What my bike has taught me about white privilege.

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Denmark is behind us in terms of cycling safety, actually; and their solutions are in fact based on what we did long before them (or anyone else). Yes, we redesign the roads where possible; we have an entirely separate infrastructure for cyclists where possible and this works exceptionally well. This is not, however, possible in a lot of places (like downtown Amsterdam for instance), and in such a places it is often a free for all for us cyclists; and we act as if we own the road... because according to the law we kind of do. In any traffic situation, cyclists always have the right of road. This isn't because we 'blame motorists' perse, it's because as a society, we recognize that cyclists are much much more vulnerable than motorists, and so we say that it is the responsibility of motorists to take that into consideration; even if the cyclists behave like asshole at times. Based on the comments of American motorists, they seem to lack any and all empathy or consideration for cyclists, and feel entitled to endanger the cyclists who share the roads. So yes, it's no wonder that cycling deaths are far higher over there than they are here. The problem is with the mentality of drivers (and urban planners as well, yes), not cyclists. If cyclists can behave like anarchists over here without serious incident, then they should be able to do so over there as well.

I'm a cyclist and have been all my life. I ride a bike to work 8 months a year and regularly ride that bike around Pittsburgh. Motorists are courteous beyond the law and the occasional dick is not worth mentioning. Some would have you believe that life as a cyclist is a daily struggle to live. That's bull, as is so much of the OP. Someone's just trying to sell something. I certainly don't feel oppressed as a cyclist of that the world is rigged against me.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

the debate is about motorists and cyclists, not cars and bikes.

Without the people both the car and the bike become lawn art because they don't move. This is an analogy about how people treat each other with regard to the modes of transportaion they use.

Is it? As I said many of us drive both cars and bicycles. Do we have car and bicycle identities that extend beyond us being behind the wheel / handle bars at any particular time. If not I see little difference between car/bike and driver/cyclist. There is good fundamental reason to regard cars and bicycles on the road (and the operators of them) differently and apply different rules to them.

Bicycle lanes make sense as do bicycles being banned from highways. That doesn't run well as an analogy to quotas for blacks or white only country clubs, which don't make sense.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

the debate is about motorists and cyclists, not cars and bikes.

Without the people both the car and the bike become lawn art because they don't move. This is an analogy about how people treat each other with regard to the modes of transportaion they use.

Is it?

yes, it is.

As I said many of us drive both cars and bicycles. Do we have car and bicycle identities that extend beyond us being behind the wheel / handle bars at any particular time.

to yourself no, to other people yes. As has been pointed out here quite clearly by several posters and one particularly outspoken and passionate motorist, when you are a cyclist, you are an asshole and a greater danger to yourself and others than motorists.

If not I see little difference between car/bike and driver/cyclist.

read through the thread and see the actual quotes.

There is good fundamental reason to regard cars and bicycles on the road (and the operators of them) differently and apply different rules to them.

do those different rules mean one group gets an infrastructure that is complete and tailor made to their type of vehicle while the other other group gets to adjust to an infrastructure not made for them or, if they are fortunate, they get appendages and partial paths?

Bicycle lanes make sense as do bicycles being banned from highways. That doesn't run well as an analogy to quotas for blacks or white only country clubs, which don't make sense.

WTH? who said anything about quotas? And as for the OP being an analogy for privilege, so is this very thread.

And thank you for your contribution to it

 

[dystopian]

I'm a cyclist and have been all my life. I ride a bike to work 8 months a year and regularly ride that bike around Pittsburgh. Motorists are courteous beyond the law and the occasional dick is not worth mentioning. Some would have you believe that life as a cyclist is a daily struggle to live. That's bull, as is so much of the OP. Someone's just trying to sell something. I certainly don't feel oppressed as a cyclist of that the world is rigged against me.

Well, that's good. Note that I'm not saying that as a rule motorists are like that. Nonetheless, it is a fact that the number of casualties over there are far in excess of what they should be; and likewise, that a societal realignment with every driver being taught and impressed upon that cyclists are the weaker party in traffic and that drivers have a responsibility toward them, would help to lower the numbers. I think that sure, most motorists aren't hostile towards cyclists as such, but there's probably still a mentality problem among many of them; it just comes in the form of not paying particular mind to the vulnerability of cyclists rather than seething hate or some such.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I'm a cyclist and have been all my life. I ride a bike to work 8 months a year and regularly ride that bike around Pittsburgh. Motorists are courteous beyond the law and the occasional dick is not worth mentioning. Some would have you believe that life as a cyclist is a daily struggle to live. That's bull, as is so much of the OP. Someone's just trying to sell something. I certainly don't feel oppressed as a cyclist of that the world is rigged against me.

