Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Discussion of "cyclist inferiority syndrome"

It seems to me that this accusation is thrown around a lot, that someone has this mental disease. What is it exactly? It seams to me that if this is something that everyone has (except the few) that this cannot be a real disease. Perhaps it is simply a code word to separate those who are allowed into the Vehicular Cycling discussion, and those who cannot take part.

I mean, if everyone has this disease, then it is not a disease, but rather, a real concern. Vehicular Cyclists should address the concern rather than dismissing all those who carry this idea.

So, the questions:

1) What is this "disease" and what are the characteristics?

2) Since everyone has this "disease", how do Vehicular Cyclists promote their ideas in the face of this, besides the 30 year old strategy of simply dismissing people who have this "disease" and their ideas on their face? The 30 year old strategy hasn't worked very well, as the number of people in the VC clique (to separate the VC'ists from those who simply adopt some of the vehicular cycling techniques) remains very, very small after 30 years of trying.

I ride with many, many seasoned cyclists. Yet a large percentage of these cyclist exhibit behaviors that would indicate that they don't believe that their standing as road users is equal to that of other road users. The most common symptom I observe is riding too far to the right or moving right when it is not in their own best interest to do so. Example of the latter:

A two-lane road (one lane per direction of travel), no shoulder, less than 12' lane. When riding on a road like this one will invariably encounter an entrance to a housing subdivision. At this entrance, there will be an deceleration/acceleration lane to move right out of the travel lane and turn into the subdivision and also exit the subdivision and merge into the travel lane. These deceleration/acceleration lanes are usually about 150' in length for a total of a little over 300' including the width of the subdivision road. On a ride with others, several will invariably move right out of the travel lane into the decel lane and then move back left at the end of the accel lane into the travel lane. There could be faster same-direction traffic or not but they will make this maneuver every time, In direct conflict with everything that is written about safe cycling and riding a strait and predictable line. They give up the ROW of the travel lane and then re-enter, which could cause a conflict if a car has taken the travel lane and is overtaking. Why do they do it? Programed to get out of the way of cars. It's the only explanation.

I ride with many, many seasoned cyclists. Yet a large percentage of these cyclist exhibit behaviors that would indicate that they don't believe that their standing as road users is equal to that of other road users. The most common symptom I observe is riding too far to the right or moving right when it is not in their own best interest to do so. Example of the latter:

A two-lane road (one lane per direction of travel), no shoulder, less than 12' lane. When riding on a road like this one will invariably encounter an entrance to a housing subdivision. At this entrance, there will be an deceleration/acceleration lane to move right out of the travel lane and turn into the subdivision and also exit the subdivision and merge into the travel lane. These deceleration/acceleration lanes are usually about 150' in length for a total of a little over 300' including the width of the subdivision road. On a ride with others, several will invariably move right out of the travel lane into the decel lane and then move back left at the end of the accel lane into the travel lane. There could be faster same-direction traffic or not but they will make this maneuver every time, In direct conflict with everything that is written about safe cycling and riding a strait and predictable line. They give up the ROW of the travel lane and then re-enter, which could cause a conflict if a car has taken the travel lane and is overtaking. Why do they do it? Programed to get out of the way of cars. It's the only explanation.


But if the person believes that this is the less risky strategy by their own analysis, then it is not an inferiority syndrome. Yes?

I ride with many, many seasoned cyclists. Yet a large percentage of these cyclist exhibit behaviors that would indicate that they don't believe that their standing as road users is equal to that of other road users. The most common symptom I observe is riding too far to the right or moving right when it is not in their own best interest to do so. Example of the latter:

A two-lane road (one lane per direction of travel), no shoulder, less than 12' lane. When riding on a road like this one will invariably encounter an entrance to a housing subdivision. At this entrance, there will be an deceleration/acceleration lane to move right out of the travel lane and turn into the subdivision and also exit the subdivision and merge into the travel lane. These deceleration/acceleration lanes are usually about 150' in length for a total of a little over 300' including the width of the subdivision road. On a ride with others, several will invariably move right out of the travel lane into the decel lane and then move back left at the end of the accel lane into the travel lane. There could be faster same-direction traffic or not but they will make this maneuver every time, In direct conflict with everything that is written about safe cycling and riding a strait and predictable line. They give up the ROW of the travel lane and then re-enter, which could cause a conflict if a car has taken the travel lane and is overtaking. Why do they do it? Programed to get out of the way of cars. It's the only explanation.


