The Bicycling Advocacy Drama Triangle

“In short, the anointed are helped to make yet another group feel like victims and to regard the anointed as their rescuers.”
― Thomas Sowell.

June 2020 cover story photo published in The North Coast Current

“In the mid-1960s, psychologist Eric Berne wrote a book that observed the ways in which we all unconsciously adopt roles in our relationships, whether with friends, family, or colleagues,” writes Michael Shellenberger in his book San Fransicko: How Progressives Ruin Cities, a book that argues that Progressive policies have exacerbated homelessness, drug addiction, and crime, rather than alleviating them. He further critiques the failure to enforce laws, the mismanagement of public funds, and the ideology-driven strategies that, in his view, prioritize ideological purity over practical solutions.

In digging in to the how such Progressive ideologues “tick” so to speak, Shellenberger discusses Berne’s relationship model.

Many dramas require a victim. One person plays the Victim, another the Persecutor, another the Patsy (that is, a person who is fooled), and still another the Rescuer. Crucially, we tend to develop role-playing patterns in our relationships, but we also switch roles as the situation changes. In a game Berne called ‘Alcoholic,’ he described the interactions between an alcoholic husband and his wife, who would role-switch. At night, she played “the Patsy, undressing him, making him coffee, and allowing him to beat her. In the morning, [she played] the Persecutor, berating him for the evil of his ways; and in the evening the Rescuer, pleading with him to change them. Our motivation in playing these roles, felt Berne, is praise and recognition, which he called “strokes.”

Berne’s social model draws parallels to the concept of the Drama Triangle conceived by Stephen Karpman in the 1960s.

Karpman’s Drama Triangle also maps a type of emotional and psychological drama that unfolds in relationships, identifying three roles people often assume which are utterly similar to Berne’s model:

• The Victim,

• The Persecutor

• The Savior.

The Victim in this dynamic is supposed to play the apparent role of being oppressed and helpless, the Persecutor as the oppressor, and the Savior as the one who intervenes, often with an attempt to solve the problem or “save” the Victim from the Persecutor.

These roles, paradoxically are not fixed, and individuals can shift from one role to another within a single interaction, perpetuating a cycle of conflict and dysfunction. People stuck inside the Drama Triangle can also create a co-depenent relationship with people in other roles.

Substack writer

Barbara Wegner

focuses most of her writing on the Drama Triangle.

Intro to the Drama Triangle

Feeling Powerless vs. Powerful

Does anyone deserve to be raped?

Whether it’s Bern’s model popularized by Shellenberger, or Karpman’s Drama Triangle popularized by Wegner, the two concepts are remarkably similar.

And they’re a staple of both Platitude-Driven Bicycling proponents and its more extreme subset: Cluster B(ike) Activists. (Also see Climate Crisis extremists.)

For the rest of this post, the two concepts will be referred to simply as a Drama Triangle.

Please take two minutes and watch this video as it shows a clear example of the Drama Triangle in bicycling advocacy.

See if you can guess at least two of the roles.

The transcript is as follows:

Good Evening Council,

My name is Jeremy Blakespear and I'm choosing to represent the Association of Would-be Cyclists. I think a contingent of people here this evening in opposition to the proposed protected bike way represent an antiquated and frankly self-interested view of cycling infrastructure that over the last 35 years has failed to produce meaningful ridership rates in our communities. The Vehicular Cyclist’s approach caters primarily to the bold-and-fearless rider or to the safety-in-numbers pelotons.

With this approach to cycling infrastructure it should come as no surprise that most people don't want to ride on the roads. The best available evidence shows that protected bikeways not only encourage increased ridership but in fact improve overall safety. The opposition is seeking to nitpick this proposal to death or kill it by committee so they claim to be the experts but they're working from some flawed and self-interested assumptions I feel that we should allow our traffic and safety professionals traffic engineers to do their job in planning this infrastructure. We're having our opportunity to have our input ad nauseam.

So, True North here is increased ridership that is safe for all ages and abilities. This plan furthers the effort to attain it so please have the courage to stand up to the Vehicular Cyclist Special Interest group and give the community a better option for getting around by bike thank you.

The individual speaking in the video, Mr. Jeremy Blakespear. Blakespear’s statement was one of dozens of two-minute statements made by people either in support of or in opposition to a “protected bike lane” project to be installed on a short corridor of Coast Highway 101 in the city of Encinitas, an affluent coastal community located north of San Diego. He made his statement during the public comments portion of an Encinitas City Council meeting in the fall of 2019.

As a bit of backstory, the City of Encinitas had some extra money to spend, (“Use it or lose it”) the mayor and majority city council who were so-called “pro bike” and “pro-climate.” This “leadership” wanted to spend that money to connect a rail trail north of the project site with one south of the project site. This area, where the project would eventually be built features a beautiful lagoon, a State Beach, and several restaurants making it a top destination for not only local residents but for people all over the region.

The old configuration had standard painted bicycle lanes, and per the state’s official crash records SWITRS, had a stellar safety record for bicyclists. What the city’s “engineer” Abe Bandegan proposed, and Mr. Blakespear was testifying in support of was a so-called "protected bicycle lane” that ran in one direction separated by motor traffic by so-called “protection,” namely parkng lot style wheel stops and “flex posts.” In the other direction by those same elements ran as “protection,” a line of parked motor vehicles. Bandegan was completely unaware of the previously mentioned safety record yet asserted this project would make the area safer for cyclists. It’s not typical for “engineers” to be completely ignorant of the safety record of a project prior to their “treatment.” He’s also been a supporter of deadly door zone bike lanes.

