Originally Posted by sggoodri
I don't use the term "cyclist inferiority" outside of this thread's context, where we are talking about John Forester's words and actions. They are obviously his words, with which I agree in this context, but not the words that I would normally use to describe the issue.
As I have said before, I prefer the term "taboo": A proscription maintained by social reinforcement and fear of both direct consequences and social disapproval. It is not the individual who is ill, but the culture.
Tell an individual that their difficulties are based on their own superstition and inferiority complex, and they will get mad at you. Tell them that their difficulties are based on an oppressive, unjust culture that doesn't treat them as they should, and they might just get mad enough at that cuture to try to change it.
As a cycling advocate and certified cycling instructor (LCI 1690) I must challenge people to find room for improvement in their cycling technique, and that includes looking at their own attitude about their legitimacy on the road. However, I think that goes easier if they can save face by blaming elements of our society for their lack of sense of entitlement that has handicapped their cycling.
I agree with Steve on this. Indeed, we have always agreed on the mechanism, although not on the description. We have agreed because we both recognize that this is a social attitude created by the motoring establishment for the convenience of motorists, and we agree that the typical bicycle advocate is carrying out the desires of the motorists with respect to advocating facilities that, to the motorist, keep bicycles out of his way. The difference is in whether one places more emphasis on the individual or on society. The phobia is the individual manifestation of the taboo; the taboo can exist only when a large proportion of individuals possess the phobia. Although a taboo, in general, has a bit more to it than does the phobia. The concept of taboo implies that the major punishment for disobeying it comes from supernatural forces, but it also implies that society, through its members, will provide additional punishment, be it administered for the correction of the violator or for the protection of society against the supernatural force.
I just don't know whether it is better to address the individual or society. The individual has the power, supposedly, to change his attitude and therefore his actions. Might it be better to tell the individual that he should collect his courage to violate society's foolish attitude about cycling in traffic? Well, I have been doing that for years, actions which many of you on this list consider ineffective. And society will not be changed unless some individuals have a different attitude. That is why I have concentrated on traffic professionals, because the social attitude conflicts with their professional duties and ethics and because they are in the best position for individuals to create change. It is all a very difficult problem.