Sorry to have rankled you, but my original comment was strictly satire thought to be far fetched enough to be recognized as such. I don't really give a hoot about OPEC, I certainly wouldn't wear a "I Love OPEC" t-shirt, and I ride exclusively on trails and never in traffic.

You must not read many of the similar idiotic posts about sticking it to the cagers that are made in dead earnest on BF. Since your entire post was a fabrication about what you do, with no indication of "satiric intent" can I presume that any of your future posts are also fabrications/ lies and are "strictly satire?"

"what exactly is behind nutty motorist rage?"

The same as what's behind smooth motorist rage.... except without the nuts!

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x248/cyclaholic_album/crunchyPeanutButterImage.jpg

You must not read many of the similar idiotic posts about sticking it to the cagers that are made in dead earnest on BF. Since your entire post was a fabrication about what you do, with no indication of "satiric intent" can I presume that any of your future posts are also fabrications/ lies and are "strictly satire?"

Internet, serious business.

People are just impatient and high strung these days, thinking about too many stupid things like how to pay off their plasma, etc.

Ya that's it.

My frustration with the speeders/buzzers/impatient jackholes is really caused by unresolved issues regarding my mother.

:rolleyes:

Maybe it's because you lost two seconds to someone cutting you off (yes, it happens to both cyclists and motorists) and you just didn't manage your time well enough to deal with it. Or maybe someone disagreed with you on a silly message board somewhere and you just didn't get around to walking it off, much like what we're seeing in this thread.

Didn't read the other replies.

From what I get, it seems to be "not one of us" mentality. The further from normal the cyclist is perceived, the more he/she will be persecuted.

I hear everything from, "Aholes zip by me and my grandson on the bike path at 40 miles per hour!" (yeah, he likes to exaggerate) to "Lose the costumes, bike f*gs!" (referring to Lycra and especially the dolled up jerseys with the fake sponsor stuff on them)

The peloton group ride is a big contention point here in CO. Cyclists in a big mob hogging a road aren't good for anyone, I don't care what you say. That image sticks with a motorist.

Personally, I just ride a fairly "normal" bike in "normal" clothes. I don't get hassled at all. I look like them and they might even ride themselves, living in CO. They at least KNOW someone who rides a bike.

My next bike will be a euro-ized MTB. Euro for the utility, MTB for the variance of the riding conditions I encounter west of Denver. High BB with a chain case, a wide saddle and swept back bars. I'll ride in jeans and look as normal as someone driving to the grocery store.

No, I don't race, nor do I ride faster than 20mph for more than a mile.

You must not read many of the similar idiotic posts about sticking it to the cagers that are made in dead earnest on BF. Since your entire post was a fabrication about what you do, with no indication of "satiric intent" can I presume that any of your future posts are also fabrications/ lies and are "strictly satire?"

It's safe to presume any could be but not necessarily all will be. ;)

It's safe to presume any could be but not necessarily all will be. ;)

You should try out your droll wit on this thread; should be right up your alley: http://67.201.16.77/showthread.php?t=422055

Sorry to have rankled you, but my original comment was strictly satire thought to be far fetched enough to be recognized as such. I don't really give a hoot about OPEC, I certainly wouldn't wear a "I Love OPEC" t-shirt, and I ride exclusively on trails and never in traffic.

:beer::beer::beer:

The satirical intent of your previous post was abundantly obvious to anyone with a sense of humor.

That ILTB took it literally is yet further confirmation of his status as Senior Curmudgeon in Residence here on BF.


BTW, you must have upset him because he referred to you as a "boy" ("BozoBoys With Attitude"). He routinely uses "boy" as a form of insult (e.g., "racer boys" for anyone who likes to ride fast while dressed in lycra). That's ironic, given the frequency with which he chastises others for using terms like "cager" (but perhaps he's dealing with nagging physical issues from riding his nasty-looking 30-year old saddle :D).

Awfully serious for someone represented by a trombone playing cat for an avatar.

It's a DUPE.

The population of the United States has gone up 75% in my lifetime. Space has not increased so much as one square inch...