So if these folks were in a buggy or a piece of slow-moving farm/construction equipment and felt the need to 'get out of the way' of faster traffic in the same manner, does that mean they have an inferiority phobia?

I don't remember Forester every using the specific word "syndrome." Anyway, here is one of his articles on the subject:

Cyclist Inferiority (http://www.sheldonbrown.com/cyclist_inferiority.html)


I have used the term "cyclist-inferiority" in several applications, but these application all serve to describe aspects of the false concept that cyclists are inferior to motorists.

The political application is that it serves the motoring organizations, and therefore the highway organizations that they control, and in addition many politicians, to consider cyclists as inferior to motorists. By considering cyclists inferior to motorists, government can deny to cyclists some of the important rights that apply, in legal terms, to drivers of vehicles, but which are commonly supposed to apply to motorists, because cyclists and motorists are the only significant users of the nation's roadways. The rights denied are denied purely for the convenience of motorists. The most important of these are the right to use most of the width of the roadway, and the right to use roadways at all when bike lanes or bike paths have been produced, or those roadways which cannot be reached by driveways. The only reason for these restriction s that stands up to scientific analysis is the belief, on the part of motorists, that cyclists delay motorists.

I actually don't think it's a 'cyclists' syndrome or phobia. I actually think it is more wide-spread than that as I observe similar behavior in pedestrians, so I would call it a 'motor vehicle superiority syndrome' (or phobia).

In pedestrians, it is manifested by running across intersections, even when the intersection is controlled by signals and/or the crossing vehicles have already stopped. I have seen little old ladies with canes scurry as fast as they can across the intersection. Why? There is no danger. The traffic has stopped and they have the 'walk' signal, yet still they wish to deffer to the all-mighty motor vehicle.

So if these folks were in a buggy or a piece of slow-moving farm/construction equipment and felt the need to 'get out of the way' of faster traffic in the same manner, does that mean they have an inferiority phobia?

Absolutely. But I can tell you I have never seen anybody driving heavy equipment move over...

But if the person believes that this is the less risky strategy by their own analysis, then it is not an inferiority syndrome. Yes?

If it were indeed less risky you may have a point. But from what I have seen, riders do it subconsciously without even looking back to see if any overtaking traffic is present. They just automatically move over when space permits.

In club rides there is always great effort made to stay out of the way of motor vehicles. There are always a few self selected 'car back, move right' cheerleader, cheering even when moving right is not possible or even useful for the motorist.
This is of course a different dynamic - a large group needs to be more courteous, and there is this sense of 'we are here only for fun, so we need to go out of our way to avoid causing even the slightest inconvienince to motorists' mentality.

from club website:
"We have stressed in the past that you should ride in our large pack romps no differently than you do when you ride solo... keeping tight to the right side of the road, stopping at traffic lights, not impeding car traffic. But that concept is offered up under the idea that you ride safely and legally when out on your own. Maybe the thought needs to be voiced that the guidelines we offer on Saturday mornings should be observed when you are out solo, too. You represent the cycling community just as much on your weekday bike commute or daily fitness ride as you do when in our weekend herd. If you know the rules of the road and choose to ignore them, shame on you (and you also might want to increase your medical and life insurance). "

Al

I think that in reality Forester is on to something... and it has deep roots. Many of us were taught how to ride a bike by our parents... and in those lessons came the words "stay on the sidewalk" and "watch out for cars."

No doubt deep in our brains those words may resonate from time to time... much like the "hot" lessons our parents also taught us.


Now in my case, I taught myself to ride a bike by "borrowing" a neighbor kids' bike... I learned some other lessons... such as not to ride near plate glass picture windows before understanding the actions of steering and the workings of the brakes... but all humor aside...

