Mobile 155

Now we have some agreement. And a lot of what we see I guess is based where we are and when. Back in the mid 70s it seemed like everyone had a cyclist in their household. We went through a period where small motorbikes were everywhere and then small motorcycles. But that might have been firing the gas crisis at the time. But for more than 40 years the US bicycle commuter share has hovered near 1 percent even if in Southern California it seemed greater.

But one thing I have noticed about the LCF movement is they have over looked a large pool of people to the point of disrespect. There is a general disrespect for recreational cyclists that is accepted in the movement. And no I am not going back to look for examples because we have all seen the comments. I am sure it doesn't bother recreational cyclists but it also doesn't garner much support from such a large number of cyclists.

Walter S

I live car free yet probably at least 80% of my cycling is recreational. That was different when I was doing a daily 40 mile RT commute. But lately I'm telecommuting. The amount of riding I need to do to take care of myself is not nearly what I need.

No disrespect for recreational cyclists here! It's my favorite activity

cooker

Lots of cities are promoting downtown renewal and densification. Every individual or family that opts for denser living is indirectly preserving some farm or wilderness land somewhere else, by choosing not to living on a larger plot there.

I-Like-To-Bike

The strident members of the LCF clique seldom fail to show contempt for all people who do share their ideological/sociological/economic objectives.

denis123

Please go back to the example because we haven't seen the comments.

Mobile 155

Just hang around for another 100 posts you will see yourself. With 22 posts you haven't scratched the surface.

tandempower

+1

Contempt's fightin' words! Don't provoke fights with emotional accusations. If you don't share someone's perspective or objectives, you should talk about why instead of just asserting you don't agree and that they have contempt for you because of it. That's a pathetic ad-hom substitute for reasoned discussion.

Mobile 155

However because you are new look at post number 11 on the thread "another look at recreational cyclists.

Here is a quote from a regular LCF advocate.
"So even if people aren't consciously normativizing others into conformity, it still happens in the form of implicit logics of behavior, such as driving to go on a bike ride, the idea being to contain one's recreation within a larger structure of driving as normative transportation. I dislike this culture because it is counter-rational; i.e. it is rational to just get on a bike at home and ride it recreationally and then come back home without having to load and unload it on a car. It's almost as irrational as driving to the health and fitness club to ride a stationary bike or walk on a treadmill; yet people do this as if it gives them higher status to contain their fitness activity within the designated area of a fitness center they pay for and drive to.

It is a bad culture because it creates unnecessary economic activity that not only wastes resources, but also promotes avoidance of natural activities like walking and recreation where those activities aren't contained within revenue-generating business models. If all cultural activities are commodified, then we have to work and make money to afford everything we do and we're no longer free to just do things without first earning the right to do them. There should be inalienable freedoms that you don't have to earn first before exercising them, and certainly things that individuals can do independently of others shouldn't be commodified as an opportunity for others to make money."

I-Like-To-Bike

Not necessarily. There are posters who have thousands of posts and allegedly "haven't seen" any economic proposals, or any moral or political screed, no matter how wacky, that wasn't a relevant LCF subject suitable for discussion as long it had at least a tinge of counter culture contempt for most of the the residents of North America who recognize the value of a functioning transportation system; often accompanied with hysterical rhetoric about the evils and costs of motorized vehicles and the people who use them, as well the alleged moral superiority of those people who claim they receive no benefits from the current transportation system and a functional economy.

denis123

Sorry but I cannot find this thread. Can you put a link?

I-Like-To-Bike

https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car...l#post18223350

denis123

Ty

loky1179

You are an example to us all. Unfortunately, not everyone on this forum can manage the delicate blend of thoughtfulness, respect, courtesy, open-mindedness, and gentle encouragement you display in post after post.

