BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Are urban bicyclists just elite snobs?

is this just going to piss me off?

Only if you read the comments. The article isn't incendiary like the click-seeking headline.

As Bike Snob said, only in America would seemingly smart people deride what is likely the most cost-effective and efficient transportation mode as "elitist."

But, yes, the article isn't as bad as the link bait headline suggests.

Yes, good article. Probably will not piss you off.

My favorite is the Bike Snob NYC quote "someday in the future, “humanity will marvel that there was once an age in which a mode of transportation as inexpensive and accessible as the bicycle was considered ‘elitist.’”

Amercans are just duplicitous arseholes regarding this "elite" tag. Every idiot driving a Cadillac Escalade and listening to Limbaugh thinks they're "everyman", right before they step on the back of the next person in line to claw their way up. Argh.

"Every idiot driving a Cadillac Escalade and listening to Limbaugh thinks they're "everyman", right before they step on the back of the next person in line to claw their way up. Argh."

I think this may go on my car as a bumper sticker...

Careful, though--Salon isn't exactly a bastion of conservatism. Idiocy cuts across party lines, and I've been told to get off the road by the bobo driving a vegetable oil-fueled Volvo.

Fantastic article. I thought it was a fair critique of the urban cyclist.

What about the suburban cyclist?

@dooftram: I was responding to the article at the top of this thread titled "Urban Cyclists Are Just Elite Snobs." It's about urban cycling and urban cyclists and how they are viewed.

I'm not aware of similar articles about suburban cyclists, although that would probably be interesting to read as well.

From "The Onion"

I really liked the last paragraph.

"We demand bike lanes in gentrifying neighborhoods, but don’t seem to care if they ever reach the slums. Inconsiderate riding is overhyped by the press, but it also really happens more often than we’d like to admit. And there are smug cyclists who think they know what’s best for others — I know because I’ve been one of them. If we want to improve the image of urban bicyclists, we need to start with ourselves,"

The really tough thing about this situation is that it has become so politicized, which it really shouldn't be!

Decent article, I agree. That gentrification concern is real here too. I'm not sure if it's chicken or egg, but the places that got all the early bike lanes were the flat areas, where the poorer people aren't. The poorer people ride buses, not bicycles AFAICT, and hence there are no bike lanes (or for that matter decent pavement) where the average income is closer to the poverty line than the median income. Which do you fix second, the egg or the chicken?

@ALMKLM

I know. I was just making fun of the annoying tropes in the Salon article's headline. That you don't find any writers fretting about the so-called image problem of suburban or rural or any other geographically designated subgroup of cyclists, says something.

@dooftram - I think the generalized perception of suburban cyclists on this board are they are all rude, lycra-clad, sunglass wearing road bikers who never give fair warning before they buzz past you going sixty on the jail trail.

stu, i don't get your comment at all. which of the 4 existing bike lanes are you talking about?

I'm also curious about your comment, stu... Despite the slow move to gentrify in pockets of East Liberty, East Liberty Boulevard serves some pretty low income housing. I can't imagine the average income is that high along Liberty through Bloomfield, either.

Hm. I've seen some studies that counter the presupmtion that it's just the wealthy on bikes. In fact the salon article points out that riding among poorer populations in increasing. I also found the following with some colorful pie charts:

http://www.grist.org/biking/2011-04-06-race-class-and-the-demographics-of-cycling

Stu, some of the "poorer" neighborhoods in the city are also the flattest (Homewood).

ALMKLM: I think understanding how many poor people ride bikes is often a matter of perspective. We rich folks (ha!) tend to identify ourselves as cyclists and bike commuters, but I think there are quite a few people in the world who ride bicycles for transportation and don't use that as a cultural identifier. Some people just hop on a bike to get from point A to point B without making it a lifestyle choice.[1]

Circling back to the BSNYC quote (which echoes Illich's research and conclusions), the sad part is that we've loaded down the bicycle with all sorts of cultural baggage here in the U.S. (and I mean all of us, to some degree). People view it as a toy, either for kids or the rich who can afford to spend thousands at a swanky bike shop. Or, it becomes a political wedge and we think "hey, we're better than you and your silly car because we ride bicycles everywhere."

[1] Additionally, cars are still something that people see as cultural markers of success, so owning one is status symbol. One could argue that more rich people riding bikes might be a Good Thing because it should change that.

"...so owning one is status symbol. One could argue that more rich people riding bikes might be a Good Thing because it should change that."

I was thinking something like that but have not had a chance to assemble it completely. Kind of like an argument for snobbery. Cause I like to throw hand grenades like that.

@brianj - my thoughts exactly, and really nicely enunciated.

@edmonds59 - status goes both ways. It was stated somewhere on one of these threads (I think) that there is always going to be someone wealthier than you, and there is always going to be someone poorer. Some people ride bikes because they "can," and some ride because "they have to."

There is no shame in owning a car. There is no shame in riding a bike because you want to. There shouldn't be shame in riding a bike because you "have" to either, but that's not the way our society works.

@ALMKLM There is no shame in owning a car.

When I owned a car, it was something that I had a certain amount of shame over. It's hard to imagine a thoughtful, honest person not feeling that way.

Why would a person think it's OK to wreck the world and kill folks in the mid-east?

Why would a person think it's OK to wreck the world and kill folks in the mid-east?

Because most people don't draw that connection.

For that matter, most people don't connect use of electricity with strip mines, mountaintop removal, air and water pollution, and deaths of coal miners.

Or the use of computers to killing people in third world countries who mine the metals necessary for stuff like processors.

EVERYTHING we do and make extracts a cost from the environment (and people). That doesn't make everything right, but, we should likely feel shame over quite a few of the things we own or use.

i can say that the places that got bike lanes were the places that had the lower lying fruit and were "easiest" for the city, given the resources, to figure out. also, once you leave the golden triangle, there are mountains and few streets that can actually fit a legit "bike lane" without serious re-engineering, ie making the street one way, removing parking, etc.

i'd say we have so few bike lanes that this issue isn't very relevant.

Here's a gif of the on-street bike lanes and sharrows as they went in. i just happen to be working on this, but i thought was relevant to this discussion. this is also assuming that the new stuff is complete.

EDIT SEE BELOW

That's a cool graphic erok.

I messed something up on the other one. here's the corrected.

Here's a rebuttal of sorts... http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2011/12/are-bicyclists-their-own-worst-enemy-uh.html