Dealing with anti-cycling "friends"

One of my friends (co-worker, actually) posted on Facebook that he had an encounter with a rude cyclist, and he couldn't wait to see the cyclist's ghost bike.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I know there are rude cyclists, just as there are rude drivers, but I don't wish any of them dead. I said as much, and told him he was wrong for wishing the cyclist dead and should be ashamed. He responded that he didn't really care about my opinion and I should keep it to myself, to which I responded that he invited my opinion when he offered his. So he defriended me.

That's all I got really, just a basic Facebook pissing contest. Do you ever encounter "friends" (or people you just know) who hate on cyclists? How do you deal with them? I can let a lot of stuff slide by, but I draw the line at hoping to see a cyclist's ghost bike.

Views: 2596

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mark Potts on January 14, 2013 at 10:02pm

"the car is truly the biggest inconvenience of all.  It has ruined so many great things about our lives, our society, our culture, our architecture, our way of thinking about the world.  So to sit and watch a driver get pissed off as I cross the road in front of him, walking home from work in 0 degree weather, while he sits in his heated oasis, fumed, just wanting to hit the gas and plow me over.  I smile back at him and enjoy his inconvenience that much more."

Our way of thinking of the world... so true.  While enjoyment of others' misery is never any sort of real joy - your point regarding the car taking over the transportation system is very important.

The car has helped draw people away from appreciation of the world that surrounds them.  This happens directly by climate control/noise isolation/use of external energies to transport... but deeper are the psychological attributes of car ownership and desire of car ownership.

Simply put, why would ANYONE, EVER, desire to use a device *every day of their lives* that decreases the quality of the air they MUST breathe and the water they MUST drink and changes great forests for which so much life NEEDS into concrete deserts?  And even in a state of nature detachment, why would anyone decide to spend more time away from friends and family to gain monetary support for an infatuation with transportation?  And why would someone create the above situation to transport themselves 5 miles to a place where they then walk 5 miles in place (treadmill)?

Is it realized that the "grocery getter" contributes to obesity not only by making effortless time that would otherwise be spent giving physical effort... it alters our food choices as now less trips to the grocery store can be made/more gotten at one time.  In comes frozen processed food and all the horrors it creates.

Facts are, cars are an extremely destructive force to every aspect of our lives.  There are superior forms of transportation that do not contribute so greatly to the poisoning of our planet... cycling is a fine example of this.

Permalink Reply by Mark Potts on January 14, 2013 at 10:19pm

"Cars may appear to link us to far away places and expand our world... but reality for most people is cars create a monotonous link between A and B - effectively eliminating the consideration of enjoying all that lies between while preference is given to the hum of a machine that farts out death while creating debt."

Permalink Reply by Katie on January 15, 2013 at 2:00am
Wow, this thread is amazing.....inanimate objects are tools. Problems arise from how people use them. I do not believe this is a problem of cars but of people.

Note to self - do not feed the trolls.....
Permalink Reply by Duppie on January 15, 2013 at 3:09am

Ah yes, the I'm a car-hater because it makes me feel superior kind of post.

Remind me not to befriend you on FB either.

Mark Potts said:

"the car is truly the biggest inconvenience of all.  It has ruined so many great things about our lives, our society, our culture, our architecture, our way of thinking about the world.  So to sit and watch a driver get pissed off as I cross the road in front of him, walking home from work in 0 degree weather, while he sits in his heated oasis, fumed, just wanting to hit the gas and plow me over.  I smile back at him and enjoy his inconvenience that much more."

Our way of thinking of the world... so true.  While enjoyment of others' misery is never any sort of real joy - your point regarding the car taking over the transportation system is very important.

The car has helped draw people away from appreciation of the world that surrounds them.  This happens directly by climate control/noise isolation/use of external energies to transport... but deeper are the psychological attributes of car ownership and desire of car ownership.

Simply put, why would ANYONE, EVER, desire to use a device *every day of their lives* that decreases the quality of the air they MUST breathe and the water they MUST drink and changes great forests for which so much life NEEDS into concrete deserts?  And even in a state of nature detachment, why would anyone decide to spend more time away from friends and family to gain monetary support for an infatuation with transportation?  And why would someone create the above situation to transport themselves 5 miles to a place where they then walk 5 miles in place (treadmill)?

