Photo by ecastro on Flickr

Editor’s note: This post was written by Britt Brouse, Tucson Velo’s newest contributor. If you would like to contribute blogs to the site, contact Tucson Velo.

Louis Armstrong got it right when he sang, “When you smile, keep on smiling and the whole world smiles with you.” When you carry yourself with confidence, exude happiness and are approachable and considerate, you will get the best results from your interactions with others.

We need to take this philosophy into the world of cycling. Whether it’s commuting by bike, taking the family out for a spin on a bike path, or competitive cycling — bike riders need to be respectful to one another, drivers, pedestrians and the law. Why? Because we have a huge stake in taking ridership forward in Tucson.

You may not realize it, or think about it, but every time you ride out on your bike, you are an ambassador for the sport and the habit of biking. One way to increase ridership and gain buy-in and respect for biking in Tucson is for current riders to represent cycling in a safe and positive light.

The more responsible, safe cyclists that people see on our roads, the closer we’ll get to breaking down a lot of the fears and misconceptions that surround biking in Tucson. If we portray cycling as a fun, safe way to get around town, more people will want to join in!

In a recent post, Tucson Velo announced that Ian Johnson would be the new Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Comittee Chair. Johnson makes two interesting statements that relate to this idea of bike ambassadorship.

First, Johnson says that one of the biggest challenges for increasing ridership here is “the perception that bicycling is a weird activity or is a recreational activity that only students and children enjoy — or weirdos.” Our city is built for cars, so it’s no surprise that many Tucson residents see bicycling as a fringe activity that only a minority of the population participates in.

Then Johnson says that his goal is to change that perception of cycling. So that it’s not just seen as a hobby but instead as “a completely legitimate and respected form of transportation.” He wants to educate drivers and cyclists about sharing the road and interacting in a civilized and safe manner.

I want to live in a city where bicycling takes hold not just as a fun hobby but a legitimate source of transportation. I think people learn by example and find safety in numbers. The more responsible, safe cyclists that our community members see on the streets, the more likely it is for new cyclists to want to hop on a bike themselves.

What do you think Tucson cyclists and bike commuters can do to better represent biking as a sport and a means for transportation? What can we do as a community to make cycling safer for everyone? Please share your thoughts and anecdotes in the comments below.

76 thoughts on “The importance of being an ambassador for biking”
  1. 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?

  2. Funding is a BS issue.  Most bicyclists have cars and therefore pay the fuel tax.   Besides that, roads are mostly funded from sales and income taxes. 

    Bikes do not destroy roads, they do not endanger peoples lives and they do not poison the air with soot.

    The weight of cars does a lot of damage over time to the roads.  If most travel was on bike we would not have to resurface the roads as often.

    The force of cars is very dangerous.  If most travel was done on bike we would not need as many police officers to work on traffic accidents nor emergency workers for victims of such accidents.

    The pollution of cars is destructive to the environment and people.  If most travel was by bike, biking would be far more enjoyable and healthy.  The roads and sidewalks would not need to be cleaned as much.

    I wont even go into the vast subsidies and tax breaks that oil companies get.

    When put into perspective the cars are the parasites because they require many more resources to operate from a pool paid by all.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Miguel,
    Are you sure about the revenue source for roads being mostly from sales and income taxes? I honestly don’t know. I’d like a government bean counter to weigh in on this.
    Also, gas tax money is credited to motorists, not cyclists, even if the motorist is also a cyclist.
    To your last point, automobiles provide significant benefits that can’t be ignored. No one wants to live where there are no firetrucks or ambulances. Our goods have to be delivered by trucks to the stores we frequent. We might get along without personal vehicles but It would be a very hard sell even among serious cyclists. I think we get pretty decent return on investment from automobiles but that doesn’t mean we can’t do better with our money by increasing the number of bike trips.
    Overall, you point out some very signifant benefits of cycling that I wish everyone knew. We need to get that information out to the world.

  7. Alice,
    It sounds like you are not a cyclist.  You need to get out on a bike, then you’ll understand.  I am a cyclist and a motorist too.  I’ve seen all sorts of crazy stunts by people including motorists running stop signs.  A stop sign yield law won’t increase accidents over the current situation because Idaho has such a law and didn’t have an increase in accidents.  Also, almost all cyclists roll through stop signs under the current law.  Your examples speak only about those cyclists who take risks above the level that most cyclists are willing to.  Changing the law is not going to increase my risk taking comfort level nor that of the majority of cyclists.

  8. Actually there are ambassadors for driving – they’re called Lobbyists for GM & oil companies.

  9. 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”.

  10. Funny that straw should mention the three-letter f-word that rhymes with “bag.”

    Because that word was spray-painted to a traffic control sign that was placed in the 4th Avenue Bicycle Boulevard construction zone. It was accompanied by the word “bike.”

    In case anyone’s interested, this tastefully decorated sign sat next to a church for several weeks. And I’ll bet that the church members were real happy about it.

  11. I am an avid bicyclist but I agree with you, Alice.  In fact, I think having the courtesy to signal and stop at stop signs IS being an “ambassador” for bicycling.  It makes us part of the same collective community with automobile drivers (and scooterists and motorcyclists), rather than being some fringe group that follows its own rules.  Same for riding slowly on roads like Euclid, hampering traffic, when you could take a road with a bike lane or a bike boulevard.

  12. Not an endorsement of the pejorative but it does represent the degree to which the rhetoric is ratcheting up..  The reaction to the new bike boulevard being again exactly about entitlement.  Not a very cooperative reaction is it?  

  13. 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.

  14. Very confusing, Jonathan. I’m with you on obeying stop signs. But you lost me with the “hampering traffic” comment. I am traffic. Anybody who willingly allows themselves to be ghetto-ized into a route that doesn’t take them where they want to go isn’t an ambassador for anything. They’re back on the fringe that you profess not to favor.