That puts your birth population near 171 million, which is slightly before Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union, which means the area of the US when up quite a bit. If you are counting US territory then the area has decreased. If you are counting area classically defined as the 50 states then that area is slightly smaller. As the US lost a slight amount of net area in a land swap with Mexico in 1970. The US also agreed to cede ownership of some uninhabited rocks back to the USSR (as part of a treaty that defined a clear maritime boundaries between the two nations).

The satirical intent of your previous post was abundantly obvious to anyone with a sense of humor.

That ILTB took it literally is yet further confirmation of his status as Senior Curmudgeon in Residence here on BF.


BTW, you must have upset him because he referred to you as a "boy" ("BozoBoys With Attitude"). He routinely uses "boy" as a form of insult (e.g., "racer boys" for anyone who likes to ride fast while dressed in lycra). That's ironic, given the frequency with which he chastises others for using terms like "cager" (but perhaps he's dealing with nagging physical issues from riding his nasty-looking 30-year old saddle :D).

Try again FreudBoy (AKA self appointed "MindReaderMan"). I like the alliteration of BicyclingBozoBoys, sounds better than Bicycling Men and /or Bicycling JackAsses. Maybe you should try your psycho babble powers on another subject, Swami. Maybe even the subject of this thread, RagerMen.

BTW, I have learned about some posters. For example, ilmooz makes no distinction between fact and fiction when posting about what he does on a bicycle; and thinks his cutsie fabrications are satiric when called out for their offensiveness. Or Racer "types" such as yourself that seem unable to distinguish between commuting and competitive cycling activities when posting comments about commuting.

When such individual patterns are clear, I give those posts and the individual posters the consideration that they merit. Of course others are free to do the same to me or anyone else who doesn't share the same mind reading powers, self described satiric wit, need for group hugs/consensus, and/or knowledge of Approved Bicycling Wisdom as the Bicycling Wise(Ass) Men.

Edit: The satiric intent is hardly obvious at all when the Serious Smugsters post.
See http://67.201.16.77/showpost.php?p=6757810&postcount=48
And the non satiric reply at: http://67.201.16.77/showpost.php?p=6757851&postcount=51

Motorist "anger" at cyclists (for lack of a more appropriate word) can't be attributed to one simplistic reason. Instead, I think it derives from many sources. One source is that we are "the other"-- i.e., we're not one of them, we're one of "them" (i.e., "they're not one of us, they're one of them"). And the same goes with how we view motorists. It's standard social identity theory. And bias against "the other" is a standard response to groups outside one's own group. We can see it in race, nationality, religion, politics, we see it between fans of rival sports teams, and we see it between motorists and cyclists. Bias in favor of one's own group and against the other group is built around perceived differences between the groups. How many racists, for example, state that they don't like the skin color of the other group? Probably none. What they do say is they don't like the way the other group behaves. They express a preference for their own group's behavioral choices. And in order to support their own group's superior moral claim, they demonize and dehumanize "the other" (see Faces of the Enemy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0062504673/qid=1003869686/ref=sr_11_0_1/103-9961727-7493468)). One way to demonize "the other" in the context of motorist vs. cyclist is to litanize the sins of the other: "They're scofflaws who don't respect our rights, so they don't deserve respect from us" "They're trying to kill us, so they don't deserve respect from us."

