Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Cyclist Inferiority - discussion

Given that "cyclist inferiority" refers to the notion that cyclists are inferior to drivers of motor vehicles in terms of rights to be on the road...

Do you agree we have a policy of "cyclist inferiority" in the U.S.?
Do you agree we have a culture of "cyclist inferiority"?

Does one produce the other? Or is it a chicken egg situation where they feed off each other? How do we break out of the cycle?

My thoughts:

I think we definitely have both the policy and the culture. I'm not sure which came first, but I don't think it matters.

I was talking to a traffic engineer today, whose specialty is bike facilities, and his cyclist inferiority attitude was blatant. So much of what he said was based on the notion that cyclists are "vulnerable" out there. He was careful to state that bike lanes are not for safety, but his other statements revealed a contrary belief. For example, he said that painting new bike lanes should get street services priority because cyclists need the most protection. When I said I didn't necesarily agree with that, he replied: "yeah, I know some cyclists like to 'take the lane', but most cyclists don't, and we have to design for the lowest common denominator, and I mean the lowest".

When I suggested sharrows instead of door zone bike lanes, he said he needed the bike lanes to keep motor traffic out of the door zones: the purpose of them was to create a buffer to keep cars 4-5' from parked cars and had nothing to do with bicycling! When I pointed out that he was saying the very space that he wanted demarcated because it was dangerous to drive a car in, he was requiring cyclists to ride in, by law, he replied that he didn't agree with all design standards. Anyway, the more I learn, the more I see John Forester was spot on about this cyclist inferiority stuff, and how prevalent it is.

What are your thoughts?

you think you're invulnerable?

you think vulnerable equates to inferiority? :roflmao:

Removing "Syndrome" from "Cyclist Inferiority Syndrome" doesn't change a false diagnosis. Smoke, mirrors, and horsepuckey.

I will give you the same sentences I gave to your master. They are as follow:

"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."

Given that "cyclist inferiority" refers to the notion that cyclists are inferior to drivers of motor vehicles in terms of rights to be on the road...

Do you agree we have a policy of "cyclist inferiority" in the U.S.?
Do you agree we have a culture of "cyclist inferiority"?
How can anyone keep a straight face and claim cyclists are viewed as equal to motorists in the US?

Please...

EDIT: (1:52 a.m.) Right after posting this, my son called to tell me he had been robbed at gunpoint!

I used to work on a farm with lots of cows and bulls. Never felt inferior - I knew I was smarter then them, but if I decided to Run With The Bulls In Pamplona I sure as hell would feel vulnerable about it - big difference from inferior.
You guys still blow me away with your stupid inferiority argument....but again, you'll never change, you even end again with a shout out to JF and his mass diagnoisis of the american public - you think you or him could prescribe me some Prozac for it? Oh wait, nope, you guys aren't doctors....

I was talking to a traffic engineer today

Pssst, that guy, the one in the mirror, he's not REALLY a traffic engineer, he just plays one on the intraweb.

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a culture of inferiority around bicycling. Is the way to combat it to ridicule people with taunting comments about their intelligence and mental health?

The true problem is the culture of automobile dominance. It's all built around the automobile. This is what has to change. Fix the problem, not the symptom. Not feeling comfortable riding a bicycle on freeway-like roads with distracted, speeding drivers texting on their phones, smacking their kids in the back seat, sipping lattes in their tinted glass SUVs is not a syndrom or condition. It's simply the natural outcome of automobile-dominated development.

There is no policy of cyclist inferiority....this is a term adopted by zealots to sell their wacky theories and political viewpoints.

The simple realities are:

1. Motor vehicles are the primary users of our roadways, as well as the primary method of transportation in this country - like it or not.
2. While bicycles have a right to use the roadways, that right does not make them EQUAL users of the roadways - bicycles are not the majority users, nor do they share the same characteristics as majority users (motor vehicles).

That is just plain reality...trying to claim it is some kind of inferiority thing is the same as claiming we have a policy of inferiority towards the handicapped, race, religion, gender, etc. Do you consider the physically handicapped, other races, other religions, other genders, etc. 'inferior' HH? Do you consider efforts to ensure that the differences between those groups and the majority are mitigated in some way to be policies of inferiority?

If bicycles ever become the primary mode of transportation and the majority users of the roadways, policy will be designed to accomodate them, rather than motor vehicles. Until then, our reality is what it is and not some nefarious, discriminatory plot by the infamous 'them'.

Given that "cyclist inferiority" refers to the notion that cyclists are inferior to drivers of motor vehicles in terms of rights to be on the road...

Do you agree we have a policy of "cyclist inferiority" in the U.S.?
Do you agree we have a culture of "cyclist inferiority"?

Does one produce the other? Or is it a chicken egg situation where they feed off each other? How do we break out of the cycle?

obviously, it's not a formal policy.
it might be in the culture simply because people are ignorant of the law AND they rarely see a cyclist on the road.

