Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
Perhaps because some posters and cyclists do not wish to be associated with a construct that assumes that to be a proper car free/car lite cyclist or even a proper "Cyclist" requires being a member of the hug the whales/motorist bashing club.
Posters are not defending cars so much as fending off some of the arrogance of posters who seem to want to apply a car free=car hate loyalty oath to other posters or people identified as "Cyclists". Witness the recent exchange on this thread.
Perhaps you should consider why Machka (or any other poster) has to provide her bona fides as a car hater to keep from being badgered.
I do agree with you, in essence. Maybe my point was a little more subtle than what was conveyed by my clumsy words. I simply don't think cars are in need of defense. I don't think it should be shocking to you that most people who bother with a carfree forum are "anti-car" to a greater or lesser degree. I don't think that holding "anti-car" sentiments is more arrogant than holding "pro-car" sentiments.
That said, I also don't think that Machka's sincerity should be questioned. Or yours. I don't think people should have to be carfree or even carlight in order to post here. (I do think that posters should have a genuine
interest in the topic of the forum--just like I would expect only people who are interested in mountain biking to post on the MTB subforum, whether or not they have ever actually ridden a bike off pavement.)
Personally, I was bothered by Ekdog's comment to Machka. I wish he hadn't said it, and I wish he would apologize to her. But that's between them. I probably shouldn't say anything, but I do want to support Machka.
Although I disagree with her much of the time, I truly value Machka's contributions to this forum. I also recognize that she has done much more for cycling in her career than I will ever do. And we do need dissent and diversity, or all we have is an echo chamber.