Cyclist-inferiorities: sub-concepts

[Niles H.]

The concept of cyclist inferiority is broad, and can be misleading. Many people conflate various forms of status and other psychological inferiorities, various forms of physical inferiorities and inequalities, and various forms of legal inferiorities and rights.

It could be clearer and more specific.

[Helmet Head]

The concept of cyclist inferiority is broad, and can be misleading. Many people conflate various forms of status and other psychological inferiorities, various forms of physical inferiorities and inequalities, and various forms of legal inferiorities and rights.

It could be clearer and more specific. Is the following sufficiently clear and specific for you?

"The [cyclist-inferiority] hypothesis says that the roads are too dangerous for cyclists, they cannot operate safely as drivers of vehicles; therefore, so it says, special, safer facilities must be made for cyclists, so that they can ride safely to wherever they might wish to go". --John Forester, Bicycle Transportation, p. 1.

[genec]

The problem is not cyclist inferiority... it is motorist superiority. The roads are just fine... it is all the darn drivers that think they own the road that messes things up.

[Helmet Head]

The problem is not cyclist inferiority... it is motorist superiority. The roads are just fine... it is all the darn drivers that think they own the road that messes things up.
I don't understand the semantic obsession.

Con't cyclist inferiority and motorist superiority mean the same thing:

"On the road, cyclists are inferior to motorists; motorists are superior to cyclists".

Why does it matter whether you refer to that concept as "cyclist inferiority" or as "motorist superiority"?

[chipcom]

hypothesis

Nuff said.

[genec]

I don't understand the semantic obsession.

Con't cyclist inferiority and motorist superiority mean the same thing:

"On the road, cyclists are inferior to motorists; motorists are superior to cyclists".

Why does it matter whether you refer to that concept as "cyclist inferiority" or as "motorist superiority"?

Because it not an issue of cyclists being inferior, it IS an issue of motorists feeling superior. If there was no percieved motorist "ownership" of the road, then there would be no cyclist inferiority.

While they may mean nearly the same thing... it is a perspective based issue. Motorists pushed cyclists off the road and invented facilities for cyclists... cyclists did not voluntarily leave the road and then decide Bike Lanes et al were a better solution.

[zeytoun]

Why does it matter whether you refer to that concept as "cyclist inferiority" or as "motorist superiority"?
I think genec is referring to motorist-exhibited "cyclist inferiority/motorist superiority" as opposed to cyclist-exhibited "cylclist inferiority/motorist superiority". These two things are not the same.

Is a cyclist who behaves as if he has more right to the road then a driver exhibited cyclist superiority, by the way?

[Niles H.]

Is the following sufficiently clear and specific for you?

"The [cyclist-inferiority] hypothesis says that the roads are too dangerous for cyclists, they cannot operate safely as drivers of vehicles; therefore, so it says, special, safer facilities must be made for cyclists, so that they can ride safely to wherever they might wish to go". --John Forester, Bicycle Transportation, p. 1.

That's better, but the term still has common-usage connotations that go beyond that, and often lead to misunderstandings, confusions, ambiguities, wrong conclusions, etc.

Also, the term "the roads" is too vague and broad.

Which roads? When? All segments or some segments? Under what conditions?

Some roads and conditions are definitely unsafe for cyclists. Others are not.

The term "cyclists" is also misleadingly broad. Some cyclists are fine with roads and conditions that are very unsafe for other cyclists.

***
This brings out another point: there are people who are riding bikes who are not the most together people in the world. Some are developmentally disabled or challenged. There is a wide spectrum (or something like a bell curve if you prefer).

Simpler, more forgiving environments make more sense for some people.

***
Another aspect is that there is a possible confusion of some with all. (One example, "...the roads are too dangerous for cyclists, they cannot operate safely as drivers of vehicles...." Under some conditions it may be true. 'All roads' at all times -- no.)

***
"...therefore, so it says, special, safer facilities must be made for cyclists, so that they can ride safely to wherever they might wish to go."

