We don’t have to agree on every reason for building safer streets. We only have to agree that Americans deserve to make it home alive.

Then explain ICE you disingenuous fuck.

It's interesting to watch someone try to blame the Democrats for trying and failing to enact solutions to the problem that killed her father, point out that she's the only Republican she's met advocating for bike lanes, and still not see how important it is to talk to other Republicans about maybe building more fucking bike lanes.

"I have no empathy for others but now that it happened to me, I think it's important. Too bad that the people who are like me are just the same and won't care either. Too bad."

If you find out you're this wrong about one thing and it seems so obvious now, imagine how many other things you're wrong about but never bother to think about them with any reasoning or detail

The Left and the Right want the same thing.

But also:

I’m a Republican, and in nine months of advocating for safer streets, I have yet to meet another one.

We argue over “DEI bike lanes.”

I have never once, before this, heard of bikelanes as DEI. Man, the righty sphere is so wacky.

Do they even know what DEI means it they just throw that acronym around to describe anything they disagree with?

After nine months immersed in transportation policy, I’ve come to believe something simple: Republicans and Democrats are often arguing for the same thing using completely different languages.

I'm going to remove the specific parties from tbe discussion becuase this is more than a Dems vs Reps thing. But it is indeed not uncommon for people in general to actually more or less agree, but lose nuance or understanding by disagreeing on the language used.

How we frame the issue matters. The Left loses the Right as soon as bike lanes are tied into identity politics. Multimodal equity [...]

First of all, multimodal equity is a term that can only be common among transportation advocates like this person. This is jargon, not common terminology. Second, this term is not in any way about identity politics. It is about equity of modes of transport. In other words we should design cities, neighborhoods and roads with consideration for more than one mode of traffic. This has nothing at all to do with "identity politics" except for that the weird hang ups that the right has projected onto the term "equity". So yes, this may lose the right, but it is not for a good reason.

Multimodal equity is simply “freedom of movement” to a Republican.

Mkay. I don't think there is anything wrong with either term. For someone not involved in conversations around transportation much, the former is a little bit jargony and the latter is a bit vague. But if you understand what they mean, either term is perfectly fine.

But when Republicans talk about freedom, the progressives hear privilege.

No we don't. The left sees privilege that the right ignore plenty. But it has nothing to do with their use of the word "freedom" unless you are using the word wrong, such as religios freedom to impose your religion on everyone else.

Aren’t the Left and the Right essentially saying the same thing?

They can be. Are they? Are there people on the right that agree with your advocacy for multimodal equity/freedom of movement? Not according to your own comments:

I’m a Republican, and in nine months of advocating for safer streets, I have yet to meet another one.

You also mention that the Republican Secretary of Transport is more concerned about roads, bridges and ports than about bike lanes, sidewalks and crosswalks. So you tell me. Is the right saying the same things as the left on this subject? Or is it just you? And it also wasnt you until you suffered a personal tragedy that.made you reevaluate your stance. Because that is what it sounds like.

somewhere along the way, we turned roads into a political argument. We argue over “DEI bike lanes.” We argue over “equity.” We argue over ideology. [...] The Left loses the Right as soon as bike lanes are tied into identity politics.

Once again, the right-wing echosphere applies identity-politics labels to something, and once again it's the left's fault that that label has been applied.

How about instead of lecturing the left over how to appeal to the right, you go after the right and tell them to stop automatically tuning out the moment they hear one of the phrases they've been programmed to react irrationally and emotionally to.

I dunno it seems like the Republican arguments are stupid and the left wing ones are based on facts and evidence.

A bike lane is equity. It is freedom of movement. It is accessibility for someone who cannot drive. It is independence for a 12-year-old riding to school on their own — and an hour back in their mother’s day. It is law and order, using engineering to prevent tragedy instead of reacting to it after the fact. It is Make America Healthy Again — bringing Americans outside, safely. It is economic development.

This is all stuff the left says (minus the Maha branding). The right doesn't listen. They're too busy marinating in their feelings.

Here's a Wayback Machine link (in case you don't want to give traffic to the Washington Examiner): https://web.archive.org/...

For people who don't want to send traffic to the Washington Examiner - https://archive.ph/WPJe5

Chrissy Oakes, you’re a dumb fuck

I think if you read this as trying to communicate to a Republican audience, it's much less LAMF... I don't think she's trying to complain, I think she's trying to shift the right.. Seems like a good outcome to me.

Also, republicans are not solely responsible for America's insane car dependency, that shit has been building for a century. No one born in the last 50 years voted for this..

t’s a shame this person lost her father and still didn’t learn bike lanes are good because they’re DEI, allowing inclusive and equitable transportation options for people who bike.