Anther source is the way these social groups compete for resources; it can be expressed, for example, as "their group is taking our jobs." In the context of competition between motorists and cyclists, it's competition over a limited resource (road space) with "the other." and in that competition, we are smaller and weaker, and therefore more easily pushed out of the way. Because we are "the other," competing with their group for space, they attempt to out-compete us. And to justify pushing us out of the resource base, they dehumanize us. They demonize us. They stereotype us. And we do the same to them. When a motorist nearly hits one of us, we haul out the stereotypes: Fat, lazy, cell-phone yakking "cagers." When we blow a stop light, they haul out the stereotypes: Scofflaws, arrogant, rude. The negative stereotypes aren't the reason we hate them or they hate us. But when we live up to the negative stereotypes, we "confirm" (see confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)) that the stereotypes, and thus the underlying bias against us, are legitimately held. The demonization is given legitimacy.
That's not the only reason, incidentally, why motorists are angered by cyclists blowing stops. Their anger is legitimate when a cyclist blows a stop, nearly causes a collision, and then flips the motorist off for good measure. Another reason they're angered is because blowing stops violates a cultural sense of fair play. Blowing stops is akin to cutting in line-- the vehicle operator blowing the stop isn't waiting his/her turn, and instead, is cutting to the head of the line. In some countries, cutting in line is expected, if not accepted. Here, it violates our sense of fair play. Do motorists also break the law? Of course they do. But speeding, for example, doesn't violate a cultural sense of fair play, unless the speed differential between the speeder and the other motorists is excessive. And besides, in the eyes of a social group, the laws their group violates are not as serious of a violation as the laws the other group violates. "When our group violates the law, we do it because it is safe to break the laws we break, and it is foolish to blindly obey the law when it is safe to break the law. When their group breaks the law, it is unsafe, because the laws they break are unsafe to break, and they should be forced to strictly obey the law."

There are other reasons motorists are "angered" by cyclists.

For example, a Welsh study revealed that under the anger, motorists were actually afraid that they would hit a cyclist, and that fear is expressed as anger directed at cyclists.

There's the stress of being late, and having to wait while some slow-a** guy on a bike gets in their busy way.

There's the residual anger from the last cyclist who cut them off before flipping them off.

And probably many more reasons that I have forgotten to include.

So is it your position that if all cyclists obeyed every law to the letter, that those drivers who hate cyclists will change their minds and now like and respect cyclists?

"what exactly is behind nutty motorist rage?"

The same as what's behind smooth motorist rage.... except without the nuts!

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x248/cyclaholic_album/crunchyPeanutButterImage.jpg

:roflmao2:

So is it your position that if all cyclists obeyed every law to the letter, that those drivers who hate cyclists will change their minds and now like and respect cyclists?That is your straw man argument, not my position. It could only be my position if I had argued that the reason motorists hate us is because we break the law. And as anybody can see, I have not argued that the reason motorists hate us is because we break the law. I have argued that breaking the law "confirms" that the negative stereotypes are true, and thus, that the bias against us is legitimate. You even bolded that part of my argument before you pulled your straw man argument out:

But when we live up to the negative stereotypes, we "confirm" (see confirmation bias) that the stereotypes, and thus the underlying bias against us, are legitimately held. The demonization is given legitimacy.

Now, that's not to say that people aren't angered by scofflaw riding (as I noted), whether it's because they have been endangered by it, or because it violates their sense of fair play. However, I have not argued that scofflaw riding is the source of their "hatred" of cyclists, no matter how much you'd like to put those words into my mouth.

Furthermore, I would argue that there is a continuum of feeling about cyclists, ranging from motorists who love cyclists at one extreme, through indifference to cyclists, to annoyance, all the way to downright seething hatred at the other extreme. And that continuum will be a bell curve, with motorists who love cyclists at one extreme and few in number, to motorists with a pathological hatred of cyclists at the other extreme, and few in number. Most motorists will fall into the middle of that bell curve, ranging from mild fondess at one end of the middle, to indifference in the middle, to mild annoyance at the other end of the middle of that bell.

And it is those motorists in the middle, representing the vast majority of motorists, whose opinions will be influenced by their perceptions of our behavior. If we live up to the negative stereotypes, we provide the evidence to support the negative things they hear from the pathological haters at the extreme. That turns them against us. It's the dehumanization that people engage in to justify war, and which has been analyzed in "Faces of the Enemy." We're in a battle for the hearts and minds of the great middle, and when it comes to that battle, we're our own worst enemies. We ourselves supply the ammunition that is used against us by the haters in that battle for the hearts and minds of the middle.

If we counter those negative stereotypes, we undercut the arguments against us. That turns the battle for the hearts and minds of the great middle in our favor.

