Multiple levels of synergy exist between bicycling, health, and social equality. Transportation infrastructure and policy in most countries elevates the social status of motorists over bicyclists and pedestrians. Through such policy, the status syndrome (inequality as a direct risk factor for ill health) is related to the world obesity epidemic and to low self-esteem and social stigmatization of those who walk, ride mass transit, and use the bicycle for transportation. Programs which promote bicycling have the ability to help reverse these negative health and social trends. Such programs are more successful in boosting cycling, health, and social equality when one of the program goals is the elevation of the cyclist to equal status and privilege as the motorist. Because the effects of inequality on health have profound consequences for all humanity, transportation planners, policy makers and infrastructure developers must adopt as a priority, the goal of promoting status equality in every policy and project.
A 1999 World Health Organization study of mobility concluded “Exercise levels, social contact, and access to services in children, the elderly, the ill, and the poor is inversely related to the societal level of motor vehicle usage in all countries.” In 2006, Transportation Alternatives (TA) in New York published a study showing that people who live on streets with heavy traffic go outdoors less often and have fewer friends than those living on quieter streets. The study, “Traffic’s Human Toll” reveals that high volume vehicular traffic has profoundly negative impacts on the lives and perceptions of residents who live near it. The study concluded that, “Compared to their neighborhood counterparts living on streets with low traffic volumes, residents living on higher volume streets: harbor more negative perceptions of their block; possess fewer relationships with their neighbors; are more frequently interrupted during sleep, meals, and conversations; spend less time walking, shopping and playing with their children.”
A 1995 study of social contact in San Francisco third graders showed that, on average, those living on streets with light traffic had three times as many friends and twice as many acquaintances as those living on streets with heavy traffic.
The recently identified Nature Deficit Disorder is a failure to develop a sense of connectedness with nature resulting from lack of meaningful experience of natural areas. This disorder develops in children who are constantly indoors or in motor vehicles. Children who are deprived of contact with nature begin to show deficits in motor and social skills as early as age five. The disorder was starkly demonstrated in a study by Marco Huttenmoser of Zurich in which 6 and 7 year-old children were asked to draw pictures of their daily trips to school. Those who walk or bicycle to school drew pictures rich with color and included a variety of plants, animals and people encountered in their journeys. Their classmates who are driven to school tended to draw images with little color and devoid of details about anything but the vehicle, the road, and the buildings of origin and destination.
Through the status syndrome, motorists adversely affect the health of other modal users. This effect constitutes an externalization to society of the cost of motoring which has not been fully recognized or subjected to economic analysis. The costs of motoring not fully paid by motorists themselves have, therefore, been underestimated by economists. This externalization of cost must be accounted for in future economic analyses of transportation impacts the perception of transportation mode status by individuals has largely become internalized and automatic. Transportation programs which elevate the status of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users to equality or superiority with respect to motorists will help change this perception and should result in more rapid adoption of alternative transportation modes than programs which ignore status effects or which seek to change status perception by education or marketing approaches not accompanied by real and demonstrative changes in the system hierarchy. By lowering motor vehicle usage, these programs will serve to decrease the health impacts of both the status syndrome and the other adverse effects of transportation inequality mentioned above. Transportation equality is clearly a vital matter of health and social justice.
1. What does the writer mean by “synergy” between “bicycling, health, and social equality”?
2. “Social Stigmazation” of people who walk, ride mass transit, and use the bicycle for transportation refers to ________.
3. The main thesis of the article is that planners must ________.
4. Studies have found that people who own motor vehicles ________.
5. By “externalization to society of the cost of motoring” the writer argues that ________.
问题1选项
A.The governments most devote much energy to promote bicycling, health and social equality.
B.Social equality is the most important priority for governments.
C.Bicycling, health and social equality are interconnected and interdependent.
D.There are multiple levels in which bicycling is more important.
