John Forester

That's your question, is it?

I haven't created a fake disease. As far as I know, mental conditions such as scizophrenia and multi-polar are considered to be diseases. Simple phobias are not considered to be diseases.

I haven't created any disease or condition, no more than Koch created tuberculosis.

All that I have done is to describe a mental attitude, cyclist-inferiority, in the context of the standard definition of simple phobia.

There is no doubt that our society and its governments have based their program concerning bicycle transportation, from the traffic laws of 1944 onward, on the concept that the individual cyclist is inferior to the individual motorist, inferior in competence, which justifies discrimination in rights. One can see that motorists can see this to be to their advantage, and therefore fail to criticize it. However, the peculiar situation is that so many cyclists passionately advocate the program that is based on this disdain and discrimination, and refuse to stand up for themselves as competent roadway users. Observation of the facilities advocated and the comments that support them shows that much of the motive for these is exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic.

Acting in accordance of a fear that is not in accordance with the facts, and against one's best interests, are large parts of the definition for a simple phobia.

I do not see that you, Singing Sabre, or anyone else, either, has provided a reasonable criticism of this view. Disliking it is not a reasonable criticism. Saying that this is not recognized in the professional nomenclature is not a reasonable criticism, because that is saying only that the profession has not seen this as a problem worth studying. Reasonable criticism has to be based on the facts and the reasoning, which has not been advanced.

SingingSabre 

That's funny, because you originally called it "cyclist inferiority syndrome." A syndrome is indicitive of a complex, disorder, affliction, or sickness.

You then removed "syndrome" in favor of "phobia." A phobia is still a psychologically sanctioned term. Switching to anxiety won't work, either.

The facts according to whom? You? A professional risk analyst?

I know there is a member here who has much history in risk analysis, and I'm more likely to listen to him.

A reasonable criticism of your view? Your "view" is degrading to anyone who utilizes bike facilities to their advantage. Your "view" states that anyone who doesn't want to share a lane with a motorist has "cyclist inferiority affliction-du-jour."

You have created a pseudodisease, pseudoaffliction, pseudiodisorder, pseudoattitude, pseudocondition, pseudowhatever-you-try-to-dress-it-up-as in order to further your point. It is degrading to any mental health professional and any person who has suffered from a mental affliction. My very best friend has a mental affliction, but it was studied closely and monitored and then diagnosed. You're not a mental health professional, you are not conditioned or trained to examine attributes or personality disorders.

Cyclist inferiority is nothing but a fake condition dreamt up by you.

The Human Car

I have my doubts that traffic laws from 1944 onward are the real culprit or major contributor to current conditions. I’ll submit as a proof that any sort of motorist superiority happened much latter with the bike safety film of 1963 “One Got Fat” https://www.archive.org/details/OneGotFa1963 which repeatedly admonishes cyclists to ride “Just like automobile drivers” and shows cyclists taking the lane and other VC principles.

The major shift in society happened some where in the late 1970’s or early 1980’s. And the major event then was the oil crises. My tentative theory is that the oil crises introduced a new principle to building roads and that was to reduce delays as that wastes gas, so essentially safety of all road users took a back seat to expedite automobile travel as much as possible. Currently the principle of expedited auto travel is maintained under the guise of the problems with congestion.

The principle of expedited auto travel yields the corollary that saving time by using the automobile is the primary purpose of roads. This leads to drivers trying to shave seconds off their travel time resulting in more aggressive driving and road rage. A second corollary is that all unnecessary delays should be removed from the roadway and that’s where cyclists get into trouble as they are generally seen as unnecessary and as a delay.

One problem I have with your cyclist inferiority whatever is that it does not explain cycling’s fall in popularity in the 1980’s and it is totally useless in trying to correct traffic laws. By demonstrating that cycling is necessary and a practical form of transportation as well as not causing any significant delays cycling laws are on the mend.

Now I understand that one objective behind the cyclist inferiority whatever is to empower the individual cyclists rather then wait for a sociological change. That’s ok as far as it goes but in terms of trying to fix laws and other general sociological conditions that relate to cycling it stinks.

The other issue I have if we really do try to interject that cyclist inferiority is a real problem that needs to be dealt with by society, then isn’t society dealing with that problem by building separate bike facilities? If people are fearful on having their kids walk in the street then the city responds with separate facilities (sidewalks.) Cyclist inferiority blames the cyclists for the current conditions and does nothing to correct motorists’ behavior or promote improved shared use roadways. In short the diagnosis of cyclist inferiority does not lead to any sort of holistic cure.

galen_52657

The 'cure' is simple. If one rides vehicularly one will soon discover that 99% of the roadways are open to you and that you have nothing to fear.

