Is cyclist/cycling/bike advocacy political?

[Helmet Head]

What, if any, aspects of advocacy are political?

What, if any, aspects of advocacy are not political?

political |pəˈlitikəl|
adjective
of or relating to the government or public affairs

[Recumbomatic]

Yes.


Asking the local/state/fed government to spend more $ on bike resources is political.

Riding a bike as a demonstration of what is possible is not.

[chipcom]

Politics is the process and method of making decisions for groups. Although it is generally applied to governments, politics is also observed in all human group interactions including corporate, academic, and religious.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political

[slagjumper]

Ridership Advocacy is concerned with getting more people on bikes and deals more with overcoming individual resistance to cycling or just getting more folks, young and old, level 1s and 2s to ride more.

There is a two way relationship between Ridership advocacy in that the more riders you get the more powerful political bike advocacy will be. And the more effective political bike advocacy is in meeting key goals, the more beginners are going to get on a bike.

[skanking biker]

I see cycling advocacy as a trinity of advocacy. The first aspect of advocacy entails enocuraging more people to ride and get out of their cars. To the extent this necessitates persuading other people, there is some political hue to the first aspect. The second aspect invovles educating the public about cyclists' rights, which includes the first aspect. This too involves politics indirectly, only insomuch as by educating the public as to cyclists' rights you may make the first and third aspects easier. The third aspect invovles "lobbying" for political change at the local, state, and federal level. This " pure political" aspect of advocacy includes everything from supporting or oppossing legislation to becoming involved in local financing and design decisions concerning roads and other facilities.

It all depends on how you define "politics." If your definition is limited to supporting or opposing specific legislation, then only number 3 consitutes poltical advocacy. If, however, you define politics to include all instances in which you seek to persuade people to change their behavior, then one must acknowledge some political aspects is numbers 1 and 2.

[Helmet Head]

Politics is the process and method of making decisions for groups. Although it is generally applied to governments, politics is also observed in all human group interactions including corporate, academic, and religious.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political
So which aspects of advocacy are not political? Which are?

[kf5nd]

In our area, we have elected officials who are anti-bike. We need better ones, or we need the current ones to change their thinking. So yes, it is political.

[Treespeed]

I would argue that everytime someone visibly rides VC that it's political.

[JRA]

I see we're playing semantic games again. All advocacy is political (unless it's legal advocacy, which is indirectly political).

Riding a bicycle is not necessarily political but, then, it's not necessarily advocacy, either.

[Treespeed]

I see we're playing semantic games again. All advocacy is political (unless it's legal advocacy, which is indirectly political).

Riding a bicycle is not necessarily political but, then, it's not necessarily advocacy, either.

Riding VC at rush hour in Los Angeles is definitely a political statement. :rolleyes:

[bigpedaler]

advocacy is the promotion of a special interest to society at large. how can that not be political?

the LEAST political thing we as cycling advocates can do is just to ride. it goes up from there, from cajoling a friend/relative to join us, to protests of legislature we oppose, to critical mass (more a demonstration of civil disobedience), to open campaigning for/against the subject d'jour.

[pj7]

Of course it is. How can one advocate for something if not in a political sense? Politics can be defined as is the process and method of making decisions for groups. So to advocate for something, you are speaking as/for a group (in most cases). But stating that advocacy *is* politics applied to a government is an overstatement.
What goes on here, on these forums, is NOT advocacy in my opinion but rather a discussion (or lack there of) of things that can be advocated for. We all have the same *wants* for the most part. So how can you advocate to someone who wants the same thing?
What I see going on in here is... well... well it's not advocacy!

[Helmet Head]

the LEAST political thing we as cycling advocates can do is just to ride.
That's like saying the least political thing Rosa Parks could do is refuse to obey the demand of a bus driver to relinquish her seat to a white man.

Getting on the road and asserting our rights to do so is not all that different, and relative to its own political context, no less important.

[Helmet Head]

Absent anyone being able to identify even a single aspect of advocacy that is not political, I had no choice but to vote yes.

I see we're playing semantic games again. All advocacy is political (unless it's legal advocacy, which is indirectly political).
Well, some people (who are not defending their positions here), have asserted that advocacy is not political, or is not necessarily political. Indeed, the majority in this poll is picking the middle position, which means they think much of advocacy is not political. Curious that, since no one has yet identified a single aspect of advocacy that is not political.

[pj7]

That's like saying the least political thing Rosa Parks could do is refuse to obey the demand of a bus driver to relinquish her seat to a white man.

Getting on the road and asserting our rights to do so is not all that different, and relative to its own political context, no less important.