问题2选项
A.that motorists are more important than bikers and pedestrians
B.the people who walk, ride mass transit or use the bicycle do not own a car
C.the people who walk, ride mass transit or use the bicycle are in better health condition
D.that people walk, ride mass transit or use the bicycle may have a low social status
问题3选项
A.promote social equality in their projects
B.take into considerations the health effects of motorists
C.take a balanced approach when developing projects and consider the interests of motorists, mass transit users, bikers and pedestrians
D.maintain social harmony and peace
问题4选项
A.come from high socioeconomic backgrounds
B.are most likely to be elderly
C.have fewer friends
D.spend less time with their friends but more time with their family
问题5选项
A.motorists impose a health cost to society that they do not pay
B.the cost of motorists must be balanced against the cost of mass transportation systems
C.society should engage in marketing strategies and education initiatives to foster a better understanding of the needs motorists, pedestrians and mass transit users
D.society should calculate the costs of motorists and allocate the appropriate budgetary resources to avoid a budget deficit
第1题:C
第2题:D
第3题:A
第4题:C
第5题:A
第1题:
【选项释义】
What does the writer mean by “synergy” between “bicycling, health, and social equality”? 作者说“骑自行车、健康和社会平等”之间的“协同作用”是什么意思？
A. The governments most devote much energy to promote bicycling, health and social equality. A. 政府最为投入很多精力来促进骑自行车、健康和社会平等。
B. Social equality is the most important priority for governments. B. 社会平等是政府最重要的优先事项。
C. Bicycling, health and social equality are interconnected and interdependent. C. 骑自行车、健康和社会平等是相互联系、相互依赖的。
D. There are multiple levels in which bicycling is more important. D. 在多个层面上，骑自行车是比较重要的。
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词synergy可以定位到文章第一段第一句“骑自行车、健康和社会平等之间存在多层次的协同作用（synergy）”，下文接着说到“当计划的目标之一是将骑自行车的人提升到与开车的人同等的地位和特权（the elevation of the cyclist to equal status and privilege as the motorist）时，这样的计划在促进骑行、健康和社会平等方面会更加成功（more successful in boosting cycling, health, and social equality）”，说明骑自行车、健康和社会平等三者是相互联系的。因此C选项“骑自行车、健康和社会平等是相互联系、相互依赖的。”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“政府最为投入很多精力来促进骑自行车、健康和社会平等。”强调的是政府的做法，而不能体现协同作用，属于出处错位；
B选项“社会平等是政府最重要的优先事项。”和D选项“在多个层面上，骑自行车是比较重要的。”，协同作用应该是指三者相互联系、相互影响，而不是突出某一方的作用，属于以偏概全。
第2题:
【选项释义】
“Social Stigmazation” of people who walk, ride mass transit, and use the bicycle for transportation refers to ________. 对步行、乘坐大众运输工具和使用自行车作为交通工具的人的“社会污名化”是指________。
A. that motorists are more important than bikers and pedestrians A. 驾车人比骑车人和行人更重要
B. the people who walk, ride mass transit or use the bicycle do not own a car B. 步行、乘坐公共交通工具或使用自行车的人不拥有汽车
