Many writers to this forum, particularly those who consider themselves to be bicycle advocates, have shown a lamentable inability to think and to write logically, and an equally lamentable ignorance of cycling outside of their own little precincts. Furthermore, there is much ignorance of surface urban transportation, which is a field in which much cycling takes place.

There is steady complaint about the logical impermissibility of false dichotomies, with vehicular cycling on one side and something else on the other. However, as has been explained many times, vehicular cycling is operating in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. No matter what scheme of cycling one chooses to follow, it is either vehicular cycling or something else, and, so far as vehicular cycling is concerned, that other cannot be vehicular cycling. For many people, that other method is cyclist-inferiority cycling, following the principle of staying out of the way of same-direction motor traffic by some means or other, rather than operating in accordance with the rules of the road. Since vehicular cycling best combines safety, efficiency, and cooperation, it is the legal and preferred method. Operating otherwise than in the vehicular manner either frequently produces dangerous conflicts with other traffic or it forces the cyclist to delay until gaps in traffic, or similar, cause the conflicts to be removed.

I specifically exclude from this discussion of the defects of non-vehicular cycling the risk-taking violations of the rules of the road that are typical of much bicycle messenger cycling, violations taken to reduce the delays normal to proper road use. While these violations may be individually satisfactory for skilled traffic cyclists of the messenger type, they are socially unacceptable among road users and should be prosecuted.

Among the false dichotomies, there are statements of opposition to vehicular cycling, for various reasons, not one of which is a valid violation of the rules of the road. Take the person who wrote that he wasn't a vehicular cyclist because he sometimes cycled in the gutter. That's illogical, because there never has been a rule of the road prohibiting cycling, or driving, in the gutter. The same went for his other complaints. Of course, the cyclist can also choose to operate by pedestrian rules; on occasion that is more convenient, and there is nothing against that where the pedestrian laws permit such operation.

While opposition to operating according to the rules of the road has been expressed by some in this forum, so far as I know no other system of operating has been described. If you don't like the rules of the road, what then do you propose in their place? And for what reasons, and with what justification?

And there are the accusations, that have no merit whatsoever, that I advocate kicking cyclists off arterial streets. Or that I drive an SUV. Lies spread by bicycle advocates, purely because I oppose their prime program of bikeways.

The complaint that my opposition to bike lanes (and some bike paths) is dishonest because I sometimes ride in bike lanes is another illogicality. If the bike lane is in the place where proper cycling behavior would put me, then that is where I ride. If the bike lane is not designed to be in the place where proper cycling behavior would put me, then I ride properly, even if that is outside the bike lane. That does not disqualify my opposition to bike lanes, it justifies it. The fact that any practical bike lane system has to contradict the rules of the road provides all the justification that is necessary, because there has been no showing that violating the rules of the road provides a safer or more convenient environment for cyclists.

One might think it a mystery why bicycle advocates so passionately advocate bike lanes (and other bikeways) when those facilities were designed by motorists with the specific purpose of curbing bicycle traffic. It is an even greater mystery when so many of you admit that you ride in what appears to be the vehicular manner, whether or not a bike lane is present. If you know enough to ride in the vehicular manner instead of in the cyclist-inferiority childish manner indicated by the bike-lane stripe, why do you advocate that stripe? For that matter, why do you deny historical fact that the bike-lane system was designed by motorists to shove cyclists over to the side? The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from your own actions is the explanation of the cyclist-inferiority phobia, which has generated passionate disclaimers from the bicycle advocates. But that is the only explanation for your absurdly irrational behavior that has been advanced. Since you don't explain your own illogical behavior, then others find it necessary to do so.

The cyclist-inferiority phobia is an irrational fear of same-direction motor traffic, exemplified by actions to avoid that without regard to the other dangers that are more frequent and are amplified by such actions. Avoidance of same-direction motor traffic is practically the only traffic action taken by the nation's program for bicycle transportation. The only explanation for its popularity among bicycle advocates is the cyclist-inferiority phobia. Quite clearly, some of you bicycle advocates do not suffer from the cyclist-inferiority phobia, but, all the same, you advocate the facilities that exemplify it. The reason for that is, of course, that becaue such facilities appeal to the general public who do suffer from that phobia, that makes such facilities the prime part of the anti-motoring program.

The public believes that bike lanes and bike paths, the facilities that exemplify the cyclist-inferiority phobia, can be combined into a practical system that makes safe bicycle transportation possible for those who choose not to operate in the vehicular manner. That's impossible in the modern decentralized urban area.

In short, bike lanes and bike paths are promoted dishonestly by anti-motoring bicycle advocates. That's quite sufficient justification for opposing them.