Vehicular Cycling (VC) - A Case of CIC

I don't really believe in Forester's Cyclist Inferiority Complex, but this may qualify.

In today's Washington Post District Extra Dr. Gridlock article, Dean Nguyen, a mountain biker and assistant manager at a shop near Springfield, Virginia, declared in no uncertain terms that the *only* place for cyclists was on trails and paths; never on the roads. Oy.

wish I could find the exact quotation. There's a couple anti-cyclist letters in there.

Here you go:

"Dear Dr. Gridlock:

I strongly oppose cyclists sharing the road with motorists. It is not only unsafe, but inconvenient for drivers.

Cyclists tend to act as though the rules of the road don't apply to them, and as though they possess the same presence on the road as automobiles. It is amazing that there are not more cycling-related fatalities in our area. Cyclists belong on paths, and nowhere else.

Before you chastise me for being anti-cyclist, I would like you to know that I am an avid mountain biker who rides more than a thousand miles a year, and I have been an assistant manager at a local shop for years.

I do not believe that I or any other cyclist should be sharing the road with cars. It's unsafe and irresponsible.

Dean Nguyen"

The last sentence of the letter sums up the CIC (or whatever you want to call it). Cyclists are sitting ducks out there, on the verge of death at any moment, with nothing they can do about it. Right :rolleyes:

The last sentence of the letter sums up the CIC (or whatever you want to call it).
What I call it is provincialism; a self centered mountain biker who has no interest in other types of cycling or cyclists and presumably doesn't make any effort in selling any other type of cycling.

Ooooh, and he rides about 20 miles a week! Hardcore!

That's the letter of a guy whose girlfriend just left him for a bike commuter. Perhaps he will meet someone else on the trails or path.

R.

What I call it is provincialism; a self centered mountain biker who has no interest in other types of cycling or cyclists and presumably doesn't make any effort in selling any other type of cycling.

He apparently has some interest in other types of cycling; it's just that it's all negative. It's hard to tell if he's trying to get more cyclists on the paths or if he just wants all cyclists off the road. My guess is the latter, probably after having to spend 30 seconds behind a cyclist on a narrow road.

1000 miles a year? I did almost 1000 miles last month. Not much of a biker.

Local cyclist in DC should call the shops in the area, ask for the guy, then when you know what shop he works at, picket the shop.

Local cyclist in DC should call the shops in the area, ask for the guy, then when you know what shop he works at, picket the shop.

Oh yeah!
Do that! The manager of the shop will fire him!
Manager certainly doesn't want people picketing in front
of his place, will see what kind of employee he is and
boot his @ss!

Dear Dr. Gridlock:

I strongly oppose cyclists sharing paths with hikers. It is not only unsafe, but inconvenient for pedestrians.

Cyclists tend to act as though the rules of the path don't apply to them, and as though they possess the same maneuverability on the path as hikers. It is amazing that there are not more cycling-related fatalities in our area. Cyclists belong on roads, and nowhere else.

Before you chastise me for being anti-cyclist, I would like you to know that I am an avid road biker who rides more than a thousand miles a year, and I have been an assistant manager at a local shop for years.

I do not believe that I or any other cyclist should be sharing a path with pedestrians. It's unsafe and irresponsible.

Grumpy Road Cyclist

I have been an assistant manager at a local shop for years.
How much to you want to be that he's really just an "assistant to the manager"?

that guy must get held up on his way to his mountian biking trails by bicyclists. I bet he honks at bicyclists. In that he kind of reminds me of helemt head, in a way, but twisted.

Dear Dr. Gridlock:

I strongly oppose cyclists sharing paths with hikers. It is not only unsafe, but inconvenient for pedestrians.

Cyclists tend to act as though the rules of the path don't apply to them, and as though they possess the same maneuverability on the path as hikers. It is amazing that there are not more cycling-related fatalities in our area. Cyclists belong on roads, and nowhere else.

Before you chastise me for being anti-cyclist, I would like you to know that I am an avid road biker who rides more than a thousand miles a year, and I have been an assistant manager at a local shop for years.