"Wherever" is too broad. This issue could also be more specific and clear.

***
Also, 'inferior in safety', in certain respects (during many sorts of collisions for example), has some validity.

***
"Too dangerous" -- perhaps; it depends on a variety of factors, including acceptable levels of risk or danger. (This could also be more clear and specific.)

***
"Cannot operate safely" is also broad and ambiguous.

***
If the basic overall point is that bikes do not belong on the roads (any of the roads? some of the roads? most of the roads? a few of the roads? at any time? under certain conditions or all conditions?......) because they are not safe there, then another term, besides inferiority or inferiority phobia, would probably be clearer.

[skanking biker]

Is the following sufficiently clear and specific for you?

"The [cyclist-inferiority] hypothesis says that the roads are too dangerous for cyclists, they cannot operate safely as drivers of vehicles; therefore, so it says, special, safer facilities must be made for cyclists, so that they can ride safely to wherever they might wish to go". --John Forester, Bicycle Transportation, p. 1.


"Roads" is a very broad term. Not every road is "too dangerous" for cyclists; not every road is "safe" for cyclists. There are an almost infinite number of variables of traffic patterns, road design, terrain, upkeep, access, policing, facilities, etc. What does "too dangerous"? What is an accepted level of danger.

The problem is each person has a different comfort zone and rides in a different area with different conditions. It is impossibile and intellectually dishonest to paint with such a broad brush and try and group every cyclist in one of two categories.

[Niles H.]

I don't understand the semantic obsession.

Con't cyclist inferiority and motorist superiority mean the same thing:

"On the road, cyclists are inferior to motorists; motorists are superior to cyclists".

Why does it matter whether you refer to that concept as "cyclist inferiority" or as "motorist superiority"?

"Superior" can have multiple meanings.

Cars are superior in a variety of ways.

Cyclists are absolutely equal in other, also important ways.

And bikes are superior in certain ways.

***
Isn't the main issue safety?

Are cyclists equally safe (on the road)?

It depends on so many factors that a broad generalization can be very misleading.

***
There are other aspects of superiority that also matter: attitudes of superiority, assumptions of legal superiority, actual legal superiority, assumptions related to belonging or not belonging ('I belong here too' would be an interesting message for some drivers), unexamined comparative thinking that conflates certain physical inequalities (or superiorities) with other sorts of inequalities or superiorities -- something like the fallacy of authority (it could be seen as a fallacy of transfered superiority (from one area of superiority to another, or to overall superiority)) (this actually seems to happen with many drivers).

[Niles H.]

Paul Theroux has done quite a bit of cycling, and has written about this sort of thing (motorists' superiority attitudes). He has looked at it in terms of 'pecking order'.

Some of these attitudes (or feelings and actions based on superiority-sense and pecking order) may be sub-rational animal inheritance. We still have something called a reptilian brain that operates from deep beneath the cortex, and probably surfaces with some of these attitudes.

Dominance and dominance hierarchies are part of many animal packs and herds.

I think human beings can often go beyond this sort of thing, but it can take some re-education and self-examination, and some extension of awareness.

[sbhikes]

I don't think the concept needs to be clarified. The purpose of it is to brow-beat people who don't agree with John Forester. That's ALL it means.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I don't think the concept needs to be clarified. The purpose of it is to brow-beat people who don't agree with John Forester. That's ALL it means.
Exactly. It is all about Forester and his acolytes' delusions of grandeur about their cycling skills, knowledge and experience as well their intellectual superiority over all non true believers on all cycling issues.

[Dchiefransom]

I don't understand the semantic obsession.

Con't cyclist inferiority and motorist superiority mean the same thing:

"On the road, cyclists are inferior to motorists; motorists are superior to cyclists".

Why does it matter whether you refer to that concept as "cyclist inferiority" or as "motorist superiority"?

