Insane Traffic Ignorant People Online
A recent Twitter thread showcased common misconceptions about cyclists on public roads, with many commenters portraying cyclists as illegitimate road users and nuisances.
It all started with a screenshot from “Insane Anti-Car People Online” of a post originally posted to the subreddit r/fuckcars. Most of the posts from Insane Anti-Car People Online fit the title sufficiently as the majority of the posts over on that subreddit are, let’s just say it - batshit crazy and based in both woke victim ideology and the Drama Triangle.
That subreddit was one of the inspirations for creating the label of Cluster B(ike) Activist. Users on that site regularly slur people as “car-brains” a nod to the bullshit Walker et. al. study on “motornormativity” covered here.
Assuming this is actually what happened to the cyclist in the screenshot, the act of a motorist traveling the opposite direction yelling for them to get off the road shows both an ignorant motor vehicle driver and one with poor emotional control. It’s fair at least for the cyclist to at least be frustrated over the situation.
But on the other hand, the cyclist bothering to care about it and wonder what would be a good response shows equal ignorance (there is no such thing as a “car lane”) and poor emotional control. Dog sounds aren’t the worst response, however.
Some of the commenters portraying cyclists as illegitimate road users and nuisances are below also exhibiting poor emotional control.
These perspectives reflects outdated and ignorant attitudes, often rooted in what the late John Forester called “cyclist inferiority” mindset.
John Forester’s concept of “cyclist inferiority” critiques the belief that cyclists are inherently less legitimate road users than motorists - a belief which comes both from motorists and bicyclists alike. He’s argued over the years up until the last month of his life that this mindset shows up in political, social, and psychological dimensions, leading to systemic bias and unsafe practices.
Cyclist inferiority is the false notion that cyclists are second-class road users who should defer to motor vehicles. This belief drives policies that prioritize motorist convenience, such as mandating the use of often unsafe bike infrastructure and by passing discriminatory and confusing bicycle traffic laws. Forester emphasizes that this mindset pressures cyclists to ride at the road’s edge or sidewalks, often resulting in unsafe practices and reinforcing the myth that roads “belong” to cars. Cyclists adopting edge or pedestrian behavior (e.g., riding on sidewalks or hugging the curb) are more vulnerable to common types of motor vehicle to bicycle collisions such as right hooks, left crosses, drive outs, pull outs, unsafe passing, and doorings.
The inferiority mindset instills fear and discourages cyclists from asserting their rights. This further marginalizes cyclists and perpetuates dangerous behaviors from both road users who mutually fall in the “I don’t actually know what traffic laws actually say so I’ll just make them up as I go.” Ironically this along with the Cluster B(ike) and anti-car mentality that’s taken over bicycling advocacy are some of the reasons so many cyclists run into issues cycling on the road.
Cyclist inferiority also impacts drivers of motor vehicles since it fosters a sense of entitlement among motorists, who may view cyclists as obstacles rather than legitimate road users. This leads to aggressive driving behaviors, such as close passes or honking, particularly when cyclists exercise their legal rights and duties to operate as drivers. Motorists’ expectations of cyclists staying at the edge can result in dangerous misjudgments and frustration towards cyclists who legally and safely control the center of their lane. For instance, a driver may not anticipate a cyclist moving left to avoid an obstacle causing potential collisions or a motorist may perform an unsafe pass.
Then there’s the issue, often pushed by these motorists that bicyclists don’t know or obey the rules of the road, which is often true, but then again many motorists actually don’t know or obey these rules themselves and some lash out on cyclists who do know and obey the rules.
Other cliches come up too such as “bicyclists aren’t licensed/insured/registered,” “they don’t pay for the roads,” “their bicycles should be plated and insured,” or “they don’t belong on the roads because they can’t keep up with the speed limit.”
The rest of this article will attempt to address some of these often mutual misconceptions.
