Own worst enemies?
 

I've mad the mistake of posting in several A&S threads the last couple of days.

I've ridden a bike all my adult life, and am as pro cycling as your going to find in the general population.

The extreme anti car, cyclists are always right attitude that is significant, if not pervasive in this forum just doesn't work.

If you can't persuade life long cyclists, who share your interest in not getting hit by cars, you're not going to convince the mainstream non cyclist.

Heck as shown by the other thread, casual cyclists don't even like us.

A little broader perspective might be helpful.

I'm not sure there is much of a distinction between self-described cyclists and motorists. Most self-described cyclists that I know still meet almost all of their transportation desires with a personal automobile. It is a rare bird indeed who has the desire, determination and dedication to reduce his/her car use to even half of their miles traveled. You're really talking about motorists, the 99% of America, and a small vanguard of folks who are not motorists and therefore are less inclined to cut them slack when they create hazards or death with their dangerous habits. Not surprisingly, the majority of the people, being motorists, identify with the motoring point of view and are sympathetic to the difficulty of their situation when confronted by a cyclist. That's not much of a surprise. Just look at all the comments in this forum about how rude it is for cyclists to control the lane and not pull over for motorists.

By the way, while I rarely use a personal automobile, I do drive a bit. However, most of my driving is in a commercial truck weighing anywhere from 60,000 pounds to 80,000 pounds. I guess I'm at both extremes and see the broad middle as foreign.

Ha ha . . . Do ya think ?!?!?!

:popcorn

Im 99% car free, and I dont like us :lol:

Yea, I pretty much hate worts too.

Maybe some just dislike those who are so quick to blame cyclist first and release motorist of the high responsibility that should be placed on them to never rear end cyclist riding on the road.

Odd that you missed that many who opposed your "cyclist 100% at fault" point of view, were speaking as motorist and clearly stated that as motorist, if they rear ended or nearly rear ended a cyclist, they would , as motorist, consider it 100% their fault.

Maybe a little broader perspective might be helpful from the blame the cyclist first crowd.

And really, an entire new thread, just to claim that those who disagree with You are our "Own wort enemies?"

I dig A & S because it's typically full of flames, endless dialog / circumlocution and occasional good advice. In short - it's fun and not too technical* :D

* until it gets to legal/policy-based issues

I think the problem really stems from the anti-cyclist-cyclists that frequent this forum. As a result, some posters here are stridently pro-cyclist, see the thread I titled, "The-mysterious-pro-cycling-anti-bad-motorist-bias-of-BF"

I don't see anything particularly wrong with being overly pro-cyclist. Someone's gotta do it.

In general, however, I do think this forum is net negative for cycling. Too much bickering, anklebiting, and trolling

I think your sort of making my point here. If bicycle advocacy is tailored to such a small audience, you're not going to have much success.

The reality is that most people who ride bikes on the road, even those who ride thousands of miles, also drive cars. The case for bikes has to be bigger than a very small car free fringe.

Anti-car = yes, Cyclists Always Right = no

Many people like to come to A&S describing an encounter they had, looking for the "i was in the right" stamp of approval. More often than not they are mercilessly torn to shreds. There seems to be more victim blaming here than in the comments section of a typical news article.

Add in a YouTube video of their experience and there won't be any shreds left to feed a fly.

I'm a motorist, as are most people that post in A&S and on BF in general. I really don't see a wide-spread anti-car bias here. I just expect my fellow motorists to take driving their car seriously, which seems to be a minority opinion in our society. We have some people that take this to an extreme, but that's not necessarily anti-car, it's anti-careless driving.

And I reiterate that A&S is so annoying that most real advocates don't show up here much. This may be the intent of some people, others just like to troll.

And herein lies the problem.

Bike advocacy that is anti car is never goi g to work. Like it or not, cyclists have to live with motorists, and find a way for that to work.

Being anti car dooms you to failure.

let me point out that there is a spectrum of opinion towards cars amongst cyclists. The fact that one cyclist is anti-car doesn't really affect bicycle advocacy in any significant way.

In my opinion, cars and driving and the attendant infrastructure and culture are far, far overvalued in the US, and critiqued far too little by persons who are in positions of responsibility.

Autopia is commonly held as a sacred vision in America. I mean this in a technical sense and not just as hyperbole. It seems to me that most of my fellow Americans believe a priori that they have a natural right to drive what they want, where they want, at speeds of their choosing, and a corollary of this natural right is the right, and I mean the RIGHT, to an unlimited supply of cheap motor fuel.

I haven't noticed many (any?) prominent politicians or media outlets exhibiting the courage to point out that there might be a few little drawbacks to this national quasi-religion.

Furthermore, it happens to make certain people very rich and powerful.

So how is it possible to take the pulse of American public discourse and conclude that what is needed is less anti-car rhetoric?

No, I get it. People love these infernal machines to which they happen to be enslaved. If we want to make cycling more popular or some such drivel, we should appeal to this insanity, or at least avoid confronting it.

We should, what, sell cycling as some sort of, I'm guessing, healthy lifestyle recreation accessory to the happy motoring mode of existence, thus rendering the bicycle every bit as socially relevant as the pair of skis that are leaning against it in the garage.

Let me be the first to say, no, thanks.

If we're talking more specifically about our rhetoric in fault-finding whenever a motorist hits a cyclist from the rear, and the suggestion is that we should tone it down, let me say "no thanks" with even more conviction. In fact, we need to tone it up. If it is shocking and offensive to drivers to hear that they should not run over someone who is right freaking in front of them, then by God, they need to be shocked and offended, and I don't care if it makes cycling popular or not, because it's the truth.