Well, I'm fairly certain that when that pickup truck honked and started to come into the lane I had taken, I HAD to move over, or possibly die. If another cyclist had been doing it, I wouldn't have been as immediately concerned.
There's the difference Gene might be referring to.

[John Forester]

"Roads" is a very broad term. Not every road is "too dangerous" for cyclists; not every road is "safe" for cyclists. There are an almost infinite number of variables of traffic patterns, road design, terrain, upkeep, access, policing, facilities, etc. What does "too dangerous"? What is an accepted level of danger.

The problem is each person has a different comfort zone and rides in a different area with different conditions. It is impossibile and intellectually dishonest to paint with such a broad brush and try and group every cyclist in one of two categories.

You are not discussing the real issue. That is, given the roads and traffic that we have, is vehicular cycling or cyclist-inferiority cycling the better way of cycling.

[John Forester]

I don't think the concept needs to be clarified. The purpose of it is to brow-beat people who don't agree with John Forester. That's ALL it means.

Not at all. The purpose is to describe your views as accurately as possible.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

I think I see the issue here, and it's a perception of what is actually being said......

What is being said isn't that cyclists feel inferior, what's being said is cyclists aren't considered to be worthy to be on the road at all by many motorists and legislators. If I'm wrong, well, I'm wrong, but that's what I think this whole argument is about.

Some individuals think John is implying THEY are inferior and what he's actually saying is that we are being forced into an inferior position legally on the road.

Frankly, barring me from the road and forcing me onto "facilities" would put a serious cramp in my cycling activities, considering I'm a bike tourist! I'm not against facilities, if they are equal quality to the road for my purposes, but that's totally impractical, unless the taxpayers want to foot the bill for a complete national "Bike road" network that would allow me to ride , say, from San Diego to Maine, or where ever else I want to go by bike.

[Machka]

Is the following sufficiently clear and specific for you?

"The [cyclist-inferiority] hypothesis says that the roads are too dangerous for cyclists, they cannot operate safely as drivers of vehicles; therefore, so it says, special, safer facilities must be made for cyclists, so that they can ride safely to wherever they might wish to go". --John Forester, Bicycle Transportation, p. 1.

What nonsense.

[Helmet Head]

I think I see the issue here, and it's a perception of what is actually being said......

What is being said isn't that cyclists feel inferior, what's being said is cyclists aren't considered to be worthy to be on the road at all by many motorists and legislators. If I'm wrong, well, I'm wrong, but that's what I think this whole argument is about.

Some individuals think John is implying THEY are inferior and what he's actually saying is that we are being forced into an inferior position legally on the road.

Frankly, barring me from the road and forcing me onto "facilities" would put a serious cramp in my cycling activities, considering I'm a bike tourist! I'm not against facilities, if they are equal quality to the road for my purposes, but that's totally impractical, unless the taxpayers want to foot the bill for a complete national "Bike road" network that would allow me to ride , say, from San Diego to Maine, or where ever else I want to go by bike.
If anyone who has read anything that Forester has ever written comes away with thinking that Forester contends that cyclists are inferior, that's frightening.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Frankly, barring me from the road and forcing me onto "facilities" would put a serious cramp in my cycling activities, considering I'm a bike tourist! I'm not against facilities, if they are equal quality to the road for my purposes, but that's totally impractical, unless the taxpayers want to foot the bill for a complete national "Bike road" network that would allow me to ride , say, from San Diego to Maine, or where ever else I want to go by bike.
Frankly, you have bought into the Forester Straw Man Argument; hook, line and sinker. Congratulations!:rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

Frankly, you have bought into the Forester Straw Man Argument; hook, line and sinker. Congratulations!:rolleyes: No, logic and reason has lead him to the same realization.

[Machka]

Frankly, barring me from the road and forcing me onto "facilities" would put a serious cramp in my cycling activities,

It would put a bit of a damper on randonneuring events too!!