Well, she was breaking the law was she not? So I don't see what she did as being an advocate, but rather as being a rebellious protester.
And being on the road on a bike is not the same, as we are not breaking the law and our government has given us the right to be there, whereas Rosa Parks had not been afforded the right to refuse her seat... yet.

[pj7]

Absent anyone being able to identify even a single aspect of advocacy that is not political, I had no choice but to vote yes.


Well, some people (who are not defending their positions here), have asserted that advocacy is not political, or is not necessarily political. Indeed, the majority in this poll is picking the middle position, which means they think much of advocacy is not political. Curious that, since no one has yet identified a single aspect of advocacy that is not political.

Please, give us the definition of "politics" that you are using here as it obviously has many definitions dependant upon the context in which it is used, as somewhat illustrated by one of my previous posts.

[chipcom]

HH, nobody ever said that advocacy does not have a political aspect, I know that I have said that there is a difference between advocacy and POLITICS. Which is why I posted the definition of POLITICS. Riding my bike is not politics, though it might be advocacy. By riding my bike I am not engaged in the process or methods of making decisions for any group of people, but I may be setting an example for a group of people which could be a form of advocacy. In the same vein, Rosa Parks was not not engaged in the process or methods of making decisions for anybody by standing up for her rights as a human being.

Advocacy can be political, but it can also be non-political, depending upon the advocate and their motives. If you choose to be political, that is your business, but some of us advocate for things just because we feel it is the right thing to do, not because we want to participate in the process of making decisions for others.

[pj7]

hell, I just want to ride my bike

[JRA]

HH, nobody ever said that advocacy does not have a political aspect, I know that I have said that there is a difference between advocacy and POLITICS. Which is why I posted the definition of POLITICS. Riding my bike is not politics, though it might be advocacy. By riding my bike I am not engaged in the process or methods of making decisions for any group of people, but I may be setting an example for a group of people which could be a form of advocacy. In the same vein, Rosa Parks was not not engaged in the process or methods of making decisions for anybody by standing up for her rights as a human being.
Wow, Chipcom-Man, what a load of horse manure! ;)

As much as I hate the prospect of debunking one of my heroes, it's gotta be done. Such a gigantic pile of cow patties can not be allowed to stand. (plus, I have a reputation as a pedantic twit to maintain).

Where to begin? Where to begin? Maybe with some definitions taken from the nearest Webster's Unabridged (if you're gonna be pedantic, ya gotta quote from Webster's :D).

politician - a person engaged in politics: frequently used in a derogatory sense (ouch!).
Only a politician would attempt to claim that what Rosa Parks did was not political (and I bet Chipcom-Man even typed that nonsense with a straight face). C-Man truly must be a politician (or, at least, a former one).

C-Man, it's hard to argue with your definition POLITICS: "the process and method of making decisions for groups. Although it is generally applied to governments..."

But ya messed up, dude. The question was not, "Is advocacy politics?" The question was, "Is advocacy political?" Do ya see a difference?

political - of or concerned with government, the state or politics.

Attempting to change laws, or draw attention to unjust laws (civil disobedience is one way), is political (although not necessarily politics). Attempting to change roads (the maintenance of which is generally a function of government) is political (although not necessarily politics). To the extent that they involve action by an organized group or the government, all of the following are political: changing society, saving the world, saving the environment, etc.

Advocacy can be political, but it can also be non-political, depending upon the advocate and their motives. If you choose to be political, that is your business, but some of us advocate for things just because we feel it is the right thing to do, not because we want to participate in the process of making decisions for others.Huh? Chipcom-Man talks in riddles. If it does not affect others, what makes something "the right thing to do?" What are these mythical non-political aspects of advocacy to which you refer? :crash:

[pj7]

Wow, Chipcom-Man, what a load of horse manure! ;)

As much as I hate the prospect of debunking one of my heroes, it's gotta be done. Such a gigantic pile of cow patties can not be allowed to stand. (plus, I have a reputation as a pedantic twit to maintain).

Where to begin? Where to begin? Maybe with some definitions taken from the nearest Webster's Unabridged (if you're gonna be pedantic, ya gotta quote from Webster's :D).

politician - a person engaged in politics: frequently used in a derogatory sense (ouch!).
Only a politician would attempt to claim that what Rosa Parks did was not political (and I bet Chipcom-Man even typed that nonsense with a straight face). C-Man truly must be a politician (or, at least, a former one).

C-Man, it's hard to argue with your definition POLITICS: "the process and method of making decisions for groups. Although it is generally applied to governments..."

