• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

What my bike has taught me about white privilege.

AthenaAwakened

Contributor
Joined
Sep 17, 2003
Messages
5,339
Location
Right behind you so ... BOO!
Basic Beliefs
non-theist, anarcho-socialist
One of the best analogies I have read yet

http://alittlemoresauce.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/what-my-bike-has-taught-me-about-white-privilege/

About five years ago I decide to start riding my bike as my primary mode of transportation. As in, on the street, in traffic. Which is enjoyable for a number of reasons (exercise, wind in yer face, the cool feeling of going fast, etc.) But the thing is, I don’t live in Portland or Minneapolis. I live in the capital city of the epicenter of the auto industry: Lansing, MI. This is not, by any stretch, a bike-friendly town. And often, it is down-right dangerous to be a bike commuter here.

Now sometimes its dangerous for me because people in cars are just blatantly a**holes to me. If I am in the road—where I legally belong—people will yell at me to get on the sidewalk. If I am on the sidewalk—which is sometimes the safest place to be—people will yell at me to get on the road. People in cars think its funny to roll down their window and yell something right when they get beside me. Or to splash me on purpose. People I have never met are angry at me for just being on a bike in “their” road and they let me know with colorful language and other acts of aggression.

I can imagine that for people of color life in a white-majority context feels a bit like being on a bicycle in midst of traffic. They have the right to be on the road, and laws on the books to make it equitable, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are on a bike in a world made for cars. Experiencing this when I’m on my bike in traffic has helped me to understand what privilege talk is really about.

Now most people in cars are not intentionally aggressive toward me. But even if all the jerks had their licenses revoked tomorrow, the road would still be a dangerous place for me. Because the whole transportation infrastructure privileges the automobile. It is born out of a history rooted in the auto industry that took for granted that everyone should use a car as their mode of transportation. It was not built to be convenient or economical or safe for me.

And so people in cars—nice, non-aggressive people—put me in danger all the time because they see the road from the privileged perspective of a car. E.g., I ride on the right side of the right lane. Some people fail to change lanes to pass me (as they would for another car) or even give me a wide berth. Some people fly by just inches from me not realizing how scary/dangerous that is for me (like if I were to swerve to miss some roadkill just as they pass). These folks aren’t aggressive or hostile toward me, but they don’t realize that a pothole or a build up of gravel or a broken bottle, which they haven’t given me enough room to avoid–because in a car they don’t need to be aware of these things–could send me flying from my bike or cost me a bent rim or a flat tire.

So the semi driver who rushes past throwing gravel in my face in his hot wake isn’t necessarily a bad guy. He could be sitting in his cab listening to Christian radio and thinking about nice things he can do for his wife. But the fact that “the system” allows him to do those things instead of being mindful of me is a privilege he has that I don’t. (I have to be hyper-aware of him).

This is what privilege is about. Like drivers, nice, non-aggressive white people can move in the world without thinking about the “potholes” or the “gravel” that people of color have to navigate, or how things that they do—not intending to hurt or endanger anyone—might actually be making life more difficult or more dangerous for a person of color.

Nice, non-aggressive drivers that don’t do anything at all to endanger me are still privileged to pull out of their driveway each morning and know that there are roads that go all the way to their destination. They don’t have to wonder if there are bike lanes and what route they will take to stay safe. In the winter, they can be certain that the snow will be plowed out of their lane into my lane and not the other way around.

And it’s not just the fact that the whole transportation infrastructure is built around the car. It’s the law, which is poorly enforced when cyclists are hit by cars, the fact that gas is subsidized by the government and bike tires aren’t, and just the general mindset of a culture that is in love with cars after a hundred years of propaganda and still thinks that bikes are toys for kids and triathletes.

So when I say the semi driver is privileged, it isn’t a way of calling him a bad person or a man-slaughterer or saying he didn’t really earn his truck, but just way of acknowledging all that–infrastructure, laws, gov’t, culture–and the fact that if he and I get in a collision, I will probably die and he will just have to clean the blood off of his bumper. In the same way, talking about racial privilege isn’t a way of telling white people they are bad people or racists or that they didn’t really earn what they have.