  15. 3wheeler,

    I agree on the Idaho stop sign law.  I’ve seen the videos, post, etc on it and it doesn’t increase accidents.  If anything, if a cyclists does it properly, it is actually safer.  A cyclist is most at risk when they have to go from a complete stop.  I can’t count how many times I’ve stopped for a stop sign, started to go as I had the right of way (4-way stop) and a car jumps the stop sign thinking I won’t cross quick enough.  WRONG! Grrrrr…..so annoying and yet we get all kinds of crap about not stopping.  

  16. “I have to follow the traffic laws, even when on foot…even when that means pain and a much longer path for me.”

    But this is just it. The traffic laws and street layouts in many places were designed to facilitate cars (and high-speed cars at that) at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists. I read a story about a road, possibly in Florida, where multiple people had died while crossing at one location. There was no crosswalk, but people still had to cross. The government’s answer? Installing a crosswalk or lights would interfere with “the flow of traffic”, and the people who died were law-breakers who should have walked a half-mile down the road to the next crosswalk.

    But that’s no answer at all. People still have to get across, and when faced with the choice between an extra 20 minutes each trip and a quick run across a road, they choose the run, and there’s very little you can do to change that. The law is a failure, because it caters to the convenience of one population (car-owners) while utterly failing another (the elderly, young, and poor).

    So what is to be done? Should the people walking home from work scrupulously obey the law, and hope that someone will eventually listed to their needs? It’ll never happen. You do what you have to do, and hope that eventually the law will catch up.

  17. Mr. Brouse,

    This is a well-written article, but I have to disagree somewhat with the premise underlying your argument that we need more cycling “ambassadors.”  Take this revealing passage, for example:

    “First, Johnson says that one of the biggest challenges for increasing
    ridership here is “the perception that bicycling is a weird activity or
    is a recreational activity that only students and children enjoy — or
    weirdos.” Our city is built for cars, so it’s no surprise that many
    Tucson residents see bicycling as a fringe activity that only a minority
    of the population participates in.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the two sentences in this paragraph appear to work against each other.  I mean, which is it?  Which “challenge” is more pressing for cyclists in Tucson?  The “perception” of riders as “weirdos,” or the harsh reality that “our city is built for cars?”  In my mind, at least, there’s one clear winner here and it aint the “fringe” stereotype.

    Frankly, your understated acknowledgment of the omnipresent (and omnicidal) car culture in this city and elsewhere is much more relevant and pertinent to the issue of increased ridership than Johnson’s happy-go-lucky PR blather.  The realities of the road inform and supersede any supposed benefit that may come from performing better out in public.

    Perhaps your writing is a testament to our generation’s unfortunate willingness to constantly filter every aspect of American political life through a decidedly psychological filter, but I find this call for more “ambassador” cyclists who “exude happiness” quite naive and ultimately very hollow.  Are we really supposed to grin and bear it when another SUV tears through a crosswalk on red? 

    You asked for suggestions on how we can increase safety for our alt transportation community.  Well, how about we get Mr. Ian Johnson and the other Tucson bicycle activists to stop blaming the victims and start advocating more directly and consciously for the gradual dismantling of the car culture?  I’m sure the “perception” of cycling will change dramatically when the real-world context does.  Just a thought. 

    “You may not realize it, or think about it, but every time you ride out on your bike, you are an ambassador for the sport and the habit of biking.”

    No, sir.  I’m no ambassador, Mr. Brouse; I’m a commuter who just wants to make it home in one piece.

    rynsa

  18. Mr. Brouse,

    This is a well-written article, but I have to disagree somewhat with the premise underlying your argument that we need more cycling “ambassadors.”  Take this revealing passage, for example:

    “First, Johnson says that one of the biggest challenges for increasing
    ridership here is “the perception that bicycling is a weird activity or
    is a recreational activity that only students and children enjoy — or
    weirdos.” Our city is built for cars, so it’s no surprise that many
    Tucson residents see bicycling as a fringe activity that only a minority
    of the population participates in.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the two sentences in this paragraph appear to work against each other.  I mean, which is it?  Which “challenge” is more pressing for cyclists in Tucson?  The “perception” of riders as “weirdos,” or the harsh reality that “our city is built for cars?”  In my mind, at least, there’s one clear winner here and it aint the “fringe” stereotype.

    Frankly, your understated acknowledgment of the omnipresent (and omnicidal) car culture in this city and elsewhere is much more relevant and pertinent to the issue of increased ridership than Johnson’s happy-go-lucky PR blather.  The realities of the road inform and supersede any supposed benefit that may come from performing better out in public.

    Perhaps your writing is a testament to our generation’s unfortunate willingness to constantly filter every aspect of American political life through a decidedly psychological filter, but I find this call for more “ambassador” cyclists who “exude happiness” quite naive and ultimately very hollow.  Are we really supposed to grin and bear it when another SUV tears through a crosswalk on red? 

    You asked for suggestions on how we can increase safety for our alt transportation community.  Well, how about we get Mr. Ian Johnson and the other Tucson bicycle activists to stop blaming the victims and start advocating more directly and consciously for the gradual dismantling of the car culture?  I’m sure the “perception” of cycling will change dramatically when the real-world context does.  Just a thought. 

    “You may not realize it, or think about it, but every time you ride out on your bike, you are an ambassador for the sport and the habit of biking.”

    No, sir.  I’m no ambassador, Mr. Brouse; I’m a commuter who just wants to make it home in one piece.

    rynsa

  19. I just noticed that your are not, in fact, a “Mr.”  My apologies for the incorrect title.  I went to your blog, saw a picture of a bearded dude, and made the erroneous conclusion that you suffered from testosterone poisoning like me.  My bad.

    rynsa 

  20. Yes, you are traffic too. But really slow bicycles on streets without lanes are no worse than slow cars.  I’m not talking about “taking the lane” and going with the flow; I mean going so slowly that you’re a hazard and everyone has to around you.  I’d say the same thing to a tractor or moped, or a slow car.  For example, why ride down 5th st when you could take 3rd?   