Cyclists Are Not Legitimate Road Users/Traffic
A recurring claim in the Twitter thread was that cyclists “don’t belong” on public roads. Legally, this is incorrect. Traffic law in all fifty US states unambiguously classifies cyclists as “drivers of vehicles,” granting them most of the same rights and responsibilities as motorists when operating on roadways. Law pertaining to registration, titling, insurance, etc. in the laws themself often pertain to motor vehicles or to drivers of motor vehicles. Highways (this is the traffic definition and legal term for all public roads, not just “high speed roads”) are public facilities, intended for legal vehicle types including drivers of animal-driven wagons, and bicyclists, not just motorists. While private property owners are allowed to set their own rules, governments, who by definition own the public roads, do not reserve roads for motor vehicles alone, and excluding cyclists undermines the core principles of equitable road use of permitting access between property. Traffic law also doesn’t discriminate on the type of trip or reason for one’s journey on public highways. In other words, it doesn’t matter whether a cyclist is going out for exercise wearing funny clothing or commuting to a job or shop just as it doesn’t matter whether a motorist is going out for a joy ride or commuting to many of the same destination a cyclist may travel so long as each user is obeying the rules of the road.
Cyclists Impede Traffic
When bringing up the topic of impeding, there often two different definitions at play. One is the dictionary definition of impeding (“to interfere with or slow the progress of”) and the other is the legal definition usually listed in state or local statutes.
The claim that cyclists impede other traffic or “clog” roads akin to the dictionary definition of impeding often ignores how traffic systems work. In aggregate, cyclists rarely cause significant delays. In urban areas where roadways tend to have multiple lanes, passing cyclists is easy and motorists who complain of their in ability to treat a cyclist as any other slow moving vehicle by changing to an adjacent lane to pass is making his or own situation worse. Delays caused by cyclists are comparable to those caused by buses or left-turning vehicles in other places. Delays in traffic in general including congestion and the wait times at traffic lights. These other types of delays are so normal to motorists however they often forget about them, have never bothered to tally up all this lost time, or recognized how much of their trip is delayed when there isn’t a cyclist for miles. Motorists also regularly delay others by needlessly camping in left lanes and passing only lanes.
More significant delays can and do occur on roads such as two-lane roads, especially in rural areas, where passing opportunities are few and far between. Delays also occur on roads that are over capacity and often to ones that have been subject to a “road diet.”
Legal definitions vary with some states explicitly stating that impeding laws only pertain to drivers of motor vehicles while other state they pertain to any driver. This map while over ten years old and likely outdated provides a high-level comparison.
Regardless of the law, cyclists (or any slower-moving driver) who encounters these situations should look for opportunities when safe and practical to pull to the right or even pull over to allow faster motor traffic to pass. The use of a mirror, and hand and arm signals, turning one’s head to make eye contact, can all help the motorist and fosters cooperation. The Cycling Savvy Education program, mentioned in the last post, teaches this to cycling students as “control and release.”
Cyclists Can’t or Won’t do the Speed Limit
Along with the impeding question, perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions of the rules of the road is an unspoken obligation that road users must travel the speed limit. Those who make this argument profoundly misunderstand what a speed limit actually entails. For any driver to safely and legally drive the speed limit, a number of conditions must be in place.
First and foremost, there needs to be a density of traffic that can support travel at such speeds - see the impeding section for a number of reasons why drivers often travel slower than the speed limit. Then there’s the issue of other conditions such as weather, road surface quality, and the capability of the vehicle (especially older classic vehicles, ones carrying heavy loads, or someone driving with a “donut” tire) or the cyclist whether they be in sufficient shape to cycle at such speeds or are carrying cargo. This all falls into the concept of the “basic speed law,” likely law in some form or another in all states which can be summarized more or less to “drive in a manor appropriate for the conditions.” There’s also the argument out there that slow drivers make the roads less safe but this comes from a misunderstanding or complete ignorance of speed limits, the basic speed rule, and elementary defensive driving principles.
To be a smart ass, it’s in the word: limit.
That means maximum, not required.
As for minimum speed limits, these are not permitted on surface streets where bicycles and other low speed vehicles are permitted. Instead they’re seen on limited-access roads only.