It's extremely unpleasant and even dangerous to cycle on many high-speed arterials, due to the fact that they are designed and engineered for the task of moving cars and trucks as fast and efficiently as possible. what works great for those vehicles is not always what works great for bikes.

also the uncomfortable fact is that bikes ARE inferior to other road users in construction, size, weight, and speed. so we ARE vulnerable out there. Like it or not.


so it's in the culture. and the road designs and speed limits reinforce it, whether that's the purpose of them or not (I tend to think not). and until we start re-designing spaces and streets on a human scale, for humans and not machines, we'll have this idea firmly embedded. The car is the quickest and easiest way to get around, so I think they will continue to be popular in the absence of fast and easy transit alternatives, but I disagree with the practice of building cities around them. I don't think it's good for people, physically, psychologically, socially, or spiritually.

There's a grain of truth in it but cyclist inferiority theory, as presented by John Forester, is mostly a figment of John Forester's rather vivid imagination (as are the conspiracies that Forester imagines). The government is neither as monolythic nor as organized a Forester portrays it to be.

'Cyclist inferiority' is a perjorative term Forester and his followers use to discredit those with the audacity to oppose their 'let's go back to the way things were in England in the 1930s' political agenda.

Cyclist inferiority theory has more to do with John Forester's biases than anything else.

Cyclist inferiority theory is one of the things that distinguishes Foresterites from cyclists who simply ride according to the rules of the road (as I have been doing for half a century).

Cyclist inferiority theory is one of the primary reasons VC-ism (a.k.a 'VC-lunacy') needs and belongs in a separate forum. VC-ism deserves nothing less. Foresterites apparently want to turn a deaf ear to what vehicular cyclists have to say - so giving them their own forum is appropriate. The Foresterites can't even convince lifelong vehicular cyclist like myself. Something must be wrong.

Cyclist inferiority, presented as the primary reason anyone might disagee with Forester, is pure lunacy.

Basically I think that this country’s news coverage has totally distorted what is safe and what is not safe. I have collected some stories and links here:
http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20070402075825416

And I think stories like I collected are the key of breaking out of worrying about the wrong things.

INferiority. I am proud of my bikes and my cycling ability. In how many forms might we tell ourselves, I dont' give a dam what the rest of us think. I am also one who stands up for my rights.

There's a grain of truth in it but cyclist inferiority theory, as presented by John Forester, is mostly a figment of John Forester's rather vivid imagination (as are the conspiracies that Forester imagines). The government is neither as monolythic nor as organized a Forester portrays it to be.

'Cyclist inferiority' is a perjorative term Forester and his followers use to discredit those with the audacity to oppose their 'let's go back to the way things were in England in the 1930s' political agenda.

Cyclist inferiority theory has more to do with John Forester's biases than anything else.

Cyclist inferiority theory is one of the things that distinguishes Foresterites from cyclists who simply ride according to the rules of the road (as I have been doing for half a century).

Cyclist inferiority theory is one of the primary reasons VC-ism (a.k.a 'VC-lunacy') needs and belongs in a separate forum. VC-ism deserves nothing less. Foresterites apparently want to turn a deaf ear to what vehicular cyclists have to say - so giving them their own forum is appropriate. The Foresterites can't even convince lifelong vehicular cyclist like myself. Something must be wrong.

Cyclist inferiority, presented as the primary reason anyone might disagee with Forester, is pure lunacy.

You seem to not have the cyclist-inferiority feeling, for which I congratulate you. But, have you not noticed that most other people in our society do not agree with vehicular cycling? What explanation, other than a societal view of the inferiority of cyclists, do you advance for the discrimination against cyclists as evidenced by the side-of-the-road law, the mandatory-bike-lane law, and the mandatory side-path law? How do you explain the nation's bikeway program that is based on pushing cyclists to the side of the road with the excuse that most cyclists are incompetent?

If society supported the concept that cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles, none of these things would have occurred. The fact that our society does these things to cyclists requires an explanation, and the best explanation available is the society considers cyclists to be of lower status and of lower skill than motorists, which is the situation that I have spent decades trying to correct.

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a culture of inferiority around bicycling. Is the way to combat it to ridicule people with taunting comments about their intelligence and mental health?

The true problem is the culture of automobile dominance. It's all built around the automobile. This is what has to change. Fix the problem, not the symptom. Not feeling comfortable riding a bicycle on freeway-like roads with distracted, speeding drivers texting on their phones, smacking their kids in the back seat, sipping lattes in their tinted glass SUVs is not a syndrom or condition. It's simply the natural outcome of automobile-dominated development.

Obviously, taunting those who recognize the problem would be absurd. However, taunting those who are actively encouraging the problem against their own interest is, at least, one recognized way of dealing with such people. Maybe such people should start to think about why they act so much against their own interests as cyclists? Maybe such people should start to learn about bicycle transportation as a practical matter rather than as some pie-in-the-sky dream.