Is it realized that the "grocery getter" contributes to obesity not only by making effortless time that would otherwise be spent giving physical effort... it alters our food choices as now less trips to the grocery store can be made/more gotten at one time.  In comes frozen processed food and all the horrors it creates.

Facts are, cars are an extremely destructive force to every aspect of our lives.  There are superior forms of transportation that do not contribute so greatly to the poisoning of our planet... cycling is a fine example of this.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on January 15, 2013 at 4:08am

I don't have to be angry to think you are an asshole, if anything it makes me a little sad and feel kind of sorry for you.

Joseph Shields said:

The only anger and ill will expressed thus far has been from you.  I never made any attacks on your person, only expressed my opinions with regard to cars.  I only pointed out the smile on my face, whence you called me an asshole.  The amplification of your anger is palpable.  I hope you enjoy it.

notoriousDUG said:

You are an asshole and you make the roads worse for EVERYONE on them.  The attitude you have is so damaging to the cause of cycling advocacy that I don't even have the words to express the harm you do.  All of the anger and ill will we all deal with is driven by people just like you no matter what form of transportation they choose.

Cars, nor the people who drive them are inherently evil.  In fact cars are pretty darn useful and there is nothing wrong with choosing to use one from time to time. 

Joseph Shields said:

There is nothing more satisfying than pissing off someone in car.  I think the scale with which they amplify their anger is in direct proportion to the size of their car and in inverse proportion to the size of their humanity.  But that aside, the car is truly the biggest inconvenience of all.  It has ruined so many great things about our lives, our society, our culture, our architecture, our way of thinking about the world.  So to sit and watch a driver get pissed off as I cross the road in front of him, walking home from work in 0 degree weather, while he sits in his heated oasis, fumed, just wanting to hit the gas and plow me over.  I smile back at him and enjoy his inconvenience that much more.  

notoriousDUG said:

This has to be one of the most ill conceived notion about manner on the road that I have ever seen.

Cars have EVERY right to be annoyed and complain about it when a cyclists does something rude, illegal or just plain stupid that inconveniences them.  It is stupid to think that somebodies transportation choices have any bearing on their right to get upset when others are ignorant.

Joseph Shields said:

There is a hierarchy on the road.  Those who drive automobiles cannot complain or talk shit about anyone, because their modus of travel has the ability to kill both bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as others in automobiles.  If a car was ever inconvenienced because of someone on a bike or a pedestrian, they have no real cause to complain about.  It should be understood that they are part of the problem themselves.  Now, taking that one step further, bicyclists can talk shit about cars, because they are at a much higher risk and I can sympathize with their cause and they are generally treated poorly on the road.  But, I have also seen bicycles treat pedestrians with the same lack of consideration and lack of respect for their safety as they might equally receive from motorists.  Ultimately the pedestrian is the most "naked" and at risk individual.  So, while I agree with your cause as a bicyclist, please consider how you treat those who are simply on their feet and have to defend themselves not only from cars, but riders just as much.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 15, 2013 at 4:39am

Dug -  I'm with you on this one. 

This kind of anti-car attitude acted out on the roads doesn't help any of us, and can make the roads a lot more dangerous for all of us by provoking attitudes like that of Will's co-worker (getting back to what started this thread). 

How many people out there are desensitized to violence and lacking in impulse control?  And how many of those folks are driving cars?  Do we really need to provoke lethal behavior by people driving big mobile weapons?  If you provoke someone and get away, then the driver cuts loose on the next cyclist down the road and severely injures or kills that person, could you live with that on your conscious?

As far as I'm concerned, "share the road" needs to go both ways.  That's my message, and I'm sticking to it.

Permalink Reply by Sarah D. on January 15, 2013 at 5:12am

Amen!

Of course we on Chainlink all agree that cycling is fantastic and a superior mode of transport, but sharing the road will only work in all directions - ped/car/transit/cyclists. We won't win anyone over when we're righteous and mean and deliberately put ourselves and fellow travelers on our shared public way in danger, whether it's to prove a point or not. 

Anne Alt 2-10 said:

Dug -  I'm with you on this one. 

This kind of anti-car attitude acted out on the roads doesn't help any of us, and can make the roads a lot more dangerous for all of us by provoking attitudes like that of Will's co-worker (getting back to what started this thread). 

