Blue_Bulldog

if wife = ex wife and cute = two timing... then you nailed it

Mobile 155

At times this forum is hard to understand. I have often thought that so many here are over sensitive and that was just the nature of things. But it seems really strange for someone to come to a small corner room in the Bicycle Forums, become a known member by posting in that corner, Car Free, and then worry about being put in a box? Isn't the very idea of being an advocate for car free or car light putting ones self in a box? Not that it matters.

The day I could say 51 percent of my yearly mileage was by bicycle I considered it an honor if I was called a cyclists. And normally it is meant with more respect from non cyclists than the names other people on bikes call each other. It doesn't bother motorists, a name recognized by car commuters nation wide and used by the national media to be called a motorist. People walking to work of to the mall are called pedestrians , No one will refuse to use a crossing to a road marked for pedestrians. A cyclist is far more positive than liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, enviromentalist and any other name I can think of that identifies someone momentary idology and yet they wear it as a badge of honor.

So yes, call me a cyclist if you want, and not being an introvert I will be happy to discuss cycling related issues at a social function if asked to do so.

Alekhine

I'm not sure that everyone here is an advocate. Some of us simply don't drive and that's that. The only 24-7 label I would prefer to be known by is pianist/classical musician, etc. If I'm on the bike, okay, yes I'm a cyclist. Off it? Not a big deal or anything, but no - not any more than I would call everyone else I know a "driver" when they're doing anything else but driving. Can't speak for anyone else though.

Rowan

No, I meant Everybody Loves Raymond, a TV sit-com.

Roody

Well, this makes a lot of sense.

Roody

What do you (or would you) tell an acquaintance who asked why you don't drive a car? Would you be an advocate for yourself, or would you shy away from the question?

Alekhine

I'd tell them the reasons. I wouldn't call that advocacy though.

Roody

It's an important part of advocacy, at the very least. You explain why being carfree or carlight works for you, and the unspoken implication is that it might work for others as well.

Alekhine

I don't operate that way. That unspoken implication that you presume is one that I feel no responsibility for - it would be purely in the mind of the other and not in my intent. My tendency is to reduce most opinions like this to something similar to talking about favorite salad dressings. You like what you like; I like what I like. I don't let myself feel pressured by anyone to feel a certain way about such a choice that I would have to "advocate for myself or dodge the question," as you put it - as if it's something to be ashamed of or proud of or have to defend or sell.

I suppose advocacy is something we might see differently. When I tell someone why I do something (which I rarely do unless asked or in the company of fellows like this forum), it's never under the assumption that I'm telling others they should like what I like or do what I do. I am merely explanatory, and if they don't like it or presume to make an issue of it, I can't be bothered to care very much. At the very least, I certainly don't sell my life choices or tastes to others.

CenturionIM

here we go, sixty-fiver with his crazy bike again

surreal

I think that, ideally, ppl who ride a bike for transportation won't be singled out for it at parties. Really, one's typical mode of conveyance is a pretty boring way to introduce ppl:
-"Meet Bob; he's a pedestrian"
-"Have you met Cindy? She's a really cool motorist, and she also walks kinda funny."
-"I'd like to introduce you to David. He usually takes a train to work, but today he took a cab."

The thing is, we're pretty far from anything ideal, as far as transport-cycling goes, and with a whole lot of other stuff, too. As of right now,
driving is the norm, so it's not likely to be part of an introduction unless you race NASCAR or do stunt-driving for Hollywood movies. Committed, full-time pedestrians aren't the norm, but most of us use that mode at some point everyday; referring to someone as such would seem, so, well....
pedestrian. Ha. And, while not everyone takes public transportation at this point, using trains and buses doesn't have the same conversational impact as cycling does. I think this is, in part, b/c cycling is something active, where being a passenger on mass transit is a passive thing. Plus, trains and buses are not currently as politically charged as cycling is.... There's far less to discuss (and argue about!) as of right now, in regards to mass transit.

So, do I get introduced at parties as a cyclist? Not often; it used to happen more, when I was totally car-free, but it occurs at times. Do I want to be labeled as such? Probably not; there's much more to me (and, I suspect, most of us) than just cycling. But, instead of wincing when someone introduces you as a cyclist, take it instead as a positive opportunity to represent yourself (or, cycling in general, if you're ambitious) to a new audience. If you can't run that, find a way to deftly change the subject.

I-Like-To-Bike

The thread discussion was about like/dislike at being introduced or referred to as a cyclist, not about car free status.

I have no doubt that many, many people do not associate one status with the other. IOW, when Lance Armstrong or any committed/ardent recreational cyclist is introduced as "A Cyclist", few people are going to assume the individual is car free or even think about if the individual drives a car.

Roody

Same here. I haven't talked to anybody about being carfree for months, and that was because they asked. I said about two sentences and changed the subject. But if people do want to talk about political or social issues, I'm going to speak my mind and do my best to explain my position in a sensible way.

Alekhine

Ya, I mean, it's not like I don't have strong opinions about the issue or anything. I do. And to some extent how I explain them to people is dependent on my relationship with them. If it's someone I've known for a long time in a good friendship, they're familiar by now with all my opinions about virtually everything, so discussions can be a little more lively.

But I would consider it counterproductive to advocacy to unleash the full weight of my ideas on this and interrelated sociopolitical, environmental, cultural/aesthetic concerns with a total stranger. And frankly unfair. In my experience, people often find such opinions threatening. And it would be unfair in the sense that a new conversation with someone is like discovering an unmarked tin can and grabbing the can opener to find out what's inside. Nobody wants to have a rattlesnake leap out of the thing. If that's what they get, the bold will grab their shotguns and the meek will run away. I don't necessarily want either result, nor do I want to be a rattlesnake with anyone - including old friends who get to hear my sharper opinions.

Cognitive dissonance and presumption are tough barriers in any case with things like this. Better to give the explanation as dispassionately and dry/explanatory as possible if prompted, IMO. And even with such deliberate precaution, people can still make horrible assumptions about my "car free zealotry" from time to time that I find absolutely baffling. It's the same with music and art. I've had people call me a snob for doing nothing more than telling them that I don't really like rock & roll or pop or rap or country, or abstract expressionism, PoMo aesthetics, etc, but that I love classical and jazz and the old master painters with a great, great love. How that's snobbish rather than simply a declaration of tastes as with the salad dressing analogy I'll never know, but as I said before, it's ridiculous to be bothered by it. I've heard the same complaint from vegetarians I know who absolutely mind their own business about it and act in the same way I'm talking about, but get all sorts of arguments, assumptions, and baloney thrown at them the moment it's discovered that they are vegetarian. C'est la vie!

Machka 

+1


Is saying, "I don't drive because I don't like driving" being an advocate?

As Alekhine indicates below, for me any conversation about driving or not would be right up there with ... I like chocolate. I don't like mushrooms. I like walking. I don't like driving. You might dislike chocolate and love mushrooms ... no biggie. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.


+1

Machka 

My being a cyclist has absolutely nothing to do with not driving a car. It has everything to do with the fact that I do a lot of cycling and have done for years.

Ekdog

You've been a keen cyclist for years, but are you at all interested in car-free living?

Machka 

I have lived car-free for many years.

Ekdog

Are you interested in car-free living?

Machka 

Are you having difficulty reading English?

surreal

The distinction here is, living car-free may indeed be something you do, but do you have a strong interest in it? I use q-tip brand cotton swabs to clean my ears on a regular basis, and I have done so for years. Will likely continue to do so. But, I don't necessarily have a strong interest in swabbing my ears. Which, of course, is why you won't find me on any q-tip forums.

Which is also why I think we can safely assume that Machka does have some sort of interest in car-free livin'.

Ekdog

No, none whatsoever.

You seem to be avoiding the question. As so many of your posts are pro-car, I've begun to wonder if you've forgotten what the title of this subforum is.

Roody

I have no doubts about Machka's sincere interest in carfree living. She clearly uses other transportation instead of a car most of the time.

I'm not clear on why people feel such a need to defend cars. They don't really seem to need much defending in our car dominant culture, since the threat against them is minuscule at best.

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.

Rowan

I thought it would have been self-explanatory -- of course there is an interest, otherwise, Machka and I wouldn't be here discussing these issues. What she and I are bringing to the conversations is a degree of balance and reality and a somewhat broader view of the world than some who post here.

Just to be quite clear, there is no special membership requirement to participate in this forum. There is no membership fee, no vows against the motor car, and no initiation rites. Not even a special little avatar to go against the posters' names. We are free to post our (reasonable) comments and observations, many of which have been based on many years of not owning a motor vehicle.