The importance of being an ambassador for biking

 Ok I'll admit it - I was mistaken above.  Obviously you *are* just some troll who's entire motivation for being here is to sh*t in the pool so you can feel some sad surge of power in watching everyone get disgusted, climb out, and go home.

"By the raw data, at least, it would seem that you may be on to something.  I may have failed to accurately represent the true curse that is the car culture.  Is there a chance a rape analogy isn't going far enough?  How about "plague?"  Or maybe "genocide?"  I don't know, do you have any suggestions, Elmurriachi?  Crime for crime, what's the best horror you can think of that matches the car culture?" You cited statistics for car-related deaths, and then suggested that rape wasn't going far enough in an analogy, and suggested genocide. So yeah, I took that as you suggesting that being a biker in a car-centric world could be termed relative to genocide. However, my POINT, which you entirely missed, is that ANY kind of comparison along these lines is foolhardy. Genocide is genocide. It has no relation, comparative or otherwise, to the 'bikes vs. cars' debate. Period. Honestly, I cannot believe I am sitting her explaining this to someone. I have to assume at this point you're choosing to selectively read and quabble over details and act like this. You know what you said. So there's no point in continuing this discussion.

The alternative is not being hyperbolic and contrarian and ridiculous. I understand all of the problems associated with cars. But these ludicrous comparisons, which I can't believe you actually just tried to take further and compare to genocide, are ultimately detrimental. A rape victim has no choice in whether or not they are raped. A victim of genocide has no choice in whether they are systematically and intentionally murdered. You're a guy who's made a decision to ride a bike in a transit system geared for cars. Sure, in a perfect world, those cars wouldn't be there. And hopefully, activists who promote bike riding can have an effect in the number of people who choose to make the decision to ride a bike instead of drive a car. But listen dude: you weren't born on top of a bicycle, just like drivers weren't born in front of a steering wheel. This is a choice you made. You’re not being oppressed. You’re riding a bike and trying to get the system that is geared towards cars more viable and safe for bikes. And that’s great. But to somehow think you’re involved in some kind of crusade against ‘car culture’, and to bring up subjects like rape and genocide too illustrate your plight…frankly I think that’s nothing less than denigrating and insulting to victims of those things, and altogether foolish and childish for thinking your morning commute to a job somehow embodies or illustrates those crimes. Which brings me to ‘white bred vicitimization fetish’. A lot of times what happens with well-educated, (and ultimately well meaning), liberally educated individuals, is that they identify so much with the plights of people involved in causes like civil rights, class struggle, etc, that they start to glamorize and intellectually fetishize the victims of those struggles. They identify with the cause, and so they try very hard to identify with the people and the culture of victimhood. They begin to take on this struggle as their own. This often leads to a lot of ironies and inconsistencies in their own outlooks. And a lot of times, I see that trend in the bike culture. Young, well-educated white people raging and carrying on about oppression, taking on that language in the effort to promote biking. But these same people don’t realize that it’s a result of their privilege that they even get to spend time worrying about being ‘oppressed’ for being a biker. Something you must, must consider: the auto industry, oil industry, capitalist system, shameful as many of its practices might be, is what generated the wealth that allowed you to get the education that enables you to identify with underdogs and victims of those industries. Furthermore, the job that you have participates in that system as well, and the money you earn from it affords you the luxury time you have to devote to thinking about tearing down the car system. This is the major bone I have to pick with you about your rape and genocide characterizations. Victims of those kinds of crimes don’t have a choice in being made a victim. Your victimhood, your ‘oppression’, is a choice. Your oppression is a luxury.   This is why people do not respond to the kind of anger and aggression that so many ‘bike advocates’ demonstrate against car culture. Ultimately, this kind of aggression and anger, this sort of obsession with being marginalized as oppressed or ‘the other’ (an expression you’ve used several times here), is really more about defining identity for the person expressing it, as opposed to actually thinking of the most effective way to change policies, create good impressions of biking, promote it as a useful and viable alternative. Rather than defining themselves in a positive light, as in favor of something, they feel the need to instead to take the negative route and define themselves as against something, in this case, car culture, car drivers, etc. Us versus them.  A single binary equation. But ultimately Rynsa, the world is much, much more complicated than that. And taking something down to that black and white level is reductive and unhelpful.  Which is why I originally took great offense to your characterization of Brouse’s piece. I think if anything, we can all agree that hers was a caring and harmless opinion. I mean, is it not a fact that when you ride your bike you’re representing all bikers out there on the anonymity of the road? That your actions in that forum reflect on the rest of the community? You suggest cars don’t do the same for us, but isn’t it then up to us to take the high road in this ‘struggle’ you describe? I think Brouse’s article reflects a maturity we don’t often see in activism these days. Her position and idea of being an ambassador is inclusive rather than exclusive, positive rather than negative, creative rather than destructive. It reflects someone who’s passionate about her cause, but not so overzealous that she loses sight of the fact that she still has a responsibility to work WITH the larger community (which like it or not, includes car owners) rather than to adopt a ‘my way or the highway’, take no prisoners, I’m right and you’re wrong attitude. After all, it’s biking we’re talking about! It’s supposed to be freakin fun! If you’re so worried about being cast as ‘the other’, Rynsa, then maybe you should stop preemptively putting yourself in that position. Think about the language you use, the tone, which, I’m sorry, comes off as extremely pedantic. It’s as if you’re trying to elevate yourself through your disagreement with Brouse, rather than start a dialogue, as you claim to wish to do. I think that’s why you’re meeting with a lot of controversy on this forum. It’s great that you have your own opinions, you are certainly entitled to them. But I’d urge you to seriously consider how you come off in expressing them.