It’s a way of trying to make visible the fact that system is not neutral, it is not a level-playing field, it’s not the same experience for everyone. There are biases and imbalances and injustices built into the warp and woof of our culture. (The recent events in Ferguson, MO should be evidence enough of this–more thoughts on that here). Not because you personally are a racist, but because the system has a history and was built around this category “race” and that’s not going to go away overnight (or even in 100 years). To go back to my analogy: Bike lanes are relatively new, and still just kind of an appendage on a system that is inherently car-centric.
 
Hah! Interesting. I've always likened the way motorists treat me on my bike to my life. So the blacks co-opted this one too. Well, I'm not giving it up. Biking and ugly is all I've got.
I'll tell you this though, I've got plenty of paved bike paths. Not lanes in the streets, but paths. And foundations, businesses, and yours truly are chipping in to build even more.
And you know what, they can have the streets. I'll take the paths. I'm more than happy to stay in my own fucking neighborhood. Not that I'm drawing any parallels here.
 
One of the best analogies I have read yet

http://alittlemoresauce.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/what-my-bike-has-taught-me-about-white-privilege/

About five years ago I decide to start riding my bike as my primary mode of transportation. As in, on the street, in traffic. Which is enjoyable for a number of reasons (exercise, wind in yer face, the cool feeling of going fast, etc.) But the thing is, I don’t live in Portland or Minneapolis. I live in the capital city of the epicenter of the auto industry: Lansing, MI. This is not, by any stretch, a bike-friendly town. And often, it is down-right dangerous to be a bike commuter here.

Now sometimes its dangerous for me because people in cars are just blatantly a**holes to me. If I am in the road—where I legally belong—people will yell at me to get on the sidewalk. If I am on the sidewalk—which is sometimes the safest place to be—people will yell at me to get on the road. People in cars think its funny to roll down their window and yell something right when they get beside me. Or to splash me on purpose. People I have never met are angry at me for just being on a bike in “their” road and they let me know with colorful language and other acts of aggression.

Now most people in cars are not intentionally aggressive toward me. But even if all the jerks had their licenses revoked tomorrow, the road would still be a dangerous place for me. Because the whole transportation infrastructure privileges the automobile. It is born out of a history rooted in the auto industry that took for granted that everyone should use a car as their mode of transportation. It was not built to be convenient or economical or safe for me.

And so people in cars—nice, non-aggressive people—put me in danger all the time because they see the road from the privileged perspective of a car. E.g., I ride on the right side of the right lane. Some people fail to change lanes to pass me (as they would for another car) or even give me a wide berth. Some people fly by just inches from me not realizing how scary/dangerous that is for me (like if I were to swerve to miss some roadkill just as they pass). These folks aren’t aggressive or hostile toward me, but they don’t realize that a pothole or a build up of gravel or a broken bottle, which they haven’t given me enough room to avoid–because in a car they don’t need to be aware of these things–could send me flying from my bike or cost me a bent rim or a flat tire.

So the semi driver who rushes past throwing gravel in my face in his hot wake isn’t necessarily a bad guy. He could be sitting in his cab listening to Christian radio and thinking about nice things he can do for his wife. But the fact that “the system” allows him to do those things instead of being mindful of me is a privilege he has that I don’t. (I have to be hyper-aware of him).

This is what privilege is about. Like drivers, nice, non-aggressive white people can move in the world without thinking about the “potholes” or the “gravel” that people of color have to navigate, or how things that they do—not intending to hurt or endanger anyone—might actually be making life more difficult or more dangerous for a person of color.

Nice, non-aggressive drivers that don’t do anything at all to endanger me are still privileged to pull out of their driveway each morning and know that there are roads that go all the way to their destination. They don’t have to wonder if there are bike lanes and what route they will take to stay safe. In the winter, they can be certain that the snow will be plowed out of their lane into my lane and not the other way around.

And it’s not just the fact that the whole transportation infrastructure is built around the car. It’s the law, which is poorly enforced when cyclists are hit by cars, the fact that gas is subsidized by the government and bike tires aren’t, and just the general mindset of a culture that is in love with cars after a hundred years of propaganda and still thinks that bikes are toys for kids and triathletes.

