, etc. look for what triggers a positive reaction in the other person and focus on those.
Having said that, I'm more conservative as well, if I have to choose a label, though I dislike the label. In the view of some, it implies I want to rape the environment. To the contrary, I believe it is quite the opposite. Conservative means conservation, IMO. I love giant sequoias and old growth forests, for example, and can't fathom why our ancestors could have cut down one of those majestic trees nor why anyone would want to cut down old growth forest these days. Actually, I understand their motives. They looked at a giant tree and imagined how many homes or boardwalks could be built from one, huge tree. They were salivating. Still, I find it hard to believe a person could cut down a tree that size, count the rings, realize the tree is a couple of thousand years old, and then continue cutting more.
I'm not intending to creation a discussion on whether conservatives all believe like I do, but just to point out that many of us do. Anyway, again, the point is to help advance cycling by improving our ability to convince those who don't think exactly as we do.
Think of it like this. If you are a Christian and want to convince an atheist that adultery is bad, you'd get nowhere by telling her the bible says its bad. But you might get somewhere by pointing out how it can destroy marriages, spread disease, etc.