I do not believe that I or any other cyclist should be sharing a path with pedestrians. It's unsafe and irresponsible.

Grumpy Road Cyclist


:lol:

talk about tunnel vision!

20 miles a week? Wooo-Hooo, hardcore.:rolleyes:

Let's see...If I rode only 20 miles a week...I could commute to work and back 1.5 times using the shortest route (actually, that would put me a little over). For everything else I would have to take the car. Not gonna' happen.

He seems to be someone who sees a bike as a mere toy, rather than a viable vehicle for transportation.

I see a significant number of spandex-clad mountain-bike riders on sidewalks in my city, riding to and from the trailheads, sometimes wearing their team jerseys. There are far more spandex-clad road-bike riders on the roadways, but it seems that most of the time I see a spandex-clad mountain biker on a public highway right of way, he's on the sidewalk, often riding contra-flow.

I have spoken to some avid mountain bikers who are not road cyclists, and they have said that they are afraid of traffic.

On the other hand, the road cyclists I know who also mountain bike tend to ride to the trailheads on the roadway. They appreciate trails, but when traveling on public highway corridors, they prefer to use the roadway.

I do both mountain biking and road cycling, in spandex, but no team affiliations. I am generally much more afraid of falling on my mountain bike when riding over roots and logs than I am afraid of traffic on the way to and from the local trails. I think it comes down to practice and experience to become comfortable with one or the other.

What concerns me is that this particular writer isn't just afraid of traffic himself, but he wants other cyclists to give up riding on the roads. This is the type of mindset that promotes designating sidewalks as bike paths, combined with mandatory sidepath-use laws.

What concerns me is that this particular writer isn't just afraid of traffic himself, but he wants other cyclists to give up riding on the roads. This is the type of mindset that promotes designating sidewalks as bike paths, combined with mandatory sidepath-use laws.
What I have concluded is that, whether they realize it or not, motorists who believe cyclists should not be on the road, are not so much concerned for the safety of the cyclist as they are afraid of their own lack of competence while driving.

Competent motorists, who are the vast majority of all motorists, demonstrate no problem with safely passing a cyclist, regardless of the cyclist's road position, as long as the cyclist is visible and riding in a predictable manner.

I see nothing in his statement that claims that "a cyclist (the person) is in any way inferior to a motorist (the person)".
ILTB summed it up best.

Then I'll disagree with CommuterRun - it's also a matter of not wanting to be inconvenienced, as much as worrying about their competence. Don't get in my way forcing me to slow down, requiring me to move body parts by pressing the brake and turning the wheel and, lord forbid, having to actually think! I got a bingo game to get to at the church! I am a disagreeable cuss, aint I? :D

20 miles a week? Wooo-Hooo, hardcore.:rolleyes:

Let's see...If I rode only 20 miles a week...I could commute to work and back 1.5 times using the shortest route (actually, that would put me a little over). For everything else I would have to take the car. Not gonna' happen.

He seems to be someone who sees a bike as a mere toy, rather than a viable vehicle for transportation.

So very true!
Just because the guy likes to go Mountain Biking does not mean he is not the same kind of motorist to throw a half full can of beer out of his car window at a road cyclist or commuter.
As far as I'm concerned, this guy is just a motorist spouting off the same dribble as the rest of the vocal ones about how commuters and road cyclists inconvenience him, only this guy hides under the umbrella of "gee, I'm a cyclist too".

.....it's also a matter of not wanting to be inconvenienced, as much as worrying about their competence. Don't get in my way forcing me to slow down, requiring me to move body parts by pressing the brake and turning the wheel and, lord forbid, having to actually think!.....I am a disagreeable cuss, aint I? :D

Bingo! :mad: and Bingo! :D

I see nothing in his statement that claims that "a cyclist (the person) is in any way inferior to a motorist (the person)".
ILTB summed it up best.
I don't know that Forester meant that one person is inferior to another. I think at least part of it has to do with the equal validity of modes of transportation. Mr. Nuygen clearly infers that cycling is a less valid mode of road transportation, in fact that it is a completely invalid mode. I think most of us would take exception to that.