I really do think that there is something to the phobia... based on early lessons in life. JMHO

In club rides there is always great effort made to stay out of the way of motor vehicles. There are always a few self selected 'car back, move right' cheerleader, cheering even when moving right is not possible or even useful for the motorist.
This is of course a different dynamic - a large group needs to be more courteous, and there is this sense of 'we are here only for fun, so we need to go out of our way to avoid causing even the slightest inconvienince to motorists' mentality.

from club website:
"We have stressed in the past that you should ride in our large pack romps no differently than you do when you ride solo... keeping tight to the right side of the road, stopping at traffic lights, not impeding car traffic. But that concept is offered up under the idea that you ride safely and legally when out on your own. Maybe the thought needs to be voiced that the guidelines we offer on Saturday mornings should be observed when you are out solo, too. You represent the cycling community just as much on your weekday bike commute or daily fitness ride as you do when in our weekend herd. If you know the rules of the road and choose to ignore them, shame on you (and you also might want to increase your medical and life insurance). "

Al Yes, there is a different dynamic and set of responsibilities in a group, but go out on a ride with just about any one of these guys, and you'll see behavior inspired by cyclist inferiority beliefs.

There are exceptions, but they are the exceptions, even among "experienced high mileage types", and that's the point.

It's another way of saying 'Motorist Superiority Disorder'

It's another way of saying 'Motorist Superiority Disorder'

I already said that...

My wife gets upset, almost panicky, when I drive below SL in outside lane of multilane road. Especially when other vehicles are following.
Al

Besides the government policies and social attitudes that treat cyclists as having inferior rights to roadways, John Forester talks a bit about the attitudes that cyclists have about their own cycling on roadways. Here he uses the terms "superstition" or "phobia" to describe some cyclists' concerns about road sharing. Here I prefer to make finer distinctions than he does. While I think there is a lot of overestimation of danger, and a socially-reinforced taboo effect at work, I do not think that is adequate to describe the situation.

I think many experienced cyclists who are not afraid of being hurt by cycling on roadways, including narrow roadways where drivers must change lanes to pass, often have other concerns about riding on certain roadways, and that it is counterproductive to dismiss these concerns too easily, e.g. with oversimplistic language. These concerns include:

1. The desire to reduce inconvenience to other drivers when exceptionally bad roadway engineering creates hassles for auto drivers sharing the road with cyclists. The cyclist feels that his inconvenience of avoiding the roadway is less than motorists' inconvenience at his use of the roadway.

2. The desire to avoid harassment. The cyclist knows that he deserves to use the roadway, but finds horn honks and deliberate close passes unpleasant.

3. Aesthetics. The cyclist prefers routes with less traffic for aesthetic reasons.

These concerns drive a significant amount of bikeway planning, such as increasing the connectivity of neighborhood streets via both roadway and short-cut paths, mapping and signing bike routes through complicated back roads for wayfinding, and building extra width into busy roads in the form of wider outside lanes, wide paved shoulders, and bike lanes. Interest in these efforts is reasonable, in my opinion, for cyclists who do not have a fearful, inferior view of their status as roadway users.

I think that John Forester supports a number of these planning efforts, e.g. he has described support for wide outside lanes, however, that sometimes gets lost in the debate about what "cyclist inferiority" means.

In pedestrians, it is manifested by running across intersections, even when the intersection is controlled by signals and/or the crossing vehicles have already stopped. I have seen little old ladies with canes scurry as fast as they can across the intersection. Why? There is no danger. The traffic has stopped and they have the 'walk' signal, yet still they wish to deffer to the all-mighty motor vehicle.

But there is danger if you think that motorists are error-prone ... or better written ... if motorists error-rate, assuming that they rather not hit old ladies scurrying across the street, is high enough to warrant hurrying across the street, then the old lady should scurry across the street.

Returning to sliding right and left to temporarily remove one out of the flow of traffic, there is an assessment of risk being made. Whether that assessment is correct, with proper weighting of potential injuries from various actions, is another question. Note that the weighting of injuries can vary by individual making "irrational" behavior hard to distinguish from rational decisions. Furthermore, if people are risk-adverse/loving, then the weighting of those outcomes can be highly nonlinear.