[I-Like-To-Bike]

No, logic and reason has lead him to the same realization.
Another fish hooked by the wormy Forester fantasies.:rolleyes:

[Tom Stormcrowe]

Frankly, you have bought into the Forester Straw Man Argument; hook, line and sinker. Congratulations!:rolleyes:
ILTB, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.

[Helmet Head]

Another fish hooked by the wormy Forester fantasies.:rolleyes:
Right. Because his bait is so irresistable. :rolleyes:

[Bekologist]

as if. foresterites needs to come to grips with accomodationalism in american bicycling. stop exhibiting such paranoia about bike facilites.

embrace the new paradigm of road designs that are NOT based on cyclist inferiority- never were, that 'inferiority complex' is a foresterian delusion-

but designs to foment cycling expediency and better conditions for bicycling, for bicyclists, all while in accordance with legal and lawful cycling in a vehicular manner.

bicycling vehicularily and bicycling infrastructure are NOT mutually exclusive.

[natelutkjohn]

Right. Because his bait is so irresistable. :rolleyes:

:lol: What's that song about milkshakes?

[Helmet Head]

bicycling vehicularily and bicycling infrastructure are NOT mutually exclusive.
For now. For now it's great. This is Hurst's point. Let's not screw it up by advocating for more infrastructure that will, sooner or later, work against us.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

ILTB, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.
OK, Keep me/us updated about any cramps you get from by actually being barred from cycling on roads in your area, or even credibly threatened to be barred.

Don't forget, some cramps may be self induced by anxiety over illusions/delusions.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

OK, Keep me/us updated about any cramps you get from by actually being barred from cycling on roads in your area, or even credibly threatened to be barred.

Don't forget, some cramps may be self induced by anxiety over illusions/delusions.
You know what, I'm actually kind of tired of you trying to "read my mind" and tell the world what I'm thinking. All I was saying was what I perceived to be said. I'm not against facilities, in any way. I prefer road riding is all and if I ride the roads, I ride in a manner consistent with the law and my safety. In all honesty, the person who has paranoid mental cramps seems to be on the other end of this conversation, if you take my meaning. I have never insulted you, nor have I ever disrespected your positions and I expect the same.

EDIT: Now who's using psych terms, like paranoid, or delusions, are you a psychologist or in the mental health field? If so then making a diagnosis based off of internet forum conversations is irresponsible, and if not, the use of this type of terminology is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

You know what, I'm actually kind of tired of you trying to "read my mind" and tell the world what I'm thinking.
I am reading what you actually posted, my friend. Which happened to be a paraphrased version of Forester's delusions about the threat to bar cyclists from the road that he and his pals alone prevent from actualizing by opposing bike facilities at every opportunity.

Reread the last paragraph of your post,http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4552898&postcount=17

No need to speculate about your thoughts.

[chipcom]

You are not discussing the real issue. That is, given the roads and traffic that we have, is vehicular cycling or cyclist-inferiority cycling the better way of cycling.

One would have to accept your hypothesis of cyclist-inferiority cycling first, which I for one do not. I think it is a crack-pot theory, cooked up as an antithesis to vehicular cycling for marketing purposes...Brand X if you will.

[chipcom]

Tom, this whole notion that there is some organized conspiracy to get cyclists off the roadways is pure fantasy, cooked up as a fear-mongering device to oppose any facilities at all. I can tell you from experience, when it comes to making policy, there is much more common sense involved than people like HH and JF would have you believe. All they know is California, which they managed to botch over the last 30 years. ILTB is spot on, even if his style of explaining it rubs some the wrong way.

[sbhikes]

John Forester appears to actually believe that the sole purpose of bike lanes is to remove cyclists from traffic stemming from a phobia that they will be killed out there due to a belief that they are inherently inferior and incompetent at operating a vehicle. He also believes cyclists have internalized that phobia and belief of incompetence.