Where I see the "inferiority" coming in is when the cyclist him/herself feels they are less important road users, because they do not see their vehicles as having an equal right to the road, and therefore must take care to never inconvenience a car driver.

I'm amazed that so many people are ranting about this Nguyen character. Most people I've talked to (outside these forums) seem to agree with him.

I'm amazed that so many people are ranting about this Nguyen character. Most people I've talked to (outside these forums) seem to agree with him.

Yep. I don't think anyone would dispute that the majority of the population consider the roads dangerous for driving, let alone cycling. I don't agree, but I don't have any illusions that mine is a majority view.

I don't know that Forester meant that one person is inferior to another. I think at least part of it has to do with the equal validity of modes of transportation. Mr. Nuygen clearly infers that cycling is a less valid mode of road transportation, in fact that it is a completely invalid mode. I think most of us would take exception to that.

Where I see the "inferiority" coming in is when the cyclist him/herself feels they are less important road users, because they do not see their vehicles as having an equal right to the road, and therefore must take care to never inconvenience a car driver.

You sir, are the first person who has clearly, sufficiently, and in a pleasing manner explained to me the whole "cyclist inferiority" thing. Thank you. It's awesome how a kind tone can convey a message with so much more clarity than the "you poor little misguided soul" attitude.
However, I must disagree with the pretense that there actually is a cyclist inferiority complex/syndrome at all. It is unclear by your post wether or not you believe such a thing to actually exist, so I am no disagreeing with you bluntly, I am just disagreeing with the pretense in general. I do not see it as a feeling of inferiority by the cyclist, but rather a feeling of "I'm in no hurry, hell I'm on a bike, if I were in a real hurry I'd be in a car, so I'll let these guys pass me. I don't know if there is an emergency or not for them but I'll do the curteous thing and let the faster traffic go by and continue to enjoy my bike ride to work/the store/ etc". Granted, there probably are some people out there who feel that they on their bicycles are less important than the mass of traffic. But I doubt that their numbers are so great as to entitle their so called feeling of inferiority as a mass complex or syndrome.

But in reference to the OP, I still see this guy as another motorist who is expressing his dislike of road cycling as any other motorist does. It just so happens that this guy uses his car to transport his bicycle to trail heads and is trying to speak under the umbrella of a cyclist. After all, skank-ho dejour "Paris Hilton" rides a bicycle. But her opinion on wether or not a cyclist should be allowed to cary an accesory poodle in their panier while drinking a latte on their way to the day spa via bicycle should not be indicitive of anyone in the cycling community.

The whole "cyclist inferiority" thing is simple. Cars have the right of way.

automobiles are bigger, heavier and more powerful than bicycles. that a bicycle is lighter, smaller and more maneuverable does not make up for the fact that in a car/bicycle collision, the bike rider will be the worse off. the tons of steel and seat belts and air bags in cars help insure that in a car/car collision, the odds are better of surviving. CIC does not exist-- rather it is simply an observation based on reality on the part of the bicyclist that they are more vulnerable than their counterparts in cars.

So, in America, biggest and heaviest gets right of way?

So, in America, biggest and heaviest gets right of way?
All sarcastics and joking aside, I have heard that exact statement many times in my life.
"I have the bigger car so I have the right of way"

All sarcastics and joking aside, I have heard that exact statement many times in my life.
"I have the bigger car so I have the right of way"
I've heard it too, but it's not the law.

Doesn't the law apply anymore?

I've heard it too, but it's not the law.

Doesn't the law apply anymore?
Realistically, LBM, if I have the ROW and a car wants to take it whether I'm there or not.....suffice it to say I won't defend my ROW to the death. That would be a Pyhrric victory at best.;)

I've heard it too, but it's not the law.

Doesn't the law apply anymore?

The law only matters when it is enforced, that appears to be the attitude of the masses. and even when it is enforced there are ALOT of people out there who scoff it nevertheless.