  21. 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?

  22. 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 . . .

  23. Ms. Brouse,

    “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?”

    Respectfully, I think you’re wrong.

    I grew up in a very rural environment in white trash Arkansas.  Down the road from our place were two hippies with a burgeoning solar power installation business.  For decades, environmental entrepreneurs like our friends have struggled to amiably and creatively represent solar power as “another great way to” meet one’s energy needs, and ultimately with very little success.  The auto, oil and coal industries have worked wonders in manufacturing complacency and suppressing the development of sustainable energy, a testament to their tremendous privilege and power in our sick culture.

    Of course, the details of this anecdote are unimportant; it’s meant as an analogy.  The idea that one can create a market or inspire some sort of critical mass of interested individuals solely on the strength of a gentle and well-told message — ie, “gain a wider appeal” for cycling by becoming a friendly “bicycle ambassador” —  is a myth unsupported by the historical record and long past its expiration date, in my opinion.  Any advocate for human-powered transportation who thinks we can increase our ranks simply by smiling more and “exuding happiness” has really not paid attention to the social, political, and economic realities of the day.

    “Talking about driving versus biking shouldn’t be an argument or debate it should be a conversation.”

    Should a rape victim be expected to hold a “conversation” with his or her attacker?  By equivocating cars with bicycles (or walking, etc.), you are in essence validating the common stereotype that alternative transportation is a “lifestyle choice” on par with gas-guzzling, carbon-emitting, murderous automobiles.  It’s not.  If we intend to survive as a species, we’re going to have to “attack” and dismantle the car culture. 

    So if you want to do that with a smile on your face, by all means, be my guest.  But the rest of us should not be expected to fit within BAC’s narrow concept of what constitutes proper cycling decorum.  Such moralizing nonsense serves only to divide our already fractured community.

    Best,

    rynsa  

  24. 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.

  25. 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. 

  26. Elmurriachi,

    “…but the way you imply to do it, which seems to be through confrontation…”

    Can you point out exactly where I called for more confrontation?  Perhaps your frustration with my point of view comes from a poor reading of it.  Everything else in your response is subsequently irrelevant.

    rynsa

  27. Elmurriachi,

    “… this white-bred righteous victimization fetish…”

    By the way, I have just now flagged your comment for racist rhetoric.  You know nothing of my ethnic and cultural background.  I sincerely challenge you to consider the meaning of “vitriol” before posting such things.   
     
    rynsa

  28. “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!

  29. Elmurriachi,

    You failed to notice that I put the word “attack” in quotes.  I did that because — as you will see for yourself if you go back and read more carefully — it was originally used by Ms. Brouse and NOT by myself.  Her use of “attack” is revealing, actually, as it seems to represent a kind of fanciful speculation on what I might, theoretically, desire as an alternative approach to the “bicycle ambassador” idea, even though I already offered a suggestion on that point and it had nothing to do with “attacking” anybody.  None the less, out of respect for Ms. Brouse as a journalist, and because these word games are exceedingly tiresome,  I merely repurposed her biased and erroneous language to move the
    conversation forward.  I mean, who really wants to slip into a tedious and rather meaningless semantic debate?!  I’m more interested in the bigger issues, frankly, and I absolutely would not have chosen “attack” independently as it
    is terribly loaded and does not accurately reflect my position. 

    As for “dismantle,” that is hardly a confrontational term unless, maybe, one is secretly unwilling to have something dismantled.  I did not realize that you were so invested in the American car culture, Mr. Elmurriachi, that you would be threatened by my so-called “confrontational” wish to dismantle it, especially given that you yourself declared in an earlier response that you would like to see it “replaced.”  I genuinely thought this was a website for advocates of cycling and other forms of “alternative” transportation, and that you, sir, fit nicely within that category.  I see now by your confused defense of the pathological, murderous status quo that I was sorely mistaken.

    And, though I don’t feel I need to offer you an explanation, let me breakdown the difference between “white trash” and “white-bred,” because you have conveniently forgotten the context in which these distinctly different terms were used.  The former, obviously, was used by myself to describe a particular experience in rural Arkansas of which I am deeply intimate and you, ostensibly, are not.  This is subjective, personal, and self-reflective; I am not talking about the unfamiliar, I’m talking about my people.  While the later, “white-bred,”  is evidently intended as derogatory term (and on of many you lobbed my way).  It is objectifying and hostile.  Basically, I was giving voice to my reality and you were giving voice to… well, my reality. 

    Also, because you are woefully ignorant of how “white trash” is now being used by a new generation of underclass Southerners, I will enlighten you a little on the subtleties of the words.  We have co-opted it, reclaimed it, and redefined it, Mr. Elmurriachi.  In many circles back home my friends and I use “white trash” with tongues squarely in our cheeks, playfully, warmly and almost lovingly as a source of empowerment and a vehicle for social camaraderie.  And this is by no means an original practice — underprivileged peoples of all types have been owning and converting language to strengthen their ranks damn near since the beginning of civilization.  But we never ever use “white-bred” because it in no way relates to our experience.  Frankly, we just can’t afford such a lofty title; that one’s for wealthy, big-city outsiders that continually condescend to my people.  We may share a skin tone with these oligarchs, but that’s where the similarities end.  No one in my corner of Arkansas would confuse “white trash” with “white bred.”

    rynsa

  30. zz,

    “The car culture will never be dismantled.”

    If rampant destruction of the planet continues as it has, the car culture will surely be dismantled because there will be no more humans to keep it going.

    rynsa

  31. Curious E,

    For the record, I smile when I cycle, too, because I love being on the bike.  But I would never suggest, as others have, that smiling and “exuding happiness” and generally being a good “ambassador” somehow manifests into something meaningful.  That’s nonsense.  I mean, if Ms. Brouse’s next article has the title, “The Importance of Wearing a Lucky Rabbit’s Foot on Your Helmet,” are you suddenly going to start adorning your riding gear with dead animal parts?!  I really don’t see the difference between being “approachable” and magical talisman.  