Cyclists Don’t Contribute to Road Costs
Another thread complaint was that cyclists “don’t pay” for road use because they don’t pay gas taxes or other taxes and fees associated with motor vehicle use. This argument is flawed for several reasons. First of all, there is the notion that the public roads are open for everyone, regardless of how much they’ve paid or not paid to construct or maintain them. Local roads, where cyclists primarily ride were initially constructed by developers, and their maintenance is often funded by general taxes, including property and sales taxes. It’s true that portions of motor vehicle registration fees and motor vehicle fuel taxes also contribute. Most adult cyclists also own and operate motor vehicles and for the ones who don’t they’re purchasing good and services brought to them by motor vehicles with those costs passed down in the price of the product or service. Other roads such limited-access roadways which run redundant to the surface street network and thus often prohibit non motorized vehicle users are often paid with the above resources plus debt or grants from either the Federal Government or State Government. Cyclists, like all residents, contribute to these funds either directly or indirectly.
It’s common to hear that bicycles cause negligible damage to road surfaces compared to motor vehicles, making their road use highly cost-efficient. There is a bit of truth to this but those who make the argument also insist that all motor vehicles cause damage to the roads. If the road engineers and construction crews did his or her job correctly, it’s virtually impossible for most motor vehicles other than heavy trucks to do any damage to the roads other than wear the paint. A future piece here will dive deep into this and address the misconceptions.
The issue of road costs is unfortunately steering somewhat in the favor of the detractors however as many “cycling” activists are demanding more and more bicycle-specific accommodations on public roadways such as dangerous “protected” bicycle lanes. One example is this failed bill in Colorado which if passed would have raised the cost of motor vehicle registration fees for a State Enterprise (an unethical TABOR workaround) to fund non motor vehicle related projects including cycling infrastructure.
Cyclists Should be Licensed, Their Bikes Should be Registered or Plated, and They Should Carry an Insurance Policy.
Others in the thread demanded cyclists be licensed and insured like motorists. This misunderstands why licensing, which the state statures of all fifty states emphasize applies to drivers of motor vehicles exists. Licenses are required for motor vehicle drivers because of their potential for significant harm and a requirement for basic competence in operating something that if misused is a hazard to people and property. Never mind the previously stated fact many adult bicyclists are also motorists and likely also have driving licenses, bicycles are also ridden by people too young to be licensed to drive motor vehicles, by those who’ve lost their license, or are unable to due a disability to obtain one. Eli Damon is one example of someone who is considered legally blind and cannot pass the vision test to obtain a license, yet his vision is still sufficient enough to ride a bicycle. His story is here.
Bicycle registration is utterly impractical. Many jurisdictions once did this and found the administrative costs to exceed the benefits. Not such schemes are optional and used far more for theft tracking. Plates would be too small to read and would not be able to attach to many bicycle models. This is an issue which seasoned bicyclists have addressed over and over again.
As for insurance, this issue is similar to that one of the demands of gun grabbers insisting firearm owners carry liability insurance. If a bicyclist is in a collision that causes a significant amount of damage to other people or property, which is becoming more common with the proliferation of e-bikes, they can already be sued in civil court provided they don’t illegally flee the scene - something unfortunately a chunk of motorists do. Depending on the state and the policy, if they’re also an insured motorist, the victim can sue against that policy before going after any other policies or assets they have.
Slaying cycling and traffic law myths is akin to playing whack-o-mole. When one is slayed, another one will come up. Perhaps addressing other points will be addressed in future pieces as they arise.
There’s also plenty of room for pissing on the cyclists who ride illegally, incompetently or rudely and those have been previous topic in various posts here. But hostility toward cyclists as seen in the Twitter thread reflects both misunderstanding and bias against them, often perpetuated by the “cyclist inferiority” mindset which is often adopted too by bicyclists making the roads less safe and more confusing for all. Both types of users who fall in the camps in places such as these Twitter threads or in the romper room of r/fuckcars need to be aware of the actual laws and be more aware of each other out there on the road.