Originally Posted by
Ian Freeman
I'm not sure if this is the correct forum to post this, but it has to do with commuting:
DUI. Poverty. Car crash. All the less than desirable reasons people look to bikes for transport. This particular breed of bicycle commuters isn't out on two wheels because they want to be, it's because a bike is the only option left to them. More often than not, these are the people riding a bicycle on the wrong side of the road, or at night without lights, commonly on a bike that is not remotely fit for them and causes handling dangers.
So what do we think? Is any bicycle on the road something to be commendable? Do we hope these people have epiphanies and come to love traveling by bike? Do they do the vehicular cyclist commuters a disservice by setting a bad example to drivers? Is their view of the bicycle as a last resort detrimental to bike culture? I'll stop there.
Long thread, so I haven't read all of it. Maybe tomorrow. I did want to address your points, though.
1: From my perspective, absolutely, but it's more complicated than that. There is often an enormous disparity between the kind of "at need" commuter you are referring to than the "by-choice," largely middle-class commuters that make up most of this board and what you might think of as "bike culture." Most of us have found a way to work this ostensibly lower-class form of transportation into our middle-class identities, sometimes rather defensively. Much is made of the fact that commuting by bicycle is a choice, which somehow makes it more pure. I can't tell you how many times I've read posts where some commuter, being harassed by motorists or others, brings up the fact that they have a car - often nicer than that of their harassers - as a kind of ironic badge of honor.
Heaven forfend that we actually be perceived as working-class people without the power to make that choice!
Basically, I suspect that the issues involved in being so deep in the working-class that transportation is difficult to afford become much easier to negotiate when it becomes possible to "trade-up" to a car. From that perspective, lacking the power to make that choice probably sucks a lot. Having a car when you need it is a huge advantage, so why not seize the opportunity? Anyway, point is, I'm glad to see anyone riding a bike, but I'm even happier when people can seize more agency in their lives. I'd most prefer to see a world of equivalent access where we ALL made the choice to ride our bikes.
2. Yes! To gain access to automotive ownership and the advantages thereof, but continue to ride by choice - that would be wonderful. However, I don't blame for anyone who doesn't, given the circumstances. I don't happen to think that car access is a class-leveler (nothing is), but it makes it a hell of a lot easier to pass. I think that this is a shame, and I'd like to see a world where things are different.
3. Any "bad example" to drivers is an invention of those drivers to justify the oppression of cyclists as a class. Mistreatment by motorists has nothing to do with the actual behavior of cyclists, it is a
political issue. I'm by now entirely fed-up with this whole line of reasoning. It's nonsense. Of course we should all strive to ride legally and set a good example, but for our safety and the safety of other riders. Riding legally is not safer because it makes drivers happy (it doesn't), it is safer because of the way traffic works. Increased safety due to legal riding is a direct result of traffic mechanics, not because it somehow makes motorists be nicer to us.
4. Define "bike culture." "At-need" commuters are not PART of bike culture. They have no relationship to it. How can they influence it in any way? And what aspect of it might be in such need of protection, anyway?