So whether the word "phobia", "syndrome", or whatever is used, I think that we should avoid mixing discussions about an irrational assessment of road-riding risk from the legal right to ride on the road.

I actually don't think it's a 'cyclists' syndrome or phobia. I actually think it is more wide-spread than that as I observe similar behavior in pedestrians, so I would call it a 'motor vehicle superiority syndrome' (or phobia).

In pedestrians, it is manifested by running across intersections, even when the intersection is controlled by signals and/or the crossing vehicles have already stopped. I have seen little old ladies with canes scurry as fast as they can across the intersection. Why? There is no danger. The traffic has stopped and they have the 'walk' signal, yet still they wish to deffer to the all-mighty motor vehicle.

I tend to agree, and have had one motorist, who was clearly in the wrong (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=188845&highlight=the+notion+explained), tell me that "bikes are supposed to get out of the way."

Besides the government policies and social attitudes that treat cyclists as having inferior rights to roadways, John Forester talks a bit about the attitudes that cyclists have about their own cycling on roadways. Here he uses the terms "superstition" or "phobia" to describe some cyclists' concerns about road sharing. Here I prefer to make finer distinctions than he does. While I think there is a lot of overestimation of danger, and a socially-reinforced taboo effect at work, I do not think that is adequate to describe the situation.

I think many experienced cyclists who are not afraid of being hurt by cycling on roadways, including narrow roadways where drivers must change lanes to pass, often have other concerns about riding on certain roadways, and that it is counterproductive to dismiss these concerns too easily, e.g. with oversimplistic language. These concerns include:

1. The desire to reduce inconvenience to other drivers when exceptionally bad roadway engineering creates hassles for auto drivers sharing the road with cyclists. The cyclist feels that his inconvenience of avoiding the roadway is less than motorists' inconvenience at his use of the roadway.

2. The desire to avoid harassment. The cyclist knows that he deserves to use the roadway, but finds horn honks and deliberate close passes unpleasant.

3. Aesthetics. The cyclist prefers routes with less traffic for aesthetic reasons.

These concerns drive a significant amount of bikeway planning, such as increasing the connectivity of neighborhood streets via both roadway and short-cut paths, mapping and signing bike routes through complicated back roads for wayfinding, and building extra width into busy roads in the form of wider outside lanes, wide paved shoulders, and bike lanes. Interest in these efforts is reasonable, in my opinion, for cyclists who do not have a fearful, inferior view of their status as roadway users.

I think that John Forester supports a number of these planning efforts, e.g. he has described support for wide outside lanes, however, that sometimes gets lost in the debate about what "cyclist inferiority" means.

a pretty good summary, steve, I agree with this. these are the reasons I don't choose to ride the busy arterial I drive on in my truck.

I am not going to read through all this, but will give one opinion. This "cyclists inferiority syndrome" is simply a ruse to make someone some money, as it has no bearing in any science or medical terms. It is a way to gain publicity, to gain name recognition, and to "look" like you are being scientific, without any data behind it and no recognized (by a third party, such as the American Medical Association) authority behind it. In short, this "syndrome" does not exist.

John

I am not going to read through all this, but will give one opinion. This "cyclists inferiority syndrome" is simply a ruse to make someone some money, as it has no bearing in any science or medical terms. It is a way to gain publicity, to gain name recognition, and to "look" like you are being scientific, without any data behind it and no recognized (by a third party, such as the American Medical Association) authority behind it. In short, this "syndrome" does not exist.

John

If you are not even going to read the responses to your own thread then I suggest the thread is a ruse....

If you are not even going to read the responses to your own thread then I suggest the thread is a ruse....

I suggest you check the name of the OP again...

I think you are asking the wrong questions, John. Not "what is this disease" and how do we combat it, but:

What purpose does using words like "disease", "phobia" and "superstition" actually serve? What can you actually accomplish using such words?