Well, that's good. Note that I'm not saying that as a rule motorists are like that. Nonetheless, it is a fact that the number of casualties over there are far in excess of what they should be; and likewise, that a societal realignment with every driver being taught and impressed upon that cyclists are the weaker party in traffic and that drivers have a responsibility toward them, would help to lower the numbers. I think that sure, most motorists aren't hostile towards cyclists as such, but there's probably still a mentality problem among many of them; it just comes in the form of not paying particular mind to the vulnerability of cyclists rather than seething hate or some such.

But that's the thing about privilege. The privileged party need not be hostile to the non privileged party, they need not even meet for privilege to effect both their lives. Motorists in my town have complete streets that go to their destination. Cyclists have bike lanes in some parts of town and fewer bike trails, but any cyclist will tell you it is often impossible to get to certain destinations around town without have to use street designed not for bikes but for cars and that motorists for the most part aren't seeking to harm cyclists, they just may not see the cyclist or they may not judge the distance well between themselves and the cyclist, causing a near miss or the cyclist to lose balance. And even motorists who drive all day and never encounter a cyclist are not hindered in their travels, do not have to take the long way in order to avoid narrow streets or busy intersections. There are inconveniences that cyclists have to live with daily that motorists never know.

That is the thing about privilege. It is built into the structure of our systems of living. And it goes by the name, normalcy

 

[dystopian]

But that's the thing about privilege. The privileged party need not be hostile to the non privileged party, they need not even meet for privilege to effect both their lives.

Yes; but that's already implicitly stated in my post; hence the whole 'there's a mentality problem'.

And taking that back to race (and other matters); it's certainly something that I, as a (mostly) straight white person, have become increasingly aware of the more I've been exposed to the testimonies of people who aren't like me in regards to how they live. Now, obviously there are significant differences between my society and that of the US in that regard and what applies in one might not necessarily apply in another; but certainly the whole ferguson thing made an impact on me; on the other side of the planet.

I was particularly moved by an article I can't find on the spot that gathered up a whole lot of stories from black americans referring to "the talk"; the talk that apparently most (or at least enough of them that it's a 'thing') black americans give their kids (especially if those kids are male), about how to be *afraid* of the cops. That really drove home to me the idea of white privilege, because it's like; how can things be so bad that vast segments of the population feel the need to instill fear of the cops in their kids NOT in the sense of 'if you break the law the cops will get you', but rather in the sense of 'if you're black, the cops will get you.'; and how can things be so bad, yet learning that fact is still felt a revelation?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In some cities it is much harder to get around by bicycle than by driving. In other cities it is harder to get around by car than by bicycle or by walking. In some places taking the bus or subway is easier or harder than the above. In most cities it is harder to get around by horseback than by any of the above. But so what? Various cities may encourage different forms of transportation. I don't see why that is a problem. This isn't like in the case of races where it would be fundamentally wrong for the city to treat them differently, such as with Jim Crow or quotas etc.

Mode of transportation doesn't fit you into a grouping in the same way that race does. You can and often do change your mode of transportation, and economic limitations aside, you do so by choice. If you want to stretch the bicycle/car thing to be proxy for wealth, maybe, maybe you've got a better case for privilege.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

In some cities it is much harder to get around by bicycle than by driving. In other cities it is harder to get around by car than by bicycle or by walking. In some places taking the bus or subway is easier or harder than the above. In most cities it is harder to get around by horseback than by any of the above. But so what? Various cities may encourage different forms of transportation. I don't see why that is a problem. This isn't like in the case of races where it would be fundamentally wrong for the city to treat them differently, such as with Jim Crow or quotas etc.

Mode of transportation doesn't fit you into a grouping in the same way that race does. You can and often do change your mode of transportation, and economic limitations aside, you do so by choice. If you want to stretch the bicycle/car thing to be proxy for wealth, maybe, maybe you've got a better case for privilege.

trying this again

Privilege isn't the groups, but the system under which the groups live. Cyclists and motorists are two groups and one of the those groups enjoys an infrastructure constructed for their benefit and and other who is expected to fit in as best they can. Privilege is designed for the benefit of certain groups over others. The "normal" people fit and the rest of us are expected to fit in as best we can and if we don't fit a system not designed for us, we did something wrong. The system is default. The system is the norm. That which is not normal is suspect and perhaps even willfully obtuse.

 

[arkirk]

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.

