Originally Posted by
John Forester
Genec challenges my aphorism "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles". His challenge is that even when a cyclist is obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, some or other driver may unlawfully push into his right of way. That does not invalidate the aphorism. Just because some motorists act unlawfully toward other motorists, does nothing to discredit the principle that motorists are required to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The illogic of genec's position ought to be obvious.
I see now that genec is claiming credit for inventing the road sneak nastiness all by himself, so that its use by others is copying his work. Based on the publishing times of the various copies, I suggest that, as I suggested earlier, genec copied that nastiness from the published work of others.
John your aphorism "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" is all fine and good when in fact cyclists ARE treated as drivers of vehicles... but the reality is that far too many motorists feel that cyclists are an aberration on "their" roadway, and thus may not extend to cyclists the courtesy of treating them as drivers of vehicles, but as obstacles to overcome or conquer. This is not the case for all drivers, I will readily admit... but the odds of encountering a driver that chooses to treat cyclists poorly on the road is just too great and unpredictable to blindly expect positive or even equal treatment. And BTW as you have so often mentioned... traffic engineers and lawmakers do not hold to your notions... which means the deck is stacked against cyclists by the nature of the design of roads and written law. That alone shows that cyclists will tend to NOT fare best, no matter how well they act as drivers of vehicles.
As far as "road sneak..." I am afraid I first encountered that term through your use... I lay no such claim to it's invention.
I claim to only honestly report what I have encountered in my years of cycling... and not to rely on "blind theories."