But ya messed up, dude. The question was not, "Is advocacy politics?" The question was, "Is advocacy political?" Do ya see a difference?

political - of or concerned with government, the state or politics.

Attempting to change laws, or draw attention to unjust laws (civil disobedience is one way), is political (although not necessarily politics). Attempting to change roads (the maintenance of which is generally a function of government) is political (although not necessarily politics). To the extent that they involve action by an organized group or the government, all of the following are political: changing society, saving the world, saving the environment, etc.

Huh? Chipcom-Man talks in riddles. If it does not affect others, what makes something "the right thing to do?" What are these mythical non-political aspects of advocacy to which you refer? :crash:

Chippy WAS a politician ;)
And if my memory serves me well, Rosa Parks claimed that she did what she did not to make any type of statement, but because she was not in a good mood... or something like that.

[cyclezealot]

like it or not, there is nothing under the sun that is not political.

[chipcom]

Wow, Chipcom-Man, what a load of horse manure! ;)

As much as I hate the prospect of debunking one of my heroes, it's gotta be done. Such a gigantic pile of cow patties can not be allowed to stand. (plus, I have a reputation as a pedantic twit to maintain).

Where to begin? Where to begin? Maybe with some definitions taken from the nearest Webster's Unabridged (if you're gonna be pedantic, ya gotta quote from Webster's :D).

politician - a person engaged in politics: frequently used in a derogatory sense (ouch!).
Only a politician would attempt to claim that what Rosa Parks did was not political (and I bet Chipcom-Man even typed that nonsense with a straight face). C-Man truly must be a politician (or, at least, a former one).

C-Man, it's hard to argue with your definition POLITICS: "the process and method of making decisions for groups. Although it is generally applied to governments..."

But ya messed up, dude. The question was not, "Is advocacy politics?" The question was, "Is advocacy political?" Do ya see a difference?

Yep, I do, which is why I posted a definition of POLITICS and spoke up concerning where I made a statement that 'advocacy is not politics' in response to HH's 'Well, some people (who are not defending their positions here), have asserted that advocacy is not political'. I never said it wasn't political, I said it wasn't politics - and there is a difference as we both have pointed out.


political - of or concerned with government, the state or politics.

Attempting to change laws, or draw attention to unjust laws (civil disobedience is one way), is political (although not necessarily politics). Attempting to change roads (the maintenance of which is generally a function of government) is political (although not necessarily politics). To the extent that they involve action by an organized group or the government, all of the following are political: changing society, saving the world, saving the environment, etc.

Huh? Chipcom-Man talks in riddles. If it does not affect others, what makes something "the right thing to do?" What are these mythical non-political aspects of advocacy to which you refer? :crash:

I can 'advocate' riding a bike to work by riding a bike to work - the act of doing so simply being a personal example of what I think is the right thing to do - having nothing to do with organized groups, government, laws, public policy or anything political. Setting a personal example can be advocacy but not necessarily politics. Now if you prefer all of your personal actions to be considered politically motivated, that's your cross to bear, not mine. ;)

BTW, we disagree on Rosa Parks and civil disobedience - I don't consider standing up for our basic human rights to be a political act, even if the desire is to exact a political solution. I consider standing up for our basic human rights to be our duty. ;)

Also consider that if disobeying the law is a political act, our prisons are full of political prisoners. The only thing that makes Rosa Parks a hero, rather than a convict or worse, is the fact that the time was right and enough people agreed with the cause of racial equality to take action. If that bus had been a coach 200 years ago, the only debate would have involved finding the appropriate lynching tree. Indeed, if I took a stand today for my right to grow a freakin plant, would I be considered a dope dealer or a civil rights hero? ;)

You've only scratched the tip of the BS iceberg I can shovel, my friend. :p

[cyclezealot]

government makes the laws in regards to every aspect of cycling. Cyclists' access to public highways, your right to sue motorists when physically threatened by motorists, OSHA monitors bike safety and manufacturer design, some states require cyclists adhere to certain safety requirements, alternative transportation budgets, construction of bike lanes. State transportation planning boards often include cycling advocates within their membership. Some governments actually have become cycling advocates themselves. The list is endless.
You want to further cycling interests you might become involved in government appointed commissions studying the needs of cyclists.
pj7. You just might find someone is doing their best to limit your ability to ride your bike.

[sbhikes]

Cycling advocacy is political, but turning every topic into a VC diatribe is only annoying.

[John E]

That's like saying the least political thing Rosa Parks could do is refuse to obey the demand of a bus driver to relinquish her seat to a white man.

Getting on the road and asserting our rights to do so is not all that different, and relative to its own political context, no less important.

