September 13, 2026
Why is the Trump administration calling bike lanes ‘DEI’? | Dave Schilling
Talking Points: "Why is the Trump administration calling bike lanes ‘DEI’?" by Dave Schilling
-
Protagonist and Perspective: Dave Schilling, a humorist and writer, reflects on his personal struggles with car dependency and his inability to ride a bike, using this lens to critique the Trump administration's stance on bike lanes.
-
Argument: Schilling argues that the administration's dismissal of bike lanes as mere "DEI" initiatives is misguided; bike lanes not only provide a safer alternative to driving but also contribute to environmental sustainability by reducing car usage.
-
Cultural Commentary: He highlights the absurdity of equating bike lanes with diversity, pointing out that biking is a common skill, and critiques the administration's narrow view of masculinity that dismisses biking as unmanly.
-
Implications: The rejection of bike lanes reflects a broader resistance to alternative transportation solutions, which could hinder urban safety and sustainability efforts, ultimately impacting public health and environmental progress.

Stoic Response
Citizens of the Agora,
Today, I stand before you not merely to discuss the trivialities of transportation but to address a pressing issue that reflects our values as a society. The recent dismissal by the Trump administration of bike lanes as mere “DEI” initiatives is not just an affront to sustainable urban planning; it is a challenge to our collective commitment to the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, and temperance.
Let us consider the virtue of prudence. In a world where the average American household spends over $3,000 annually on gasoline, promoting bike lanes should be seen as a rational response to our crippling car dependency. Bike lanes not only provide safer routes for cyclists but also serve as a catalyst for reducing traffic congestion and environmental degradation. By rejecting these lanes, we are not just ignoring a viable alternative; we are squandering an opportunity for a more sustainable future.
Next, we must invoke the principle of justice. The idea that biking is a privilege limited to a specific demographic is both absurd and unjust. Riding a bike is a skill that transcends socio-economic boundaries, and bike lanes should be viewed as public goods that enhance community access and safety. By labeling them as mere “diversity initiatives,” the administration trivializes a critical public health measure that could save lives and promote well-being.
Moreover, the rejection of bike lanes reflects a narrow view of masculinity that dismisses alternative modes of transport as unmanly. This perspective not only alienates potential cyclists but also undermines the very essence of civic responsibility. As we strive for a society that values inclusivity and sustainability, we must challenge these outdated notions and embrace all means of transportation as valid and worthy.
Therefore, I charge you, citizens, to advocate for bike lanes and alternative transportation solutions in your communities. Engage with local leaders, attend town halls, and educate your neighbors on the benefits of safer roads and reduced carbon footprints. Let us not allow misguided ideologies to dictate our urban landscapes. Stand united for a future where all can travel safely, sustainably, and justly.
Together, let us ride toward a better tomorrow!
Article Rewritten Through Stoic Lens
A Stoic Perspective on Bike Lanes and the Trump Administration's Stance
In the unfolding narrative of urban transportation, we find ourselves at a crossroads where virtue is tested. The recent comments from the Trump administration regarding bike lanes, dismissed as mere “DEI” initiatives, invite us to reflect on our responses to conflict and the character we choose to cultivate.
Wisdom: Understanding the Value of Alternatives
Dave Schilling, a humorist and writer, shares his personal journey with car dependency. He acknowledges his inability to ride a bike, a skill many take for granted. This admission serves as a reminder that wisdom often comes from recognizing our limitations and the choices available to us.
The United States boasts 4,400 directional miles of bike lanes, a testament to the push for safer, more sustainable transportation options. These lanes not only provide a refuge for cyclists but also contribute to environmental sustainability by reducing car usage. In this light, bike lanes are not merely a matter of preference but a necessary alternative that promotes public health and urban safety.
Courage: Facing the Resistance to Change
The Trump administration's rejection of bike lanes reflects a broader resistance to alternative transportation solutions. Their logic—that bike lanes create chaos and take space away from cars—overlooks the potential for these lanes to enhance safety by encouraging drivers to slow down. Here, we see a challenge to our courage: to advocate for what is right, even in the face of opposition.
Schilling critiques the administration's narrow view of masculinity that equates biking with weakness. This perspective is a test of character, inviting us to redefine strength. True courage lies not in adhering to outdated notions of masculinity but in embracing diverse modes of transportation that benefit society as a whole.
Justice: The Call for Inclusivity and Safety
The dismissal of bike lanes as “DEI” initiatives raises questions about justice and inclusivity. Schilling points out the absurdity of equating biking with diversity, highlighting that biking is a skill accessible to many. The rejection of bike lanes limits access for those who rely on them for transportation, fitness, and affordability.
As responsible citizens, we must advocate for equitable solutions that prioritize the safety and well-being of all. The implications of rejecting bike lanes extend beyond individual inconvenience; they impact public health and environmental progress. Our commitment to justice requires us to support initiatives that foster inclusivity and safety for all urban dwellers.
Temperance: Cultivating Gratitude Amidst Challenges
In his reflection, Schilling expresses a sense of humiliation regarding his inability to ride a bike. Yet, rather than succumbing to frustration, he chooses to view this challenge as an opportunity for growth. As he contemplates the rising costs of car ownership, he recognizes the potential benefits of learning to ride a bike, even at this stage in life.