    Since when did being nice result in more bike lanes, and pedestrian greenways, and expanded lightrail?  Can you or Ms. Brouse or Ian Johnson point to even one government anywhere in the United States that cites shiny, happy “bicycle ambassadors” as the primary impetus for radical changes in urban planning?!  If so, maybe we should send all these nice, smiling, gleeful Tucson cyclists to war-torn Afghanistan.  I mean, those guys could definitely use a little more infrastructure, don’t ya think?   

    The notion that the Tucson cycling community’s political context will transform drastically, or that our numbers will suddenly sky-rocket, simply because everyone agrees to adopt some sort of grinning, pollyanna, Stepford Wife-like pleasantness is really just ridiculous.  In my opinion, this kind of positive thinking is merely the most recent iteration in a long tradition of American snake-oil salesmanship; “opium for the people” that works only to distract the citizenry and keep them from truly engaging with their own oppression(s).  The concept of a “bicycle ambassador” is really no different.  It’s quite absurd.

    rynsa

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

  33. You’ll have to forgive rynsa – I used to think he was just another troll, but the more he pops up and graces us with his blathering nonsense, the more I think that, in spite of his verbose efforts to pretend otherwise, he really does just lack the mental ability to make the simple obvious connection that being an asshole on a bike actually pisses-off the majority of fence-sitters who otherwise wouldn’t care one way or another, and is extremely counterproductive to cycling in general.  You’re right on with that “victimization fetish” call, as you’ve just seen how quick he was to wave *that* flag when someone has the audacity to actually disagree with him.  Just feel sorry for him as he flails away at his little culture war.

  34. “…he really does just lack the mental ability…”

    This is precisely what’s wrong with the Tucson bicycle community, and why I pick and choose when I post on Tucson Velo and very seldom go to BAC meetings.  Scott, you spend more time belittling me than you do dealing with the issues or with my analysis.  Time and time again I have explained my position with reason and evidence… but you call this blather and attack the person, me.  Please stop making me “the other.”  Please stop filtering all intellectual activity through the personal.  I am a member of the community and I deserve greater respect than this.

    You are not a nice person, Scott.  I will be flagging your comment, as well.  Tucson Velo really needs to implement some sort of posting guideline.  It’s quickly becoming an insulated little clique wherein those who do not repetitively agree with every conceivable thing that is said on the website are readily ostracized and denigrated.  Grow up, people.

    rynsa

  35. Please guys, don’t attack the person. If you disagree with the idea, fine, but don’t attack the person.

    I really do not have the time nor the desire to police the comments. I can spend my day worrying about what you all are saying about each other or I can work on stories and create new content.

    Keep it civil.

  36. Ms. Brouse,

    Look at the vitriol I’ve received in this thread.  I offered a dissenting opinion, supported it with reasons, and tried my best to avoid addressing individuals or personal matters.  As a reward for my sincere contributions — commentary that you expressly solicited, by the way (“Please share your thoughts…”) — I am the recipient of ad hominem attacks from the “community.”

    Is this why you are calling for more bicycle “ambassadors?”  Because you’re already aware of how crass and abusive many of your readers are here on Tucson Velo?  If this is the case, I stand corrected; we definitely need more civility in the Tucson bicycle community.

    Good luck to you, Ms. Brouse.  I hope you’re able to survive your allies.

    rynsa

  37. Tucson Velo,

    Word, and thank you.  I vote for “create new content.”  Keep up the good work!

    rynsa

  38. 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.

  39. Thanks for the reply, Jonathan. Honestly, if I was behind the wheel and found myself behind a tractor on Fifth Street, with two lanes in each direction, I wouldn’t think to myself, “Why doesn’t he take Third?”

    Having “everyone go around you” is not the definition of a hazard, particularly on a 30 mph street.

  40. Scott,

    I am not a fool.  It is quite clear that you are attempting to talk about me without actually calling me by my name or speaking to me directly.  While I find this intellectually disingenuous, I will none the less respond sincerely and with kindness in the hopes that we can come to some sort of reconciliation and avoid unpleasant interactions like this in the future.

    “…They are only capable of seeing the negative reaction and not their own contributory action.”

    For the record, I am capable of acknowledging my “own contributory action,” as you have described it.  But I do not feel that said “contributory action” has ever
    warranted the kind of hostility I have received from you and Elmurriachi
    and others.  Please allow me to explain.

    As I see it, I have offered several highly controversial and dissenting opinions on a variety of issues here on Tucson Velo.  This is my right as a human being and as an engaged member of the cycling community.  My guess is that you will readily agree with these statements; you strike me as someone who shares my passion for free speech.  If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me on this matter.

    I’ll own the provocative nature of my perspective.  I have adopted what I consider to be a more radical interpretation of a number of significant political issues, including human-powered transportation.  I feel that I have earned this perspective.  I am a thinking person with decades of experience in a multitude of bicycle-related and political endeavors.  I’ll also admit that the manner in which I explain myself can sometimes be perceived as confrontational, though that is honestly not my intention.  My goal here is to provide an articulate and alternative perspective and contribute to the conversation between Tucson’s bicycle advocates.  I believe there is room enough in the community for a wide spectrum of informed opinions.

    But I do not believe that I have made personal attacks on other people.  I have tried to support my claims with evidence and challenged those with whom I disagree, and have subsequently been met by some with various kinds of what I’ll define as character assassination.  My intelligence has been called into question, my ethnic and cultural background has been defamed, and, most problematically, my ideas have been marginalized in favor of speculation about who I am as a person, what I do in public, what I really think, etc.  Much to my chagrin, commentators like yourself have taken the controversy as an opportunity to transform the discourse into some sort of referendum on my worth as a human being, instead of addressing the issues at hand.  I don’t like this, and I don’t think it adds to the overall discussion.