That puts your birth population near 171 million, which is slightly before Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union, which means the area of the US when up quite a bit. If you are counting US territory then the area has decreased. If you are counting area classically defined as the 50 states then that area is slightly smaller. As the US lost a slight amount of net area in a land swap with Mexico in 1970. The US also agreed to cede ownership of some uninhabited rocks back to the USSR (as part of a treaty that defined a clear maritime boundaries between the two nations).

Hope you had as much fun writing all this as I had reading it..loti (laughing on the inside).

Are you a script consultant for "NUMB3RS", or something?

That is your straw man argument, not my position. It could only be my position if I had argued that the reason motorists hate us is because we break the law. And as anybody can see, I have not argued that the reason motorists hate us is because we break the law. I have argued that breaking the law "confirms" that the negative stereotypes are true, and thus, that the bias against us is legitimate. You even bolded that part of my argument before you pulled your straw man argument out:



Now, that's not to say that people aren't angered by scofflaw riding (as I noted), whether it's because they have been endangered by it, or because it violates their sense of fair play. However, I have not argued that scofflaw riding is the source of their "hatred" of cyclists, no matter how much you'd like to put those words into my mouth.

Furthermore, I would argue that there is a continuum of feeling about cyclists, ranging from motorists who love cyclists at one extreme, through indifference to cyclists, to annoyance, all the way to downright seething hatred at the other extreme. And that continuum will be a bell curve, with motorists who love cyclists at one extreme and few in number, to motorists with a pathological hatred of cyclists at the other extreme, and few in number. Most motorists will fall into the middle of that bell curve, ranging from mild fondess at one end of the middle, to indifference in the middle, to mild annoyance at the other end of the middle of that bell.

And it is those motorists in the middle, representing the vast majority of motorists, whose opinions will be influenced by their perceptions of our behavior. If we live up to the negative stereotypes, we provide the evidence to support the negative things they hear from the pathological haters at the extreme. That turns them against us. It's the dehumanization that people engage in to justify war, and which has been analyzed in "Faces of the Enemy." We're in a battle for the hearts and minds of the great middle, and when it comes to that battle, we're our own worst enemies. We ourselves supply the ammunition that is used against us by the haters in that battle for the hearts and minds of the middle.

If we counter those negative stereotypes, we undercut the arguments against us. That turns the battle for the hearts and minds of the great middle in our favor.

Well, these two statements are contradictory. In the second statement you do admit that law breaking behavior on the part of cyclists will lead to hatred ("turns them against us") among drivers who are "on the fence."

But you still haven't answered my question. Do you believe that if cyclists obeyed al the rules of the road, that drivers that now hate cyclists would change their minds and stop hating cyclists.

Just a reminder that the guidelines at BikeForums urge that everyone have respect for other posters, even if we disagree with the other member.

Thanks!

East Hill

So is it your position that if all cyclists obeyed every law to the letter, that those drivers who hate cyclists will change their minds and now like and respect cyclists?

Go back and read the whole thing... the law breaking was just a tiny part of it and a visual "affirmation" of the larger feelings behind the situation.

To answer your question, nah, won't make a bit of difference... cyclists will still be seen as "the other."

It was a good write up by Blue Order and I think in some sense some of us celebrate being "the other."

Depends on your neighborhood--in mine, drivers are meaner to each other than to any cyclist.

Just a reminder that the guidelines at BikeForums urge that everyone have respect for other posters, even if we disagree with the other member.

Thanks!

East Hill

Is your comment directed to me? If so, please explain.

Go back and read the whole thing... the law breaking was just a tiny part of it and a visual "affirmation" of the larger feelings behind the situation.

To answer your question, nah, won't make a bit of difference... cyclists will still be seen as "the other."

It was a good write up by Blue Order and I think in some sense some of us celebrate being "the other."

Thank you. I can finally make my point.

