A lot of people miss the fact that cyclists are just people getting about the place. As for example when you hear people say, ‘Oh, it’s only middle-class men who cycle, so why should we build bike lanes?’ as though it’s somehow the case that middle class men who choose to cycle just like… deserve to die? It’s a really common argument that people make and they’ve not even thought about the obvious implication of what they’re saying.
Even if it were true that all or most cyclists were middle-class and male, which it isn’t, I’m never sure whether it’s the maleness, the middle-classness, or the cycling that has apparently warranted the death sentence.
Also, the main reason women and children rarely cycle is because women are more risk averse and nobody wants their kid riding a bike on the road with people driving emotional support trucks. That mostly just leaves men who are willing to risk it or who can’t afford to drive.
@Moneo@frankPodmore Avoid generalizations and stereotypes if you want to meaningfully analyze an issue. Women score higher than men on risk aversion *on average*. There’s no evidence of enough biological or socialized difference in risk taking to explain the entire difference in bicycling. Various other factors are in play, including childcare burden, street harassment, access to leisure time, social support for cycling by parents & peers, and gendered dress codes/norms at work & school.
The same argument is used to attack veganism, even though the diet aspect of it is cheaper (as long as most meat imitations are avoided, although those will get cheap too in the long run).
I’ve read that vegetarianism is cheaper than meat-eating, but veganism is more expensive, but I’m sure you’re right that it depends on what exactly you eat! In any case, it’s quite an odd argument for anti-vegans to make: ‘You can afford to do something good and that’s why you shouldn’t’?
Making it seem like it’s predominately something done by middle-class men, or even rich people, helps to undermine public support for it because of the image people have of a stereotypical male cyclist, ie a well-off person riding a $1400 bike with a bunch of lycra clothes and tech gear pretending they’re training for the Tour de France while they go through their midlife crisis. It’s much less relatable an image for many people, who might say “Well, why do they need to ride on all the roads? They can just go on the paths in the park, or if they have so much money, they can go to a purpose-built facility.”
If you frame it as though it’s just going to benefit a bunch of people perceived to be living it up, you can drum up opposition from poor people, who don’t want their taxes going to fund some BS project that only benefits people who are already doing alright. Your aunt that’s busting her back trying to make ends meet and is trying to get back and forth to work and the shops on a bike one step up from a Wal-mart special can be much more relatable for many people who are struggling to keep up, can’t really afford their car payment and might even use a bike if there were dedicated bike lanes. So people looking to discourage building out bike infrastructure will naturally prefer that everyone thinks the only ones who would benefit from these developments would be some middle-manager who owns his home, rides a bike that costs more than your rent and that has gone on more vacations in the last year than you have in the last two decades.
@frankPodmore@vividspecter Since middle aged, middle to upper class white men are also most likely to drive monster trucks for everyday transportation & recreation, we could also argue that for the safety and comfort of all we should do everything possible to get that group onto bikes instead of trucks.
A lot of people miss the fact that cyclists are just people getting about the place. As for example when you hear people say, ‘Oh, it’s only middle-class men who cycle, so why should we build bike lanes?’ as though it’s somehow the case that middle class men who choose to cycle just like… deserve to die? It’s a really common argument that people make and they’ve not even thought about the obvious implication of what they’re saying.
Even if it were true that all or most cyclists were middle-class and male, which it isn’t, I’m never sure whether it’s the maleness, the middle-classness, or the cycling that has apparently warranted the death sentence.
Also, the main reason women and children rarely cycle is because women are more risk averse and nobody wants their kid riding a bike on the road with people driving emotional support trucks. That mostly just leaves men who are willing to risk it or who can’t afford to drive.
Yeah, definitely. It’s not really surprising that the group most likely to cycle is also the group that’s socialised into taking risks!
@Moneo @frankPodmore Avoid generalizations and stereotypes if you want to meaningfully analyze an issue. Women score higher than men on risk aversion *on average*. There’s no evidence of enough biological or socialized difference in risk taking to explain the entire difference in bicycling. Various other factors are in play, including childcare burden, street harassment, access to leisure time, social support for cycling by parents & peers, and gendered dress codes/norms at work & school.
Point taken but there is evidence showing that safe cycling infrastructure closes the gender gap.
The same argument is used to attack veganism, even though the diet aspect of it is cheaper (as long as most meat imitations are avoided, although those will get cheap too in the long run).
I’ve read that vegetarianism is cheaper than meat-eating, but veganism is more expensive, but I’m sure you’re right that it depends on what exactly you eat! In any case, it’s quite an odd argument for anti-vegans to make: ‘You can afford to do something good and that’s why you shouldn’t’?
When i was a vegan my main protien sources was beans and chickpeas which are way cheaper than cheese and eggs, which are common vegetarian protiens.
Making it seem like it’s predominately something done by middle-class men, or even rich people, helps to undermine public support for it because of the image people have of a stereotypical male cyclist, ie a well-off person riding a $1400 bike with a bunch of lycra clothes and tech gear pretending they’re training for the Tour de France while they go through their midlife crisis. It’s much less relatable an image for many people, who might say “Well, why do they need to ride on all the roads? They can just go on the paths in the park, or if they have so much money, they can go to a purpose-built facility.”
If you frame it as though it’s just going to benefit a bunch of people perceived to be living it up, you can drum up opposition from poor people, who don’t want their taxes going to fund some BS project that only benefits people who are already doing alright. Your aunt that’s busting her back trying to make ends meet and is trying to get back and forth to work and the shops on a bike one step up from a Wal-mart special can be much more relatable for many people who are struggling to keep up, can’t really afford their car payment and might even use a bike if there were dedicated bike lanes. So people looking to discourage building out bike infrastructure will naturally prefer that everyone thinks the only ones who would benefit from these developments would be some middle-manager who owns his home, rides a bike that costs more than your rent and that has gone on more vacations in the last year than you have in the last two decades.
You’re absolutely right! As a middle-class man who cycles and just doesn’t want to die, I still find it very annoying.
@frankPodmore @vividspecter Since middle aged, middle to upper class white men are also most likely to drive monster trucks for everyday transportation & recreation, we could also argue that for the safety and comfort of all we should do everything possible to get that group onto bikes instead of trucks.
But instead, they turn around and blame traffic problems on women taking their kids to school!