    So, that’s basically how I see it.  Please feel free to make an addendum to my summary as needed.  I suppose you will have a different analysis, and that’s quite alright.  I welcome your insight, and if I have said something that was accidentally hurtful, I apologize.  You appear to be very frustrated with my ideas.  I can appreciate that, but I simply can’t understand why I must also be denigrated in the process.  The world of ideas will exist a long time after you and I have passed away.  Can we not keep it on the level of the mind? 

    “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.”

    As you might have guessed, I thoroughly disagree with this entire paragraph and I believe I can muster a legitimate compelling argument as to why you are very, very wrong on a number of points.  But, because I have already spoken on this matter several times in the past, I’ll spare you a retelling of my perspective.  We’ll just have to agree to disagree… respectfully. 

    I hope you are well and I wish you the best.  Good luck on the road, Scott.

    rynsa

  41. You can’t leave until you’ve straightened out the rhetorical cul-de-sac involving the hippie solar-power business. 🙂

  42. “Rhetorical cul-de-sac?”  Are you suggesting that it is a poor analogy?

  43. 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.

  44. Also, you have to love the guy who says “I mean, who really wants to slip into a tedious and rather meaningless
    semantic debate?!”, and then in the very next paragraph launches into diatribe on the real meaning of the term ‘white trash’ and why it’s ok for him (but only him and ‘his people’) to use it.

    You’re a gem Rynsa!

    I really just think that if all of us privileged, well-educated cyclists eliminate the tendency to appropriate the language of the oppressed into our purported ‘struggle against cars and car culture’, people will take us a lot more seriously. I just think that when you talk like that, especially in a place like southern Arizona, where international migrants die in the desert every day trying to get here to work less than minimum wage jobs, some people just find bicyclists talking about how oppressed they are is a very, very tough pill to swallow.

  45. Good point, Mr. Elmurriachi.  Maybe we should ask Sam Abate how it feels to interact with the car culture.

    In any case, perhaps my rape analogy is ultimately inappropriate, as you have twice now suggested.  Statistically speaking there are roughly 250,000 reported rapes in the US every year, which is, of course, horrible and utterly despicable.  So what about cars?  How do they stack up exactly?

    Well, it’s estimated that there are nearly6.5 million car accidents annually leading to 3 million injuries and 50,000 fatalities, as well as an untold number of tertiary health-related casualties from environmental contamination during automobile production and usage, not to mention the costs in blood and treasure from illegal wars to supply the oil and gas needed to keep the damn machinery afloat, oh, and — I nearly forgot — that little thing about CO2 emissions serving as the primary culprit for the potentially species-ending phenomenon known as global climate change.  Damn… that’s pretty grim, huh?

    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?

    rynsa

  46. Good point, Mr. Elmurriachi.  Maybe we should ask Sam Abate how it feels to interact with the car culture.

    In any case, perhaps my rape analogy is ultimately inappropriate, as you have twice now suggested.  Statistically speaking there are roughly 250,000 reported rapes in the US every year, which is, of course, horrible and utterly despicable.  So what about cars?  How do they stack up exactly?

    Well, it’s estimated that there are nearly6.5 million car accidents annually leading to 3 million injuries and 50,000 fatalities, as well as an untold number of tertiary health-related casualties from environmental contamination during automobile production and usage, not to mention the costs in blood and treasure from illegal wars to supply the oil and gas needed to keep the damn machinery afloat, oh, and — I nearly forgot — that little thing about CO2 emissions serving as the primary culprit for the potentially species-ending phenomenon known as global climate change.  Damn… that’s pretty grim, huh?

    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?

    rynsa

  47. Heck, I can answer that one – the hippie’s rural Arkansas solar power business almost certainly wasn’t successful for the same reason such efforts always fail with lower income consumers; it costs so much more up-front that only the wealthy can afford to tie up money in an investment that will take years to pay itself off before it can result in any savings.  But the world is still full of people who sincerely believe that it’s really due to some “big oil” conspiracy – usually those same people have no idea just how much petroleum product actually goes into the fabrication of solar cell systems.
     
    Our friend was just informing us that he is one of those people.

  48. Mr. Elmurriachi,

    “…You have to love the guy who says “I mean, who really wants to slip into a tedious and rather meaningless semantic debate?!”, and then in the very next paragraph launches into diatribe on the real meaning of the term ‘white trash’ and why it’s ok for him (but only him and ‘his people’) to use it.”

    As I stated earlier, I never wanted to “launch” into a semantic debate, but I was forced to when you erroneously tried to equate my subjective, empowering use of “white trash” with your objectifying, denigrating use of “white-bred.”  The distinction is quite clear in my mind, and you have yet to address the legitimacy of this claim.  None the less, if you disagree with the analysis, well, that’s perfectly fine, but it is disingenuous for you to set the stage for such linguistic argumentation by identifying me with a culture of which I do not belong and then criticize me for walking into the theater to defend myself.  I am NOT “white-bred!”  That is an offense term where I come from that is simply not the same thing as “white trash.”  Period. 

    And why is my analysis now belittled as a “diatribe?”  This is just the kind of blanket hostility that I outlined in my last post to Scott.  I have tried to be direct and respectful and rational, and you are continuing to re-frame everything I say inaccurately and in the least favorable light.  This feels very much like bad faith, Elmurriachi, and I challenge to you reconsider your own motivations.  Do you really want to discuss the issues on the table or continue issuing sarcastic (“You’re a gem rynsa!”) and distorted commentary?   
     
    “I really just think that if all of us privileged, well-educated cyclists eliminate the tendency to appropriate the language of the oppressed into our purported ‘struggle against cars and car culture’, people will take us a lot more seriously.”

