[from_elsewhere]

Why does seemingly every article about cycling, even if overall in favor of it, end up sprinkled with appeals for the minority to behave? More importantly, is this sort of appeal appropriate for the author to publish?

It's also interesting to note the author is a recreational rather than commuter cyclist. His asserted empathy for motorists and fear of cycling is partly thanks to the privilege of rejecting cycling as an everyday reality of transportation. Can he, in his limited experience, truly understand the world in which everyday cyclists live?

As I see it, this article's conclusion is akin to the following:

> So here’s my proposal: Every time you go out in public, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every interaction everywhere to help white people (and police officers) view black people as predictable members of society who deserve respect.

This editorial insistence on empathizing with motorists paints cyclists as a class of rule-breakers and hooligans, not a diverse and largely forward-thinking group of citizens who happen to be united in their mode of transportation.

In anticipation of dismissive criticism, I assert that from a cyclist's perspective, this is an honest and meaningful comparison, not an over-the-top exaggeration. I'd like to see the above questions earnestly addressed.

[IvyMike]

> Why does seemingly every article about cycling, even if overall in favor of it, end up sprinkled with appeals for the minority to behave?

The answer is, whether most people admit it or not, people resent cyclists.

Before I continue: I'm not saying this is a good thing. But I am saying this is what is happening in a lot of people's brains.

I think the big reason, and this occurs at a subconscious level, is that the presence of cyclists increases your cognitive load. And our brains are pretty taxed by driving as it is. When there are bikes, you've got to pay attention to a completely new type of vehicle that does not move or behave like other vehicles. You've got to look for a vehicle that is hard to see, and that out of the corner of your eye, looks more like a pedestrian than a vehicle. If you could 'eliminate' bikes, there would be a lot less for your brain to worry about.

Add to this that cyclists are the minority, and you can imagine a world without city cyclists, and you're spending all this mental energy on something that feels like it could be "optimized" away. The thought occurs, even if only on a subconscious level, "If those stupid bikes were gone this would be so much easier!"

Once again, I disagree with that way of thinking, but it is a common way of thinking nonetheless.

Self driving cars and protected bike lanes are probably our best best, because changing people's minds seems like a fool's errand.

[oldmanjay]

What an emotionally charged appeal to victimhood

The way I see it, you can accept the reality that you're engaging in a more dangerous activity and take the proper attitude, or you can rage about your ideals from a hospital bed and hope that'll somehow make a difference.

As a motorcyclist, I simply expect that drivers are paying no attention, and it's on me to protect myself. I can go your way, but that's cold comfort to broken bones and torn skin - and yes, I have been wrecked by driver inattention, so this is not merely academic.

I have a very hard time with this modern tendency to enpower victimhood, but as my name indicates, I'm an old man. Might be a generational thing.

[astrodust]

"You were walking on the sidewalk, you had it coming when that car ran you down."

Seriously? We're going to blame the victims here? Cycling should not be a life-or-death activity, especially in designated lanes when observing all traffic rules.

[kelnos]

The parent in no way suggested blaming victims (and your fake-quote is a bit of straw-man hyperbole). He merely suggested that the supposed victims here should take a little extra responsibility for their safety and increase their vigilance.

I'm still the victim if, say, I'm walking in shady part of town at night, looking at my phone instead of paying attention, and I get mugged. But just because I'm the victim in this scenario, it doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't do more to protect myself from a bad outcome.

Would you rather be more vigilant, or increase your chances of a hospital visit? I'm talking about the reality of the situation here, not the ideal world where everyone on the road behaves like we think they should.

[astrodust]

I'm going to suggest that when you "take a little extra responsibility for their safety" you fight for protection, like bike lanes, more vigorous enforcement of laws, and equal rights compared to other vehicle operators.

It's a very American attitude to say things like "don't visit that part of town, it's a bad neighbourhood". What about things like "that part of town is in rough shape, we should work to revitalize it" or "I shouldn't have to live in fear when walking down the street, what can we do to mitigate that fear".

Changing attitudes and the environment that produces them takes time.

[fleitz]

"Cycling should not be a life-or-death activity" is it though, just like driving a car is.

[astrodust]

If you're in a car and you get hit by a car you have much stronger legal protection than if you're mowed down by a car when not in one.

Pedestrian? Cyclist? $50 fine.

That you face stiffer penalties for pirating a DVD or smoking a joint speaks to how broken the legal framework is.

[djent]

In the end, life is strictly a death activity.

[kelukelugames]

"forward-thinking" Eh...that sounds pretty obnoxious. I wouldn't gloat when trying to win sympathy.

Plus it's kind of ridiculous to me because I grew up in a third world country where the primary mode of transportation was biking.

As for diverse...most of the cyclists I know are middle class or above white people with some Asians sprinkled in. All the poor people I know actually take the bus or drive a beater car.

[kelnos]

In anticipation of dismissive criticism, I assert that from a cyclist's perspective, this is an honest and meaningful comparison, not an over-the-top exaggeration.

And I assert that this is a lazy, hyperbolic comparison that tries to compare a ridiculously complex issue involving race, socioeconomic divides, police brutality, and then some, to a fairly simple issue involving cyclists who flaunt the rules of the road, and drivers who ignore cyclists.

I'm a consummate pedestrian in SF who is somewhat afraid of becoming a cyclist, and who drives once or twice a month (mostly to get out of the city). Even I have some close calls with cyclists who think it's cool to ride on the sidewalk when there's a perfectly good (and not even particularly heavily-trafficked) road sitting next to them.

I witness a lot of crap: cyclists running red lights and stop signs, cyclists weaving around stopped traffic at lights in order to get ahead, cyclists riding the wrong way on one-way streets (sometimes on the sidewalk because "that doesn't count" apparently), cyclists riding side-by-side blocking traffic lanes.

Maybe it's not a majority of cyclists who do this stuff, but it is a very large minority.

And then there's my favorite: Critical Mass, a monthly event where a ton of cyclists get together (a bunch of them clearly drunk) and ride around SF en masse, blocking streets and taunting cars. And they wonder why drivers hate them? Seriously?

Having said all that, I do know some cyclists who are awesome and obey the law, and always put safety and vigilance first. I wish everyone was like that.

[jfmiller28]

Check your privilege driver dude.

[roel_v]

What are you saying, that they shouldn't? Because it sure seems like it. And yes, that goes for your analogy.