So when I say the semi driver is privileged, it isn’t a way of calling him a bad person or a man-slaughterer or saying he didn’t really earn his truck, but just way of acknowledging all that–infrastructure, laws, gov’t, culture–and the fact that if he and I get in a collision, I will probably die and he will just have to clean the blood off of his bumper. In the same way, talking about racial privilege isn’t a way of telling white people they are bad people or racists or that they didn’t really earn what they have.

It’s a way of trying to make visible the fact that system is not neutral, it is not a level-playing field, it’s not the same experience for everyone. There are biases and imbalances and injustices built into the warp and woof of our culture. (The recent events in Ferguson, MO should be evidence enough of this–more thoughts on that here). Not because you personally are a racist, but because the system has a history and was built around this category “race” and that’s not going to go away overnight (or even in 100 years). To go back to my analogy: Bike lanes are relatively new, and still just kind of an appendage on a system that is inherently car-centric.


Now if you and this author could just grasp that a large % of bike riders are white, and many of the car drivers are black, then you'd understand why the concept of "white privilege" is so intellectually vacuous, not to mention racist.

But the bike rider analogy also highlights another comparison. At least in urban areas, bike riders are the most reckless, law-breaking, but self-righteous a@@holes on the road. Note the whining about the danger that car divers pose to them and the assertions about the "rights" of bike riders, without any acknowledgment of the responsibility bike riders have to obey all traffic laws, and yet nearly every one of them break these laws multiple times in every mile that they ride. I live a major city with many ever-increasing number of bike riders, and many bike lanes. Unless there is a car at the cross street, the odd of a bicyclist stopping at a stop sign is less than 1 in 10, and the same goes for red lights. They also constantly ride down one-way streets, and never signal when merging or making left turns.
Also, fewer than half wear helmets or any protective gear while engaging in these recklessly dangerous acts. In most major cities bicyclists have manufactured a kind of political identity and movement of victimhood, but the are their own worst enemies and greatest threat to themselves, yet they can never be heard acknowledging this.
 
The person who wrote the article ain't kiddin' about how dangerous it is to ride a bicycle here. It's so awful that I won't even consider getting a bicycle even though I could use the exercise.

Having said that, I like it as privilege analogy too.
 
But the bike rider analogy also highlights another comparison. At least in urban areas, bike riders are the most reckless, law-breaking, but self-righteous a@@holes on the road. Note the whining about the danger that car divers pose to them and the assertions about the "rights" of bike riders, without any acknowledgment of the responsibility bike riders have to obey all traffic laws, and yet nearly every one of them break these laws multiple times in every mile that they ride. I live a major city with many ever-increasing number of bike riders, and many bike lanes. Unless there is a car at the cross street, the odd of a bicyclist stopping at a stop sign is less than 1 in 10, and the same goes for red lights. They also constantly ride down one-way streets, and never signal when merging or making left turns.
Also, fewer than half wear helmets or any protective gear while engaging in these recklessly dangerous acts. In most major cities bicyclists have manufactured a kind of political identity and movement of victimhood, but the are their own worst enemies and greatest threat to themselves, yet they can never be heard acknowledging this.

And weave inbetween cars at stops.

:sadyes:


I was about to say...
 


Now if you and this author could just grasp that a large % of bike riders are white, and many of the car drivers are black, then you'd understand why the concept of "white privilege" is so intellectually vacuous, not to mention racist.

But the bike rider analogy also highlights another comparison. At least in urban areas, bike riders are the most reckless, law-breaking, but self-righteous a@@holes on the road. Note the whining about the danger that car divers pose to them and the assertions about the "rights" of bike riders, without any acknowledgment of the responsibility bike riders have to obey all traffic laws, and yet nearly every one of them break these laws multiple times in every mile that they ride. I live a major city with many ever-increasing number of bike riders, and many bike lanes. Unless there is a car at the cross street, the odd of a bicyclist stopping at a stop sign is less than 1 in 10, and the same goes for red lights. They also constantly ride down one-way streets, and never signal when merging or making left turns.
Also, fewer than half wear helmets or any protective gear while engaging in these recklessly dangerous acts. In most major cities bicyclists have manufactured a kind of political identity and movement of victimhood, but the are their own worst enemies and greatest threat to themselves, yet they can never be heard acknowledging this.

and this says what about the transportation infrastructure of the country being geared for cars, trucks, and busses?
 