All of this is nonsense to those of use who actually use the streets out there or work in government. Even the motorists among us understand:
A) The motorists are plenty incompetent all on their own
B) A major stated purpose of bike lanes is to get the bikes off the sidewalk and integrate them with traffic
C) Cities are beginning to design things like sharrows that are a direct attempt to inform motorists and cyclists that bikes belong well out into the roadway and to inform motorists to leave us the heck alone if we are there.
D) Cities also recognize the inherent incompetence of motorists with all the State Law You Must Stop For Pedestrians in Crosswalk signs sprouting up all over the place finally making it feasible to step out into traffic to cross the street

Also, do you think it's an inherent cyclist inferiority that now we have signs sprouting all over town in people's lawns telling motorists to slow down, to drive safe, to not use our streets for a shortcut, "for Jake's Sake" (Jake was a 12 year old kid who was killed riding his bike to school.)

I see no actual evidence to support JF's beliefs. He can write a nice tidy logical argument about it, but that doesn't make it true by any stretch. The empirical evidence points to something else completely as the driving force for cycling-specific facilities. I would call that motorists incompetence, or maybe simply and less derogatorily, haste.

[chipcom]

John Forester's stock dodge is to limit the scope of the discussion to 'transportational' cycling. If you limit the scope in that manner, it is easy to present what looks like a logical argument against many cycling facilities. Trouble is, the majority of cyclists are recreational cyclists, many of whom have no desire to mix in with impatient drivers while they are doing their daily exercise, toting the kids, riding with the family, etc. This segment of the population will continue to demand recreational facilities...and those of us who do use a bicycle as transportation can benefit from the facilities that work for our needs, and ignore the ones that do not - BECAUSE NOBODY IS TRYING TO FORCE US OFF THE ROADS - no matter how often JF, HH and others scream that the sky is falling.

[randya]

John Forester appears to actually believe that the sole purpose of bike lanes is to remove cyclists from traffic stemming from a phobia that they will be killed out there due to a belief that they are inherently inferior and incompetent at operating a vehicle. He also believes cyclists have internalized that phobia and belief of incompetence.

All of this is nonsense to those of use who actually use the streets out there or work in government. Even the motorists among us understand:
A) The motorists are plenty incompetent all on their own
B) A major stated purpose of bike lanes is to get the bikes off the sidewalk and integrate them with traffic
C) Cities are beginning to design things like sharrows that are a direct attempt to inform motorists and cyclists that bikes belong well out into the roadway and to inform motorists to leave us the heck alone if we are there.
D) Cities also recognize the inherent incompetence of motorists with all the State Law You Must Stop For Pedestrians in Crosswalk signs sprouting up all over the place finally making it feasible to step out into traffic to cross the street

Also, do you think it's an inherent cyclist inferiority that now we have signs sprouting all over town in people's lawns telling motorists to slow down, to drive safe, to not use our streets for a shortcut, "for Jake's Sake" (Jake was a 12 year old kid who was killed riding his bike to school.)

I see no actual evidence to support JF's beliefs. He can write a nice tidy logical argument about it, but that doesn't make it true by any stretch. The empirical evidence points to something else completely as the driving force for cycling-specific facilities. I would call that motorists incompetence, or maybe simply and less derogatorily, haste.
Careful, Diane, you're rapidly heading off into Foresterology's 'anti-motoring' pidgeon hole!! :eek: It's a minefield, I tell you, and no one's got the map except the Foresterologists. :rolleyes:

:beer:

[genec]

Motorist superiority illustrated: Cars and bicycles shouldn't compete
GORDON DILLOW
GORDON DILLOW
Register columnist
GLDillow@aol.com

I was driving along an open stretch of Pacific Coast Highway the other day, at or just under the posted speed limit of 50 mph, and every hundred yards or so I was passing groups of two or three or a dozen bicyclists pedaling along in the bike lane. And that's when it occurred to me:

I don't want to share the road. More specifically, I don't want to share a high-speed road with bicycle riders – not because it's that big of a problem for me, but because it's too dangerous for them.