I admit that it is very difficult to get such people to correct their strong beliefs that are based on almost no evidence and are contrary to what is known; that is one part of the evidence for the psychological situation.

I admit that it is very difficult to get such people to correct their strong beliefs that are based on almost no evidence and are contrary to what is known; that is one part of the evidence for the psychological situation.

I find so much irony in the fact that you wrote this statement that I am sporting a little chub right now. :D

P.S. You sir, are neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist. And as much as I feel psychology is a soft science, it should still be discussed by those in it, not washed up book authors out to make a buck by spewing politics and F.U.D.

I find so much irony in the fact that you wrote this statement that I am sporting a little chub right now. :D

P.S. You sir, are neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist. And as much as I feel psychology is a soft science, it should still be discussed by those in it, not washed up book authors out to make a buck by spewing politics and F.U.D.

You think that I earn money by advocating vehicular cycling? You're out of your mind; there's no money in that, though there is money in planning and building bikeways, and, for some, in doing research in the unsuccessful attempt to show that bikeways reduce car-bike collisions and reduce the level of skill required for safe cycling.

Certainly, I am not a psychologist, but some explanation has to be tried for the facts that exist. I don't base my position on any psychological theory; I base it on the facts as they are. The psychological theory is only an attempted explanation for why it is that so many bicycle advocates advocate what they do that is against their best interests while also, for the most part, being rather ignorant of the engineering upon which road traffic is based. If people were obviously acting in their own interests, there would be nothing to explain, just as there is no need to explain the support and money that motorists provide for the bikeway system. It is in their interests, as they see those interests, to shove bicycles aside. But when cyclists advocate the same system, then some psychological explanation is required, and I do not see any of the bicycle advocates offering one.

You seem to not have the cyclist-inferiority feeling

That's because it's a load of hot air, you fake.

Certainly, I am not a psychologist, but some explanation has to be tried for the facts that exist. I don't base my position on any psychological theory; I base it on the facts as they are. The psychological theory is only an attempted explanation for why it is that so many bicycle advocates advocate what they do that is against their best interests while also, for the most part, being rather ignorant of the engineering upon which road traffic is based. If people were obviously acting in their own interests, there would be nothing to explain, just as there is no need to explain the support and money that motorists provide for the bikeway system. It is in their interests, as they see those interests, to shove bicycles aside. But when cyclists advocate the same system, then some psychological explanation is required, and I do not see any of the bicycle advocates offering one.

So there has to be some psychological thing behind this huh? Well, if there does have to be one, then find someone who is in the field to make the diagnosis? You sir, are not entitled to. And as far as advocating for what is against someones best interests, how do you know what is in someone elses best interest? How in the hell do you know what is good for me and what is bad for me? You don't! You know what youthink I need or want. And I never asked you to play Jim Jones for me.
There is money to be made in what you are doing. If you try and tell me you are doing this crap out of the good of your heart you sir are more ignorant than you think we poor little masses of cyclists are.

EDIT: PLEASE IGNORE THIS POST. I RESPONDED TO THIS AFTER MISREADING CHIPCOM'S WORDS, AND WENT OFF ON A TANGENT. SORRY.



There is no policy of cyclist inferiority....this is a term adopted by zealots to sell their wacky theories and political viewpoints.

The simple realities are:

1. Motor vehicles are the primary users of our roadways, as well as the primary method of transportation in this country - like it or not.
2. While bicycles have a right to use the roadways, that right does not make them EQUAL users of the roadways - bicycles are not the majority users, nor do they share the same characteristics as majority users (motor vehicles).
This is a very odd post.

You say bicyclists do not and should not have an EQUAL right to use the roadways because we are in the minority. You state this not as an explanation, but as a justification, as if minorities should not have equal rights simply because they are in the minority. Be it sex, or race or culture or sexual orientation or mode of transportation, do you not recognize that this denial of equal rights occurs when the minority is seen to be inferior to the majority? After all, Camry drivers are in a minority too (the majority does not drive Camry's), but they are not seen to be inferior, so they have equal rights.

And then it gets even more strange.


That is just plain reality...trying to claim it is some kind of inferiority thing is the same as claiming we have a policy of inferiority towards the handicapped, race, religion, gender, etc. Do you not agree then we did have (at least in the south) a policy of unequal rights because of race that it was a policy of inferiority?


Do you consider the physically handicapped, other races, other religions, other genders, etc. 'inferior' HH? Of course not.


Do you consider efforts to ensure that the differences between those groups and the majority are mitigated in some way to be policies of inferiority? Yes. I think affirmative action, for example, is a policy of inferiority.

This is a very odd post.

You say bicyclists do not and should not have an EQUAL right to use the roadways because we are in the minority. ....