I am not going to read through all this, but will give one opinion. This "cyclists inferiority syndrome" is simply a ruse to make someone some money, as it has no bearing in any science or medical terms. It is a way to gain publicity, to gain name recognition, and to "look" like you are being scientific, without any data behind it and no recognized (by a third party, such as the American Medical Association) authority behind it. In short, this "syndrome" does not exist.

John


What purpose does using words like "disease", "phobia" and "superstition" actually serve? What can you actually accomplish using such words?
The person who came up with these designations ought to have his head examined, because he knows next to nothing about public relations or risk communication, and will not convince anyone that he is correct with all the negative characterizations he has invented.

Absolutely. But I can tell you I have never seen anybody driving heavy equipment move over...

I have...usually in the exact situation you outlined - moving into a RTOL to allow faster traffic to pass, then moving back into the through lane.

I agree with you on one thing...there isn't a cyclist phobia, but rather a phobia of traffic in general, no matter what vehicle you are in, if any. The perception is that the roads are dangerous, out-of-control killing fields and walking or being on a bicycle just makes some feel more vulnerable because they don't have that protection of a steel cage around them.

I suggest you check the name of the OP again...

In Galen's, and much of the free world, a Ratliff is a Ratliff. :D

(no offense John & Brian, just could not resist making the crack ;))

In Galen's, and much of the free world, a Ratliff is a Ratliff. :D

(no offense John & Brian, just could not resist making the crack ;))

:D

The perception is that the roads are dangerous, out-of-control killing fields and walking or being on a bicycle just makes some feel more vulnerable because they don't have that protection of a steel cage around them.
Sounds about right to me.

40K roadway deaths per year is nothing to sneeze at. Certainly, motorists are largely responsible, albeit conversely, largely the victims, as well.

New EPA regulations aimed at reducing arsenic in drinking water will likely cost billions to implement nationally but will save less than 100 people per year by EPA's own calculations.

;)

"Cyclist Inferiority Syndrome" is a catchphrase created by either Helmet Head or John Forester to attempt to explain why anyone who rides in a bike lane is actually mentally handicapped.

EDIT: I would like to point out that neither Forester or HH are qualified to make any diagnoses. Nor am I. But I am able to smell puckey from a mile away.

It seems to me that this accusation is thrown around a lot, that someone has this mental disease. What is it exactly? It seams to me that if this is something that everyone has (except the few) that this cannot be a real disease. Perhaps it is simply a code word to separate those who are allowed into the Vehicular Cycling discussion, and those who cannot take part.

I mean, if everyone has this disease, then it is not a disease, but rather, a real concern. Vehicular Cyclists should address the concern rather than dismissing all those who carry this idea.

So, the questions:

1) What is this "disease" and what are the characteristics?

2) Since everyone has this "disease", how do Vehicular Cyclists promote their ideas in the face of this, besides the 30 year old strategy of simply dismissing people who have this "disease" and their ideas on their face? The 30 year old strategy hasn't worked very well, as the number of people in the VC clique (to separate the VC'ists from those who simply adopt some of the vehicular cycling techniques) remains very, very small after 30 years of trying.

Are you arguing that the common cold is not a disease, because everybody suffers from it (though not simultaneously)? And how will you describe the next influenza pandemic, when all but a few suffer from it? Will that not be a disease?

The point of this is that frequency of occurrence does not define a disease. That's all I will write at this time.

You stated the distinction: not everyone has the common cold continuously and not everyone has it all the time. Even with an influenza pandemic, it doesn't fit the profile of your claimed disease of the mind. Thus, the defining difference between your cyclist inferiority syndrome and a common disease.

You seem to be expanding the definition of a disease to the point where just living can be called a disease. Something tells me that this is not right though.

Are you arguing that the common cold is not a disease, because everybody suffers from it (though not simultaneously)? And how will you describe the next influenza pandemic, when all but a few suffer from it? Will that not be a disease?

The point of this is that frequency of occurrence does not define a disease. That's all I will write at this time.

YOU AREN'T A ****ING CLINICIAN. YOU AREN'T A ****ING DOCTOR. YOU CANNOT MAKE UP DISEASES AND MENTAL AILMENTS.

Get it in your head, man. Crimony.