I-Like-To-Bike

Thank you, so far it has had little effect on the nature of the rote political screeds/economics group thinking and day dreaming theories that dominate the list.

cooker

I'm not sure who is disrespecting whom, if anybody. As I-Like-to-BIke pointed out. recreational cyclists are not usually living car-free or car-light or aspiring to, and so they may have quite different interests than LCF-LCL people - they may want to ride on a trail or a park path that is often quite different from the on-road routes transportational cyclists need to use to get to work, shops, etc. or take the bike on the car to a rural area. They may also not want to get buzzed by rush hour cyclists impatient to get to work or home. So they're often not going to have something in common to work on, unless the rec-cyclists happen to have live in the centre of a city and need to use streets to get to the park or whatever. So just like you have concluded that you don't have much in common with urban transportational cyclists and not much interest in supporting "our" issues, so rec-cyclists in general may not see much reason to work on urban transportation issues, but I don't see that there is necessarily disrespect flowing either way.

cooker

"Thousands of posts" eh? How many have 22,000? LOL.

Mobile 155

You do realize you made my point?

cooker

That I showed disrespect, or lack of common ground?

cooker

Mobile 155 I'm really struggling to understand what it is you are looking for or might want. You started the thread by asking how we can make the car-free movement more inclusive, but if ILTB is correct that most recreational cyclists (or, in fact, most people, period) aren't interested in being car-free or car-light, why is it a "problem" that needs a "solution" or evidence of "disrespect" f they aren't "included" in the "car-free-movement"?

You're really going to have to help me understand your point because it is completely escaping me.

I-Like-To-Bike

Your point? LCF posters need to have at least 22,000 posts before they can discern the wackyness of some of the bizarre and hysterical moral or political screeds and economics schemes posted on this list?

Is your point that until that number is reached, LCF posters should engage in hugging around the Groupthink Kampfire with any so-called LCF P&R tainted proposal, theory and rant posted by members of the Groupthink Gang; and call it support for the LCF lifestyle?

Is that your idea of seeking "Common Ground"

I-Like-To-Bike

Given that by the use of the term "car-light" on this list (i.e. anyone who occasionally rides a bike instead of their car for any purpose at any time), all recreational and commuter cyclists who own a car are "car-light". The so-called car-light people of the LCF list are not car free and are nowhere close to being so just because they sometimes or often ride a bike.

Maybe it is time to recognize that the term "car-light" has no meaning or significance except for people who don't wish to acknowledge that they own/drive or benefit from their household car and then be labeled an evil car driver by the LCF Group.

tandempower

It all comes down to your attitude toward LCF as an ethic. If you strive to drive less because you believe it makes the world better for everyone the less driving and driving-dependency there is, then you can call yourself car-light or LCF-oriented or whatever you want.

If, on the other hand, you see absolutely no problem with anyone and everyone driving as much as they want, driving-dependency ruling people's lives and thus the economy, and you resent people who see transportation biking as a way of reducing automotive traffic and dependency, why come on an LCF forum to negativize and berate people who believe there is a greater good to be pursued by LCF?

cooker

Again the notion that some of us are calling other people "evil' is yours and you didn't provide an example (WAINS?)

Car-light means you own a car and try to minimize your use of it either to minimize your expenses, or improve your own health, or because, for some people, they see deleterious effects of cars and want to limit their complicity in that, even though pragmatically they would find it difficult to eliminate it completely. Most recreational cyclists are not car-light by any of these criteria, as you are normally the first to point out, but you never let consistency get in the way of a good jab at other posters.

Walter S

Please don't lump us all in with wacky extreme opinions from a couple posters even though they frequent this place. That doesn't make them typical for those that want to practice a car free life. It just means they're frequent posters to BF.

I may be wrong but I don't think you see replies of agreement to a post like that one.

I-Like-To-Bike

Not to that specific post, but fawning discussion of similar wacky extreme opinions from a couple of posters is not unusual, usually led by a couple of cheerleaders for group solidarity and support. And never a word of criticism or disagreement with the wacky extreme LCF opinions, from the usual suspects, except for an exception or two that includes yourself.