So "white privilege" means resentment against those who slow down progress and demand that others obey the rules while they ignore them. If you chose analogy to support the religion of "white privilege," at least pick a sympathetic foil.
 

no.

and I am sorry that two words, relatively new to the lexicon that describe NOT YOU or anyone else but a system and its centuries of evolution makes you uncomfortable. The system makes me uncomfortable. The effects of white supremacy are what makes poor white miners in Kentucky vote for Tippy the Turtle, a man so deep in mine owner's pockets he bleeds coal dust. These effects are what makes an entire so called news network makeup shit about the POTUS that they can rant about and rile their audience about, when they could just do actual journalism and critique him of actual things he, his administration, and members of his party's congressional contingent are actually getting wrong everyday.

And this is not only not about you, it isn't even mostly about the color white, it's about the privilege. If Africans had sailed north and stolen Europeans, we would be talking about black privilege because black people would have been the enslavers, the arbitors of right and wrong, the writers of the cultural narrative and the public law. Instead of Jim Crow, we would have had Bob Gull, or some other silly name.

and it isn't just white privilege
It's male privilege
It's heteronormative privilege
It's able bodied privilege
It's age privilege
It's class privilege
It's educational privilege

Take any of the list or any you can think of and you can use the bike analogy to describe it.

It's not about you. The culture was here before you were born and will be here after you die.

It is a system of civilization put into place and adapted through the centuries that creates and perpetuates privilege, not you and any other person.

Yet every person living under privilege is in some way or another constrained and stifled by it.
 
Now if you and this author could just grasp that a large % of bike riders are white, and many of the car drivers are black, then you'd understand why the concept of "white privilege" is so intellectually vacuous, not to mention racist.....
I think you missed the entire point of the OP. It's almost like you are trying to provide an example of the "anything but racism" argument.
 
Now if you and this author could just grasp that a large % of bike riders are white, and many of the car drivers are black, then you'd understand why the concept of "white privilege" is so intellectually vacuous, not to mention racist.....
I think you missed the entire point of the OP. It's almost like you are trying to provide an example of the "anything but racism" argument.

not "almost like" ...
 
So "white privilege" means resentment against those who slow down progress and demand that others obey the rules while they ignore them. If you chose analogy to support the religion of "white privilege," at least pick a sympathetic foil.

You know it's funny - when I first started hearing the 'white privilege' arguments I didn't put a ton of stock in them, but the more I read the responses the more I think they're actually on to something.
 
Ignoring all the race discussion:

It's totally the opposite here. Bikes are king of the road; legally and culturally. It's always fun watching cyclists from the US come here to the 'cycling mecca of the world'; and experience cycling culture shock. It's particularly amusing watching them go on and on about helmets and how we don't wear them when because of the culture, cycling here is so safe that statistically speaking wearing a helmet actually puts you at more risk as a cyclist than not wearing one due to the psychological effect of wearing one.
 


Now if you and this author could just grasp that a large % of bike riders are white, and many of the car drivers are black, then you'd understand why the concept of "white privilege" is so intellectually vacuous, not to mention racist.

But the bike rider analogy also highlights another comparison. At least in urban areas, bike riders are the most reckless, law-breaking, but self-righteous a@@holes on the road. Note the whining about the danger that car divers pose to them and the assertions about the "rights" of bike riders, without any acknowledgment of the responsibility bike riders have to obey all traffic laws, and yet nearly every one of them break these laws multiple times in every mile that they ride. I live a major city with many ever-increasing number of bike riders, and many bike lanes. Unless there is a car at the cross street, the odd of a bicyclist stopping at a stop sign is less than 1 in 10, and the same goes for red lights. They also constantly ride down one-way streets, and never signal when merging or making left turns.
Also, fewer than half wear helmets or any protective gear while engaging in these recklessly dangerous acts. In most major cities bicyclists have manufactured a kind of political identity and movement of victimhood, but the are their own worst enemies and greatest threat to themselves, yet they can never be heard acknowledging this.