Well, I just want to know when the telethon is that will be raising money to cure our sickness... as a sufferer of the syndrome/superstition/phobia, I want a cure.

Well, I just want to know when the telethon is that will be raising money to cure our sickness... as a sufferer of the syndrome/superstition/phobia, I want a cure.
Just ride in the traffic lane, young Luke, and ye shall be cured.

Thruth be told. Cycling inferiority is not a syndrome. It is real and alive. And just who in the hell said it was a syndrome? What background do they have to give something such a scientific label? Are they scientists, doctors, people in the mental health profession? Or are they washed up political book authors?

motor vehicles currently occupy the apex of the pinnacle of the road users heirarchy in America. It doesn't have to be that way, it can be changed. But not by following the vehicular cycling fundies.

Thruth be told. Cycling inferiority is not a syndrome. It is real and alive. And just who in the hell said it was a syndrome? What background do they have to give something such a scientific label? Are they scientists, doctors, people in the mental health profession? Or are they washed up political book authors?
http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4307767&postcount=88

It seems to me that this accusation is thrown around a lot, that someone has this mental disease. What is it exactly? It seams to me that if this is something that everyone has (except the few) that this cannot be a real disease. Perhaps it is simply a code word to separate those who are allowed into the Vehicular Cycling discussion, and those who cannot take part.

I mean, if everyone has this disease, then it is not a disease, but rather, a real concern. Vehicular Cyclists should address the concern rather than dismissing all those who carry this idea.

So, the questions:

1) What is this "disease" and what are the characteristics?

2) Since everyone has this "disease", how do Vehicular Cyclists promote their ideas in the face of this, besides the 30 year old strategy of simply dismissing people who have this "disease" and their ideas on their face? The 30 year old strategy hasn't worked very well, as the number of people in the VC clique (to separate the VC'ists from those who simply adopt some of the vehicular cycling techniques) remains very, very small after 30 years of trying.
My turn.

Cyclist inferiority is not a disease.

:eek:

Nor is it recognized by any psychiatric professional.

:eek:

"Cyclist inferiority" is the perception of cyclists as having a lower status than motorists. Capisce?

"Cyclist inferiority syndrome" is nothing more than a bludgeon for certain people's enemies.

LBM: Who has this perception? Is acknowledgment that there are inequalities in the performance between bicycles and cars equivilent to "cyclists having a lower status than motorists"? That's what HH charges me of.

To not have "the perception of cyclists as having a lower status than motorists", does one have to delude oneself that a car which can accelerate to 65 mph at a flick of an ankle doesn't have an advantage over a cyclist which takes a lot of energy to accelerate and tops out at 25 mph? Not to mention the size difference.

I ride with an acknowledgement of these differences, but not in fear of them. I ride as a full equal to other traffic, but I have an additional burden of watching out for myself because I know that my margin for error is smaller than for other road users. Notice that I didn't say that it was less safe for me out there. It's not like I'm dodging land mines or stray bullets. But my margins for error are definitely smaller.

All those inferiority phobia experts out there: Is what I just said an indication of cyclist inferiority syndrome?

LBM: Who has this perception?
So my coworkers tell me.

Brian, the really funny thing is that they occasionally ask me, "Are you still riding your bike?" as if they are waiting for the inevitable.

LBM: To not have "the perception of cyclists as having a lower status than motorists", does one have to delude oneself that a car which can accelerate to 65 mph at a flick of an ankle doesn't have an advantage over a cyclist which takes a lot of energy to accelerate and tops out at 25 mph? Not to mention the size difference.

I ride with an acknowledgement of these differences, but not in fear of them. I ride as a full equal to other traffic, but I have an additional burden of watching out for myself because I know that my margin for error is smaller than for other road users. Notice that I didn't say that it was less safe for me out there. It's not like I'm dodging land mines or stray bullets. But my margins for error are definitely smaller.


exactly right. thank you.

So my coworkers tell me.

Brian, the really funny thing is that they occasionally ask me, "Are you still riding your bike?" as if they are waiting for the inevitable.

