Originally Posted by invisiblehand
could you connect the dots to the following paragraph which I found surprising?
Originally Posted by sbhikes
His first fault is to believe that all people who wish to see better conditions for cyclists have a fear of being hit from behind. Then he decides to call these people with a fear of being hit behind "victims", setting up his whole silly exercise.
Dot #1
Some writers in the newsgroup rec.bicycles.soc say that the cyclist-inferiority phobia does not exist. However, they have not explained why they hold this opinion. They may believe that American cycling opinion does not overexaggerate the fear of motor traffic from behind and drive American cycling policy in unwise directions...
American cycling opinion is reduced to having a single source: a fear of motor traffic from behind. There is no other consideration for the rest of the article for what American cycling opinion (whatever the heck that really is) actually might be.
Dot #2
Is fear of motor traffic from behind a "persistent fear of a circumscribed stimulus?" Yes, it is. The victim fears a specific situation, motor traffic from behind while riding a bicycle.
Now these poor souls are victims of an illness.
Dot #3
Does exposure to motor traffic from behind, while riding a bicycle, almost invariably provoke an immediate anxiety response. Certainly it does, and even contemplating the exposure of others to the stimulus causes anxiety response, as when people organize political committees to obtain protection from the condition that they fear.
Basically here he is saying that bicycle advocates, the victims above, are just sick phobics and their advocacy is just an anxiety response.