Bike identity is a product of the degrowth movement
“They’re killing us” muttered Stacey Randecker as she watched the ambulance finally pull out of her bike lane on a rainy San Francisco morning.
We live in a kingdom of victimhood, and Stacey has just been crowned the new Queen. Because, you see, Bicyclist is now a recognized identity, and according to a recent SF Chronicle op-ed by Ruth Malone:
Ultimately, hate of bicyclists comes from the same place as racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia: a desire to cling to the status quo power arrangements that favor some over others. As the bicycle becomes re-popularized as a legitimate form of transportation, there are inevitably more conflicts with those who continually and mindlessly assert that “streets are for cars.” But just as gay people are no longer willing to stay in the closet, nor women in the kitchen, bicyclists are no longer willing to settle for crumbs in terms of use of our public roadways.
In short, hating on Bicyclists is the modern form of bigotry. Rightfully so, these people did not choose to live as Bicyclists. They were born into a world of impending doom, urban overpopulation, air pollution and emissions accelerating climate change. At least, that is, according to a recent briefing by the World Economic Forum:
Electrifying private vehicles is not enough to achieve the emissions reduction targets agreed in the Paris Agreement on climate. In order to create more equitable, liveable and healthy cities, a diverse range of approaches is required.
Electrification needs to be accelerated in sync with a powerful push towards more efficient, accessible and connected public transport, improved infrastructure and priority for cycling and walking
In order to save the world, we must prioritize Ruth and Stacey. We must center their voices and lived experiences. They are valid.
Prioritizing bikes is a major pillar of the degrowth movement
It’s easy to write this absurd behavior off as a top-down brainwashing from the Davos Reptile Class. But something about that rings hollow. Why would these women relate their experiences as People of Cycling to that of black or gay people, who, despite the insanely-woke current culture, actually were historically subject to real bigotry? How do these women not see this clear absurdity on the face of it?
The promotion of bicycling as the dominant form of transportation has been pushed in concert from top-down, and bottom up for decades now via the Degrowth Movement. At the 2010 Conference on Economic Degrowth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equality, a working group of volunteers and academics came up with a number of political and research proposals. On a slide titled Moratoria on new infrastructure, one bullet states “transformation of some existing infrastructure must be promoted: smaller and more compact cities, converting car based infrastructure to walking and cycling”
Just like virtually every other “social justice” organization, degrowth emerged out of the “grassroots” halls of academia where eager, well-meaning young minds were massaged to be radical in just the right way to conform with ruling elite policy, but still feel like it they had an idea which originated with them, and therefore representative of the ailing masses. Like loaded guns, these young minds have had their youthful angst and ambition to “fight the power” manipulated to act in service of the power they purport to be fighting.
The 2010 Conference on Economic Degrowth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equality, of course, followed from the first international conference (Paris, April 2008), that took place with the support of the Malthusian Club of Rome, the think tank behind the World Economic Forum.
Bike Identity is one of those weird multi-headed monsters. Because it has no legitimate ties to any kind of real bigotry, it’s completely built off of an elite policy of forced poverty and austerity, but has a false air of grassroots indignation, it creates a group of people who are self-righteous for exactly the wrong reasons.
All that without even mentioning the uptick of of excess deaths in places where degrowth bike policy is pushed hardest.
As a lifelong cyclist, I am dismayed by how much codling the typical commuter cyclist requires. First, in most cases, those committing by bicycle are usually well off enough to live near their work, which in almost every scenario equates to housing that costs significantly more than the median. Second, the jobs of the commuter class enable a disheveled, sweaty aesthetic that many jobs do not allow. We could argue that employers should abandon any semblance of a dress code in favor of commuter cyclists, but that is another topic.
I have only had the luxury of committing to work by bicycle a small number of times in my life, but even then, I lived at elevation, and winter weather precluded year-round commuting. However, being smart about how you present to traffic while on your bicycle and creative in the routes you choose and the moves you make on the road were always part of the fun for me. Unfortunately, the new commuter class seems to have no sense of adventure, humor, or creativity in cycling. Cynically, I attribute that to being more concerned with their carbon footprint than the joy of cycling. I do believe better cycling infrastructure can be a reasonable component when appropriate, but many of the commuters I know want a level of protection that isn't realistic. I have recreationally cycled some of California's busiest and most dangerous roads and the Seattle area. I completely understand that some areas are challenging and could use the help of appropriate infrastructure.
Lastly, I work a job that frequently requires me to respond to people an hour's drive from me. I work primarily from home but have an office sixteen miles from home I sometimes visit. Bicycle commuting is not an option, no matter what infrastructure is created. I take my hat off to the dedicated cycling commuters out there and suspect that the whiny commuters prevalent on social media are the minority. But, as a cyclist, I am ashamed to be even remotely associated with the Karens that whine about being discriminated against because they are cyclists. I long ago chose to distance myself from a large part of the bike racing community I used to be a part of because I didn't particularly appreciate being lumped into a group that seemed hell-bent on speaking with one unified voice. Many people enjoy "finding their tribe" and assuming a group identity. I look at cycling as the ultimate individual pursuit, and many times do not let people know I am a cyclist to prevent association with a group I share so little in common with.
I hate bikers so much. They have the most entitled views of themselves as too cool to follow any traffic rules and yet somehow they have the right away over both motor vehicles AND pedestrians in all cases.
Plus, riding bikes hurts my taint.