You got to be kidding me, no where in that post does he say should anything. Congratulations on once again putting your holy words in other's mouths. You truely are amazing :(

.....After all, Camry drivers are in a minority too (the majority does not drive Camry's), but they are not seen to be inferior, so they have equal rights......

Uh huh, once again you must love missing points. You ROCK MAN!! I wish I had the power to be so blatantly obvious. But sadly I was not blessed with that power :cry:

...trying to claim it is some kind of inferiority thing is the same as claiming we have a policy of inferiority towards the handicapped, race, religion, gender, etc.


Plenty of that going on Chip. May not be 'official' policy, but I do remember a history lesson about the Nazis.... plenty of them still around in one form or another...

Then you have religious bigots.... it's really quite common for one group to think of themselves as superior to another.....

...trying to claim it is some kind of inferiority thing is the same as claiming we have a policy of inferiority towards the handicapped, race, religion, gender, etc.
Plenty of that going on Chip. May not be 'official' policy, but I do remember a history lesson about the Nazis.... plenty of them still around in one form or another...

Then you have religious bigots.... it's really quite common for one group to think of themselves as superior to another.....

The Nazi movement is done and gone. What is left is a group of kids holding to a Neo-Nazi movement, if movement is the word to use since they are about as organized as a street gang would have been in Baabel sometime after Genesis 11:1-9

But that is not policy, just bigotry of one group towards another. Lots of men perfer blond women, that doesn't mean we have a policy of finding brunettes and redheads unsexual... which really proves nothing as well.

The Nazi movement is done and gone. What is left is a group of kids holding to a Neo-Nazi movement, if movement is the word to use since they are about as organized as a street gang would have been in Baabel sometime after Genesis 11:1-9

But that is not policy, just bigotry of one group towards another. Lots of men perfer blond women, that doesn't mean we have a policy of finding brunettes and redheads unsexual... which really proves nothing as well.

The Nazis are alive and well my foolish friend. And just like slavery, the Nazis were capable of making their victims think of themselves as inferior.

The Nazis are alive and well my foolish friend. And just like slavery, the Nazis were capable of making their victims think of themselves as inferior.

Are you serious? The only Nazis still alive are what... at least 85 years old? If they still consider themselves Nazis then they are hiding out somewhere else since Nazism is illegal in Germany. And you call that alive and well?
Nazism or Naziism, officially called National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), refers primarily to the totalitarian ideology and practices of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers' Party, German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) under Adolf Hitler. It also refers to the policies adopted by the government of Germany 1933 to 1945, a period in German history known as Nazi Germany or the "Third Reich".
The Nazi regime ended with World War II (1945), when the party was declared a criminal organization by the victorious Allied Powers and effectively destroyed.

Like I said, the kids running around these days are not Nazis, they are a different form of Socialists idiots who usually are referred to as NeoNazis. I had the pleasure of sharing a cell with one for three years. But what do I know about it, aparantly I'm a fool for some reason.

[EDIT]
I'm finished with this part of the discussion. It will lead nowhere and has nothing to do with whatever the hell this thread is about, nor does discussing the history of Socialists hold any bearing over my original post to you.

The Nazis are alive and well my foolish friend. And just like slavery, the Nazis were capable of making their victims think of themselves as inferior.

lovely.

are you taking your meds?


because I'm taking mine!

:p

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8938147/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16995297/

This is a very odd post.

You say bicyclists do not and should not have an EQUAL right to use the roadways because we are in the minority. You state this not as an explanation, but as a justification, as if minorities should not have equal rights simply because they are in the minority. Be it sex, or race or culture or sexual orientation or mode of transportation, do you not recognize that this denial of equal rights occurs when the minority is seen to be inferior to the majority? After all, Camry drivers are in a minority too (the majority does not drive Camry's), but they are not seen to be inferior, so they have equal rights.

And then it gets even more strange.


Sorry dude, this is the world AS IT IS, not some utopia you cooked up in your mind. Cyclists are not equal users of the road, if we were, you wouldn't have anything to 'advocate'.
BTW 'should not' are your words...I said 'do not', as in reflecting the world as it is. I guess putting words in other's mouths is your idea of 'honest debate'. :rolleyes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8938147/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16995297/

The funny thing is, both of your links went to strengthen the point I made previously. The links refer to "a group whos beginnings can be traced back to the Nazi movement" as well as "neo-Nazis". Thanks for bringing these links into the discussion.

OK, I'm done for real now. Got a hockey game to watch and a woman to take care of ;)

Plenty of that going on Chip. May not be 'official' policy, but I do remember a history lesson about the Nazis.... plenty of them still around in one form or another...

Then you have religious bigots.... it's really quite common for one group to think of themselves as superior to another.....

You mean like vc zealots do? :p Smile and say touche. :D

"Bless me, Father, I struggle with feelings of superiority"

...to motorists...