What you are missing was the word "transportation." It is funny you had to pull out the old tar brush on this one. What is with you making a "black" thing out of this issue. A white person who uses his bike for transportation faces the same thing. The bike paths you are referring to are RECREATION. The paths you refer to don't get you to the doctor's office, the grocery store, or even work in most cases. They are disproportionately built in upper class neighborhoods...or in parks for leisure use.

I live in the City of Los Angeles, where there has recently been a spate of serious bicycle/auto accidents...some fatal. We have bike lanes and also an exemption to use the sidewalk where the streets are "too dangerous." Our bike lanes indeed are dangerous, however a resourceful person can avoid blowing money on gas if they are careful. Our busses will allow a biker to ferry his bike across town on them. We have a new 3 foot rule in force in the city (moving cars are to remain 3 feet away from bikes at all time). This is not going so well. Essentially your post is saying, "I'll stay in upscale neighborhoods with my bike and you...quit complaining." I think maybe you should try now and then to imagine yourself in the shoes of the other person sometime.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

What you are missing was the word "transportation." It is funny you had to pull out the old tar brush on this one. What is with you making a "black" thing out of this issue. A white person who uses his bike for transportation faces the same thing. The bike paths you are referring to are RECREATION. The paths you refer to don't get you to the doctor's office, the grocery store, or even work in most cases. They are disproportionately built in upper class neighborhoods...or in parks for leisure use.

I live in the City of Los Angeles, where there has recently been a spate of serious bicycle/auto accidents...some fatal. We have bike lanes and also an exemption to use the sidewalk where the streets are "too dangerous." Our bike lanes indeed are dangerous, however a resourceful person can avoid blowing money on gas if they are careful. Our busses will allow a biker to ferry his bike across town on them. We have a new 3 foot rule in force in the city (moving cars are to remain 3 feet away from bikes at all time). This is not going so well. Essentially your post is saying, "I'll stay in upscale neighborhoods with my bike and you...quit complaining." I think maybe you should try now and then to imagine yourself in the shoes of the other person sometime.

My post was in response to the analogy drawn in the op and nothing more as I found the analogy the most interesting aspect. In my first statement, my reference to the "black thing" was only to draw attention to the "ugly thing". To state that there is much prejudice. No one group has a lock. Many people are at a great disadvantage in job interviews, assistance from customer service, and a variety of public social venues. Do some groups have it worse than others? Yes. Do some individuals have it worse than others? Yes. What do we do? I know what I do. I make my way the best I can for myself. I change what I can and accept what I can't. I do what I can/need to do to conform to society because I know at the end of the day, no one gives a damn about me except me.
I was not addressing any of the literal context of the story, bicycles and transportation.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

What you are missing was the word "transportation." It is funny you had to pull out the old tar brush on this one. What is with you making a "black" thing out of this issue. A white person who uses his bike for transportation faces the same thing. The bike paths you are referring to are RECREATION. The paths you refer to don't get you to the doctor's office, the grocery store, or even work in most cases. They are disproportionately built in upper class neighborhoods...or in parks for leisure use.

I live in the City of Los Angeles, where there has recently been a spate of serious bicycle/auto accidents...some fatal. We have bike lanes and also an exemption to use the sidewalk where the streets are "too dangerous." Our bike lanes indeed are dangerous, however a resourceful person can avoid blowing money on gas if they are careful. Our buses will allow a biker to ferry his bike across town on them. We have a new 3 foot rule in force in the city (moving cars are to remain 3 feet away from bikes at all time). This is not going so well. Essentially your post is saying, "I'll stay in upscale neighborhoods with my bike and you...quit complaining." I think maybe you should try now and then to imagine yourself in the shoes of the other person sometime.

These issues are regional. I spent time in Berkeley and saw entire families cycling around the city. It seemed to me like Berkeley encouraged this form of transportation.

Athena is certainly correct in stating our streets and transportation infrastructure is rigged for motorists. We should add that finding a job is rigged for adults. Her analogy to racism is therefore moot at best.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What you are missing was the word "transportation." It is funny you had to pull out the old tar brush on this one. What is with you making a "black" thing out of this issue. A white person who uses his bike for transportation faces the same thing. The bike paths you are referring to are RECREATION. The paths you refer to don't get you to the doctor's office, the grocery store, or even work in most cases. They are disproportionately built in upper class neighborhoods...or in parks for leisure use.