As you may know, "Share the Road" is the slogan for the campaign to make car drivers cooperate with bike riders. The idea is to encourage motorists to be more aware of bicyclists and treat them safely and courteously.

That's certainly a laudable goal. And perhaps cars and bikes can safely share the roads in residential or other areas where the speed limits are 30 or 35 mph.

But on roads like sections of Pacific Coast Highway, where speed limits range up to 55 mph, it seems like utter madness to have 3,000- or 4,000-pound cars going 55 mph hurtle past 25-pound bikes going 15 mph – with nothing more substantial between them than a thin white stripe delineating the shoulder or the "bike lane." It's like allowing baby strollers on the freeway.

Yes, I know we've spent millions of dollars creating bike lanes – as opposed to separate, no-cars-allowed bike "paths" and "trails" – along our streets and highways. I also realize that in this day and age there are few things more politically incorrect than to suggest that cars be given preference over bicycles. After all, in the popular view, motor vehicles are pollution-spewing, gas-guzzling (and gasoline tax-paying) monsters, while bikes are benign, environmentally friendly little munchkins.

But the problem is that when monsters mix with munchkins, the munchkins are inevitably going to get stepped on – too often with tragic results.

Consider the numbers. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2005 there were 115 "pedalcyclists" – that's the NHTSA's word – killed in traffic crashes in California, nine of them in Orange County. True, bicycle fatalities were only about 3 percent of the total 4,300 traffic-related fatalities in the state, but if you factor in such things as "fatalities per miles traveled," it's pretty clear that statistically it's more dangerous to ride a bike on the roads than to drive a car.

And whose fault is that?

Stats on that are hard to come by. But I asked two veteran Orange County traffic cops that question, and both agreed that, based on their experiences, half or more of car vs. bike collisions are caused by the bicyclists. They veer into traffic lanes, they travel the wrong way on streets, they blow through stoplights – in short, they don't safely share the road.

Obviously, a lot of motorists do boneheaded things, too. They veer into bike lanes, cut across them into parking lots, don't keep their eyes open for bicyclists and so on.

But the point is that regardless of who is at fault in a car vs. bike collision, it's the bicyclist who's going to suffer, physically at least. Once again, no 25-pound bike is ever going to "win" in a collision with a 4,000-pound car – and yet we persist in trying to mix heavy, high-speed motor vehicles with light, low-speed bikes on high-volume, relatively high-speed roads.

Well, some people would argue that we'd actually be better off if we all slowed down to a bicyclist's pace of 15 mph or so – and who knows, maybe they're right. But in the real world, fast-moving cars and slow-moving bikes simply don't mix. Under those conditions, the only real solution is to physically separate them as much as possible with barriers or dedicated bike paths.

Now, I'm sure I'll be hearing from bicyclists who will explain to me – in a civil manner, I hope – just how wrong I am on this one. If so, I'll try to fairly present their point of view in a future column.

In the meantime, I'll continue to try to safely "share the road" with bicyclists, and I would encourage other motorists to do the same.

But I still can't figure out why any bicyclist would be crazy enough to want to share the road with us.



Contact the writer: CONTACT THE WRITER 714-796-7953 or GLDillow@aol.com


http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/columns/article_1711917.php

Email him and let him know just how wrong he is, and why. Be sure to be civil. Explain to him the rights of cyclists and how physics don't matter, and how cycling is so safe.

Let him know about "cyclists faring best."

When you can convince motorists like him that they should not fear cyclists on the road, then you can go on and convince the rest of the driving nation. Then there should be no more "motorist superiority," and then no need for dumb lines on the road.

Good luck.

Perhaps Mr. Forester will send the first email to Mr. Dillow and explain it all in his own charming way.