So if it makes no difference to drivers how cyclists ride, whether cyclists obey all the laws to the letter or not, some drivers will still have a deep seated hatred for cyclists which will not be changed by anything cyclists do, then you will agree that there is no foundation for the comment that many nanny, finger waggers here on the forum make (and I'm not singling out BO or you Genec) when they chastise cyclists for rolling through a stop sign by writing "Well, if you didn't run stop signs and stop lights, drivers wouldn't hate cyclists. You are the reason drivers hate cyclists, you law breakers!"

The only time I incur any motorist rage is when i'm holding them up. So in the cities when I’m "taking" the lane is prime time for motorist rage. Guess that 5-30 seconds that i hold them up is too much for them.

I ride through an oil-field industrial area (actually my destination). This place is the epicenter for stereotypical rednecks driving big trucks with the testicles swinging from the trailer hitches. Surprisingly, they are amongst the most courteous allowing plenty of passing room and not once have i been harassed on this portion of my ride. However, I never have to hold anyone up during this portion of the ride either as there is usually ample time to pass.

Is your comment directed to me? If so, please explain.

No, my comment was not directed at you.

East Hill

I ride through an oil-field industrial area (actually my destination). This place is the epicenter for stereotypical rednecks driving big trucks with the testicles swinging from the trailer hitches. Surprisingly, they are amongst the most courteous allowing plenty of passing room and not once have i been harassed on this portion of my ride. However, I never have to hold anyone up during this portion of the ride either as there is usually ample time to pass.

You know, that's been my experience as well - my commute takes me from a farming area into a fairly yuppified town (Chapel Hill NC, actually second only to Cary for yups). I've never had a problem with the working guys in pickups. I guess they figure life is hard enough without being an azzhole to some guy on a bike. The yups in their SUVs, however, that's a different story.

I once had a guy in a Honda Element pull up next to me, roll down the passenger window, and start yelling obscenities. I was pretty surprised. After a while it was apparent he was mad because I had delayed him a bit. The curious thing was that he spent more time pacing me and yelling at me than he had spent behind me. I just stared at him. Guy had such bad karma I just wanted him to drive on.

I was on group ride this weekend and we were talking about this - most of the folks seemed to think that drivers are becoming more used to seeing cyclists now that gas is so expensive and are giving us a bit more room on the road. I tend to agree, things are easing a bit in the ongoing war.

Thank you. I can finally make my point.

So if it makes no difference to drivers how cyclists ride, whether cyclists obey all the laws to the letter or not, some drivers will still have a deep seated hatred for cyclists which will not be changed by anything cyclists do, then you will agree that there is no foundation for the comment that many nanny, finger waggers here on the forum make (and I'm not singling out BO or you Genec) when they chastise cyclists for rolling through a stop sign by writing "Well, if you didn't run stop signs and stop lights, drivers wouldn't hate cyclists. You are the reason drivers hate cyclists, you law breakers!"

No, there is more to it then that... first not all motorists rage... but the ones that do require more then just seeing cyclists obey the laws. The raging cagers are already beyond the reach of the average cyclist or motorist... they have a problem, period.

But when it comes to obeying the law, the rest of the motoring public doesn't need to develop a mindset that cyclists are scofflaws. Personally, I do run some stop signs... but I have made it a habit to only do that when there is no one else around. Setting bad examples by running stop lights and the like is just bad karma... and just too easy for a parent to point out to a child as a "don't be like those bikers" situation.

Sorry if you might lump me in with finger waggers... but we can and do make impressions on others by the way we deal with traffic and traffic control.

Ragers... nah, they are already lost and probably shouldn't be behind a wheel anyway, putting a powerful machine in the hands of someone that is not mentally stable is a bad idea.

*********

A bit more on this... I do however feel that many traffic controls are designed for auto traffic... and with that in mind I celebrate the Idaho law that allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yields and stop lights as signs.

The frustration level of anyone driving in a congested urban area is already near-boiling. Road rage isn't just aimed at cyclists; it's aimed everywhere, at anyone who seems to be adding to the problems causing the frustration.

"They're fat, insane, and stupid" theories are fun, and it's always nice to feel superior to people, but there's really no difference between that attitude toward drivers and some drivers' attitude toward cyclists.

