My bike is black, so fuck this whiny cunt

@Conflict: I used to work at a branch of the library. One day, some white guy came in the building with his obviously expensive bicycle. When I told him he couldn't bring his bike in the building, he left, self-righteously comparing his situation to being black in the south. What I wanted to reply -- but couldn't because I was at work -- was "Yeah, I know. It's like I just lynched you."

So yeah, stuff like that happens.

To me, a bike commuter is a person who's mode of transportation is a bike. I hesitate to say "main" mode. I would say that there is a genuine minority of people who do not own cars and only get around by bike, except in rare circumstances (zip-car, riding with friends, walking, taking public transport). Statistically, these people are a minority. There are groups advocating for their 'rights to the road,' so to speak, so there is a degree of a struggle for 'equal road rights'. For some cycling is a choice, for others, it isn't! There is a growing number of people who cannot afford other transport...cycling, in fact, is the cheapest way aside from walking. So these people want to feel safe on the roads so they can get where they are going. If roads are unsafe for cyclists and they are being killed or injured (which does happen, lets not forget), they are technically a slightly disadvantaged minority of the population. There is nothing wrong with that comparison. Comparing it with the plight of the Cherokee, or African Americans, is hyperbole. What we are talking about here maybe is semantics. Maybe something similar to liberal with a lowercase and Liberal with an uppercase. Maybe you hear Minority and you think LBGT or Black or Native American and I would agree that these are Cultural Minorities. I would also agree that 'hardcore' cyclists are also a minority, just as Crust Punks are or Larpers. To call those groups' "struggle" against the dominant culture comparable to others (such as Gays or Blacks or Jews) is laughable, could certainly be offensive and should be avoided at all costs. But honestly, (and I bike commute and volunteer at a couple bike organizations in town) this is the first I had heard of it.

The problem is the co-opting of terms and using them to exclusively refer to the Black civil rights struggle of the 50's-60's. Pollsters speak of the "minority" all the time without racial implications, since we all know they mean "not the majority". We can't assume that anyone that uses the word "minority" is referring to a racial minority, they may just mean a statistical minority, as the first commenter suggests.

It is interesting that the majority of drivers who seem to have a perpetual beef with anyone who uses a bike for transportation continue to refer to the "cycling community" as though anyone they happen to see on a bike is somehow related to and responsible for every other person they have ever seen or will see on a bike. All "spandex clowns" look alike to them (uh-oh, I said "look alike"). Seems like the majority is the one forcing "minority status" onto cyclists rather than the other way around.

I suppose that when referring to the inferior status, inferior infrastructure (or just inferior placement on the roadway) that cyclists must tolerate, we should avoid terms such as "separate but not equal", "bike ghetto", and "back of the bus" because too many people are sensitive about those terms. We could instead say--truthfully--that cyclists are the victims of bullying by those with more mass who enjoy the bias (can I say "bias"?) of law and law enforcement. We could also say that cyclists are often legally bound to occupy the most dangerous, inferior places and positions on any given travelway, putting their lives at greater risk merely to serve the convenience of the majority (can I refer to drivers as a transportation "majority"?). We could say that there are several roadways--often the most direct and convenient routes--that "for safety's sake" we have either legally or de facto (via bullying) designated "cars only, no bikes allowed" (oops, I said, "only" and "allowed").

Sure cycling is a choice, we could just tell everyone to "get a car!" or "ride the bus--you can sit in the front!" or maybe, "why can't you stay in your bike neighborhoods?" (rats! I said "neighborhood"!), but isn't that giving up a fundamental freedom to travel where one wishes under one's own power (can I say "power")? Anybody can give up freedom, I guess--regardless of whether they are a minority or not--but should they? Or should those who choose to--or have few viable alternatives to--travel by bicycle continue to strugg--I mean, "advocate" for more equal--uh-oh, I mean "equitable" accommodation and treatment on the roadways?

currypower1 has clearly never taken a lane to merge with traffic at intersections and avoid a right hook. He/she would be flattened in California, or any other state allowing cars to use the bike lane as a right turn lane (a law Oregon has repeatedly considered).

I once said (on bikeportland.org) that bicyclists are the only minority in America still considered PC to insult in the media. Maybe I'm the one that ticked this person off, but someone replied to my comment saying I don't have the right comparing to a race plight. I said absolutely nothing about race, and the first commenter here correctly points out that you can be in a minority group based on attributes other than race. I read that blog frequently and have rarely seen other posters refer to themselves as minority, so I don't see a "trend" there.

Someone's got too much time or energy on their hands to worry about crap.

"Pete, if you put the words 'minority' and 'PC' in the same sentance, you are asking for just that kind of comparison to race - whether or not you put the word 'race' in, and you know it too." - frankieb

The thought never crossed my mind, honestly. I was using the term minority to refer to a group of people making up a smaller share than the norm, the way geyser refers to it in the first comment. Maybe I'm wrong to not apply the sociological, anthropological, or political term to it, so sue me.

The irony is, while I was jumped on for presumably relating some "plight" of a bicyclist to race, the people jumping on me assumed I'm white and don't know what it's like to be a black man. Do I have a "white" name? And the only "plight" I saw as a bicyclist in Oregon is that drivers harassed me when I was minding my own business. I don't have that issue in California as there are lots more cyclists here (including many other black bikers). No more telling me to ride on the sidewalk, get off the road, or get a car. I wouldn't have believed the extent of it if I hadn't lived through it.

RE: taking the lane. LAB teaches how to merge properly, and it's written into state laws (even the broken striping on bike lanes here in Cali). New FHWA signs advise ignorant motorists that "Bicyclists Have Full Use of Lane." I use discretion and I break no laws when I do and it's kept me from ever getting hit in twenty years of riding. You ride your way, I'll ride mine.

Yes, Portland was by far the most 'PC' place I ever lived, and I pretty much live in Berkeley now (Oakland, Berkeley's a few blocks from me).