[rando]

cycling inferiority is just a fake concept cooked up as a reason to oppose bike lanes.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

ILTB is spot on, even if his style of explaining it rubs some the wrong way.
But those who are hip to my jive "get it" without getting their PC panties all in a bunch, because of hurt oh-so -tender feelings, eh?:)

[noisebeam]

GORDON DILLOW compares cyclists to 'baby-strollers' and calls them 'munchkins' and then has the gall to request/hope that cyclists respond in a civil manner.

Of course it is best 'we' do, but what an ass.

Al

[I-Like-To-Bike]

John Forester's stock dodge is to limit the scope of the discussion to 'transportational' cycling.
I wouldn't expand his target audience even that broadly. He represents the weekend enthusiasts/ club cyclists who may or may not ever/also ride for transportational purposes (i.e. for utility or commuting) as an adjunct to their sport riding.

The Forester Brand Needs of Transportational Cyclists, (i.e. maximum Speed at all times) only enters the conversation when Forester is attempting to obstruct the process for facilitating transportational choices for everyone else.

[skanking biker]

You are not discussing the real issue. That is, given the roads and traffic that we have, is vehicular cycling or cyclist-inferiority cycling the better way of cycling.


And you sir are avoiding the inherent ambiguities in your value-laden anti-facilities jargon. Why not address those ambiguities and how they might affect real world cycling for people all over the country rather than trying to change the subject.


Notice the linguistic slight-of-hand here. By claiming I am avoiding the "real issue," JF is attempting to discredit my entire ciriticism of his verbiage outright by claiming it is not relevant. While this is a nifty rhetorical trap for the unwarry, it is a snare into which I will not be caught. Your response assumes that the phrase "cyclist-inferiority cycling" has a universal meaning applicable to all cyclists under all conditions, which, as I was trying to indicate, is not the case.

[Helmet Head]

cycling inferiority is just a fake concept cooked up as a reason to oppose bike lanes. If cyclist inferiority is not a genuine reason to oppose bike lanes, what is?
Or are you suggesting there is no genuine reason to oppose bike lanes, and those who do, like me, do so for no reason?

Here's the thing. We have two opposing sides, just like on the issue of abortion. Regardless of which side you're on, it's important to try to understand the real reasons the other side holds the position that they hold. Forester has tried to do this by explaining the other side in terms of cyclist inferiority thinking. It's a hypothesis, but there is no other reason proposed. What is your explanation for the anti-BL side?

[skanking biker]

If cyclist inferiority is not a genuine reason to oppose bike lanes, what is?
Or are you suggesting there is no genuine reason to oppose bike lanes, and those who do, like me, do so for no reason?

Here's the thing. We have two opposing sides, just like on the issue of abortion. Regardless of which side you're on, it's important to try to understand the real reasons the other side holds the position that they hold. Forester has tried to do this by explaining the other side in terms of cyclist inferiority thinking. It's a hypothesis, but there is no other reason proposed. What is your explanation for the anti-BL side?


Well, based on some of the commentary here, this is how I see it. The anti-BL crowd seems to be of a "rights are rights" mindset (i.e. the stickman syas walk so I am walking, oncoming traffic be damned) and is so devoted to the VC "system" and "doctrine" that they cannot recogize exceptions.

Speaking only for myself, I have no problem with basic VC principles in most circumstances. On most of the roads upon which I ride, it is safer to take the lane rather than riding alongside the curb. However, I also believe that there are some roads wherein due to design, volume, traffic speed, terrain, etc. it simply unsafe to "take the lane." On these type of roads, I do not oppose bike lanes. I also don't oppose WOL or favor bikelanes over WOLs. However, I do believe that bike lanes do have their benefits because they put the driving public on visual notice that cyclists may be using the road and have the right to do so. That being said, I would have no opposition to WOLs with no "line" and posted "bike route" signs every mile or so.

[Bekologist]

Explain the anti-bike facilties argument?? You seek to keep public rights of way designed primarily for automobiles, thereby retarding bicycling as populist transportation in america.