:D

I really do...

For example, I dare that guy who thought I held him up and gunned it past me on that hill, spewing smoke from his Smithsonian engine, to get out and race me up the hill on foot...

;)

There is no policy of cyclist inferiority....this is a term adopted by zealots to sell their wacky theories and political viewpoints.

The simple realities are:

1. Motor vehicles are the primary users of our roadways, as well as the primary method of transportation in this country - like it or not.
2. While bicycles have a right to use the roadways, that right does not make them EQUAL users of the roadways - bicycles are not the majority users, nor do they share the same characteristics as majority users (motor vehicles).

That is just plain reality...trying to claim it is some kind of inferiority thing is the same as claiming we have a policy of inferiority towards the handicapped, race, religion, gender, etc. Do you consider the physically handicapped, other races, other religions, other genders, etc. 'inferior' HH? Do you consider efforts to ensure that the differences between those groups and the majority are mitigated in some way to be policies of inferiority?

If bicycles ever become the primary mode of transportation and the majority users of the roadways, policy will be designed to accomodate them, rather than motor vehicles. Until then, our reality is what it is and not some nefarious, discriminatory plot by the infamous 'them'. Let's start over, shall we?

This is not as odd as what I thought I read the first time. I agree with your fundamental point.

I'm all for facilities that actually accomodate for the differences. For example, I see how traffic signal sensors that detect bikes as well as cars do that. I'm all for that. But I don't see how most bike lanes accomodate for such differences.

On long intersectionless stretches... okay. Then a bike lane serves the same purpose as a slow truck lane. But, again, this is an advantage for drivers of faster vehicles Even a well-designed bike lane on an long intersectionless stretch of roadways is not a facility that benefits bicyclists any more than a slow truck lane is a facility that benefits truckers.

But on sections of roads with intersections (no matter how minor) where no traffic engineer would ever consider putting a slow truck lane (no matter how steep or long the climb - there are no truck lanes on San Francisco's Filmore street, for example), bike lanes also have no legitimate function.

The only justification I see for bike lanes is a cyclist inferiority perspective. And by that I mean a perspective that considers the RIGHTS of cyclists to be inferior to the RIGHTS of vehicle drivers.

On long intersectionless stretches... okay. Then a bike lane serves the same purpose as a slow truck lane. But, again, this is an advantage for drivers of faster vehicles Even a well-designed bike lane on an long intersectionless stretch of roadways is not a facility that benefits bicyclists any more than a slow truck lane is a facility that benefits truckers.

And do you see anything wrong with giving drivers of faster vehicles an advantage such as this? Seriously, why must the advantage always be for the cyclist? Just because we are in the minority? We have enough advantages over motorized traffic, such as being able to avoid traffic jams. But there would be at least one advantage I see for cyclists with such a lane. The existance of the lane alone would be a reminder to motorists that cyclists could be present. If there weren't enough cyclists using the road in the first place, then the bike lane would have not been put there. So the fact that it is there is a reminder to them to be cautious.



But on sections of roads with intersections (no matter how minor) where no traffic engineer would ever consider putting a slow truck lane (no matter how steep or long the climb - there are no truck lanes on San Francisco's Filmore street, for example), bike lanes also have no legitimate function.

Well, I don't know the street you used for an example, but I have to disagree with you on this point. The existence of the bike lane alone is a function in and of itself, it is a constant reminder to motorists that cyclists use this road enough that the city installed a bike lane. I know around here a bike lane would allow me (barring lane splitting) to pass 100 to 300 feet of traffic at plenty of stop lights on my way to work every day. It would also cut back on the "get off the road" and "get on the sidewalk" hollars from cars. It would also allow me a more comfortable lane to travel in because, let's face it, sharing a lane with 60mph traffic that is in a hurry to get home to watch American Idol is not fun, so I use the shoulder, which is cluttered and not smooth. A bike lane would be cared for as part of the road in this example and not just a place to pile up snow. This is just one example.



The only justification I see for bike lanes is a cyclist inferiority perspective. And by that I mean a perspective that considers the RIGHTS of cyclists to be inferior to the RIGHTS of vehicle drivers.
Or, you could read what I just wrote about the lane being a constant reminder and a more comfortable place to travel. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't as well. Maybe you should think about what other people might want before you start preaching against it. It seems clear to me that more people want bike lanes/paths than not. And this is pretty much how our country is run... it is a democracy you know. Bike lanes will not take away our rights to use the road either, people who think that are being asenine.

On long intersectionless stretches... okay. Then a bike lane serves the same purpose as a slow truck lane. But, again, this is an advantage for drivers of faster vehicles even a well-designed bike lane on an long intersectionless stretch of roadways is not a facility that benefits bicyclists any more than a slow truck lane is a facility that benefits truckers.

