RPK79

Is this the understanding backlash against car free advocacy thread or the argue about backlash against car free advocacy thread? I'm trying to help you understand.

RPK79

It doesn't matter if it is imagined or not. I'm simply trying to help people understand the backlash. I, personally, couldn't care less about living car free advocacy one way or the other.

Roody

I understand it: It's a con.

cooker

It struck me that maybe we weren't just discussing the backlash issue, we were living it; as I thought there was an edginess and tone of antagonism to some of the posts in this thread.
I think understanding the backlash in the world at large is good, but I also thought it would be interesting to take it down one level (what's the opposite of meta?) and try to understand how it crept into the microcosm of this thread.

RPK79

I think some are attempting to quell the backlash in this thread and it is just turning into an argument. So, instead of learning about where the backlash is coming from people become defensive and argue against it and in the end don't learn anything.

cooker

So let's stay on topic. Do you think we are seeing the "backlash" occurring even in this thread, and can we analyse our own role it in to understand it on a personal level?

RPK79

I think it is more important to understand where the backlash is coming from so that you can advocate in a manner that keeps the backlash from occurring in the first place. Once the other party is in a position to oppose you it becomes near impossible to sway them in your favor. If the cyclical argument begins it will continue forever much like a cat with a buttered piece of toast attached to its back spinning in midair.

cooker

Okay, but you aren't just a commentator, you're player too. To be specific - I thought you showed "backlash" in post 252, which was a sarcastic reframing of my post 251. Can you explain why you reacted that way - was there anything that you took personally in my post that elicited such a strong response? I actually thought my post 251 was fine and didn't expect that kind of reaction.

RPK79

It was this statement which set me off. It just drips of tin foil hat and conspiracy theory. Any time someone starts to blame "big corporations" (and I know you didn't use that exact statement) my eyes roll back and I lose interest in listening to them.

Roody

Since Im afraid that right now I'm more a part of the problem rather than the solution, I'm going to back off.

I am frustrated because I feel like I (a general "I") am always being accused of attacking people who drive cars, when that is very far from what I mean to do. In my posts here I bend over backwards to avoid putting car owners on the defensive. But still there are those who feel offended and threatened. I would love to understand why this happens, but it appears that nobody else understands it any better than I do.

Roody

Have you ever read any of the oil company advertising? Do you think they spend millions on those ads because they are ineffective?

RPK79

No, as I said earlier I think they spend millions on those ads in response to negative advertising against them. I can't blame them for doing so since they are in a business. There are literally groups out there trying to put them out of business.

cooker

Again I'm very surprised at your reaction, since I don't think the statement I made is so outrageous. Of course large corporations want to make money (that's why they exist) and in addition to simply selling into the market, they try to use their resources to make a market, through various means: for example through advertising, using sophisticated psychological techniques to sell a dream as much as a product; and also through politics, with huge budgets set aside for political lobbying and donations to candidates hoping to influence public policy and legislation in their favour. So it is their practise, (and some would say it is good business practise) to try to shape society to make their products integral to our lifestyles. I'm still unsure of why this seems to you like me spewing conspiracy theories, when to me it seems I'm stating the obvious. What am I missing?

Roody

It's difficult (and pointless) to determine who is responding and who is initiating. Oil companies profit enormously from practices that harm others, and those others would like to curtail the harmful practices.

Mobile 155

If I might interject once more it is the concept of "back lash" that causes the debate. To a degree it is hubris to assume there is a back lash when one small person or group of people are trying to reverse the juggernaut that has become power source of industry and transportation, ICE. As far cars and trucks go 90 plus percent of the households in the US reported to the census collectors that they had access to a car. With the exception of some small local council meeting dealing with specific topics like a bike lane in front of a business or funding for bike racks car free or even car light cyclists don't even show on the radar. It isn't a back lash if they don't know you exist or believe you are about to become extinct. They, society, know all about Lance Armstrong and maybe the Tour De France but they don't know or care about the utility cyclist or the car free. Only cyclists scan the news for cycling related subjects most of the juggernaut rolls right by such news and looks to see what Justin Bieber or Molly Cyrus has done lately. The cycling movement has been stalled for at least 40 years in the US and it doesn't look like they are getting up to speed anytime soon. So saying there is a back lash makes some people "feel" like they have joined a cause.