I live in the City of Los Angeles, where there has recently been a spate of serious bicycle/auto accidents...some fatal. We have bike lanes and also an exemption to use the sidewalk where the streets are "too dangerous." Our bike lanes indeed are dangerous, however a resourceful person can avoid blowing money on gas if they are careful. Our buses will allow a biker to ferry his bike across town on them. We have a new 3 foot rule in force in the city (moving cars are to remain 3 feet away from bikes at all time). This is not going so well. Essentially your post is saying, "I'll stay in upscale neighborhoods with my bike and you...quit complaining." I think maybe you should try now and then to imagine yourself in the shoes of the other person sometime.

These issues are regional. I spent time in Berkeley and saw entire families cycling around the city. It seemed to me like Berkeley encouraged this form of transportation.

Athena is certainly correct in stating our streets and transportation infrastructure is rigged for motorists. We should add that finding a job is rigged for adults. Her analogy to racism is therefore moot at best.

wrong

But I admire your tenacity.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In some cities it is much harder to get around by bicycle than by driving. In other cities it is harder to get around by car than by bicycle or by walking. In some places taking the bus or subway is easier or harder than the above. In most cities it is harder to get around by horseback than by any of the above. But so what? Various cities may encourage different forms of transportation. I don't see why that is a problem. This isn't like in the case of races where it would be fundamentally wrong for the city to treat them differently, such as with Jim Crow or quotas etc.

Mode of transportation doesn't fit you into a grouping in the same way that race does. You can and often do change your mode of transportation, and economic limitations aside, you do so by choice. If you want to stretch the bicycle/car thing to be proxy for wealth, maybe, maybe you've got a better case for privilege.

trying this again

Privilege isn't the groups, but the system under which the groups live. Cyclists and motorists are two groups and one of the those groups enjoys an infrastructure constructed for their benefit and and other who is expected to fit in as best they can. Privilege is designed for the benefit of certain groups over others. The "normal" people fit and the rest of us are expected to fit in as best we can and if we don't fit a system not designed for us, we did something wrong. The system is default. The system is the norm. That which is not normal is suspect and perhaps even willfully obtuse.

Why quote my post if you are going to ignore everything I wrote?

 

[TV and credit cards]

While I'm not black, I am an avid cyclist: 41 miles a day every other day. 80% of where I ride has a wooded buffer separating me from the street. Where I am in contact with the road and have to cross intersections, I would guess 50% of the motorists ignore me. That is, they make no effort to endanger me nor will they make eye contact. Eye contact is helpful when they are crossing my path. They really want to take their left/right before me if I'm the only one they have to wait for. Like I'm some kind of non-person. I don't count or something. If I'm on the road an a motorist comes up from behind, most will give a wide berth. If the bike path is on the opposite side of the road separated by only a solid white line, many will venture quite close to the line. A few, maybe 1% will intentionally endanger my life. If riding on the road, I will move out into the center of the lane when cresting a hill or a blind turn. I think many do not realize why I am doing this.
Anyways, (and this is the part to transpose) if they are courteous to me, I give a friendly wave. If they are not, I ignore their rudeness. I do make every effort not to show anger or intentionally try to anger a motorist. They may take out that anger on the next cyclist they see. One day, I may be that next cyclist.

Don't poke the bear.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

trying this again

Privilege isn't the groups, but the system under which the groups live. Cyclists and motorists are two groups and one of the those groups enjoys an infrastructure constructed for their benefit and and other who is expected to fit in as best they can. Privilege is designed for the benefit of certain groups over others. The "normal" people fit and the rest of us are expected to fit in as best we can and if we don't fit a system not designed for us, we did something wrong. The system is default. The system is the norm. That which is not normal is suspect and perhaps even willfully obtuse.

Why quote my post if you are going to ignore everything I wrote?

I often wonder the same thing about you.

Can cyclists be a race?
No, and they don't have be in order to be analogous to people grouped into a race.

systems of privilege, any privilege, hold not the criteria for grouping in common, but the fact that the groups, however defined, operate under rules and within infrastructure that advantages one group over others by design. It is the rules and Infrastructure that are the sources of the privilege.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I often wonder the same thing about you.

Can cyclists be a race?
No, and they don't have be in order to be analogous to people grouped into a race.

systems of privilege, any privilege, hold not the criteria for grouping in common, but the fact that the groups, however defined, operate under rules and within infrastructure that advantages one group over others by design. It is the rules and Infrastructure that are the sources of the privilege.

But is that not a common theme wherever you look? It's true from microbial life to giant sequoias.

If you wish to state that racism among humans is real you'll get no disagreement from me. I suppose it's that being a cyclist I simply disagree with the over-the-top phony tone of the OP.

 

[EricK]

Why quote my post if you are going to ignore everything I wrote?

I often wonder the same thing about you.