    This is an interesting point, but I disagree.  First of all, the larger public already doesn’t take us seriously.  And it’s not just “privileged, well-educated cyclists” that are struggling against the car culture.  There are communities all around the world that share this battle.  So, if anything, the language is a reflection of much larger social and political solidarities.  Second, why can’t we own our oppression?  I mean, the alternative to what you have described as “appropriat[ion]” (another loaded word choice, by the way, that I vehemently rebuke) is what exactly?  Silence?  Submission?  Full-sail adoption of the the language of the oppressor?  Is that what you’re advocating, Elmurriachi?  That we should abide by the status quo and just be grateful that we’re not dying in the desert?  And why are we suddenly talking about undocumented migrants?  This all seems very, very problematic, to say the least.

    rynsa

  49. 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.

  50. Scott,

    “…the hippie’s rural Arkansas solar power business almost certainly wasn’t
    successful for the same reason such efforts always fail with lower
    income consumers; it costs so much more up-front that only the wealthy
    can afford to tie up money in an investment that will take years to pay
    itself off before it can result in any savings.”

    This is a very good point.  I agree.  Solar power investment has long been out of reach for the underclass.  But this is not the whole picture.  There are other economic and political factors at play that have dramatically impacted the development of the alternative energy sector.  Consider government subsidies.  Consider hugely powerful lobbying organizations representing coal, oil, and natural gas, Detroit, Wall Street, and foreign companies?  Consider the costly Madison Ave. advertising strategies that  have worked for years to directly vilify and marginalize the sustainable energy message.  Consider a multitude of factors beyond just the dollars and sense of buying solar power kit.   

    My point: the things that ensured the failure of my friends in Arkansas (among others) were numerous and relentless.  It’s not just a cost issue.

    “But the world is still full of people who sincerely believe that it’s
    really due to some “big oil” conspiracy – usually those same people have
    no idea just how much petroleum product actually goes into the
    fabrication of solar cell systems…. Our friend was just informing us that he is one of those people.”
     
    I’m well aware of the oil-intensive manufacturing process of solar cells, having once visited a factory in China that produces parts for their ubiquitous solar-power hot water heaters.  There is also an ample selection of reputable texts available to attest to the downsides of solar power, including a few things you haven’t mentioned: water use, chemical waste, the physical disposal of outdated panels, etc.

    But, again, Scott, this gets back to my earlier point regarding the hostility I have received from you.  Why are you implying that I’m ignorant of the complexities of solar power production?  I’m clearly not.  Why do you consistently belittle my character?  Make me the “other”; or as you put it, “one of those people.”  This is really bad form.  Can we not respectfully dialogue about the ideas?  Why must my personhood always be called into question?

    rynsa

  51. 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.

  52. Not everybody tools down Mountain and Third to get where they’re going. Having been shot and beaten on South Park Avenue for the crime of riding home from work, Rynsa needn’t apologize to me for his rape analogy. I also think his question about what Samuel Abate might think how it feels to interact with the car culture is a worthy one.

  53. Elmurriachi,

    I’ll try to answer your post point by point, so as to mitigate any confusion.

    Please, let’s look at exactly what I said:

    “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?”

    First sentence: I honored that you may be right.  Second sentence: I honored that I may have chosen a poor representation of the car culture.  Third sentence: I asked (“is there a chance”) if the rape analogy was too simple and soft?  Fourth and fifth sentences: I offered suggestions (in quotes) for other more appropriate analogies, and then ended with a question mark to indicate it was merely a suggestion and not a hard-n-fast opinion.  Sixth sentence: I stated “I don’t know,” thus indicating apprehension, and then asked you for your suggestions regarding what’s the best analogy in this case.  Seventh sentence: again, I asked what is the best analogy for the problems of the car culture.

    Now, where exactly did I try to “compare [the car culture] to genocide?”  That word was in quotes and followed by a question mark, thus making it a hypothetical.  I did NOT say, hey, you know, the car culture is like genocide.  It was not a declaration.  I offered a suggested alternative to the rape analogy and then sought your opinion about it.

    What would you call the annual casualty rate of the car culture, Elmurriachi?  The numbers dwarf rape by leaps and bounds.  Is it really so incredibly that I could merely suggest that “plague” and “genocide” might, theoretically, potentially, hypothetically be appropriate analogies for the car culture?  I really don’t see why this wrong.  Every day, entire species of living beings die because of systemic pathologies like the car culture.  Why is it so problematic to inquire if “genocide” might be an apt description of such events?  It seems perfectly rational to me.  Why are you so afraid of that word?

  54. Elmurriachi,

    “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.”

    Okay, sure.  I’ll go along with that, I suppose, in general.  There are instances in the historical record, however, when some folks have actually opted into both rape and genocide.  It boggles the mind, but some people readily participate in their own oppression.”

    “You’re a guy who’s made a decision to ride a bike in a transit system geared for cars.”

    Yes, exactly.  I’ve made a decision based on the limited context of a “transit system geared for cars.”  Imagine what kind of decisions I could make if I didn’t have to live in the car culture?

    “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.’

    I’m cool with this sentiment.

    “But listen dude:”

    I don’t know why you feel it is appropriate to refer to me in such informal terms.  I’ll take this as a show of kindness.  May I likewise call you “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.”

    Yeah, I guess.  See above regarding the “limited context” within which one makes such a choice.  The choices one makes certainly doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

    “You’re not being oppressed.”

    I suppose you won’t be shocked to learn that I totally disagree. 

    “You’re riding a bike and trying to get the system that is gear towards cars more viable and safe for bikes. And that’s great.”

    Well, that’s some of what I’m trying to do, yes.  But I’m also trying to dismantle the car culture.  Let’s not forget that part, too.

    “But to somehow think you’re involved in some kind of crusade against ‘car culture’…”

    I don’t “think” this, Elmurriachi, I know it!  In fact, I just said it.  Rewind… I said, “I’m also trying to dismantle the car culture.”  This isn’t some idea in my head, it’s a clearly stated goal.