You should be happy they are concerned about your safety, even if that concern is misguided. Instead you sound resentful.

My co-workers (I only have 3) have thought at times I was taking risks, particularly my boss. My SO used to think this too. But after commuting several times a week most of the year, I don't get comments about it anymore. I mean, it cannot be that dangerous if I keep getting to work safely.

LBM: Who has this perception? Is acknowledgment that there are inequalities in the performance between bicycles and cars equivilent to "cyclists having a lower status than motorists"? That's what HH charges me of.

To not have "the perception of cyclists as having a lower status than motorists", does one have to delude oneself that a car which can accelerate to 65 mph at a flick of an ankle doesn't have an advantage over a cyclist which takes a lot of energy to accelerate and tops out at 25 mph? Not to mention the size difference.

I ride with an acknowledgement of these differences, but not in fear of them. I ride as a full equal to other traffic, but I have an additional burden of watching out for myself because I know that my margin for error is smaller than for other road users. Notice that I didn't say that it was less safe for me out there. It's not like I'm dodging land mines or stray bullets. But my margins for error are definitely smaller.

All those inferiority phobia experts out there: Is what I just said an indication of cyclist inferiority syndrome?

Not that I am a clinician; but if you want a layman's point of view you don't suffer from any complex or whatever people are calling it now.

But if the notion that bicycles do not belong on busy roads without facilities combined with that it is "very" dangerous to ride on those roads defines someone as having this complex, then I would say a majority of people suffer from it. Moreover, when I ride with a local group of average cyclists, I would say that the second clause is probably true among a majority of them.

EDIT: These, of course, are just anecdotal observations.

You should be happy they are concerned about your safety, even if that concern is misguided. Instead you sound resentful.

My co-workers (I only have 3...
I have dozens, mostly black women who love me to death. :D :D :D

Resentful of that? ;)

Thank goodness I'm married, I don't know how I'd juggle all these women. :)

^^^
One thing that clouds this subject is that "safety" is confused with "margin of error." The "danger" doesn't refer to dodging bullets or random chances of getting hit. The "danger" refers to a lowered margin of error. The second version of "danger" is most definitely true. The former is not true in various degrees, depending on the environment.

Now, we have ways of dealing with the decreased margin of error. It includes a blend of preemptive maneuvers, like taking the lane and making eye contact and such, and it includes a certain vigilence. Many non-cyclists don't understand our methods; but it means that they are ignorant, not that they have a complex. That some cyclists don't understand some of these concepts is just a matter of experience.

I have dozens, mostly black women who love me to death. :D :D :D

Resentful of that? ;)

Thank goodness I'm married, I don't know how I'd juggle all these women. :)

Good, good.

Just ride in the traffic lane, young Luke, and ye shall be cured.
Wrong!

Buy the book!

The cure as well as salvation is only found through purchase of Forester Brand training regimens.

http://www.microcosmpublishing.com/catimages/bikelane.gif

I have...usually in the exact situation you outlined - moving into a RTOL to allow faster traffic to pass, then moving back into the through lane.


This may happen on rare occasions when the operator is feeling generous. However, there is a big difference between butting your way back into traffic with a 30-ton self-propelled crane and a bicycle.....

I wrote this for the Stripes II thread, but think it applies here too, and may get lost there:


...Cyclists have a superior ability to adapt that auto drivers do not. They can go places that autos cannot, follow paths that autos cannot. So why restrict them to roads when there are good alternatives for them to use. Are we so hung up on "rights" that we forget the gifts that a bicycle gives us? Autos are causing major problems in America and the world today. I cited the crashes, killing tens of thousands of people a year, maiming people for life, and causing other underlying health problems (contributing to obesity and heart disease, for instance). I almost forgot the contribution of pollution and global warming, which are also major problems caused by auto traffic. Why should I feel inferior to an auto driver when I am in better health, have better fitness, and will probably outlive those auto drivers, especially the ones with road rage who have no outlet physically for their stress hormones? But that does not mean that I would trade the advantages of a bike to go places where the auto cannot go for the ego trip of saying I'm riding vehicularly. That, to me, makes no sense at all...

John