Can cyclists be a race?
No, and they don't have be in order to be analogous to people grouped into a race.

systems of privilege, any privilege, hold not the criteria for grouping in common, but the fact that the groups, however defined, operate under rules and within infrastructure that advantages one group over others by design. It is the rules and Infrastructure that are the sources of the privilege.

Take the example of white privilege that Laughing Dog used (post 49 of this thread) - that black teenagers are harassed by the police in ways which white teenagers are not.

How is this due to rules and infrastructure rather than the racism of individual police officers? i.e. if there were no racist police officers, would black teenagers still get harassed by the police for doing exactly the same things as white teenagers did, and if so, what would cause that? Or are you saying the rules and infrastructure are such as to guarantee that a significant number of police officers will be racist? If so, what exactly is causing that?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Can cyclists be a race?
No, and they don't have be in order to be analogous to people grouped into a race.

The analogy is piss poor though, for the reasons already stated and ignored.

... groups, however defined, operate under rules and within infrastructure that advantages one group over others by design.

Do you think that is always a bad thing? A city may wish to encourage one mode of transportation over another, and for good reason, so they set up a system that favours one over the other, to encourage people to switch modes of transportation. Same as when they designate carpool lanes, giving those carpooling an advantage (or "privilege" since you seem so keen on calling it that) over solo drivers, who sit in traffic as the carpoolers zip on by. Do you really find that on par with treating people differently based on race? Such things teach you about white privilege?

It is also a bad analogy because motorists and cyclists are operating entirely different machines, and have entirely different needs and abilities, based on the fact that they operate these machines, which is how you identify them as motorists and cyclists. There are core differences between cars and bicycles, and not so much between races. Fundamental justice demands that we treat people of different races the same and allow them equal access to the same infrastructure (instead of Jim Crow laws). It demands that we treat motorists and cyclists differently and have different infrastructure for them.

 

[EricK]

The analogy is piss poor though, for the reasons already stated and ignored.

... groups, however defined, operate under rules and within infrastructure that advantages one group over others by design.

Do you think that is always a bad thing? A city may wish to encourage one mode of transportation over another, and for good reason, so they set up a system that favours one over the other, to encourage people to switch modes of transportation. Same as when they designate carpool lanes, giving those carpooling an advantage (or "privilege" since you seem so keen on calling it that) over solo drivers, who sit in traffic as the carpoolers zip on by. Do you really find that on par with treating people differently based on race? Such things teach you about white privilege?

It is also a bad analogy because motorists and cyclists are operating entirely different machines, and have entirely different needs and abilities, based on the fact that they operate these machines, which is how you identify them as motorists and cyclists. There are core differences between cars and bicycles, and not so much between races. Fundamental justice demands that we treat people of different races the same and allow them equal access to the same infrastructure (instead of Jim Crow laws). It demands that we treat motorists and cyclists differently and have different infrastructure for them.

Analogies are by their nature limited. They are not saying two situations are identical; they are saying they are similar in some ways but dissimilar in others.

Here, if I understand it correctly, the person making the analogy is claiming that the road system (in the US at any rate) is set up with cars in mind. Cyclists can use it, but they have a difficult time compared with car drivers. This is the car-driver privilege. And similarly, they are claiming, society is set up with white people (or men, or heterosexuals etc) in mind. Black people (or women, or homosexuals etc) can participate in society but they have a more difficult time of it due to the nature of society. This is white (or male, or heterosexual etc) privilege. That is all the analogy is claiming - being on the road as a cyclist is like being in society as a black person (woman, homosexual person etc) because neither system is set up with them in mind.

The analogy is not claiming that the reasons for there being car-driver privilege are the same as the other privileges. It is not claiming that they are all equally bad (in fact, I don't think the claim is being made that car-driver privilege is a bad thing at all). And it is not saying that the solutions to each are the same (or indeed that car-driver privilege is a problem in need of a solution).

 

[Nexus]

Cyclists can use it, but they have a difficult time compared with car drivers. This is the car-driver privilege.

That's the problem with the analogy. Cyclists have a difficult time due to their inferiority ie less speed. Its not car privilege. I ride a motorcycle and don't face the difficulty bicycles have because I have the horsepower to overcome those problems. Unless you want to argue certain races are inherently inferior and can't cope in some systems the analogy is fundamentally flawed.

Motorcycles do share some of the problems of bicycles. Car drivers have a trouble seeing them so that aspect of "non-privilege" applies. By motorcycles overcome those problems without mass protests or demanding special motorcycles lanes or completely ignoring traffic laws.