So, in America, biggest and heaviest gets right of way?

well, legally, no. but in real life situations this is often the case. I'm just saying that feeling vulnerable in traffic makes a certain amount of sense, if you're on a bicycle.

automobiles are bigger, heavier and more powerful than bicycles. that a bicycle is lighter, smaller and more maneuverable does not make up for the fact that in a car/bicycle collision, the bike rider will be the worse off. the tons of steel and seat belts and air bags in cars help insure that in a car/car collision, the odds are better of surviving. CIC does not exist-- rather it is simply an observation based on reality on the part of the bicyclist that they are more vulnerable than their counterparts in cars.

This argument was traditionally used to persuade cyclists to operate in the cyclist-inferiority manner that motorists liked but that, unfortunately produced a large number of car-bike collisions. The object of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is to avoid collisions. If you feel that vulnerability should cause you to disobey those rules of the road, please tell us in what way you disobey those rules to suit your understanding of vulnerability.

The law only matters when it is enforced, that appears to be the attitude of the masses. and even when it is enforced there are ALOT of people out there who scoff it nevertheless.
It seems like people don't have much respect for the common good anymore, but we can't afford the kind of policing necessary to make people follow the law. I can only hope parents of young children like you, pj7, will try to teach their rugrats to resist this collective selfishness that seems to smack me in the face everytime I turn around. :(

It seems like people don't have much respect for the common good anymore, but we can't afford the kind of policing necessary to make people follow the law. I can only hope parents of young children like you, pj7, will try to teach their rugrats to resist this collective selfishness that seems to smack me in the face everytime I turn around. :(
Oh my boy is getting a good country raising, you can believe that! :D

This argument was traditionally used to persuade cyclists to operate in the cyclist-inferiority manner that motorists liked but that, unfortunately produced a large number of car-bike collisions. The object of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is to avoid collisions. If you feel that vulnerability should cause you to disobey those rules of the road, please tell us in what way you disobey those rules to suit your understanding of vulnerability.
The seemingly "upside-down" reasoning of vehicular cycling, that is, assert your place and it is more likely to be given, doesn't appeal to most people. It didn't appeal to me until I got squeezed into the gutter by a driver who thought I had moved over to let him pass in a narrow lane. Very scary, indeed.

Now, my philosophy is decidedly more assertive. It's like bartering: ask a higher price, and you're more likely to get a reasonable one in the end; ask a reasonable price, and you'll end up with less than reasonable.

automobiles are bigger, heavier and more powerful than bicycles. that a bicycle is lighter, smaller and more maneuverable does not make up for the fact that in a car/bicycle collision, the bike rider will be the worse off. the tons of steel and seat belts and air bags in cars help insure that in a car/car collision, the odds are better of surviving. CIC does not exist-- rather it is simply an observation based on reality on the part of the bicyclist that they are more vulnerable than their counterparts in cars.
This post is proof that CIC does exist. "I believe that I have rights, but I'm too weak and vulnerable to assert them."

Sorry, I don't mean this against you personally, Rando. We all feel this way sometimes, probably. My own inferiority feelings can express themselves as an attitude of over-thinking the putative dangers of cycling.

The seemingly "upside-down" reasoning of vehicular cycling, that is, assert your place and it is more likely to be given, doesn't appeal to most people. It didn't appeal to me until I got squeezed into the gutter by a driver who thought I had moved over to let him pass in a narrow lane. Very scary, indeed.

Now, my philosophy is decidedly more assertive. It's like bartering: ask a higher price, and you're more likely to get a reasonable one in the end; ask a reasonable price, and you'll end up with less than reasonable.
+1.

Nobody will "give" you rights. You have to earn them and fight for them as well as bargain for them. And if some cager gives you hell about your right to the road, give 'em hell right back. That truly is local advocacy.

This post is proof that CIC does exist. "I believe that I have rights, but I'm too weak and vulnerable to assert them."