    “…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,”

    I’m sorry you feel this way but, naturally, I disagree.  To “bring up subjects,” as you rightly described it, is hardly a crime.  Hell, I’m not even sure it’s in bad taste.  It might be provocative, yes, but provocative isn’t the same thing as “denigrating and insulting.”  Most of my cultural heroes were provocative, but they were also very moral individuals with deep integrity.  Besides, isn’t this a moot point?  Especially so since I only compared the car culture to rape, which may ultimately be too generous an analogy.  And I never compared the car culture to genocide.  I asked you if you thought it was appropriate.  You never answered me back, by the way.

    “…and altogether foolish and childish for thinking your morning commute to a job somehow embodies or illustrates those crimes.”

    I never said anything of the sort.  I challenge you, sir, to point out where I said my morning commute “embodies” rape and genocide.  This verges on slander, frankly. 

    rynsa

  55. Elmurriachi,

    “Which brings me to ‘white bred vicitimization fetish’.”

    Yeah, I think that’s very poetic, and I’ve already explained my beef with the “white bred” portion of the phrase. 

    “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.”

    This is a very interesting sociological and psychological perspective.  I’m not skilled enough in these areas to offer an opinion, but that’s okay.  Anyway, I absolutely don’t fit into this category (except maybe the “well-educated” part) so I’ll just be patient until we can get back on track with the discussion.

    “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. ”

    Again, very intriguing.  Not at all sure how it relates to me or my ideas, but certainly entertaining.  You might consider writing a book on the subject if you have the time.  I’m sure the academic community would welcome your analysis.

    “And a lot of times, I see that trend in the bike culture.”

    Really?  I guess we run in different circles.

    “Young, well-educated white people raging and carrying on about oppression, taking on that language in the effort to promote biking.”

    Yes, we definitely don’t run in the same circles.

    “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.”

    Okay.  Well, you should probably have a sit-down with these friends of yours and get this stuff off your chest.  I’m sure they’ll find it interesting, as well.  Thanks, again, for the psycho therapeutic analysis.  Fascinating stuff, Elmurriachi.

    “Something you must, must consider”

    Yes, I’m listening…

    “…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.”

    Wow!  Bombshell!  This is a very, very, very revealing sentence.  I’ll ignore the incomplete speculation that I exclusively “identify with the underdogs and victims of those industries,” but I can’t let the other stuff go.  I mean, are you saying that I should be more grateful to the “shameful” auto, oil, and capitalist system?  Really?!  Am I hearing you right?  Did you suddenly just become an apologist/advocate for the car culture?!!  Wow, man!  That’s kind of shocking.  It explains SO much!

    “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.”

    Oh, man… you’re still going.  Amazing!!  Frankly, I think I owe you some gratitude here.  Your words have provided a lot of insight; they are the exact opposite to my own worldview.  You have articulated the very essence of what’s wrong with the status quo.  So, here’s my contribution to the psycho-social chit-chat you recently initiated: Stockholm Syndrome.  If you don’t know what that is, please feel free to look it up and get back to me.  In any case, thank you so much for giving voice to frustrations and validating my radical point of view.  Seriously… thank you, Elmurriachi.

    rynsa

  56. “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.

  57. Elmurriachi,

    “This is the major bone I have to pick with you about your rape and genocide characterizations.”

    Again, I didn’t make a genocide characterizations, but please go on.

    “Victims of those kinds of crimes don’t have a choice in being made a victim.”

    Again, I think we both agree on this point.  Lack of power or control in inherent to the idea of rape, which is part of the reasons why I used it as an analogy in the first place.  Continue…

    “Your victimhood, your ‘oppression’, is a choice.”

    Uh… no, sir.  Absolutely, patently false.  This is the kind of think I hear a lot of Oprah, and I think it’s bunk.
     
    “Your oppression is a luxury.”

    Some of my oppression(s) are luxuries, yes.  Having to sit through previews before the movie shows is definitely a “luxury oppression,” for sure.  Having to bury family members because of cancers that were developed as a result of wage slave obligation in the factories of the car culture, well, that’s no luxury at all.  Actually, that really sucks.  I don’t like burying my loved ones early, Elmurriachi.

    “This is why people do not respond to the kind of anger and aggression that so many ‘bike advocates’ demonstrate against car culture.”

    Wait, I’m confused.  They don’t respond to anger because you are unable to make a distinction between kinds of oppression?  I didn’t realize you were so pivotal to the ideological health of our community.  Also, who are these cyclists that “demonstrate against the car culture?”  I know maybe two or three that are satellites at BICAS, but that’s about it.  Certainly not the middle-class managers of the BAC.  Most of the “bike advocates” I know are decidedly chipper, middle-of-the-road, friendlies.  You must have been exposed to some really unhappy people in your day.  I’m sorry for that.  Maybe you should invite Ms. Brouse out for a beer with the homies.  She seems like a nice lady.
     
    “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),”

    The word “obsession” is terribly loaded.  I prefer to think of it as an awareness.   Besides, the “other” comment was used to describe the actions of Scott. He has been very hostile and unwelcoming to me.  It’s unfortunate, really.

    “…is really more about defining identity for the person expressing it,”

    Wow, that’s verging on the absurd.  You’re saying I’m making Scott “the other” by defending myself and pointing out that his repetitive, vitriolic, belittling posts are making me “an other?”  This is some meta-level stuff, and we could go around in circles for ages.  I mean, if I said you’re making me “the other” by saying I’m making Scott “the other” by suggesting he’s making me “the other,” would you come back with something about how I’m making you “the other” because of other, other other, other?!  When does it end?  

    “…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.”

    I have considered these things and wrote about them.  As previously stated, ad nauseum, I think we should work towards dismantling the car culture.  I stand by that opinion.

    “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.”

    I think you have some subject confusion.  Too many pronouns.

    “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.”

