• Maoo [none/use name]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    142 years ago

    Cyclists run the gamut but cycling infrastructure favors the wealthy. This favor is explicit (where agencies choose to create infrastructure, systematically) and implicit (land use follows “the market”, pushing the poor away from infrastructure).

    This would not be the case if we fixed the latter by overthrowing the capitalist class - or at leasr scaring the shit out if them.

    • MF_COOM [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 years ago

      cycling infrastructure favors the wealthy. This favor is explicit (where agencies choose to create infrastructure, systematically) and implicit (land use follows “the market”, pushing the poor away from infrastructure).

      nkrumah-baffled

        • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 years ago

          ok so you don’t mean the existence of cycling infrastructure favours the wealthy you mean the lack of it disadvantages the poor

          • Maoo [none/use name]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            42 years ago

            People choose to make capital investments to create cycling infrastructure. The active decision and investment and work is on the side of that coin that favors the wealthy.

            Land use and the emphasis on car-centric streets do as well, and is normally what cycling infrastructure is bolted onto. So the “default” lack of infrastructure was also intentionally created that way to favor the wealthy - the people who could afford cars early on. Streets were a commons that got restricted to private vehicles.