What does this have to do with the OP?

Yes, there are reckless cyclists - although I bet they are not as prevalent as you assume, ever heard of confirmation bias? I know from observation that they are a minority of the cyclists here, and yet you get the same tirades from local drivers.

There are also reckless drivers. A lot of them keep themselves in check, for their own safety, when interacting with other cars, but they let go when they don't feel vulnerable (i.e., interacting with cyclists), so you probably need to bike for some time to just get an idea of how many there are.

But there's a big difference: a reckless cyclist is at most times a minor nuisance to drivers while a reckless driver (and even a driver who isn't at all wantonly reckless, just insufficiently aware of the needs of cyclists) is a potentially lethal threat to cyclists.



To pick one of your complaints:
They also constantly ride down one-way streets
I don't know whether your city's one-way streets have exceptions for cyclists (in my city, many though not all do). I have experienced drivers who apear (or pretend) to be ignorant of those exceptions and seem to try and make a point of showing you as a cyclist what you get into for this "reckless behavior" by accelerating when they pass you even though you're in the right. But take a cyclist's perspective for a minute: Even when that happens, a car that accelarates as it passes you coming from the opposite direction is a car whose behaviour you can gauge, which you can, it it becomes necessary, avoid by jumping off and pulling to the sidewalk. If you ride a narrow one-way road in the right direction, you might have the same asshole driver pulling up from behind, speeding by with unreduced speed with barely 10cm between you and them. So sometimes it actually feels safer to ride against the one-way street, and the reasons are drivers who half of the time don't even realise that they're being reckless.
 
I think you missed the entire point of the OP. It's almost like you are trying to provide an example of the "anything but racism" argument.

not "almost like" ...

No, I fully acknowledge that there is a great deal of racism in the OP. The very concept of "white privilege" is racist, as are those that use the term.
 
not "almost like" ...

No, I fully acknowledge that there is a great deal of racism in the OP. The very concept of "white privilege" is racist, as are those that use the term.

I use that term. Am I a racist?
The man who wrote the piece uses that term. Is he a racist?
Other people who post here use the term. Are they all racist.

Speak plainly and directly.
 
not "almost like" ...

No, I fully acknowledge that there is a great deal of racism in the OP. The very concept of "white privilege" is racist, as are those that use the term.
White privilege is racist, no doubt about that. Perhaps you could explain how using the term "white privilege" makes one a racist.
 
Now if you and this author could just grasp that a large % of bike riders are white, and many of the car drivers are black, then you'd understand why the concept of "white privilege" is so intellectually vacuous, not to mention racist.

But the bike rider analogy also highlights another comparison. At least in urban areas, bike riders are the most reckless, law-breaking, but self-righteous a@@holes on the road. Note the whining about the danger that car divers pose to them and the assertions about the "rights" of bike riders, without any acknowledgment of the responsibility bike riders have to obey all traffic laws, and yet nearly every one of them break these laws multiple times in every mile that they ride. I live a major city with many ever-increasing number of bike riders, and many bike lanes. Unless there is a car at the cross street, the odd of a bicyclist stopping at a stop sign is less than 1 in 10, and the same goes for red lights. They also constantly ride down one-way streets, and never signal when merging or making left turns.
Also, fewer than half wear helmets or any protective gear while engaging in these recklessly dangerous acts. In most major cities bicyclists have manufactured a kind of political identity and movement of victimhood, but the are their own worst enemies and greatest threat to themselves, yet they can never be heard acknowledging this.

Yes, there are reckless cyclists - although I bet they are not as prevalent as you assume, ever heard of confirmation bias?