I mostly concur, HH, but where we differ is that I do see a role for A FEW "separate-but-equal" facilities for bicyclists, such as bypasses around interchanges that you would describe as "advanced" or "entertaining for competent cyclists." However, I shall defend your right to bicycle on virtually any public road, including quite a few freeway shoulders (which I use occasionally, as well).

Freedom of mobility, particularly freedom to move under one's own power as a bicyclist or a pedestrian, should be regarded as one of the "natural rights" envisioned by the founders of this nation.

[cyclezealot]

I like John E's belief that the right of movement should be protected as a natural right. Maybe we are allowed to own and use a bike, but we might find in certain cities, that there are certain enfringements on that right. Like , say, - certain locations you can only walk that bike on a sidewalk. In the Netherlands bikes almost share equal status with the automobile. What degree of parity to 'equal status to a car', do we expect to find the the automative crazed US.

[Helmet Head]

HH, nobody ever said that advocacy does not have a political aspect, I know that I have said that there is a difference between advocacy and POLITICS. Which is why I posted the definition of POLITICS. Riding my bike is not politics, though it might be advocacy. Oh, so now you are making the big distinction between "politics" and "political"?

Too bad you didn't do that when you first started making assertions like this:


You and HH have admitted that vehicular cycling, in your terms, has political and technical aspects. Do you have a problem keeping your politics in the proper forum and discussing the technical aspects here? Or are they so closely interwined that you can't separate the two.
Notice how Kail and I admitted that vc advocacy is political, and you claimed it is not in the proper forum based on that alone (after you twisted "political" into "your politics"). The implication was that if it's political (our word, not politics - your word), A&S is not the proper forum.

Pardon me if I misunderstood.

Edit: Please clarify how it is that just because vc has political aspects (in particular, vc advocacy), discussing those aspects does not belong in this forum, and it is only appropriate to discuss the technical aspects of vc here, while it is appropriate to discuss (non-vc?) advocacy in this forum, including the political aspects of it which you admit it has.

[Helmet Head]

Absent anyone being able to identify even a single aspect of advocacy that is not political, I had no choice but to vote yes.


Well, some people (who are not defending their positions here), have asserted that advocacy is not political, or is not necessarily political. Indeed, the majority in this poll is picking the middle position, which means they think much of advocacy is not political. Curious that, since no one has yet identified a single aspect of advocacy that is not political.
Please, give us the definition of "politics" that you are using here as it obviously has many definitions dependant upon the context in which it is used, as somewhat illustrated by one of my previous posts. I am not using the term "politics". I am using the term "political". I provided that definition in the OP.

And for all of you who voted advocacy has non-political aspects, I'm still waiting to hear what those might be.

I can come up with one:

- Notifying the traffic division that a light sensor does not detect bicyclists is arguably not political (no more than calling to report a broken water main is political).

Anything else?

[chipcom]

Oh, so now you are making the big distinction between "politics" and "political"?

Too bad you didn't do that when you first started making assertions like this:

Notice how Kail and I admitted that vc advocacy is political, and you claimed it is not in the proper forum based on that alone (after you twisted "political" into "your politics"). The implication was that if it's political (our word, not politics - your word), A&S is not the proper forum.

Pardon me if I misunderstood.

Edit: Please clarify how it is that just because vc has political aspects (in particular, vc advocacy), discussing those aspects does not belong in this forum, and it is only appropriate to discuss the technical aspects of vc here, while it is appropriate to discuss (non-vc?) advocacy in this forum, including the political aspects of it which you admit it has.

If you will recall, HH, posted definitions of both Advocacy and Politics in another thread, indeed the exact same definition for Politics that I posted hear earlier. That you decided to take a different response out of context to use here does not surprise me.

The point of whole advocacy/politics thing is now moot, since the solution was to separate vc into it's own subforum. But of course a point being moot has never kept you from continuing to try to debate, but as I committed late last night, I'm no longer going be baited into your pointless debates. I'm sure you'll come to whatever conclusions you wish from your poll.

[chipcom]

And for all of you who voted advocacy has non-political aspects, I'm still waiting to hear what those might be.

I can come up with one:

- Notifying the traffic division that a light sensor does not detect bicyclists is arguably not political (no more than calling to report a broken water main is political).

Anything else?

From Post #22, first mentioned even earlier

I can 'advocate' riding a bike to work by riding a bike to work - the act of doing so simply being a personal example of what I think is the right thing to do - having nothing to do with organized groups, government, laws, public policy or anything political. Setting a personal example can be advocacy but not necessarily politics.

I can't help you to explain why you are 'still waiting'. Let me know if you need any further assistance.