Sorry, I don't mean this against you personally, Rando. We all feel this way sometimes, probably. My own inferiority feelings can express themselves as an attitude of over-thinking the putative dangers of cycling.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying anything about asserting rights. I'm saying the physical properties of the two vehicles are such that the cyclist IS more vulnerable in traffic. car hits car, maybe not a big deal. car hits bike, VERY big deal for the cyclist. I'm saying it is simply an observation based on reality on the part of the bicyclist that they are more vulnerable than their counterparts in cars. I think that's a natural reaction based on self-preservation.

asserting rights is a separate issue.
it's a choice the cyclist makes based on experience, preference and their own risk assessment.
some will "take the lane".
some will find a less travelled route/bike lane,
some will get on the sidewalk
some will not get in traffic at all.

in my area (except for a few like wheel and Al) most people I've seen riding take options #2 and 3. I avoid the major 45-60 MPH arterials in favor of 25 mph streets, w/wo bikelanes and wide sidewalks. I feel lucky that I have the option to do that.

"taking the lane" on high-speed arterials in heavy traffic. THAT I won't do.
Others are welcome to it and I will defend their right to.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying anything about asserting rights. I'm saying the physical properties of the two vehicles are such that the cyclist IS more vulnerable in traffic. car hits car, maybe not a big deal. car hits bike, VERY big deal for the cyclist. I'm saying it is simply an observation based on reality on the part of the bicyclist that they are more vulnerable than their counterparts in cars. I think that's a natural reaction based on self-preservation.

asserting rights is a separate issue.
it's a choice the cyclist makes based on experience, preference and their own risk assessment.
some will "take the lane".
some will find a less travelled route,
some will get on the sidewalk
some will not get in traffic at all.

in my area (except for a few like wheel and Al) most people I've seen riding take options #2 and 3. I avoid the major 45-60 MPH arterials in favor of 25 mph streets, w/wo bikelanes and wide sidewalks. I feel lucky that I can do that.
I often take option # 2, so I've got a case of CIC also.

But the point is, if everybody is following the law, and the law is properly written and applied, then bikes and cars can safely co-exist in the same road. That means cagers have to follow the laws too. That's why we need

motorist education,
cyclist assertiveness,
legislative lobbying,
yelling back when somebody honks or buzzes you,
CM,

or whatever advocacy you feel comfortable with.

Avoiding the problem is unlikely to make it better.

I often take option # 2, so I've got a case of CIC also.


Come on Rood, taking alternative routes is not CIC. I like to avoid high traffic/goofy areas when driving too...choosing a route that is less stressful is common sense, not inferiority.

Come on Rood, taking alternative routes is not CIC. I like to avoid high traffic/goofy areas when driving too...choosing a route that is less stressful is common sense, not inferiority.
Depends on the reason for taking the alternate route. For you, not a CIC issue but for some others in my area and here on BF, it is exclusively a CIC issue.

Depends on the reason for taking the alternate route. For you, not a CIC issue but for some others in my area and here on BF, it is exclusively a CIC issue.

If they are choosing the route specifically to avoid being on the road at all, I would agree, but simply choosing a route because it is easier, less stressful, less traffic, etc. is just plain ole common sense (and maybe a touch of laziness) to me. Example, 3 lane, 45mph road through strip-mall suburbia heaven, lots of lights, lots of driveways, curbed with narrow lanes to compensate for the addition of the continious left turn lane...I don't even want to drive on it, let alone ride on it - especially around Christmas! ;)

"If they are choosing the route specifically to avoid being on the road at all," or avoid being on any road with a speed limit over 25 mph, in my opinion.
We likely both know people like this.

Well I choose only the busiest, heaviest traffic out there. I love the smell of exhaust, the endless stop-and-go, the traffic signals and the noise. I love it. (Imagine me sniffing and pulling up my belt, maybe spitting some chew.) Yep. I've got a superiority complex.

My commute distance is 20 miles into work (one way). The slightly better route is 28 miles. Which one would you choose?

My commute distance is 20 miles into work (one way). The slightly better route is 28 miles. Which one would you choose?

I'd drive halfway and then bike the rest! :)

I'd drive halfway and then bike the rest! :)
Wife gets the family car - single car family. Plus your option would often mean sitting in a car that is moving at 10 mph during rush hour. The commute is much more fun on a bicycle, regardless of the road.
Besides, when a JAM does something stupid when I am motoring, it bugs me the rest of the trip; when cycling, it bugs me for the next 100 yards.