1 in 10 cyclists stopping at stop signs is overly generous toward cyclists. Just this morning, in the 1/2 mile that I was driving on surface streets I saw 2 bicyclists and 1 ran a stop sign and the other ran a red light. In contrast, I've seen maybe 1-2 cars blow through stop signs and lights in the past year (I'm not talking racing to beat the yellow, I am talking just looking to see if there is traffic moving on the cross street and acting light the sign or light is not even there).



But there's a big difference: a reckless cyclist is at most times a minor nuisance to drivers while a reckless driver (and even a driver who isn't at all wantonly reckless, just insufficiently aware of the needs of cyclists) is a potentially lethal threat to cyclists.

Wrong. A reckless cyclist is a lethal threat to themselves, and they put themselves in at least as much danger as car drivers do. I have directly witnessed 3 serious bike wrecks in the past year, and all were blatantly the fault of reckless, law-breaking cyclist behavior, such as riding the wrong way down a one-way street, and weaving around cars then abruptly turning left without warning/signaling. Also, this is a threat to car drivers too, who are often forced to suddenly break to avoid hitting reckless cyclists, of even to veer into an oncoming lane because one cyclist illegally passes another by veering into the car lane as cars are passing (which I had to do just last night).


To pick one of your complaints:
Why pick one? Because you can't even pretend to rationalize away the reckless danger of blowing through stop signs and red lights that most urban cyclists do on a regular basis?

They also constantly ride down one-way streets
I don't know whether your city's one-way streets have exceptions for cyclists (in my city, many though not all do).

It is illegal in my city, and the fact that such an inherently dangerous special exemption is given to bicyclists is some cities only goes against the overall argument of whining victimization (in addition to the fact that they are almost never cited for their constant violations of traffic laws). One way streets are generally narrow with minimal room for passing and usually slow max speeds. When a cyclist is going in the same direction, the passing speed average around 10 mph and it is easy to wait to pass the cyclist when its safest (e.g., when the road widens, or at the next stop sign in the rare change the cyclist stops). When the cyclist is coming in the opposite direction, you now have two vehicles coming at each other on a narrow road at a speed = the sum of each of their speeds, which would typically be 40 mph on a 25mph one-way road. That means a bike coming the wrong way quadruples the passing speed, which not only exponentially increases harm when an accident occurs, but greatly increases the odds of a collision in part by reducing the reaction times and reduces the odds that both parties have time to see each other before they pass. The two are forced to pass each other without having the option of waiting for an safer moment, and to do so at much higher speeds with less time to see and react to each other. Also, when a reasonable cyclist is already riding the correct way down the one-way street, then the wrong-way cyclists creates a situation where 3 vehicles are trying to pass each other on a narrow one-way road.
Not to mention, the danger it poses when any vehicle (car or bike) are pulling out onto a one-way street. The safest way to pull onto a street is to look in the direction from which traffic is coming as you pull into the lane from which the traffic is coming. When making a left turn on a two-way street, that means you focus on looking left as you pull into the road, then shift focus to the right as you enter that lane of traffic. With a one-way street, there is only a single lane, which is not a problem if traffic can only come from a single direction. But when it can come from both directions but within a single lane, they you are fucked. You are forced to pull into the lane while focussed on one direction. Sure, you can and should look first in the other direction, but that is not the same and not as safe. The fact that you would put forth the idea that cycling the wrong way down narrow city streets can be made legal and blindly dismiss the inherent increase in danger this causes whether legal or not, shows that your baseless accusation of confirmation bias was pure hypocritical projection.

So sometimes it actually feels safer to ride against the one-way street, and the reasons are drivers who half of the time don't even realise that they're being reckless.

What a bunch of dishonest crap. Cyclists do it to create the shortest path to their destination.
 
No, I fully acknowledge that there is a great deal of racism in the OP. The very concept of "white privilege" is racist, as are those that use the term.
White privilege is racist, no doubt about that. Perhaps you could explain how using the term "white privilege" makes one a racist.

I already did explain it by highlighting that skin color is not the reliable determinant of privilege any more than of bike riding, but your racist ideology blinds you to understanding how using a person's skin color to determine who is privileged over whom is definitionally racist (and that is exactly what the use of the term does).
 
Back
Top Bottom