I simply don't see it as a back lash as much as business as normal. The system is moving much like a ship heading to the dock. It doesn't take much to keep it moving forward but the effort required to stop it is tremendous. So often the goodies received from society are like the tossing of bread to the Bears at the Zoo. The bears may believe they tossed the bread because they could stand on their back legs but it truth it was all part of the show. Without the "show" making politicians look compassionate, then the bears would get fed like a pet dog in a bowl in the back at the same time every day. The bears have no effect on the keepers but they may feel the keepers are reacting to them. IMHO

RPK79

See what I mean about the environmentalists being the face of the movement.

Roody

So I guess it's ok to be an environmentalist as long as you don't actually mention the environment. We wouldn't want to offend the polluters!

Roody

I think you're right if you're saying there's no backlash against a carfree movement. I don't think it even qualifies as a movement here in North America. The only place I see backlash against carfree is here on this forum.

I do think there is mild backlash against cycling in some locations. This has been covered in the mainstream press as well as the cycling blogs.

I think there's also major backlash against environmentalism that has been going on for more than 50 years. Calling it backlash is probably inaccurate, however. It's more of a positive force, albeit with negative consequences.

cooker

The backlash is very real, and you experienced it yourself, as you described earlier in the thread. Simply by showing up somewhere on a bike, you had some truck drivers making assumptions about you and trying to start something.

There are all kinds of cliches in circulation in the media about cyclists or car-free people being losers, or only doing it while suspended for DUI or they're being ridiculed or blown away in the movies or whatever. We're not being ignored, we're definitely on the radar, and pretty often not in a good way.

Mobile 155

Look at that, we agree again. Once or twice every year isn't bad. Socially, if not actually, being an environmentalist means you are against motorcycle races from Barstow to Vegas. You oppose the Baja 500 and 1000. In other words "normal" people see using the land for recreation as something their tax money pays for. The people that resists this "normal" desire are often environmentalists. Not always but the reputation was established a long time ago and it isn't soon forgotten. So like you I don't think it is a real back lash and much as an effort to just push through with maximum force and agenda that the society in the US is already using. Yes we will consider cycling "if" it doesn't require any effort on societies part. Yes we will give a friendly pat on the back to cycling and walking if we don't have to be discomforted at any time for doing so. But when someone is out numbered 9 to 1 nothing the 9 do is a back lash and if there is a back lash it comes from the 1 that doesn't like the direction society is going.

To give an example, if you remember I joined a local Green Coalition about two years ago. Of the maybe 40 member exactly two of us are cyclists. The two of us are considered the "experts" when ever we do work on a cycling project. We are picked to work the cycling rodeos for kids. Propose bike routes and recruit people the come out and ride a proposed route. But we have several Solar "experts", several recycling "experts" and several Hazardous waste "experts". So would you like to guess how much time is spent on cycling issues during the year? No you know I'll bet, maybe one 20th of the time. When you aren't really even a thorn in the side it is hard to think of yourself as inciting a back lash. Sometimes getting a frown is the only recognition we get, and not changing their direction because of our objections does not a Back Lash make.

Roody

I agreed only that there is no backlash against a carfree movement. There is a mighty backlash against environmentalism, and in the last 15 years it has been highly effective at swaying public opinion. However, environmentalism is still a popular view, generally embraced by 40 to 50 percent of the American public, according to Gallup. This is down from peak support of about 70 percent in 2000.

https://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/environment.aspx

I-Like-To-Bike

I don't think there is any backlash against car free advocacy even on this forum. There is often a sharp reaction/backlash to posts that are about all sorts of advocacy issues that are NOT about car free living, and towards posters that insist on inserting/"discussing" those other issues at every opportunity.

SHBR

If corporations and governments were more transparent, I'd agree with you.

For starters, government officials should wear NASCAR style uniforms showing their corporate sponsors.

That way we'd all know who they take their orders from.

I love how the corporate media tells us, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." yet they consistently don't give us all the facts.

Mobile 155

Support in word or in deed? Do the supporters walk the walk, use cloth bags, take public transportation, not buy goods produced by child labor, not drive with just one in a car? No they will let someone else do that. It is only a back lash when you cause someone to change their direction to deal with you specifically. We already know that doesn't happen with cycling, that is an after thought if any though at all. Do they send their problems to other countries like their electronic waste to China so women and children can perform by hand tasks that are done by machines in Europe because of the hazardous nature of the dis assembly? Or is the new cell phone market and the waste it creates not at 1800 percent? I have found that knowing an environmentalist is like having a crazy uncle. Yes they are part of your family and you acknowledge them but in private they are still your "Crazy" uncle.

Machka 

+1

[/end_thread]