How many people out there are desensitized to violence and lacking in impulse control?  And how many of those folks are driving cars?  Do we really need to provoke lethal behavior by people driving big mobile weapons?  If you provoke someone and get away, then the driver cuts loose on the next cyclist down the road and severely injures or kills that person, could you live with that on your conscious?

As far as I'm concerned, "share the road" needs to go both ways.  That's my message, and I'm sticking to it.

Permalink Reply by Mark Potts on January 15, 2013 at 6:52am

Personally I take no responsibility for the actions of others.  If someone feels about me in any way, that is their own desire.  Actions that result are their own.

The underlying concept is what is the *best* life we can collectively live.  The method of resolution is to find the root of the problem and dig it up from there.

Permalink Reply by David Barish on January 15, 2013 at 8:54am

As this conversation started we railed against the fringe on the motorized side.  In recent days my mailbox has been flooded with the inevitable reaction railing against the fringe on the green bikey side. I am surprised to find my inner conservative. Both rants resonate with me.  I have a hard time with hard core [insert your opinion here]. I like to ride my bike.  I try to ride it when I can. I drive a car.  I travel out of town on business. I am jealous of Anika.(see the thread on commuting distances) To borrow from another post I have seen, maybe it would be fun to put the original anti cycling misanthrope in a glass room with the cars are death posters, get a couple of beers and sit and watch the show. We can figure out whether it will be a drama, a comedy, a horror movie or perhaps one of those strange bedfellows flicks that bring a smile to our face.

Sarah D. 1-3.3 said:

Amen!

Of course we on Chainlink all agree that cycling is fantastic and a superior mode of transport, but sharing the road will only work in all directions - ped/car/transit/cyclists. We won't win anyone over when we're righteous and mean and deliberately put ourselves and fellow travelers on our shared public way in danger, whether it's to prove a point or not. 

Anne Alt 2-10 said:

Dug -  I'm with you on this one. 

This kind of anti-car attitude acted out on the roads doesn't help any of us, and can make the roads a lot more dangerous for all of us by provoking attitudes like that of Will's co-worker (getting back to what started this thread). 

How many people out there are desensitized to violence and lacking in impulse control?  And how many of those folks are driving cars?  Do we really need to provoke lethal behavior by people driving big mobile weapons?  If you provoke someone and get away, then the driver cuts loose on the next cyclist down the road and severely injures or kills that person, could you live with that on your conscious?

As far as I'm concerned, "share the road" needs to go both ways.  That's my message, and I'm sticking to it.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 15, 2013 at 9:00am

To borrow from another post I have seen, maybe it would be fun to put the original anti cycling misanthrope in a glass room with the cars are death posters, get a couple of beers and sit and watch the show. We can figure out whether it will be a drama, a comedy, a horror movie or perhaps one of those strange bedfellows flicks that bring a smile to our face.

<taking off the serious hat...>  That could have a certain twisted amusement value, especially if it was John Kass in that room.  ;)

<switching hats again>  This post on Bob Mionske's blog raises some good points.  Isn't this often the root of our on-street conflicts:  "...what is really at issue here are conflicting ideas about whether a bicycle is exactly like a motor vehicle and should therefore be subject to exactly the same laws..."  and wouldn't it be great to get to this point:  "...a bicycle is fundamentally different—a human-powered vehicle—and should have laws that reflect that difference."

Permalink Reply by globalguy on January 15, 2013 at 9:29am

But elsewhere, an Ohio Lawyer cites English Common Law (going back to the Magna Carta) and various SCOTUS decisions that declare “[t]he streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way" regardless of conveyance type. IMHO the laws, while reflecting this difference, should preserve our overall right to access.

Anne Alt 2-10 said:

This post on Bob Mionske's blog raises some good points.  Isn't this often the root of our on-street conflicts:  "...what is really at issue here are conflicting ideas about whether a bicycle is exactly like a motor vehicle and should therefore be subject to exactly the same laws..."  and wouldn't it be great to get to this point:  "...a bicycle is fundamentally different—a human-powered vehicle—and should have laws that reflect that difference."

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 15, 2013 at 11:51am

IMHO the laws, while reflecting this difference, should preserve our overall right to access.

I agree.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service