Mary Cheh wants to make it legal for bicyclists for blow stop signs and stop lights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

So where do those anti-cyclist feelings come from? Here's my theory: humans are social animals, and all social mammals have the notion of a hierarchy, a pecking order. It's hard-wired, it's not in the rational part of our brains but in the instinctual part. And there are some people who feel that when they're driving their four-ton Canyonero and they come upon a cyclist upon a 20-pound bicycle, that person ought to be their social inferior because they are physically smaller. And deeply rooted in that mammalian notion of hierarchy is the idea that lower-status members of the tribe have to get out of the way of higher-status members. So when they're driving along and some cyclist not only doesn't get out of their way, but goes around them, they feel a righteous indignation. And when those low-status members of society are treated not like the low-status members they are but as equals or even superiors -- with their own facilities and special rules -- that's just a bridge too far. And the thing about the mammalian, instinctual part of the brain is that it triggers strong emotional reactions.

Now, in our political culture we cherish the fiction that all men are equal, so you can't just go around saying "low status people are being treated like equals!" There are some cultures where that would be sufficient, but ours isn't one of them. In our political culture, you have to cloak your self-interest by professing concern for the common good. So if you're against something, it's because you care about "safety," or "the environment" or "equity."

So this is why you get these ridiculously convoluted arguments from the bike haters. They know they can't just say, "I hate them because I'm bigger than them and they don't get out of my way." (Although some will resort to that when the veil of their arguments is pierced.) So they rail against cyclists and how cycling is unsafe, bad for the environment, unfair to minorities, bolloxes up traffic, whatever. And as other posters have noted, facts and logic don't get them out of that position, because it was the mammalian brain, not facts and logic, that got them into it.

Probably the best analysis of the politics of bike lanes I’ve ever read.

Probably the dumbest I’ve read. Nothing is ever bikers’ fault, is it? Let’s all have a pity party for the ward 3 fat guys in spandex

What does "fault" even have to do with making a transportation system? And how does it matter how they're dressed? It really does bother you that people you perceive as lower-status are given equal treatment.

Just a few posts up a cyclist was demanding brownie points for crashing his bike instead of hitting a kid and he blamed the kid for his accident. You people are absolutely mental.

So cyclists are scofflaws, overweight, "mental" and dress badly. All ways of describing low-status people. How dare those low-status people get equal treatment!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

So where do those anti-cyclist feelings come from? Here's my theory: humans are social animals, and all social mammals have the notion of a hierarchy, a pecking order. It's hard-wired, it's not in the rational part of our brains but in the instinctual part. And there are some people who feel that when they're driving their four-ton Canyonero and they come upon a cyclist upon a 20-pound bicycle, that person ought to be their social inferior because they are physically smaller. And deeply rooted in that mammalian notion of hierarchy is the idea that lower-status members of the tribe have to get out of the way of higher-status members. So when they're driving along and some cyclist not only doesn't get out of their way, but goes around them, they feel a righteous indignation. And when those low-status members of society are treated not like the low-status members they are but as equals or even superiors -- with their own facilities and special rules -- that's just a bridge too far. And the thing about the mammalian, instinctual part of the brain is that it triggers strong emotional reactions.

Now, in our political culture we cherish the fiction that all men are equal, so you can't just go around saying "low status people are being treated like equals!" There are some cultures where that would be sufficient, but ours isn't one of them. In our political culture, you have to cloak your self-interest by professing concern for the common good. So if you're against something, it's because you care about "safety," or "the environment" or "equity."

So this is why you get these ridiculously convoluted arguments from the bike haters. They know they can't just say, "I hate them because I'm bigger than them and they don't get out of my way." (Although some will resort to that when the veil of their arguments is pierced.) So they rail against cyclists and how cycling is unsafe, bad for the environment, unfair to minorities, bolloxes up traffic, whatever. And as other posters have noted, facts and logic don't get them out of that position, because it was the mammalian brain, not facts and logic, that got them into it.

Probably the best analysis of the politics of bike lanes I’ve ever read.

It explains a lot of local politics too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

So where do those anti-cyclist feelings come from? Here's my theory: humans are social animals, and all social mammals have the notion of a hierarchy, a pecking order. It's hard-wired, it's not in the rational part of our brains but in the instinctual part. And there are some people who feel that when they're driving their four-ton Canyonero and they come upon a cyclist upon a 20-pound bicycle, that person ought to be their social inferior because they are physically smaller. And deeply rooted in that mammalian notion of hierarchy is the idea that lower-status members of the tribe have to get out of the way of higher-status members. So when they're driving along and some cyclist not only doesn't get out of their way, but goes around them, they feel a righteous indignation. And when those low-status members of society are treated not like the low-status members they are but as equals or even superiors -- with their own facilities and special rules -- that's just a bridge too far. And the thing about the mammalian, instinctual part of the brain is that it triggers strong emotional reactions.

Now, in our political culture we cherish the fiction that all men are equal, so you can't just go around saying "low status people are being treated like equals!" There are some cultures where that would be sufficient, but ours isn't one of them. In our political culture, you have to cloak your self-interest by professing concern for the common good. So if you're against something, it's because you care about "safety," or "the environment" or "equity."

So this is why you get these ridiculously convoluted arguments from the bike haters. They know they can't just say, "I hate them because I'm bigger than them and they don't get out of my way." (Although some will resort to that when the veil of their arguments is pierced.) So they rail against cyclists and how cycling is unsafe, bad for the environment, unfair to minorities, bolloxes up traffic, whatever. And as other posters have noted, facts and logic don't get them out of that position, because it was the mammalian brain, not facts and logic, that got them into it.

Probably the best analysis of the politics of bike lanes I’ve ever read.

Probably the dumbest I’ve read. Nothing is ever bikers’ fault, is it? Let’s all have a pity party for the ward 3 fat guys in spandex

What does "fault" even have to do with making a transportation system? And how does it matter how they're dressed? It really does bother you that people you perceive as lower-status are given equal treatment.

It’s not that they’re “lower status.” It’s that they’re obnoxious, entitled a**holes. Even their mothers hate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

So where do those anti-cyclist feelings come from? Here's my theory: humans are social animals, and all social mammals have the notion of a hierarchy, a pecking order. It's hard-wired, it's not in the rational part of our brains but in the instinctual part. And there are some people who feel that when they're driving their four-ton Canyonero and they come upon a cyclist upon a 20-pound bicycle, that person ought to be their social inferior because they are physically smaller. And deeply rooted in that mammalian notion of hierarchy is the idea that lower-status members of the tribe have to get out of the way of higher-status members. So when they're driving along and some cyclist not only doesn't get out of their way, but goes around them, they feel a righteous indignation. And when those low-status members of society are treated not like the low-status members they are but as equals or even superiors -- with their own facilities and special rules -- that's just a bridge too far. And the thing about the mammalian, instinctual part of the brain is that it triggers strong emotional reactions.

Now, in our political culture we cherish the fiction that all men are equal, so you can't just go around saying "low status people are being treated like equals!" There are some cultures where that would be sufficient, but ours isn't one of them. In our political culture, you have to cloak your self-interest by professing concern for the common good. So if you're against something, it's because you care about "safety," or "the environment" or "equity."

So this is why you get these ridiculously convoluted arguments from the bike haters. They know they can't just say, "I hate them because I'm bigger than them and they don't get out of my way." (Although some will resort to that when the veil of their arguments is pierced.) So they rail against cyclists and how cycling is unsafe, bad for the environment, unfair to minorities, bolloxes up traffic, whatever. And as other posters have noted, facts and logic don't get them out of that position, because it was the mammalian brain, not facts and logic, that got them into it.

Probably the best analysis of the politics of bike lanes I’ve ever read.

Probably the dumbest I’ve read. Nothing is ever bikers’ fault, is it? Let’s all have a pity party for the ward 3 fat guys in spandex

What does "fault" even have to do with making a transportation system? And how does it matter how they're dressed? It really does bother you that people you perceive as lower-status are given equal treatment.

It’s not that they’re “lower status.” It’s that they’re obnoxious, entitled a**holes. Even their mothers hate them.

Thank goodness your mother doesn’t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

So where do those anti-cyclist feelings come from? Here's my theory: humans are social animals, and all social mammals have the notion of a hierarchy, a pecking order. It's hard-wired, it's not in the rational part of our brains but in the instinctual part. And there are some people who feel that when they're driving their four-ton Canyonero and they come upon a cyclist upon a 20-pound bicycle, that person ought to be their social inferior because they are physically smaller. And deeply rooted in that mammalian notion of hierarchy is the idea that lower-status members of the tribe have to get out of the way of higher-status members. So when they're driving along and some cyclist not only doesn't get out of their way, but goes around them, they feel a righteous indignation. And when those low-status members of society are treated not like the low-status members they are but as equals or even superiors -- with their own facilities and special rules -- that's just a bridge too far. And the thing about the mammalian, instinctual part of the brain is that it triggers strong emotional reactions.

Now, in our political culture we cherish the fiction that all men are equal, so you can't just go around saying "low status people are being treated like equals!" There are some cultures where that would be sufficient, but ours isn't one of them. In our political culture, you have to cloak your self-interest by professing concern for the common good. So if you're against something, it's because you care about "safety," or "the environment" or "equity."

So this is why you get these ridiculously convoluted arguments from the bike haters. They know they can't just say, "I hate them because I'm bigger than them and they don't get out of my way." (Although some will resort to that when the veil of their arguments is pierced.) So they rail against cyclists and how cycling is unsafe, bad for the environment, unfair to minorities, bolloxes up traffic, whatever. And as other posters have noted, facts and logic don't get them out of that position, because it was the mammalian brain, not facts and logic, that got them into it.

Probably the best analysis of the politics of bike lanes I’ve ever read.

Probably the dumbest I’ve read. Nothing is ever bikers’ fault, is it? Let’s all have a pity party for the ward 3 fat guys in spandex

What does "fault" even have to do with making a transportation system? And how does it matter how they're dressed? It really does bother you that people you perceive as lower-status are given equal treatment.

It’s not that they’re “lower status.” It’s that they’re obnoxious, entitled a**holes. Even their mothers hate them.

Your mother likes me plenty.

Hey, having the maturity of a 12 year old is actually fun. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

So where do those anti-cyclist feelings come from? Here's my theory: humans are social animals, and all social mammals have the notion of a hierarchy, a pecking order. It's hard-wired, it's not in the rational part of our brains but in the instinctual part. And there are some people who feel that when they're driving their four-ton Canyonero and they come upon a cyclist upon a 20-pound bicycle, that person ought to be their social inferior because they are physically smaller. And deeply rooted in that mammalian notion of hierarchy is the idea that lower-status members of the tribe have to get out of the way of higher-status members. So when they're driving along and some cyclist not only doesn't get out of their way, but goes around them, they feel a righteous indignation. And when those low-status members of society are treated not like the low-status members they are but as equals or even superiors -- with their own facilities and special rules -- that's just a bridge too far. And the thing about the mammalian, instinctual part of the brain is that it triggers strong emotional reactions.

Now, in our political culture we cherish the fiction that all men are equal, so you can't just go around saying "low status people are being treated like equals!" There are some cultures where that would be sufficient, but ours isn't one of them. In our political culture, you have to cloak your self-interest by professing concern for the common good. So if you're against something, it's because you care about "safety," or "the environment" or "equity."

So this is why you get these ridiculously convoluted arguments from the bike haters. They know they can't just say, "I hate them because I'm bigger than them and they don't get out of my way." (Although some will resort to that when the veil of their arguments is pierced.) So they rail against cyclists and how cycling is unsafe, bad for the environment, unfair to minorities, bolloxes up traffic, whatever. And as other posters have noted, facts and logic don't get them out of that position, because it was the mammalian brain, not facts and logic, that got them into it.

Probably the best analysis of the politics of bike lanes I’ve ever read.

Probably the dumbest I’ve read. Nothing is ever bikers’ fault, is it? Let’s all have a pity party for the ward 3 fat guys in spandex

What does "fault" even have to do with making a transportation system? And how does it matter how they're dressed? It really does bother you that people you perceive as lower-status are given equal treatment.

Just a few posts up a cyclist was demanding brownie points for crashing his bike instead of hitting a kid and he blamed the kid for his accident. You people are absolutely mental.

So cyclists are scofflaws, overweight, "mental" and dress badly. All ways of describing low-status people. How dare those low-status people get equal treatment!

Again, this is why you are “mental”. Like what the hell are you talking about. You folks seem to have very active imaginations.

[Anonymous]

Cyclists are basically moving potholes inadvertently striving to become permanent potholes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

So where do those anti-cyclist feelings come from? Here's my theory: humans are social animals, and all social mammals have the notion of a hierarchy, a pecking order. It's hard-wired, it's not in the rational part of our brains but in the instinctual part. And there are some people who feel that when they're driving their four-ton Canyonero and they come upon a cyclist upon a 20-pound bicycle, that person ought to be their social inferior because they are physically smaller. And deeply rooted in that mammalian notion of hierarchy is the idea that lower-status members of the tribe have to get out of the way of higher-status members. So when they're driving along and some cyclist not only doesn't get out of their way, but goes around them, they feel a righteous indignation. And when those low-status members of society are treated not like the low-status members they are but as equals or even superiors -- with their own facilities and special rules -- that's just a bridge too far. And the thing about the mammalian, instinctual part of the brain is that it triggers strong emotional reactions.

Now, in our political culture we cherish the fiction that all men are equal, so you can't just go around saying "low status people are being treated like equals!" There are some cultures where that would be sufficient, but ours isn't one of them. In our political culture, you have to cloak your self-interest by professing concern for the common good. So if you're against something, it's because you care about "safety," or "the environment" or "equity."

So this is why you get these ridiculously convoluted arguments from the bike haters. They know they can't just say, "I hate them because I'm bigger than them and they don't get out of my way." (Although some will resort to that when the veil of their arguments is pierced.) So they rail against cyclists and how cycling is unsafe, bad for the environment, unfair to minorities, bolloxes up traffic, whatever. And as other posters have noted, facts and logic don't get them out of that position, because it was the mammalian brain, not facts and logic, that got them into it.

Dude can I buy some weed from you?

[Anonymous]

If everyone hates cyclists (and that seems to be the case), maybe the simplest and most likely explanation is that cyclists have earned that enmity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If everyone hates cyclists (and that seems to be the case), maybe the simplest and most likely explanation is that cyclists have earned that enmity.

Keep on hating baaaaybayyyyy