You have got to be kiding me, right? I recently bicycled 20 miles down a 65mph+ 2-lane route (60mph posted) and there was a nice 6 foot shoulder. If that shoulder did not exist, there is no way in hell it would have been safe to take the lane - that shoulder is a HUGE advantage for bicyclists. Do you ever ride in more dangerous conditions then to the grocery store and back?!

You have got to be kiding me, right? I recently bicycled 20 miles down a 65mph+ 2-lane route (60mph posted) and there was a nice 6 foot shoulder. If that sholder did not exist, there is no way in hell it would have been safe to take the lane. Do you ever ride in more dangerous conditions then to the grocery store and back?!

From my understanding he only rides in those rolling sausage fests called pacelines.

Let's start over, shall we?

This is not as odd as what I thought I read the first time. I agree with your fundamental point.

I'm all for facilities that actually accomodate for the differences. For example, I see how traffic signal sensors that detect bikes as well as cars do that. I'm all for that. But I don't see how most bike lanes accomodate for such differences.

On long intersectionless stretches... okay. Then a bike lane serves the same purpose as a slow truck lane. But, again, this is an advantage for drivers of faster vehicles Even a well-designed bike lane on an long intersectionless stretch of roadways is not a facility that benefits bicyclists any more than a slow truck lane is a facility that benefits truckers.

But on sections of roads with intersections (no matter how minor) where no traffic engineer would ever consider putting a slow truck lane (no matter how steep or long the climb - there are no truck lanes on San Francisco's Filmore street, for example), bike lanes also have no legitimate function.

The only justification I see for bike lanes is a cyclist inferiority perspective. And by that I mean a perspective that considers the RIGHTS of cyclists to be inferior to the RIGHTS of vehicle drivers.

Where, in my post, did I mention anything about bike lanes? You ask a question concerning a policy of cyclist inferiority, then turn a response addressing that subject into a bike lane rant...after pwning yourself on your original, now edited response.

My point is simple - we all have an equal right to use the roadways - equality of opportunity, but the vehicles that use those roadways are not equal. Besides the fact that the physical & operational differences between vehicles are pretty obvious...the other fact is that motor vehicles are the majority and PRIMARY users of the roadways, thus the roadways are designed with an obvious bias towards making motor vehicle traffic fast, efficient and safe (:rolleyes:) at the expense of the minority vehicles. That is not an inferiority policy, it's just plain run-of-the-mill SOP public policy in a democratic republic. Build for the majority, accomdate the minority if possible. The main issue in this forum is the HOW of accomodating the minority.

You have got to be kiding me, right? I recently bicycled 20 miles down a 65mph+ 2-lane route (60mph posted) and there was a nice 6 foot shoulder. If that shoulder did not exist, there is no way in hell it would have been safe to take the lane - that shoulder is a HUGE advantage for bicyclists. Do you ever ride in more dangerous conditions then to the grocery store and back?!

To support 65mph speeds, it must have some pretty long intersectionless stretches, or at least, very little entering, exiting, and crossing traffic.

I don't disagree with wide paved shoulders as bicycling-related improvements on such high speed roads with few junctions, particularly in less urban areas. My only technical problems that I experience with such facilities is debris (unpaved driveways generate a lot of it on such roads where I live) and the lack of extra space to the left of right-turn-only lanes at intersections.

To support 65mph speeds, it must have some pretty long intersectionless stretches, or at least, very little entering, exiting, and crossing traffic.

I don't disagree with wide paved shoulders as bicycling-related improvements on such high speed roads with few junctions, particularly in less urban areas. My only technical problems that I experience with such facilities is debris (unpaved driveways generate a lot of it on such roads where I live) and the lack of extra space to the left of right-turn-only lanes at intersections.

How long do they have to be? Here in my area there is a 3 mile stretch of surface street that runs a Marine Air Base... parallel to that is a very wide freeway. Yet the 4 lane surface street which about 4 intersections along it's stretch is a 65MPH non-freeway.

It is "Kearny Villa road" in the center of this map: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=b&ie=UTF8&z=13&ll=32.862142,-117.108593&spn=0.102665,0.159988&om=1

Note the proximity to the freeway... now ask yourself... why does this road also need freeway speeds?

To support 65mph speeds, it must have some pretty long intersectionless stretches, or at least, very little entering, exiting, and crossing traffic.


It did, was route 199 in Williamsburg, VA. More like an interstate with on and off only every many several miles, where it did slow down for a stop light, but lucky for me, no signs preventing me from riding it when I entered, cause it's the only reasonable way to get to where I need to get from time to time.

There are several roads where I live that are shorter then that one and get to 65+ regularly with no shoulders, those are not that fun - unless I'm in a combative mood :) , but they only have posted speeds of 55

An edit*
If you ever get to SE Virginia, ride from Protsmouth to Roanoke on route 460. Almost 400 miles, 95% 65+ mph with shoulders. Interstate speeds are rather common on non-interstates, but are MUCH safer then city roads to bicycle on when they have the 6 foot shoulders - debri or no debis - you just have to pay attention while you ride, no daydreaming.