Either learn to understand others or add to the general problem of intolerance. There's not much middle ground.

if they could keep up with the traffic, and obeyed the traffic rules like the rest of us, i wouldn't mind- the locals we have are typically seen tying up traffic flow, disregarding stop lites even when it's unsafe, and going down sidewalks and pathways at breakneck speeds- in other words, in their minds , THERE ARE NO LAWS- anything goes, including using the sidewalk where some 80 year old gent is walking his dog- it's either no sound, or"GET OUTTA MY WAY" OR SOME SILLY LITTLE TINKLE from a bell that he can't hear anyway- and no arm signals for turns- one old fella i walk with says that he's gonna stick a cane in someone's spokes

As I read the posts above, I realize that almost everyone in this country hates someone.

"There are people in this world who do not love their fellow man--and I HATE people like that!"
--Tom Lehrer

Well, these two statements are contradictory. In the second statement you do admit that law breaking behavior on the part of cyclists will lead to hatred ("turns them against us") among drivers who are "on the fence."The two statements you highlighted are not contradictory, first, because most motorists don't hate us, and those who do hate us don't hate us because we break the law. And second, they're not contradictory because the pro-motorist, anti-cyclist bias is already present in most motorists. However, as I've noted, the motorists who actually hate cyclists are relatively few in number. Most motorists don't "hate" us, although many may be annoyed with us for various reasons, whether it be because we're taking the lane and slowing them down, or because we're arrogant when we break the law, and rude to boot. But "law-breaking" is not the source of "hatred" against cyclists, or even the source of the pro-motorist, anti-cyclist bias. It does, however, "confirm" that the negative stereotypes about us are true, and thus, that the bias against us is legitimate. In the battle to win the hearts and minds of those motorists, we legitimize the anti-cyclist propaganda directed at us from the lunatic fringe when we live up to the negative stereotypes. Thus, when we live up to the negative stereotypes, we reinforce the pro-motoring, anti-cycling bias, and while legitimizing that bias may not progress to hate, it will progress to unfair treatment of cyclists in infrastructure, legislation, law enforcement, and jury decisions.

So is it your position that if all cyclists obeyed every law to the letter, that those drivers who hate cyclists will change their minds and now like and respect cyclists?Do you believe that if cyclists obeyed al the rules of the road, that drivers that now hate cyclists would change their minds and stop hating cyclists.Absolutely not.

But you're asking the wrong question.

As I said, there's a continuum of attitudes about cyclists, ranging from those motorists who love cyclists and cycling at one end of the extreme, to those motorists seething with rage at cyclists at the other end of the extreme. We don't need to change the minds of those who already love us, and we can't change the minds of those who already hate us.

Nor do we need to.

What we do need to do is win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of motorists who fall in the middle of that bell curve, whose feelings about cyclists range from acceptance at one end of the middle, to indifference at the center, to annoyance at the other end of the middle. It's those motorists whose hearts and minds are up for grabs, and that, coupled with their numbers, makes what they think about cyclists important, because what they think affects cycling at every level, from infrastructure choices pro or con cycling, to statutes pro or con cycling, to law enforcement (or lack of law enforcement) pro or con cycling, to jury decisions pro or con cycling.

We're contending for those hearts and minds with very powerful forces, both corporate, and individual, and every time we live up to the negative stereotypes about us, those who seethe with rage at cyclists use that ammunition we foolishly supply them with to reinforce the pro-motorist, anti-cyclist bias that is inherent in the non-cycling public. Every time we live up to those negative stereotypes, the message we send to those in the middle is that those who hate us are right about us. Every time we live up to those negative stereotypes, we legitimize the lunatic fringe.

And that's not how you win the hearts and minds of the middle. To win the middle, we have to undermine the pro-motorist, anti-cyclist bias that is inherent in the non-cycling public, by not living up to the negative stereotypes that our enemies use as propaganda against us. To win the middle, we have to send the message that those who hate us are wrong about us. To win the middle, we have to marginalize the lunatic fringe.

Thus, asking whether we can win the lunatic fringe is the wrong question; asking how we can win the middle is the question we need to address.