This perspective embodies temperance—the ability to remain measured in our responses and to cultivate gratitude for the opportunities presented to us. Instead of lamenting his situation, Schilling embraces the possibility of change, demonstrating that personal growth often arises from confronting our limitations.
Conclusion: Embracing Virtue in Urban Living
The discourse surrounding bike lanes and the Trump administration's stance serves as a microcosm of larger societal challenges. As we navigate these conflicts, let us remember that they are tests of our virtue—opportunities to cultivate wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance.
In the face of adversity, we can choose to respond with measured grace, advocating for sustainable solutions that benefit our communities. Let us express gratitude for the chance to learn, adapt, and grow, regardless of the obstacles we encounter.
In the words of the Stoics, it is not the events themselves that disturb us, but our judgments about them. Let us choose wisely.
Source Body Text
I’m out of gas. Not metaphorically. Literally, my car has the barest minimum amount of fuel in it. This is not because I like to live dangerously, a la the great literary hero Austin Powers, but because gas is more expensive than ever. I have nowhere to be today, so I’m allowing my car to sit idle, empty and alone, lest my bank account disappear into the Phantom Zone of negative balance. If things get sticky, I can take public transit or, God forbid, ride a bike. Except I can’t ride a bike, thanks to my parents, who were too busy doing more important tasks than teaching me, like arguing or falling asleep. But for many Americans, riding a bike is a perfectly normal thing to do. Am I humiliated that one of the many basic skills for life that I don’t know is considered so simple that it became a common idiom for something that’s easy? Yes, of course. I don’t live dangerously, I live humiliatingly. Humiliation is my middle name. Dave Humiliation Schilling. Go on, point and laugh at the photo of me in this article. Get it out of your system so we can move along. Thanks. As I was saying, many people can ride a bike if they can’t drive a car for whatever reason, and they’ll be perfectly happy doing it. They smile broadly as the wind whips through the holes in their helmet and gently touches the exposed hairs on their head. They pedal like their lives depend on it (they do), dodging deadly automobiles operated by inattentive drivers. In some cities, there are dedicated lanes for these brave bikers, theoretically inoculating them from the dangers of cars pancaking them. The United States has 4,400 directional miles of bike lanes, offering safety for anyone serious enough to risk it. The push for bike lanes began in the 1960s and grew in the ensuing decades. Theoretically, the lanes offer a carbon-neutral alternative to driving a car. If one chooses to bike instead of drive, it’s one fewer toxin-spewing death trap creating pollution and traffic congestion on the motorways. That sounds like a boon for the world, so naturally, the Trump administration wants to do away with it. Condemning “DEI bike lanes”, the Trump administration has made a point of freezing or canceling related grants, referring to alternative transit options as unworkable in the United States, and suggesting removing the lanes that already exist. Their logic, if we are using that term loosely, is that bike lanes take space away from cars, create more traffic, and lead to chaotic roads. I suppose that’s true, if we assume that there is an infinite number of cars and bikes are just extra, rather than an alternative that takes cars off the street. But that clashes with studies that say bike lanes actually make the roads safer by forcing drivers (sensible ones, at least) to slow down and avoid potential vehicular manslaughter charges. Rhetorically, the administration’s charge of bike lanes being some form of diversity, equity, and inclusion makes no sense. If riding a bike is so easy, then how can we classify it as unique enough to be diverse? Children ride bikes. It’s far less exotic than, say, operating a motorcycle, which takes a special license in every state. Maybe if we had a dedicated lane for a penny-farthing, I’d buy this explanation. If I were tooling around on one of those, I’d never get where I was going, because scores of beautiful women would be stopping me every few feet. Conservative disapproval for bike lanes stems from a blinkered, irrational view of culture, and more accurately, masculinity. Trumpists have teased Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg for riding bikes. But I’ve been teased for not being able to ride a bike. Shouldn’t I be lauded for my commitment to machismo? My belief in the petrol-powered conveyance deserves commendation. My parents’ inattention to my development actually made me cooler, right? If anything, I’m the diversity in this scenario. I can’t use a bike lane. I’ve been excluded from significant parts of the road. I can’t even walk in the bike lane. I should be furious, writing pointed, profane letters to my city councilperson, begging them to release me from my shackles. Or better yet, I should demand the city taxpayers pay for me to take bike lessons, so I can be accommodated. I’m the weirdo here. The one who has to explain my predicament, to feel excluded from the general population. Except, I’m not going to complain. I might seethe when I have to swerve to avoid a biker. I might slam on my brakes when I try to turn right and a Schwinn comes screaming through the crosswalk. Maybe I complain for a living on the internet, but I’m also a responsible citizen of the world. I see the obvious benefits of bike access for those that choose to do it, for fitness or for affordability. I can’t ride a bike now, but as my car becomes more and more of a money pit, voraciously hoovering up my meager income like the video game character Kirby, I see the benefits of learning, even if I’m in my 40s and will look absolutely ridiculous. After all, I’ve been told it’s quite easy. Dave Schilling is a Los Angeles-based writer and humorist