Note the proximity to the freeway... now ask yourself... why does this road also need freeway speeds?

I like city streets with <45 mph speeds, rural roads with light traffic and who cares what posted speed limit, and freeways that I won't use, but siphon traffic away from the ones I do.

I dislike freeway-like surface streets that provide important local access but appear designed to support high speeds with high traffic volumes. These combine high speeds with turning and exiting/entering traffic, forcing transitions between speed positioning and destination positioning under the least pleasant conditions. Wide pavement helps between junctions but at the junctions the pavement never seems to be in the right spot, and merging isn't fun regardless.

I have two choices of routes to and from work. One is on a 45 mph 5-lane arterial with 11' outside lanes. The other is a longer route on pleasant residential streets, but to get to it I need to ride for a bit on a 55 mph freeway-wanna-be through an interchange with free-flowing entrance and exit lanes. I don't have a clear favorite between the two. I would prefer the interchange have wider outside through lanes rather than the 12' lanes studded with reflectors on the lane lines, or be designed with intersections or sharper-radius entrance lanes to slow down the entering cars. I'd also prefer the arterial to have 15' lanes in the 45 mph sections. I currently ride in the center of the 11' lane the whole way, but this seems to create more turbulence on the long 45 mph sections between signals than on the more urban 35 mph sections.

-Steve

Where, in my post, did I mention anything about bike lanes? Where, in my post, did I mention anything about you mentioning anything about bike lanes?

I simply used bike lanes to help explain why I thought your point was irrelevant to the issues raised in the OP.


You ask a question concerning a policy of cyclist inferiority, then turn a response addressing that subject into a bike lane rant...after pwning yourself on your original, now edited response.

My point is simple - we all have an equal right to use the roadways - equality of opportunity, but the vehicles that use those roadways are not equal. Besides the fact that the physical & operational differences between vehicles are pretty obvious...the other fact is that motor vehicles are the majority and PRIMARY users of the roadways, thus the roadways are designed with an obvious bias towards making motor vehicle traffic fast, efficient and safe (:rolleyes:) at the expense of the minority vehicles. That is not an inferiority policy, it's just plain run-of-the-mill SOP public policy in a democratic republic. Build for the majority, accomdate the minority if possible. The main issue in this forum is the HOW of accomodating the minority. How does any of this address anything stated in the OP?

Of course there are differences. There are differences between men and women too. But just like there are ways to recognize and appreciate ("Vive la difference!") the differences between men and women with or without viewing one sex as being inferior to the other or not, there are ways to recognize the differences between bicyclists and motor vehicle drivers with and without viewing one or the other as inferior to the other.

In both cases, emphasizing the differences in contexts where the differences don't matter is a way of implying an inferiority. That's what I'm talking about in this thread. Not about whether there are differences or not. Of course there are.

Mentioning menstrual cycles is generally avoided in board rooms, for good reason. For the same reason, the relative lack of power/acceleration/cage-protection of a cyclist should not be relevant at intersections, and if these characteristics -- which are obvious differences -- are mentioned in the context of how cyclists should behave or how they should be treated at intersections, that's implying an inferiority with respect to cyclist rights.

Justice consists of treating people equally to the extent they are equal and unequally to the extent they are unequal.


If I have cyclist inferiority complex because I don't want to ride on a crowded busy 40 + mph street, then I must also have swimmer's inferiority complex because I dont want to swim in the middle of the lake where all the boaters and ski jets run.

"Bless me, Father, I struggle with feelings of superiority"

...to motorists...

:D

I really do...

I really do, too. Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't sense people generally looking down on me because I ride a bicycle (at least not people who interact with me on a personal level). People can't comprehend my use of a bicycle as a primary means of transportation because it's not anything they have ever experienced, but they don't act superior; more often, they seem awed or amazed.

Bicyclists who think society discriminates against cyclists as human beings to any significant extent live in a different world than I do. Those VC extremists who make comparisons of the treatment of bicyclist to Jim Crow define themselves as total crackpots. There is no comparison (the "bike lanes are Jim Crow" argument is one of the most assinine arguments in the history of the world - truly - and I have a distinct negative opinion of anyone who stoops to making it -- scumbags are scumbags, and they discredit any rational argument they might have).

I honestly believe the bicycle is a superior vehicle to the automobile in many ways. One problem I have with dogmatic VC-ists is that they seem to want me to ride my bicycle as if it were a car, and thereby not take advatage of some of the versatility a bicycle has.

Do you agree we have a policy of "cyclist inferiority" in the U.S.?No.


Do you agree we have a culture of "cyclist inferiority"?No.