C. the people who walk, ride mass transit or use the bicycle are in better health condition C. 步行、乘坐公共交通工具或使用自行车的人健康状况更好
D. that people walk, ride mass transit or use the bicycle may have a low social status D. 步行、乘坐大众运输工具或使用自行车的人可能社会地位较低
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词Social Stigmazation可以定位到文章第一段第三句“通过这种政策，地位综合症（不平等是健康状况不佳的直接风险因素）与世界肥胖症的流行有关，也与步行、乘坐公共交通工具和使用自行车作为交通工具的人的自卑和社会污名有关（social stigmatization of those who walk, ride mass transit, and use the bicycle for transportation）”，下文接着说到“将骑自行车的人提升到与开车的人同等的地位和特权（equal status and privilege）”，说明此处的社会污名化是指认为步行、乘坐公共交通工具和使用自行车作为交通工具的人社会地位低下。因此D选项“步行、乘坐大众运输工具或使用自行车的人可能社会地位较低”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“驾车人比骑车人和行人更重要”，B选项“步行、乘坐公共交通工具或使用自行车的人不拥有汽车”和C选项“步行、乘坐公共交通工具或使用自行车的人健康状况更好”均不能体现社会地位的高低，属于无中生有。
第3题:
【选项释义】
The main thesis of the article is that planners must ________. 这篇文章的主要论点是，规划者必须________。
A. promote social equality in their projects A. 在他们的项目中促进社会平等
B. take into considerations the health effects of motorists B. 考虑到驾车者的健康影响
C. take a balanced approach when developing projects and consider the interests of motorists, mass transit users, bikers and pedestrians C. 在开发项目时采取平衡的方法，考虑驾车者、公共交通使用者、骑自行车者和行人的利益
D. maintain social harmony and peace D. 维护社会和谐与和平
【考查点】主旨大意题。
【解题思路】文章开头首先提出“骑自行车、健康和社会平等之间存在多层次的协同作用”的主题，指出“交通规划人员、政策制定者和基础设施开发商必须把在每项政策和项目中促进地位平等作为优先考虑的目标（adopt as a priority, the goal of promoting status equality in every policy and project）”，接着通过不同的研究来论证这一点，由此可知本文的主要论点是规划者必须把在每项政策和项目中促进地位平等作为优先考虑的目标。因此A选项“在他们的项目中促进社会平等”正确。
【干扰项排除】
B选项“考虑到驾车者的健康影响”在文中没有提及，属于无中生有；
C选项“在开发项目时采取平衡的方法，考虑驾车者、公共交通使用者、骑自行车者和行人的利益”，文章是说优先步行、乘坐公共交通工具和使用自行车作为交通工具的人的利益，而不是平衡驾车者和他们的利益，属于反向干扰；
D选项“维护社会和谐与和平”说法过于宽泛，文章只是说促进行人、骑自行车者和公共交通使用者和驾车者之间的地位平等，没有扩大到整个社会的和谐与和平，属于过度推断。
第4题:
【选项释义】
Studies have found that people who own motor vehicles ________. 研究发现，拥有机动车的人________。
A. come from high socioeconomic backgrounds A. 来自高社会经济背景
B. are most likely to be elderly B. 最有可能是老年人
C. have fewer friends C. 有较少的朋友
D. spend less time with their friends but more time with their family D. 花在朋友身上的时间少，花在家人身上的时间多
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词people who own motor vehicles可以定位到文章第二段第二句“2006年，纽约的交通替代方案（TA）发表了一项研究，表明生活在交通拥挤街道上的人（people who live on streets with heavy traffic）比生活在更安静街道上的人外出的次数更少，朋友也更少（have fewer friends）”，说明拥有机动车的人朋友更少。因此C选项“有较少的朋友”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“来自高社会经济背景”，由第二段第一句“在所有国家，儿童、老人、病人和穷人的运动水平、社会接触以及获得服务的机会与机动车辆的社会使用水平成反比”可知，拥有机动车辆的人越多，社会经济背景反而越低，属于反向干扰；
B选项“最有可能是老年人”在文中没有提及，属于无中生有；
D选项“花在朋友身上的时间少，花在家人身上的时间多”，由第二段最后一句“花在散步、购物和与孩子玩耍上的时间更少”可知，拥有机动车的人花在家人身上的时间很少，属于反向干扰。
第5题:
【选项释义】
By “externalization to society of the cost of motoring” the writer argues that ________. 通过“将驾车的成本外化给社会”，作者认为________。
A. motorists impose a health cost to society that they do not pay A. 驾车者给社会带来的健康成本，他们并没有支付
B. the cost of motorists must be balanced against the cost of mass transportation systems B. 驾车者的成本必须与大众交通系统的成本相平衡
C. society should engage in marketing strategies and education initiatives to foster a better understanding of the needs motorists, pedestrians and mass transit users C. 社会应该采取营销策略和教育措施，以促进人们更好地了解驾车者、行人和大众交通使用者的需求
D. society should calculate the costs of motorists and allocate the appropriate budgetary resources to avoid a budget deficit D. 社会应该计算驾车者的成本，并分配适当的预算资源，以避免预算赤字的出现
【解题思路】根据题干关键词可以定位到文章最后一段第一、二、三句“通过地位综合症，驾车者对其他交通工具使用者的健康产生了不利影响（adversely affect the health）。这种影响是汽车成本向社会的外部化（externalization to society of the cost of motoring），而这一成本尚未得到充分认识，也未受到经济分析的影响。因此，经济学家低估了没有完全由司机自己支付的驾驶成本（not fully paid by motorists）”，说明驾驶机动车会对其他交通工具使用者的健康产生不利影响，即给社会带来健康成本，而这种成本没有完全由驾驶者自己支付。因此A选项“驾车者给社会带来的健康成本，他们并没有支付”正确。
【干扰项排除】
B选项“驾车者的成本必须与大众交通系统的成本相平衡”和D选项“社会应该计算驾车者的成本，并分配适当的预算资源，以避免预算赤字的出现”在文中没有提及，属于无中生有；
C选项“社会应该采取营销策略和教育措施，以促进人们更好地了解驾车者、行人和大众交通使用者的需求”，由最后一段第五句“将行人、骑自行车者和公交使用者的地位提升到与机动车使用者平等或优越地位的交通项目将有助于改变这种观念，并将导致人们更快地采用其他交通方式，而不是那些忽视地位影响的项目，或那些通过教育或营销手段来改变地位观念的项目”可知，作者认为营销策略和教育措施没有作用，属于反向干扰。
【文章来源】《The Bicycle: Vehicle to Health and Social Equality》Paul K. Simpson 2005
【参考译文】
骑自行车、健康和社会平等之间存在多层次的协同作用。大多数国家的交通基础设施和政策提高了驾车者的社会地位，而不是骑自行车者和行人。通过这种政策，地位综合症（不平等是健康状况不佳的直接风险因素）与世界肥胖症的流行有关，也与步行、乘坐公共交通工具和使用自行车作为交通工具的人的自卑和社会污名有关。鼓励骑自行车的项目有能力帮助扭转这些负面的健康和社会趋势。当计划的目标之一是将骑自行车的人提升到与开车的人同等的地位和特权时，这样的计划在促进骑行、健康和社会平等方面会更加成功。由于不平等对健康的影响对全人类产生深远的影响，交通规划人员、政策制定者和基础设施开发商必须把在每项政策和项目中促进地位平等作为优先考虑的目标。
1999年世界卫生组织一项关于机动车辆的研究得出结论：“在所有国家，儿童、老人、病人和穷人的运动水平、社会接触以及获得服务的机会与机动车辆的社会使用水平成反比。”2006年，纽约的交通替代方案（TA）发表了一项研究，表明生活在交通拥挤街道上的人比生活在更安静街道上的人外出的次数更少，朋友也更少。这项名为“交通对人类的伤害”的研究显示，高流量的车辆交通对居住在附近的居民的生活和观念产生了深远的负面影响。该研究得出结论：“与住在交通流量较小街道上的邻居相比，住在交通流量较大街道上的居民：对他们的街区有更多的负面看法；与邻居的关系更少；睡眠、吃饭和谈话时更经常被打断；花在散步、购物和与孩子玩耍上的时间更少。”
1995年一项关于旧金山三年级学生社会接触的研究表明，平均而言，那些生活在轻度交通的街道上的人的朋友是生活在重度交通的街道上的人的三倍，熟人是两倍。
最近被发现的“自然缺失症”是由于对自然地区缺乏有意义的体验而未能形成与自然的联系感。这种疾病发生在经常待在室内或机动车辆中的儿童身上。被剥夺与自然接触的儿童早在五岁时就开始表现出运动和社交技能的缺陷。苏黎世的马可•胡滕摩泽做了一项研究，让6岁和7岁的孩子画出他们每天上学的路程。那些步行或骑自行车上学的孩子画出了色彩丰富的画，包括他们路途中遇到的各种植物、动物和人。而那些坐车上学的同学则倾向于画一些没有色彩的图画，而且除了车辆、道路以及出发地和目的地的建筑物外，没有任何细节。
通过地位综合症，驾车者对其他交通工具使用者的健康产生了不利影响。这种影响是汽车成本向社会的外部化，而这一成本尚未得到充分认识，也未受到经济分析的影响。因此，经济学家低估了没有完全由司机自己支付的驾驶成本。这种成本的外部化必须在未来的交通运输影响的经济分析中加以考虑，个人对运输方式地位的感知在很大程度上已经内部化和自动化。将行人、骑自行车者和公交使用者的地位提升到与机动车使用者平等或优越地位的交通项目将有助于改变这种观念，并将导致人们更快地采用其他交通方式，而不是那些忽视地位影响的项目，或那些通过教育或营销手段来改变地位观念的项目，这些方法没有伴随着系统层次的真实和示范性的变化。通过减少机动车使用量，这些项目将有助于减少上述交通不平等对健康的影响和其他不利影响。交通平等显然是一个关系到健康和社会公正的重要问题。