Oooo, I know..the credit industry.  It 'benefits' us at the same time robs us mercilessly. It's overt,  yet subtle.  It doesn't quite kill us.

Or the bicyclists are akin to rape victims analogy. I've never been raped, but I'm fairly sure it feels worse than being cutoff by an SUV.

To the contrary, I see this as an excellent example that allegorically reinforces Ms. Brouse's assertion of how our riding can negatively affect public opinion without us even realizing.   Certain nameless people post on this forum (and I imagine probably interact in their daily lives) the same way they have professed to ride (as gleaned from past conversations), selfishly pissing off everybody in their wake, and then they can't figure out why people tend to react badly to them - as if they really believe all those negative opinions were formed in a complete vacuum and they truly are the innocent victim.  They just can't make the connection as to what the common denominator may be; they are only capable of seeing the negative reaction and not their own contributory action.   In the same way it's real easy to fall into the trap of thinking that we are engaged in some sort of class warfare - that we are all hated and reviled by the "car culture" in a similar vacuum that has nothing to do with our own actions and attitudes, that we are victims, and that it's "us vs. them" with all the justification for bad behavior that that entails.

Agreed.  And in that case anyone  investigating the remnants will surely conclude that we WERE cars.

"If we intend to survive as a species, we're going to have to "attack" and dismantle the car culture." Sounds like confrontation to me. And i suppose 'white bred' is racist, but 'white trash' isn't? Get a grip!

Rynsa, did you really just compare bicyclists with rape victims? Ironically, this kind of vitriol is exactly what 'divides the bicycling community'. Between people who just want to do their part, commute on their bikes, spread the message about cycling as an alternative to driving a car (and all the benefits of that) positively, and overzealous angsty loudmouths tapping away on their macbooks about tearing down the system. Of course the car-centric American lifestyle needs to be replaced, but the way you imply to do it, which seems to be through confrontation, is so naive and counterproductive and childish I wonder if I should just be laughing at your response instead of saddened by the sheer lack of self-awareness it demonstrates. Ultimately, anger, hyperbole, and this white-bred righteous victimization fetish  is what gives cyclists a bad name,  and as a result  no one takes them or cycling seriously.  The fact is, no one answers to the argument "You're an idiot, and in order to not be an idiot, you should ride a bike," which is all too often what the cool bike guy argument comes out sounding like. If these people truly cared about their cause, they'd care enough not to represent it in such a counterproductive way. That's clearly all the author is trying to say, and she is clearly right, as you've obligingly demonstrated. 