[genec]

Well, based on some of the commentary here, this is how I see it. The anti-BL crowd seems to be of a "rights are rights" mindset (i.e. the stickman syas walk so I am walking, oncoming traffic be damned) and is so devoted to the VC "system" and "doctrine" that they cannot recogize exceptions.

Speaking only for myself, I have no problem with basic VC principles in most circumstances. On most of the roads upon which I ride, it is safer to take the lane rather than riding alongside the curb. However, I also believe that there are some roads wherein due to design, volume, traffic speed, terrain, etc. it simply unsafe to "take the lane." On these type of roads, I do not oppose bike lanes. I also don't oppose WOL or favor bikelanes over WOLs. However, I do believe that bike lanes do have their benefits because they put the driving public on visual notice that cyclists may be using the road and have the right to do so. That being said, I would have no opposition to WOLs with no "line" and posted "bike route" signs every mile or so.

I tend to agree for much the same reasons... my only comment is that any bike signs should be just as large as the "truck entering" signs and for the same reason... to inform ALL users of the road. Tiny Bike Route or Bike Lane signs don't help inform motorists at all.

[chipcom]

If cyclist inferiority is not a genuine reason to oppose bike lanes, what is?

Ask Al. He seems to be able to present a logical argument without having to resort to wacky theories and hypothese...why can't you?

[zeytoun]

cycling inferiority is just a fake concept cooked up as a reason to oppose bike lanes.
Also, even if the concept of bike lanes were based on trying to get cyclists off the road, that point is moot if all traffic can get to their destination efficiently and safely. (Before I'm attacked, I'm not saying any system necessarily does that yet. I'm saying that's the goal, not quibbling over the origins of a bike lane.*) And, even if "segregated" designs are by nature a sign of cyclist inferiority, this is also moot. What matters is that all traffic can get to their destination efficiently and safely as possible.

The real questions are:
Is it hypothetically possible to have "segregated" facilities that are safer then no facilities at all?
How likely are legislators to try to ban bicycles from roads?
What do current trends indicate?

Look at New Development.
Bike lanes on new roads are a sign of an attempt to include cyclists as the traffic to use the road in general. If they wanted cyclists to get completely off the road, why wouldn't they just put in a NOL, no shoulder, high curbs, and a 45mph speed limit? That would keep most cyclists off the road. In fact, it is politically correct to include cyclists somehow, and more and more legislation is in effect to ensure that their needs are given fair consideration.

Bike Lanes are evolving. Do the newer design standards make it easier and safer for cyclists and cars to arrive at their destinations?

Or does it make it more dangerous and difficult for one party, and significantly easier for the other? That would be an indication of an "inferiority complex". Many early bike lanes are like this.... newer ones, not so much#....

What exactly is wrong with trying to provide infrastructure that facilitates the travel of all its users?

Does having different rules for pedestrians that car drivers display pedestrian inferiority? Not necessarily. What matters is whether the needs of various types of pedestrians are considered and met. If a development ignores those needs, and designs an area in a way that makes walking difficult or dangerous, then you can say they demonstrate "pedestrian inferiority". If they design a segregated area that is useful and safe for the different types of walkers (weelchair users, fast walkers, children), where is the concept of "inferiority".

*Heck, very few are opposed to space exploration by NASA, even though it evolved directly from WWII German military sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip (Operation Paperclip).

#Look for example at new development in areas of Southern California. New roads with higher speed limits are likely to have bike lanes that route to the left of any possible right turn area, and newer developments are finding ways of routing this smoothly and safely. How would it benefit a road designer to have a bike lane that causes extra conflict between drivers and cyclists?

[skanking biker]

Explain the anti-bike facilties argument?? You seek to keep public rights of way designed primarily for automobiles, thereby retarding bicycling as populist transportation in america.


No, but having a "right" to do something does not mean it is "safe" to do so in all circumstances.

[randya]

Perhaps Mr. Forester will send the first email to Mr. Dillow and explain it all in his own charming way.
good luck with that working out

:eek: