Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety > Vehicular Cycling (VC)
Reload this Page >

Motorists: friends or foes?

Notices
Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.
View Poll Results: Motorists: friends or foes? (p.s., are you a VC?)
Friends (And yes, I AM a Vehicular Cyclist)
51.85%
Friends (And no I am NOT a Vehicular Cyclist)
14.81%
Foes (And, yes, I AM a Vehicular Cyclist)
22.22%
Foes (And, no, I am NOT a Vehicular Cyclist)
11.11%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

Motorists: friends or foes?

Old 04-24-07, 07:20 PM
  #76  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,950

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
What I'm looking for is to see if there is a correlation between self-described vehicular cyclists and generally viewing traffic as a cooperative/friendly environment as opposed to competitive/unfriendly environment.
Oh come off it! All you are looking for is assurance that other self-described vehicular cyclists are as consistent in their proclamations of dogmatic belief as yourself. The über ideaologues of cycling sophistry gotta keep their stories straight, eh?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 07:27 PM
  #77  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I couldn't improve on Brian's explanation in post #18. See my resonse to it if you don't get it.
I see no explanation of any inferiority in that post. I do see one persons perception of scenarios, but no inferiority issues.
Can you please explain since you are the person innitiating the "inferiority" idea?
pj7 is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 07:41 PM
  #78  
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,920

Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I cannot vote.

I can't say I'm NOT a Vehicular Cyclist when I know darn well I ride vehicularly. And I cannot say I AM a vehicular cyclist because that would mean saying I adhere to the ridiculous dogma of Helmet Head & Co.

I also cannot say motorists are friends because that doesn't make any sense to me. Neither does saying they are foes. They're just motorists. Mostly they are enemies to each other and thanks to all the good facilities and pleasant conditions I ride in daily, they are pretty much neither friend nor foe. They just are.

So who cares what the "score" is on this poll. It's just another popularity contest for Helmet Head. Get a clue, HH, high school is over.
sbhikes is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 08:42 PM
  #79  
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696

Bikes: who cares?

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Come on, Diane, surely you can pick one of the other three?!?



PS - I voted foes/yes





randya is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 08:47 PM
  #80  
Arizona Dessert
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,030

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times in 1,288 Posts
Originally Posted by sbhikes
I cannot vote.

I can't say I'm NOT a Vehicular Cyclist when I know darn well I ride vehicularly. And I cannot say I AM a vehicular cyclist because that would mean saying I adhere to the ridiculous dogma of Helmet Head & Co.
I had this same dilemma. I chose VC as that far closer describes the way I cycle.
Al
noisebeam is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 08:53 PM
  #81  
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,920

Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ok. I voted. I guess the tally is tied again, if I understand how it's being tallied.

i voted Friends and NOT a Vehicular Cyclist. Most drivers are nice to me and seem to even want to help me out when they can. I'm a vehicular cyclist, but not a Vehicular Cyclist. I don't ascribe to that center lane biased or PowerWeave nonsense nor that silly anti-bike lane BS, and I absolutely LOATHE John Forester.
sbhikes is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 08:54 PM
  #82  
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696

Bikes: who cares?

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
The question of motorists, friends vs foes comes down to whether you can trust them (motorists) or not. Well, can you punk?

randya is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 09:02 PM
  #83  
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,920

Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I can trust the ones who are looking at me and smiling and waving or otherwise communicating with me. Most of those who aren't doing those things are just driving and nothing more. Only a small amount are completely oblivious or drunk on rage or other substances.
sbhikes is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 10:04 PM
  #84  
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
I see no explanation of any inferiority in that post. I do see one persons perception of scenarios, but no inferiority issues.
Can you please explain since you are the person innitiating the "inferiority" idea?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were looking for an explanation of inferiority.

When you asked, "Inferiority?? Can you please explain this to me?", I thought you were asking what I was referring to when I wrote to Brian, "First your tribute to cyclist inferiority, ...". An explanation for what I was referring to can be found in Brian's post #18.


For an explanation of inferiority, I suggest a dictionary.

Main Entry: in·fe·ri·or
...of little or less importance, value, or merit

Main Entry: inferiority complex
2 : a collective sense of cultural, regional, or national inferiority


The reason I refer to post #18 as a tribute to cyclist inferiority is because of the last two paragraphs, in particular the bolded sections:

Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
But now throw in a wrinkle. Cyclists are, in general, small and without a defined outline, making them hard to see, and slow. On a road designed for one type of vehicle of a certain size with a defined outline, and traveling at basically a single speed which is much faster than most bicyclists can travel, a bicyclist is out of place. This situation puts cyclists and motorists in conflict and competition. In this situation, vehicular cycling is merely a technique of using lane positioning as a weapon to win this competition, to make a motorist respond to the nimble and bold cyclist, to give the cyclist confidence that the competition can be won, to normalize the roadway relations so that the motorists, again, can behave in a way which doesn't involve thinking. But it is a forceful and competitive position, and the cyclist is out of place, so emotions flair.

If you want an answer to the above question with some political overtones, motorists are mostly cooperative when the road is designed for both bicyclists and cars, and motorists are mostly uncooperative when the road is designed soley for cars. I think motorists feel the same way about cyclists too. Designing a road system for both motorists and cyclists is difficult, and there will always be some points of conflict, but rulemaking, education, and good roadway design can make up for the shortcomings of such a duel useage system. But the alternative, designing the road system for only automobiles and neglecting space for cyclists will always put motorists and cyclists in competition and conflict.
If you still have trouble recognizing the language of inferiority in Brian's words, replace "cyclists" with "Greenies" (or any other minority of your choosing), motorists with "Others", a few minor edits, and see what you get:

Greenies are hard to see, and are slow.

On a facilities designed for Others, who travel at a speed much faster than most Greenies can travel, a Greenie is out of place.

This situation puts Greenies and Others in conflict and competition.

In this situation, Civil Rights is merely a technique of using positioning as a weapon to win this competition, to make an Other respond to the nimble and bold Greenie, to give the Greenie confidence that the competition can be won, to normalize the relations so that the Others, again, can behave in a way which doesn't involve thinking.

But it is a forceful and competitive position, and the Greenie is out of place, so emotions flair.

Others are mostly cooperative when the facility is designed for both Greenies and Others, and Others are mostly uncooperative when the facility is designed solely for Others (but Greenies dare to use the Others-only facility anyway).

I think Others feel the same way about Greenies too. Designing a facility for both Others and Greenies is difficult, and there will always be some points of conflict, but rulemaking, education, and good design can make up for the shortcomings of such a dual usage system.

But the alternative, designing the system for only Others and neglecting space for Greenies will always put Others and Greenies in competition and conflict.


See what I mean?
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 10:10 PM
  #85  
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696

Bikes: who cares?

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I can go weeks without a significant incident with a motorist, and all in all I don't think cycling is that risky; but all it takes is one distracted, impatient or aggressive motorist to really ruin your day. That's why I don't trust them.
randya is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 10:13 PM
  #86  
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696

Bikes: who cares?

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
12 to 10. Pretty good considering 'true believers' probably only make up less that 5% of the cycling population.

randya is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 10:31 PM
  #87  
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by randya
I can go weeks without a significant incident with a motorist, and all in all I don't think cycling is that risky; but all it takes is one distracted, impatient or aggressive motorist to really ruin your day. That's why I don't trust them.
Distracted drivers are a dime a dozen, they don't bother me at all. I think most drivers are distracted most of the time. If I was bothered by distracted drivers, I'd be a wreck (in other words, I'd be Gene )

I'm sure there are more impatient drivers out there than I realize. Of course, I only know they're impatient if their impatience is manifested in some way that I can recognize. Perhaps following me too closely, or honking, but this is quite rare. It may be more often than I realize because it's so insignificant to me that I forget. When it does happen, it's usually easy to deal with by using a slow/stop signal, looking at them and smiling and/or shrugging shoulders, etc.

Drivers that I would call aggressive are extremely rare. The last one I encountered though, was only a few weeks ago. Before that? I can't remember. Probably years. I wrote about the old geezer who honked aggressively at me and my daughter a few weeks ago. Unbelievably, a police car was right behind him, and pulled him over. Even so, I was able to learn that he was probably a decent guy, who genuinely felt obliged to "teach me a lesson". Ultimately, even though this guy was so out of line he was pulled over by a cop, he was a friend too!

There is no way I would ever allow such silliness to ruin my day. Life is too short for that.

The only trust I have in motorists is that they're trying to get somewhere, and would rather not be delayed if possible. I understand and respect that, and act accordingly. They seem to recognize this, and afford me respect in kind.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 10:31 PM
  #88  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were looking for an explanation of inferiority.

When you asked, "Inferiority?? Can you please explain this to me?", I thought you were asking what I was referring to when I wrote to Brian, "First your tribute to cyclist inferiority, ...". An explanation for what I was referring to can be found in Brian's post #18.


For an explanation of inferiority, I suggest a dictionary.

Main Entry: in.fe.ri.or
...of little or less importance, value, or merit

Main Entry: inferiority complex
2 : a collective sense of cultural, regional, or national inferiority


The reason I refer to post #18 as a tribute to cyclist inferiority is because of the last two paragraphs, in particular the bolded sections:



If you still have trouble recognizing the language of inferiority in Brian's words, replace "cyclists" with "Greenies" (or any other minority of your choosing), motorists with "Others", a few minor edits, and see what you get:

Greenies are hard to see, and are slow.

On a facilities designed for Others, who travel at a speed much faster than most Greenies can travel, a Greenie is out of place.

This situation puts Greenies and Others in conflict and competition.

In this situation, Civil Rights is merely a technique of using positioning as a weapon to win this competition, to make an Other respond to the nimble and bold Greenie, to give the Greenie confidence that the competition can be won, to normalize the relations so that the Others, again, can behave in a way which doesn't involve thinking.

But it is a forceful and competitive position, and the Greenie is out of place, so emotions flair.

Others are mostly cooperative when the facility is designed for both Greenies and Others, and Others are mostly uncooperative when the facility is designed solely for Others (but Greenies dare to use the Others-only facility anyway).

I think Others feel the same way about Greenies too. Designing a facility for both Others and Greenies is difficult, and there will always be some points of conflict, but rulemaking, education, and good design can make up for the shortcomings of such a dual usage system.

But the alternative, designing the system for only Others and neglecting space for Greenies will always put Others and Greenies in competition and conflict.


See what I mean?
Ok, now I'm clear on what the two of you are talking (arguing?) about. But...
By the definition that you gave for inferiority: ...of little or less importance, value, or merit I can see where he is coming from, really. The roads nowadays are mostly designed for motor traffic and little thought is given for anything else, I've stated that before, but if you will allow me to examine my own statement a bit further, especially in regards to the rules of the road and what is taught to motorists because after all, this whole discussion is about motorists and cyclists being mixed together.
In the motor vehicle code there is a statement that somewhat goes "bicycles are allowed full use of the road". Granted, that is not verbatim, but you get the point right? But nowhere in the vehicle code does it state "motor vehicles are allowed full use of the road", it is just implied and obvious. People are licensed to use the roads with a motor vehicle, whereas people on bicycles are not licensed. This also leads to "illusion" that roads are meant for motor vehicles. Bicycles have no governing body on safety necessities for the road, motor vehicles do. along purt-near every road in the US you find service stations for motor vehicles. But if you are out on the road and need to have your bicycle worked on by someone other than yourself, you are for the most part SOL.
Speed limits are mostly set higher than bicycles are capable of traveling by regular people.
There is a multitude of parking for motor vehicles, whereas sanctioned bicycle parking is few and far between.
People think of bicycles mostly as toys that *some* people use for transportation, whereas motor vehicles are seen as transportation that *some* people use as toys.
All of this and more lead to the widespread belief that bicycles are inferior, and by the definition you have provided, especially the words less importance, value, or merit this pretty much holds true, just by the lack of facilities (accessible service centers, parking, etc) alone.
Granted, the fact is, bicycles have as much merit on the road as any other vehicle... technically. But the lack of great masses of them leads to people believing otherwise. To to deter this discussion any further from where it already is, but 150 years ago in America, the black man was an inferior form of human. Of course we all know that is horse **** now and that whole episode of american history should never have happened, but your great-ancestors in America (assuming you had any) knew it for fact... and by law.
pj7 is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 10:34 PM
  #89  
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696

Bikes: who cares?

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Distracted drivers are a dime a dozen, they don't bother me at all. I think most drivers are distracted most of the time. If I was bothered by distracted drivers, I'd be a wreck.

I'm sure there are more impatient drivers out there than I realize. Of course, I only know they're impatient if their impatience is manifested in some way that I can recognize. Perhaps following me too closely, or honking, but this is quite rare. It may be more often than I realize because it's so insignificant to me that I forget. When it does happen, it's usually easy to deal with by using a slow/stop signal, looking at them and smiling and/or shrugging shoulders, etc.

Drivers that I would call aggressive are extremely rare. The last one I encountered though, was only a few weeks ago. Before that? I can't remember. Probably years. I wrote about the old geezer who honked aggressively at me and my daughter a few weeks ago. Unbelievably, a police car was right behind him, and pulled him over. Even so, I was able to learn that he was probably a decent guy, who genuinely felt obliged to "teach me a lesson". Ultimately, even though this guy was so out of line he was pulled over by a cop, he was a friend too!

There is no way I would ever allow such silliness to ruin my day. Life is too short for that.
Well, I would certainly not call them my 'friends'. Individually, I am neutral at best to their impact on me.
randya is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 10:34 PM
  #90  
tired
 
donnamb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 5,651

Bikes: Breezer Uptown 8, U frame

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
I see no explanation of any inferiority in that post. I do see one persons perception of scenarios, but no inferiority issues.
Can you please explain since you are the person innitiating the "inferiority" idea?
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...0&postcount=13

https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...0&postcount=28
__________________
"Real wars of words are harder to win. They require thought, insight, precision, articulation, knowledge, and experience. They require the humility to admit when you are wrong. They recognize that the dialectic is not about making us look at you, but about us all looking together for the truth."
donnamb is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 10:37 PM
  #91  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Distracted drivers are a dime a dozen, they don't bother me at all........


Drivers that I would call aggressive are extremely rare.

helemt head, it really seems you don't ride in traffic often and if you dismiss brians' assessment of current road conditions, even more apparant you are out of touch with everyday traffic cycling.

i've been appraising your cycling habits, mr. head. you know I have, let me eludicate your riding for the crowd.....

you don't ride in traffic everyday, preferring your car for a paltry six mile commute. You are more the weekender 'club fred' peloton rider, preferring safety in numbers, and use your daughter unwittingly as a traffic disarmer on the back of a trail-a-bike as you 'vc' on sundays, yes?


Brian rides much more, much more vehicularly than you.

Last edited by Bekologist; 04-24-07 at 10:47 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 10:38 PM
  #92  
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Oh come off it! All you are looking for is assurance that other self-described vehicular cyclists are as consistent in their proclamations of dogmatic belief as yourself. The über ideaologues of cycling sophistry gotta keep their stories straight, eh?
We do a heck of a lot better keeping our stories straight than the supernatural-myth believers you seem to be trying to compare us with. Perhaps that's because we're all operating from the same set of underlying principles that are effective and practical when cycling in traffic.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 10:46 PM
  #93  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Wow, that last link, you should have ended that statement with "here's your ass, handed to you".
pj7 is offline  
Old 04-24-07, 10:51 PM
  #94  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
i cooperate with traffic, i ride daily, in a vehicular manner, assertively and perhaps uber-vehicular as I am not above a few extra-vehicular operations like splitting lanes on drawbridges,

and I see and encounter agressive drivers pretty much every week.

agressive drivers a rarity? only if you're clueless or don't ride much.

.....or should that be " if you're clueless 'and' don't ride much?"

Last edited by Bekologist; 04-25-07 at 07:50 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 04:10 AM
  #95  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,950

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
We do a heck of a lot better keeping our stories straight than the supernatural-myth believers you seem to be trying to compare us with. Perhaps that's because we're all operating from the same set of underlying principles that are effective and practical when cycling in traffic.
The HH Brand "underlying principles" bottom line:
John said it;
I believe it;
That settles it.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 07:10 AM
  #96  
Cheesmonger Extraordinair
 
natelutkjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
haha, this thread is great! I love seeing Helmet Head able to post a question, make it clear what he wants from the poll and then "get" that result and use that result to once again fuel his campaign - sounds like Gallup Poll could learn a thing...
natelutkjohn is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 07:24 AM
  #97  
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Posts: 10,123

Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
HH: you like to categorize things into nice, neat little boxes, don't you? I'm like the "listening to bike lanes" dude. Hardly. See, in you, I see myself when I first got reved up about the whole VC thing, round about 5 years ago. I had that neat little package of standard VC arguments down.

Oh well. So I'm not a VC'ist. And I've got this syndrome thing. You break my heart.

I'm just a person. I ride a bike.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 08:37 AM
  #98  
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,920

Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
This is information I found at the Canadian Mental Health Association.

How much do you know about mental illness? Here are some of the common myths
  • People with mental illness are violent and dangerous.
  • People with mental illness are poor and/or less intelligent.
  • Mental illness is caused by a personal weakness.
  • Mental illness is a single, rare disorder.

Recognizing the problem [of stigmatizing those with mental illness]

Use the STOP criteria to recognize attitudes and actions that support the stigma of mental illness. It's easy. Just ask yourself if what you hear:
  • Stereotypes people with mental illness (that is, assumes they are all alike rather than individuals)?
  • Trivializes or belittles people with mental illness and / or the illness itself?
  • Offends people with mental illness by insulting them?
  • Patronizes people with mental illness by treating them as if they were not as good as other people?
The way John Forester bandies about a trivializing essay purporting to diagnose the general public with a mental illness, then uses that diagnosis to belittle and bash his opponents meets the STOP criteria above.

He not only trivializes mental illness with his phony diagnosis, he tries to blur mental illness with religious superstition. This is highly insulting, offensive, belittling and hurtful to people who aren't even the target of his wrath.

It's patronizing and offensive to people with a true illness as well as to everyone else. It serves no purpose other than to be used as a means of belittling those who do not agree with him. (Since he applies this diagnosis to the general population, it's apparent hardly anyone agrees with him.)

STOP, John Forester. You are stigmatizing people with legitimate illness and adding to the difficulty they have seeking help.
sbhikes is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 08:41 AM
  #99  
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 2,968
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
HH: you like to categorize things into nice, neat little boxes, don't you? I'm like the "listening to bike lanes" dude. Hardly. See, in you, I see myself when I first got reved up about the whole VC thing, round about 5 years ago. I had that neat little package of standard VC arguments down.

Oh well. So I'm not a VC'ist. And I've got this syndrome thing. You break my heart.

I'm just a person. I ride a bike.
Brian, I have the "syndrome " also-- diagnosed by JF himself!
maybe we should start a support group.
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
rando is offline  
Old 04-25-07, 11:58 AM
  #100  
Senior Member
 
cyclezealot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Fallbrook,Calif./Palau del Vidre, France
Posts: 13,230

Bikes: Klein QP, Fuji touring, Surly Cross Check, BCH City bike

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1485 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 64 Posts
why should we not lump all motorists together as common group. What, one in 100 motorist might have the disposition to want to knock you off the road. In a four hour ride, how many hundreds of motorists pass any given cyclist. So maybe only 250 motorists would want to harm you.
If collectively they are a threat to you: then , they are a threat.
cyclezealot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.