Like any minority, there are things that we feel we should not have to do to be accepted.  Like wear a vest, maybe: or ride next to the curb through all the junk: or always defer in any traffic situation. Parity is what we need and assertiveness is required, which I consider to be more than just a "little energy".  Mr. Flint's point about cyclists self-policing is his notion of how it should work from the bottom up. Cyclists can do that because they have access to each other. Drivers, being insular, can only give each other the finger.  From the top down, acceptance needs to be more agressively sought from government whose current support is just about superficial. The car culture will never be dismantled. The whole world view equates it with the aquisition of wealth and third-world countries can't wait to get away from that "groovy way to get around". The exception being that tiny European country we hold in esteem. The best we can do is seek the regard that we are due in freely choosing our path.

Great post . . . and debate. Writing from the great city of Philly, where cycling is pretty damn popular, I must say that every cyclist affects how others (including car drivers and pedestrians) view cycling in general. That's human nature, of course - taking a small sample size and then making a big fat generalization. Fortunately, because of more bike lanes than ever before and seemingly more civilized bicyclists, the tenuous relationship between us cyclists and those big smelly cars is going pretty well. What do I meant by more civilized bicyclists? Less red-light running, less yelling at cars, not being in a rush (even if you're in the right, cars win because of their sheer size), and wearing the yellow/orange vest. Cycling suddenly became a much safer, more pleasant activity once I embraced all those things. 1) I stopped taking an aggressive approach to cycling, ready to yell at any car that got to close; 2) instead I chilled out, thanked the good car drivers when they showed courtesy, and never tried to beat them to a spot; and yes, RYNSA, i SMILE WHEN I CYCLE because I want to show people that cycling is a blast, it makes sense, it doesn't waste fossil fuels, it's great exercise, you're outside in a way that being in a car will never replace; 3) at the urging of my wonderful wife, i began to wear at safety vest. Yes, I sacrificed some coolness factor, but instantly I was safer out there because car drivers (even the old blind ones) would see me so much more easily, and these drivers seem to appreciate it. Cars now don't get as close to me and now those scary instances when a car driver seemingly "didn't see" me have been basically eliminated. Try it out comrades . . .

Dear Rynsa- Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I felt like I had to put that sentence or "thought" into the post - about how the city is built for cars. I agree that the car-centric culture and policies have to change and that's what is really preventing biking in Tucson from growing. I guess my call-t0-action for this post  was to have those who currently bike for transportation or fun, encourage others to do the same by being friendly and open and not by taking an offensive or defensive stance. Talking about driving versus biking shouldn't be an argument or debate it should be a conversation.  I agree with Mr. Johnson's comments that people don't perceive biking as a viable alternative to driving. They see it as some kind of lifestyle choice. I think that if we devote a little energy to representing biking as another great way to get around- without "attacking" car culture maybe it will gain wider appeal. What do you think?

Here, be an ambassador: "iPayRoadTax" at: http://www.ipayroadtax.com./ It's from the UK... But it might dispel nutty myths over at Rhonda's ADS that ADS, as a features-driven paper ('How come dem girls ain't cycling?'),  ignores.

It's about entitlement.  If you feel entitled to a resource then any time it's threatened in any way you react to defend the entitlement.  If you look at automobiles in the largest possible sense it's clear that there isn't any way they can possible be actually paying their way.  From the thousands of tons of carbon black deposited on and beside roadways to the chemicals that run off into waterways any time it rains cars do not pay their way.  If you look at the squandering of taxable real estate it just gets worse.  All those roads and parking lots that get used mere hrs in a 24 hr cycle.  The garages, the driveways, service stations, it's all subsidised.  Culturally acceptance of all of this is entrenched.  Resentments flare if there's any suggestion of sharing.  Bikes, peds, buses, streetcars, trains, they all take from the car.  In a time of very limited governmental resources the problem only worsens.  Smiling polite bicyclists aren't going to solve that problem.  Reading the comments that followed the Invisible Cyclists video in today's links section shows me just how tribal it all is.  The commenter was riding his bike and had youth in a car drive by and shout at him to "get a car fag".  I'm thinking smiling isn't gonna solve that problem.   What Ian said, yeah sure.  All good stuff.  Ride a bike and be an ambassador by virtue of the example you set and the interactions you have with your non bicycling  acquaintances.  That makes sense.  I used to go to Dunbar Spring meetings.  I'd walk from West U.  The Springites were arriving largely by bicycle.  Wanting to belong I did start riding a bike.  Before I knew it I was buying all my groceries by bicycle.  Leading by example is a great idea.  There's no reason to be impolite in traffic but that one thing in and of itself will not solve the overarching problem.  Cars think this world was built for them and God help anyone who stands between these drivers and their entitlements. I read a great blog asking car drivers to look around and notice who it is that actually slows them down in traffic.  It is not bicyclists 3 abreast.  It's all those other cars.  Pogo had it right, "We have met the enemy and he is us".