More broadly: Cycling is not just another enjoyable activity. Cycling is one technology among several whose widespread adoption could transform our society and cure much of what is sick about it. But what's the use of a cure when there is no illness? This is the greatest country in the whole world ever, and God made it like this for a reason! Do we really think that capitulating to this attitude is constructive or responsible? I say turn up the anti-car rhetoric. America badly needs to hear it.

I say this as a car-driving American. The only difference between my attitude and the one I'm making fun of is that I regard my car as a sometimes-necessary evil and my reliance on it mostly as a dangerous, lazy habit. Imagine if even half of Americans felt anything like that kind of ambivalence toward their cars and the resulting sprawl we're virtually forced to live in. Would there be more cycling infrastructure? Heck yeah, there would. So how do we get there? By toning it down or turning it up?

I don't imagine that my personal choice in this matter is going to make any measurable difference in the end, as America, along with most of industrial civilization, seems determined to find the highest cliff possible and head right over it at best speed. But my personal choice is all I have control of. So.

I like this guy's posts..:)

same views as me pretty much on all topics too.

BTW, I don't think your posts were a mistake, and I respect the perspective you brought to them.

I agree with this statement. We have achieved a state where any road that isn't built to the standards of a 4 lane highway is considered a safety problem. People in some places are starting to realize that is not the way we should be doing things, but it's slow going in most of the U.S. I read of the issues in Portlande OR., and realize that even there the system is built that way. And this is affecting everyone's standard of living in a negative way.

Lots of luck with that. You're not going to sel people on cycling by bashing driving.

You've got a shot on selling them on a healthy habit, and perhaps a replacement for short trips around the neighborhood, to the store, and perhaps even some commuting.

You cna't sell it as a replacement for cars.

The best should not be the enemy of the good.

Thing is, none the people that so strongly opposed your "cyclist 100% at fault" position are anti-car. Just the opposite, as I and the others stated that we, as motorist, hold ourselves to a much higher standard than you and so many others do. A car or truck are deadly tools that should be handled with the utmost care.

Over the last 5 months, I had to frequently drive a work truck at all hours of night. I came across many unlit, dark clothed cyclist and pedestrians, often on unlighted roads. Not once did I come remotely close to hitting any of them, because I paid attention to my surroundings, did not speed, did not overdrive MY head lights and I did not tailgate the vehicle ahead of me (thus avoiding blocking my field of view). It seems some cyclist here sould retake (or maybe take for the first time) a good drivers ED course to learn their responsibility to NOT run over things in the road.

The chip on your shoulder must be very heavy to carry.

What I said in the other thread was the cyclist riding at night without reflectors and lights created a dangerous situation and I would find the cyclist more at fault, and not convict the driver of a crime.

By trying to twist the positions of people who aren't zealots, taking absurd positions such as youcan't prove cycling at night without lights is dangerous, and objecting to being forced to use reflectors at night to benefit car drivers, you pretty much prove my point.

You're going to be laughed out of any debate with those outside your cult.

Yeah I got that.

I said "who cares?"

Did you read the post you're responding to? I'm not trying to "sell people on cycling."

And cars and all the sad sequelae of using them all the time for everything should be bashed whether or not bicycles even exist.

You go ahead and sell people on healthy lifestyle options or whatever, if that's your thing.

^ as cyclists, it's in our interest to have more cyclists on the road. It literally provides safety in numbers; it increases political clout to get better infrastructure, and better law enforcement.

And the more people riding, the better chance you've got for some people to start replacing some car trips with bike trips. Thus the guy riding to lose weight, or have fun is still your ally.

So if you want a society with more cycling and fewer cars, you've got to be way more inclusive.

The cyclist did not create a dangerous situation. He failed to react to a dangerous situation. There's a difference. If a guy is shooting at you, it's unwise to walk over to him. Unwise - but the guy shooting at you is still the one going to jail, he's still the one commiting the crime, and he's creating the situation.

Replace the word 'shooting' with 'driving' and suddenly we're all at fault for failing to defend ourselves...how about the guys running people over?

Your problem is twisting the debate into absurdity, talking about 'zealots' and cyclists failing to use lights at night. I doubt very, very much anyone here is not using lights at night. I actually just got a new one that kicks ass, a NiteRider Solas....way better than my old DangerZone.

Look, all I'm saying is, if I forget to turn my light on it's still the other guy's fault for running me over. Cuz he still has the basic, inalienable responsibility to not run over stuff, no matter what that stuff is doing. It's one thing to say 'hey that cyclist is an idiot, get some damn lights'. I say that too. But what if some kid wanders out of his driveway while his parents are packing the car? Is it the kid's fault too? Maybe motorists should just slow down a little when it's dark.

^ as cyclists, it's in our interest to have more cyclists on the road. It literally provides safety in numbers; it increases political clout to get better infrastructure, and better law enforcement.

And the more people riding, the better chance you've got for some people to start replacing some car trips with bike trips. Thus the guy riding to lose weight, or have fun is still your ally.

So if you want a society with more cycling and fewer cars, you've got to be way more inclusive.

Since when does being inclusive have to mean mollycoddling people about our enormously bogus car culture?

Anyone can ride a bike. You don't have to spend a lot or get all into calculating gear inches or wear Lycra. Or you can spend a lot and and fret over specs and wear Lycra. Whatever you like.

That's inclusive.

What you're suggesting is enabling.