Bike lanes aren't Jim Crow and they aren't a plot of the Nazis.


Does one produce the other? Or is it a chicken egg situation where they feed off each other? How do we break out of the cycle?

Stop believing ridiculous VC-ist propaganda, for one thing. VC lunacy feeds off itself. This thread started with mental deficiencies -- now we've had the Nazi card played. Segregated drinking fountains can't be far behind, followed by a lame denial that any offense was intended.

And Forester claims that those who disagree with him base their disagreement on emotionalism and that VC-ist arguments are rational -- what a hoot! VC-ists are among the most shameless fear-mongerers I've ever encounterd. VC-ist arguments are mostly emotional, not rational.

Forester's wacky cyclist inferiority mumbo jumbo is bunch of hooey he concocted because he couldn't (and evidently still can't) comprehend how anyone could possibly oppose having small group of self-righteous, self-appointed, Forester-believing know-it-all safety nannys dictate what is in the best interests of bicyclists. Forester apparently believes that the general public (that seems to be basically anyone who doesn't bow down to Forester's infinite wisdom) are too stupid to determine for themselves what is in their best interest. You see, Forester and the True Believers know everything. The unwashed masses of cyclists are mentally deficient idiots with low IQs and reading comprehension problems.

That, my friend, is the essence of VC-ist philosophy whether that is what Forester intended or not (and yet VC-ists bristle at being called elitist).

I better quit before I say something sarcastic.

As a life-long rules of the road bicyclist, it bothers me that vehicular cycling has become so closely identified with Forester's wacky psychological and social theories and his political agenda.

Despite all his knowledge, Forester got it wrong.

Very, very wrong on a very fundamental level.

Breaking news....cyclist inferiority embodied in law enforcement....

Yesterday was a beautiful day here in Towson. Perfect for cycling with the minor exception of a 20 MPH steady wind out of the northwest....

Anyway, I was riding home from my son's baseball game, heading east on Towsontown Blvd., just east of Osler Drive when I came up behind another cyclist. This cyclist was wearing a bright yellow tee-shirt that said "Police" across the back, had a handgun, mace and handcuffs attached to his belt and was... riding in the gutter! Actually in the 18" concrete gutter..... This road is four lanes with a center turn lane (painted in long after the road was constructed so the lanes are quite narrow - maybe 9' wide)..... as I came up beside him I said...'my God man get out of the gutter...' He just shook his head as if to say 'no'....He was a young guy, somewhat plump and I think actually an employee of Towson University as opposed to a Baltimore County Police Officer but still.....

Do you agree we have a policy of "cyclist inferiority" in the U.S.?

No, I think we have a policy of "motorist superiority" in the US... and it starts with the thinking "the car is king" and along with that is the thinking "what's good for General Motors is good for the country.(1)" It also goes along with the thinking that we should send boys to war to defend oil resources in foreign lands, because clearly "we are addicted to oil... (2)"

Forester is right, in that this country does have a problem... he just gave it the wrong name.

"A chicken in every pot, and a car in every garage... (3)"

Need I say more?

Name the sources... anyone, anyone... Bueller?

(1)

(2)

(3)

Certainly, I am not a psychologist...That's obvious.

I'd posit that you aren't much of a social scientist, either.

You might have chosen to stick to what you know but, obviously, that was not your choice.

Breaking news....cyclist inferiority embodied in law enforcement....

when I came up behind another cyclist. This cyclist was wearing a bright yellow tee-shirt that said "Police" across the back, had a handgun, mace and handcuffs attached to his belt and was... riding in the gutter! Actually in the 18" concrete gutter..... This road is four lanes with a center turn lane (painted in long after the road was constructed so the lanes are quite narrow - maybe 9' wide)..... as I came up beside him I said...'my God man get out of the gutter...'
Doncha mean breaking news... Smug cyclist doesn't mind his own business and mouths off to another cyclist with gratuitous advice. Mouthy nanny is lucky, and the cyclist doesn't get annoyed (or is restrained by good manners) and does not respond with tools available.

BTW how do I know Forester got it wrong... well he specifically cites the problem as a cyclist issue... however, pedestrians also react to the presence of cars ("cars," not motorists... cars are seen as impersonal behemoths... the driver inside is often not seen well enough to "humanize" the vehicle). Peds are often seen running across streets where they have a clear walk signal. Motorcyclists are also treated poorly and act in reaction to "cars." So clearly the syndrome... is not "cyclist inferiority," but "motorist superiority" or worse: "automotive superiority," the latter more the case, due to the dehumanizing nature of the auto."

Doncha mean breaking news... Smug cyclist doesn't mind his own business and mouths off to another cyclist with gratuitous advice. Mouthy nanny is lucky, and the cyclist doesn't get annoyed (or is restrained by good manners) and does not respond with tools available.

Just looking out for my fellow man. Believe me he (and you) could use a lot of help....