Side-paths and bike lanes simply reinforce the perception that cycling is dangerous (and promote a false sense of danger averted) and that cyclist don't belong on the road with other vehicles.

randya

This only works for about 0.5% of the population. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where there are more cyclists than this on the roads on a daily basis in a location where no bicycle-specific infrastructure is provided.

sbhikes

I'm waiting for that too. I would also be interested to hear of any community where Lane Taking Vehicular Cycling has become the common, acceptable thing for cyclists to do, and where the Lane Taking Vehicular Cycling has resulted in more cyclists and less accidents. Heck, I'd even be happy to hear of a single municipality that has adopted this method of cycling as the one they will support, with that show of support including signage, law enforcement training and motorist/cyclist education programs.

John Forester

Your account of the 1963 bike safety film "One Got Fat" interests me. I do not have a connection that allows me to download a 15 minute film in any reasonable time, so I have not been able to see it. I had never seen this film, or, before this, heard of it. I wonder if I could get it on DVD? Anyway, I will withhold any discussion until I have seen it or have seen a review by a person whom I know to be a well-informed vehicular cyclist.

However, I disagree with your assessment of the start of the cyclist-inferiority/motorist-superiority social attitude. When I mentioned the side-of-the-road and the mandatory-bike-path laws entering the UVC in 1944, I did not intend to convey the idea that this was the start. Rules like that don't get into the UVC until they have been tried out in individual states, and reflect the existing attitudes. From conversations with cyclists long dead now, I remember them saying that this attitude was recognized, by cyclists, in the 1930s. Certainly, when I first met bike-safety training in 1940 or 1941, I recognized the difference between that and the vehicular cycling attitude in which I had grown up.

I think that your hypothesis that the oil crisis of 1973 changed urban planning to remove delays to motor vehicles is inaccurate. After all, we reduced the speed limit. I know of no change in road grid pattern, or in warrants for traffic signals, or anything of that kind, made as a result of the 1973 shortage. The pattern of gradually reducing delays and increasing speeds had long been present, and continues to this day. I suspect, also, that you are not familiar with the degree of traffic congestion and delay that was present in the USA in the late 1940s. Even magazines such as the Saturday Evening Post ran articles on the long queues and long waits and slow travel on the major highways of the day.

And, as I have repeatedly written, California started its bikeway program with a contract with UCLA for bikeway design standards, according to Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26, dated July 28, 1971.

You argue: "One problem I have with your cyclist inferiority whatever is that it does not explain cycling’s fall in popularity in the 1980’s." This puzzles me. It is reasonable to think that when cyclists are considered inferior the popularity of cycling will fall. However, there are many other causes for the changing levels of cycling's popularity.

You also argue that understanding the cyclist-inferiority attitude is totally useless in correcting traffic laws. That's incorrect. The person who understands that the discriminatory traffic laws such as the mandatory-bike-lane law and the mandatory-side-of-the-road law were enacted for the convenience of motorists rather than, as the motorists claim, for the safety of cyclists, has both the personal motivation and the ammunition to fight for their repeal. The person who accepts the inferior position has neither the motive nor the ammunition, and might well believe that it is necessary to obey them to prevent the motorists from running over him. That's the feeling of: "The cyclist who rides in traffic will either delay the cars, which is a Sin, or, if the cars don't choose to slow down, will be crushed, which is Death, and the Wages of Sin is Death."

John Forester

Your tirade tells me that, according to you, the only justification for the effort and money that society has put into its bikeways program is that people like you don't like sharing a lane with motor traffic. Since your aesthetic pleasures count for little in the transportation field, then we should shut down the bikeways program.

Banzai

This is funny. (And I hope I don't sully my reputation by posting in this thread...)

I decided to read this thread because of the occasional burbles of anger I've heard over in Commuting, and I really just couldn't grasp what all the hub-bub was, bub.

I still don't get it.

I have, however, just read six pages of some rather inflexible and intractable opinions. I'll simply say this:

1) So long as safety isn't the compromise, the art of existing in a social contract is the art of compromise.

2) I gladly take the lane if I need to, and ride like a vehicle. And I happily utilize bike lanes and MUPs. I wonder what kind of monster that makes me?

3) I will concede Mr. Forester's point about cars misunderstanding/ignoring bike lanes. I've recently had my first experience with bike lanes since my move, and I've enjoyed it. I've also seen cars utilizing the bike lane as a right turn lane, a merge lane, and once as a parking lane so said motorist wouldn't have to actually pull off the road into a parking lot to pick up an acquaintance. Before any dogmatic piling on takes place, I'll reiterate that I've enjoyed the bike lane, but the lack of prevalence of bike infrastructure around here creates confusion for the cagers at times when it is present.

Now, everyone play nice.

randya

The post-WWII era was one of unprecedented highway and road construction and growth in the number of personal motor vehicles in use. Most if not all of the road designs from this period are quite autocentric, to the exclusion and harm of other modes of travel, the ultimate expression of which are limited access highways, but also include autocentric features such as single and double turn-only lanes, exit and entrance ramps on local streets, etc., etc.

And right turn on red was most famously introduced in the 70s in response to the oil crisis, as THC indicates. This one change alone to the traffic laws has probably done more harm to the cycling and pedestrian environment than any of the percieved slights John imagines.

Helmet Head

The western states had right on red long before the 70s.

genec

And when one rides upon multilaned roads that have no sidepaths or bike lanes, and one rides in the best described manner, such that the cyclist is out of the door zone, and is riding nearly centered, slightly to the left of the right tire track, and the cyclist is moving comfortably at 18MPH, on a 35MPH road, and the motorist comes up from behind and honks loudly on the horn and revs the engine and shouts words of a less than discouraging nature, is it then "cyclist inferiority syndrome" that is motivating the motorist?

Certainly the cyclist is following all the rules and is riding in the prescribed manner. Yet the cyclist is accosted in a manner unlike the other "drivers of vehicles."

Is it "cyclist inferiority syndrome or phobia or what, that creates in the motorist, the desire to remove the cyclist from the roadway. Should it not then be called motorist superiority syndrome??? Especially when it is the motorist that appears to be suffering from some malady, vice the cyclist.

Helmet Head

YES. The notion is often there even when not reinforced by bike lanes and/or deferential lane positioning, but that's certainly no reason to believe that bike lanes and deferential lane positioning don't contribute to reinforcing cyclist inferiority thinking.


Right. Due to cyclist inferiority thinking.

Motorist superiority is the flip side of the cyclist inferiority coin: same thing (like white "supremacy" is the flipside of thinking other races are inferior).

natelutkjohn

Good job blaming the "victim" for the "crime"..
You are pice of f-ing work man

pj7

You just can't make a comment without putting down bike lanes can you? Nowhere in the post you replied to was bike lanes even brought up.

How many white supremists do you know? How many did you share a prison cell with for 3 years? I bet I can take the number you provide here and add "one" to it.
White supremacy, the real underlying reason for it, has nothing to do with race at all. It's more a product of it.

This is the second time in as many days that the VCists have brought up white supremacy groups into their anti-facility/pro-VC crap. What gives?

Oh, I forgot, you guys are also psychologists too. Dr. Helmet Head??

natelutkjohn

Don't you mean that white "supremacy" is the flipside of other races thinking that they aren't as good as whites? Or am I just not getting your "logic" here? Please let me know what I'm not getting about that argument?
Because I thought "Cyclist inferiority" was a psycological problem with cyclists, not motorists, or have you guys just been making this ***** up as you go? Come on, you can tell me...

Helmet Head

Cyclist inferiority is thinking about cyclists as having inferior rights to the road as compared to drivers of vehicles. It doesn't matter who does the thinking. It could be cyclists, or motorists, or police officers, or judges or traffic engineers or lawmakers, etc., but it's still cyclist inferiority.

Motorist superiority is the same thing: it's thinking the rights to the roadway of drivers of motor vehicles are superior to those of cyclists.

There should be nothing new here.

Again, it's similar to saying that "white supremacy" thinking is the same thing as thinking other races are inferior to the white race.

If A is thought to be inferior to B, then B is thought to be superior to A.

pj7

Be clear, be very clear here.
Are you saying that there is a "cyclist inferiority syndrome" or are you saying that cyclists are considered inferior?
Because the former is a crock of ****!

pj7

OMG, it finally hit me. No wonder you and other VCists keep bringing up white supremacy groups into your discussions. Because you guys, like them, stick to your perceptions no matter what. You blindly believe the crap you talk about and overlook anything that goes against it.
It all clicks now!

SingingSabre 

Actually, my tirade is against all the pseudoevidence you have against facilities. That's all.

Oh, it's also against the coined term "cyclist inferiority."

To keep myself from being repetetive, I will not go over my arguments again. You have proven yourself to be illogical, offensive, and incapable of reason.

donnamb 

Believe me, we've tried, but even the Politics & Religion folks have given up.

natelutkjohn

So I take it then that most everyone but you and JF are mentally ill? I get it now, delusions of grandeur - why didn't I see it before?

genec

Well then shouldn't we call it "motorist superiority" vice "cyclist inferiority?" It is the motorist that seems to have the problem with cyclists using "their" streets.

It is the motorist that yells out, honks out and otherwise acts out that pushes the cyclist to think and feel that the cyclist doesn't belong on the road.

Sure seems like a motorist issue to me. Perhaps the motorist needs a book called Effective Driving... with a long chapter on "sharing the road."

sbhikes

If I'm driving along in my car at a nice 45 mph and I come around the bend where suddenly there's some guy in the road with a 2-foot wide vehicle going 15 miles an hour, why would anybody consider it to be either a "motorist superiority" or a "cyclist inferiority" problem for me to think this is a) a dangerous situation, and b) the guy should move over so I don't have to slow down?

John Forester

This is certainly correct. However, it has its flip side also, which is that so many cyclists don't want to share the roads with motorists, saying that they need special protection, special facilities, and the like, features that sometimes benefit cyclists a little, but at other times emphasize their inferior status. Neither side of this controversy is doing its best, which is to cooperate in both having equal individual rights to use the roadways according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.