[miamijim]

This section of bikeforums is political. I learned a loooooong looooong time ago your not allowed to voice an opinion that goes against the pure the hatred of the car. You also must agrre that 'taking the lane' is your god given right and doing otherwise makes you a troll. At least thats what I was called......

Ride safe..

Jim

[Helmet Head]

If you will recall, HH, posted definitions of both Advocacy and Politics in another thread, indeed the exact same definition for Politics that I posted hear earlier. That you decided to take a different response out of context to use here does not surprise me.
I took a statement that you made earlier (before you posted the definitions) where you twisted "political" into "your politics" as a basis upon which to argue that discussions about VC advocacy do not belong in this forum because they are political.


The point of whole advocacy/politics thing is now moot, since the solution was to separate vc into it's own subforum. But of course a point being moot has never kept you from continuing to try to debate, but as I committed late last night, I'm no longer going be baited into your pointless debates. I'm sure you'll come to whatever conclusions you wish from your poll.
It's not moot, nor pointless, because if you still feel that VC advocacy discussions did not belong in this forum due to their political nature, then, to be consistent, discussions of any advocacy issues that have a political nature do not belong in this forum.

Please clarify.

[cyclezealot]

This section of bikeforums is political. I learned a loooooong looooong time ago your not allowed to voice an opinion that goes against the pure the hatred of the car. You also must agrre that 'taking the lane' is your god given right and doing otherwise makes you a troll. At least thats what I was called......
Ride safe..Jim
Do we impose our values on others. Maybe we do? But our values are our values. Can't argue with them. For those who blame the car for the world's oil addiction, for motorist rage, for the state of the national health, for the rage motorists feel after coming home from a 100 minute car commute, for the cities' devastation.
Hard to overcome those prejudices. More often than not I hate the car, even tho I will always have one. My question, Jim. Did you expect to change their views or did you get flamed for not agreeing with them or are you angry because you don't like their views. Just because some of us feel that way, does not mean we all expect you to. ?

[rhm]

the LEAST political thing we as cycling advocates can do is just to ride.

Yeah, but there are people who percieve bicycling as a political statement.

Case in point: On the early evening of election day last November, I was among a large number of commuters who got off a train at a certain station in suburban New Jersey. Most of my fellow commuters headed to their parked cars, while a few, including myself, went to our parked bicycles. We all passed through a gauntlet of volunteers who were canvassing for the local congressman. As it happened, these volunteers had positioned themselves right in the bicycle parking area, where they very politely addressed each of the commuters who were headed for their cars, asking "have you voted yet?" The strange thing was, they accosted only the people who were heading for their cars. After they had gone by, the volunteers got together and stood around talking to one another, waiting for the next train and the next wave of commuters. The bicycle commuters were, at this point, still there-- stowing our gear, putting on our helmets, &c. This would have been the perfect time for those volunteers to canvass us... but they didn't bother.

It seemed the volunteers had made a mental calculation that anyone with a bicycle was not going to vote for their candidate.

Anyone want to guess that congressman's political affiliation?

[Falkon]

It's socio-political, but really it should be common sense. for most of us it is. Live and let live. Whether you ride, walk, or drive, be safe and keep the safety of others in mind.

This apparantly only exists in a utopian community.

[stubblehead]

That's like saying the least political thing Rosa Parks could do is refuse to obey the demand of a bus driver to relinquish her seat to a white man.

Getting on the road and asserting our rights to do so is not all that different, and relative to its own political context, no less important.

yo- Rosa didn't have agenda.
she had tired feet.
somebody else took it and ran.
pedaler was sayin ridin was the smallest on the list.

[donnamb]

yo- Rosa didn't have agenda.
she had tired feet.
somebody else took it and ran.
pedaler was sayin ridin was the smallest on the list.
And you would know very well what bigpedaler was saying, wouldn't you?

[randya]

Riding VC at rush hour in Los Angeles is definitely a political statement. :rolleyes:
Riding a bicycle is a political statement irrespective of whether it's done in the VC manner or not; or whether the person on the bicycle thinks that they are making a political statement or not. In the same way, driving a motor vehicle is a political statement, whether the motorist thinks so or not.

[chipcom]

Riding a bicycle is a political statement irrespective of whether it's done in the VC manner or not; or whether the person on the bicycle thinks that they are making a political statement or not. In the same way, driving a motor vehicle is a political statement, whether the motorist thinks so or not.

Naa, riding a bicycle is riding a bicycle, driving a car is driving a car, no politics required.

As far as riding VC in LA rush hour, it may or may not be a political statement, but I think it's surely at least a cry for help! :eek: