Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 88
  1. #1
    eternalvoyage
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,418
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Cyclist-inferiorities: sub-concepts

    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.

  2. #2
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  3. #3
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,559
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  4. #4
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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"?

  5. #5
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    hypothesis
    Nuff said.
    "Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey

  6. #6
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,559
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    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.

  7. #7
    Non-Custom Member zeytoun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    My Bikes
    1975-1980 SR road bike
    Posts
    1,613
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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?
    I am a mutated sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate and mutate, blah!.

  8. #8
    eternalvoyage
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,418
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,209
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    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.

  10. #10
    eternalvoyage
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,418
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    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).

  11. #11
    eternalvoyage
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,418
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Last edited by Niles H.; 05-31-07 at 05:40 PM.

  12. #12
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  13. #13
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,699
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 05-31-07 at 06:48 PM.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Dchiefransom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Newark, CA. San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    6,191
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    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.
    Silver Eagle Pilot

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skanking biker
    "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.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Not at all. The purpose is to describe your views as accurately as possible.

  17. #17
    The Site Administrator: Currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes,please contact my assistnt admins for forum issues Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    My Bikes
    Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
    Posts
    16,012
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    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.
    on light duty due to illness; please contact my assistants for forum issues. They are Siu Blue Wind, or CbadRider or the other 3 star folk. I am currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes. I am making good progress, happily.


    . “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant

  18. #18
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    38,359
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    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.

  19. #19
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  20. #20
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,699
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Stormcrowe

    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!

  21. #21
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
    Frankly, you have bought into the Forester Straw Man Argument; hook, line and sinker. Congratulations!
    No, logic and reason has lead him to the same realization.

  22. #22
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    38,359
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Stormcrowe
    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!!

  23. #23
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,699
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    No, logic and reason has lead him to the same realization.
    Another fish hooked by the wormy Forester fantasies.

  24. #24
    The Site Administrator: Currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes,please contact my assistnt admins for forum issues Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    My Bikes
    Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
    Posts
    16,012
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
    Frankly, you have bought into the Forester Straw Man Argument; hook, line and sinker. Congratulations!
    ILTB, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.
    on light duty due to illness; please contact my assistants for forum issues. They are Siu Blue Wind, or CbadRider or the other 3 star folk. I am currently at home recovering from a couple of strokes. I am making good progress, happily.


    . “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant

  25. #25
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
    Another fish hooked by the wormy Forester fantasies.
    Right. Because his bait is so irresistable.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •