>>1749872Because of the two-party system, every american is socially obligated to assume the contrary position to whatever position their "enemy" takes first, even if there are no reasonable grounds for disagreement. The positions are keyed to social class (upper=liberal or dem; lower=conservative or GOP). The relevant class signifiers for cycling are:
1. Leisure exercise. A working person with a "real job" uses his hands, or his body, to earn a living. He doesn't have time or energy to waste sweating for fun.
2. Leisure travel. Cycling advocates are addicted to saying "when I was in the Netherlands..." or "when I was in Denmark..." followed by a statement about bicycles that implies that the country in question (which their interlocutor is presumed not to have visited) is better in myriad ways. This also touches upon...
3. Patriotism. Conservatives have essentially appropriated the word "patriotism", to the point where describing oneself as "patriotic" or expressing love of one's country are really statements about domestic political alignment. Saying America could learn from another place in even the most trivial way is highly "unpatriotic".
4. Right of access to contested public spaces. If a lower class person enters a contested public space they can expect open hostility (violence is also justified). Upper class people love to enter contested public spaces to show how "easy" it is i.e. how the system unconditionally protects them: look nothing happens, why don't "we" do this more often? Roads of course are a contested space with regard to bikes. Same with office elevators, etc.
There are also other reasons but basically cycling is one of the best virtue signaling activities for liberals who want to seem down to earth (what?!?? but bicycles are cheaper than cars!!~!~!!one - the average disingenuous liberal). That makes it "liberal" or "democratic" and therefore REAL americans are required to hate it.