Good answer, Miguel. Cars see bikes as taking advantage of a resource put there for them. They don't see those things you list; the things that we are  not requiring; the things that we hold dear as cyclists.  Generally, there is not much value placed on clean air when weighed against getting where you want to go. Treading lightly on resources funded by the public intended for use doesn't seem to hold much value, either.  We are not trying to constantly rationalize our presence and effect on the system. The editor of "Tailwinds", Mark Flint, addressed this ambassador thing a few issues back in the second half of his editorial. He came down on the hard side of those who exhibit poor social habits while riding. He thought confronting those situations was necessary; speaking out to the offenders. That's tough. It's a 'passing judgement' thing that is not comfortable. I've heard some unappreciative things said about the official ambassadors as well. Increasing ridership may provide the peer-pressure to take care of this....in the future.

Put a YIELD sign for bikes at stop signs?  Stop signs are there for a reason.  The reason I don't like bicylists who whiz past stop signs without stopping is BECAUSE it creates a hazard FOR ME, the driver who does stop at stop signs. Even if the bicyclist has decided they can "make it" without being hit, their sudden unexpected appearance without stopping causes the drivers to be shocked, therefore changing their speed, or direction, or both.  Also because where there is one cyclist roaring past stop signs, there frequently are more...but who knows at what interval? It's like the pedestrian who suddenly runs out in front of your car in the middle of a block: he counts on drivers following all laws and not changing speed or direction, etc.  Only because THEY are good drivers does the pedestrian survive, and not due to his cleverness.  The same is true for cyclists.  My son is a cylist, and I've heard the arguments.  He's wrong.  I'm nearly 70; I have to follow the traffic laws, even when on foot...even when that means pain and a much longer path for me... because otherwise it's not fair to those who follow the laws... and  because there are good reasons why I have to stop at stop signs and only cross in crosswalks, etc. If cyclists are so physically fit, then they can well afford having to get up to speed again.  If not, then having to do so repeatedly will build strong muscles.

I don't feel any particular need to be an ambassador for bicycling. It's how I get around, and that's that. BTW, you don't see any similar calls for the car crowd to be ambassadors for driving, now do you?

The majority of car drivers are neutral about bikes, they don't have a grudge against us and they're smart enough to know that the jerk who just rode his bike in front of them is an individual who doesn't represent anyone but himself.    Also, asking cyclists to behave is like saying that we don't already.  Clearly, some cyclists are pretty bad, but the vast majority are just fine.  The worst offendors aren't likely to reform because you appeal to their better side.    One big thing we should fight for and be very public about is the stop sign yield for bikes.  If it were made legal and explained to the vast public why it's safe and sensible, we'd lose one of the biggest gripes that people have against us. One of the ohe other big gripes is funding.  Lots of car drivers say that cyclists don't pay for the roads we ride on.  So, who actually pays the taxes that puts roads and bike infrastructure in our community?  If it all comes from gas taxes - bicyclists are parasites - even if you also drive a car.  If the funds come from sources that bicyclists also pay into, we are legitimate owners.  If we are paying our share, it should be publicised in a TV ad to inform the car drivers that we pay for the roads too.  Do we?

Great message. I am an ambassador for biking.