    I agree.  I feel like I live in grey area, so you’ll get no complain from me about “reductive” dualism.

    rynsa

  58. Elmurriachi,

    “You
    cited statistics for car-related deaths, and then suggested that rape
    wasn’t going far enough in an analogy,”

    This is not true.  I didn’t suggested the rape MAY not be going far enough.  There’s a difference there.

    “…and suggested genocide.”

    Again, not true.  I suggested “genocide” MAY be a more appropriate analogy.  And then I asked your opinion about it.

    “So yeah, I
    took that as you suggesting that being a biker in a car-centric world
    could be termed relative to genocide.”

    This is the definition of a logical fallacy.  I never said “being a biker.”  I have much bigger horizons.  More than bikers are oppressed by the car culture.

    “However, my POINT, which
    you entirely missed, is that ANY kind of comparison along these lines is
    foolhardy.”

    Actually, I’ll give you that.  You may be right!  I don’t know.  In fact, I said, “I don’t know.”  And then I asked what is a better analogy for the damage caused by the car culture.  You still haven’t offered one yet, by the way.

    “Genocide is genocide.”

    A banana is a banana. 

    “It has no relation, comparative or
    otherwise, to the ‘bikes vs. cars’ debate. Period.”

    Okay.  That’s your opinion.  Finally, you have proferred a verdict on the genocide analogy.  I disagree with you, but out of respect for your sensibilities I will never (and I have never) state that the car culture is like genocide.  I’ll save those kinds of comparisons for my friends who aren’t afraid to recognize the murderous, devastating realities of the car culture.  Look at that!  We came to a reconciliation!  Wonderful!

    “Honestly, I
    cannot believe I am sitting her explaining this to someone.”

    Something else we have in common!!

    “I have to
    assume at this point you’re choosing to selectively read and quabble
    over details and act like this.”

    You should be careful with assumptions.  Like this one; this is bad one.

    “You know what you said.”

    Yes, I do.  But apparently you don’t.  That’s okay.  Miscommunication is pervasive these days.    

    “So there’s no
    point in continuing this discussion.”

    That’s fine.  I’m busy as hell anyway.  But, I take solace in the face that we did achieve something today: we confirmed that you don’t like genocide as a potential analogy for the car culture.  You know, we could have saved a lot of time if you would have simply answered my original question.  That said, I really did find the psychological discussion enlightening.

    Vaya con Cthulhu, Elmurriachi!  All the best on the road!

    rynsa 

  59. Psibley,
    I am very sorry to hear that you were attacked.  I have ridden South Park 100s of times, many after dark, and had no problems.  Why do you believe the attack was because you were on a bike?

  60. I don’t think being on a bike was the proximal cause of either attack. But it is more difficult to shoot someone or club them with a baseball bat if they are inside a vehicle. Or walking on the sidewalk for that matter. Crimes of opportunity; possibly videotaped for their amusement. In the latter assault, TPD refused to visit the attacker’s home, citing a lack of “exigency.” I tend to tune out congratulatory talk about gold statuses and such.

  61.  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.

  62.  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.

  63.  Scott,

    None of what you just wrote follows from anything I’ve said.  I’ve tried to meet you in the middle, Scott.  But now I’m done.

    Good luck to you, and goodbye.

    rynsa

  64. Ryn’s comments do not fit either of the 2 definitions of troll that I am aware of.  Unless of course you’re just trying to ascribe motive.  An interesting discussion that has unfortunately been sullied by the lack of a civil discourse.  The introduction of ad hominem fallacy as an argument wasn’t Ryn’s.  I do think that rather unfortunately he couldn’t stop himself from engaging in the meta of pointing out repeatedly that he wasn’t being engaged on the merits of the discussion but instead was being taken to task for holding an unpopular opinion.  Anyone calling Ryn unintelligent is either having us on or mistaken. 

    I’m relatively certain that bicyclists do not view monolithically the drivers of cars.  I’m also almost 100% sure that car drivers do not see themselves as all one thing, good, bad etc.  Oddly resentment regarding the presence of bicycles on roadways does seem to be a widely held position amongst the driving public.  Smiling and meekly hugging the side of the road is not going to solve that.  When I read serially in the comments to articles regarding bicycles in transportation people raging about spandex clad gangs of thugs riding 3 or more abreast and impeding traffic it’s clear to me that their reactions are not proportionate or rationale.  Clearly the reason traffic is bad has absolutely nothing to do with bicyclists

  65. I try to stay out of the comments because I don’t believe my voice as the author or publisher is appropriate in the discussion. I also don’t participate in the comments because, frankly, I don’t have the spare time.

    While I may agree or disagree with the points made in this comment thread, I disagree with the characterization that Rynsa is a troll.

    I’m
    not particularly happy with how this discussion has evolved by all parties involved.

    I’ll be publishing a comment policy in the next few weeks that I will expect everyone to abide by.

    Thanks,

    Mike

  66. You may not have been following this blog long enough to realize that he’s worked very hard for a long time to earn the distain that many here have taken up.  In spite of his contrary claims, the issues he raises have all been addressed every time the topic returns to how much damage scofflaw/asshole bicyclists do to public perception of cycling in general.  In spite of his insistence that he is presenting a reasoned argument, once one shovels down through the huge pile of pompous verbiage, all he really has to say on the matter is “I don’t like cars, cars shouldn’t exist, I’m victimized by car culture, therefore I should be subject to car laws or care about how my actions hurt others.”  When called on that attitude, all he offers in reply is to refloat the above on an even larger raft of bloviation and start whining about how he’s now being victimized.  It’s become pretty obvious that since his core argument is flawed enough to not stand on it’s own, all he’s got left is to wear everyone down.

  67. Hog wash. Most cyclists that I see are rude and have a sence of entitlement. We provide a wide path and they have to ride the line. How is that fixed? Cyclists in my area clog the prime parking in our local mall and park their bikes on sidewalks. On and on…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.