The fact the occupants of said motor vehicle would use the “protected bike lane” and space to load an unload both their passengers and their loads and thus would contribute to conflicts to the bicyclists using the facility was ignored by “engineer” Bandagan along with other cheerleaders of the “design.” In other words if this “design” were to be built, gone would be the traditional bicycle lanes and the dedicated space for pedestrians on the other side.

Dozens of Principled-driven bicyclists pointed out these issues months before consturction when the project was discussed in the city’s Traffic Commission. Many opposed even proposed the city should wait until they had more funding to build a multi-use path which would have with the proper design allowed for true separation for both bicyclists and pedestrians from the motor vehicle traffic on the corridor.

It’s these people who Mr. Blakespear labeled as those “nitpicking this proposal.” Even a few of these “nickpickers” dug in to the nitty gritty details of the actual California law by noting the state’s “Class IV Bikeways”, the fancy legal definition in the state for what are otherwise known colloquially (and incorrectly) as “protected bicycle lanes” prohibits pedestrians from using them. Bandegan’s “design” removed the existing pedestrian path on the ocean side and introduced both bus loading and unloading issues, and ADA violations. All of that is not to mention the crash hazards from such “protection” which came in the form of invisible wheel stops and “flex” posts.

In other words, Principled-driven bicycling advocates noted these issues and predicted the proposed design would result in the unintended consequence of increased crashes including dreaded crashes with motor vehicles. Unfortunately, Bandegan violated the Fundamental Canons of the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. And because he’s a government bureaucrat in California where such “public servants” are generally protected by design immunity.

Blakespear casts himself as a Savior or Rescuer (“representing the ‘Association of Would Be Cyclists’”) in what could be amply described as the Bicycling Advocacy's Drama Triangle.

Many Platitude-Driven bicycling advocates and virtually all Cluster B(ike) Activists invoke themselves in this Drama Triangle by taking the role of both Rescuers/Saviors and often as Persecutors. It’s those “Would-be Cyclists” who are the Victims/Oppressed and the people who he labels as “Vehicular Cyclist¹ Special Interest Group” are the Oppressors. (It should be noted that it’s also common to label drivers of motor vehicles, also as “Oppressors.”) Both Platitude-driven activists and Cluster B(ike) activists oppose educational programs and teaching all road users cooperation.

The argument goes from both Platitude-driven and Cluster B(ike) activists that people would be persuaded to drop driving cars and adopt cycling if they “felt safe” (ahem

J.D. Haltigan

….) so the ideology is not only to demonize motoring but to build so-called “protected” bicycle infrastructure to encourage non-cyclists to take up cycling. There is, of course something to “feeling safe” but it doesn’t neccessarly equate to actually being safe.

Unfortunately catchy platitudes only go so far when many of the “designs” pushed by this crowd encourge bicyclists and motorists to collide with each other at greater rates than if both parties obeyed the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The “design” Blakespear supported happened to encourage such conflicts that and that was exactly what the so-called “Vehicular Cycling Special Interest Group” or the Persecutors warned of in their testimonies: increased conflicts and crashes.

It also likely contributed to the first death which happened earlier this month.

In addition to what could be called emotional equity, these proponents are also obsessed with ensuring what they promote “feels safe” for “all ages and abilities” or for those of “8 to 80” years old which could both be coined as skills equity.

Notice such exact language in Blakespear’s testimony! It’s also not uncommon to for these activists to invoke a question, “would you let your kids/grandmother/[other “vulnurable” person] ride here?” More often than not, it’s not an honest question but an abuse tactic that is a cornerstone of Progressive rhetoric. Nassim Taleb calls it pedophrasty.²

The unfortunate reality is that it is impossible to accommodate for everyone’s emotions, or to design a system where someone who has zero basic travel or bicycling skills.

Mighk Wilson largely debunked such in his article, The Special Mode, noting:

We don’t design different types of pedestrian facilities for “beginner” and “experienced” walkers. We design pedestrian facilities based on their operating characteristics and legal requirements. We generally want those “beginner” pedestrians to become “experienced” as quickly as possible, because we know experienced road users are safer.

While we don’t provide different types of sidewalks and crosswalks, we recognize that quiet neighborhood streets present fewer conflicts than busy commercial arterials, so we prefer that beginner pedestrians (children) keep to those neighborhood streets until they are mature enough to handle the busier ones. More experienced pedestrians (parents) prefer to accompany their kids on those busier streets.

We don’t have special lanes or facilities for beginner motorists.

We design their facilities based on their operating characteristics and legal requirements.

We generally want motorists to become “experienced” as quickly as possible, because we know experienced road users are safer. As with pedestrians, parents prefer to accompany their teen drivers or have them taught by professionals — especially in more complex driving environments — until they have shown they are competent to drive on their own.

Cluster B(ike) Activists tend to “poo-poo” the ease of safe, principled cycling in favor of utopian nonsense.

Now, two minutes, the alloted time in these testimonies, is an awful short time to cram in a lot of anything, but something Mr. Blakespear left out in that short blip was that he one, uh, slight conflicts of interest.

It was his wife, Catherine, who at the time was mayor of Encinitas and this project was one of her keystone “achievements” before she failed up to becoming a State Senator and notable bootlicker to parasites such as Gavin Newsom and Rob Bonta.

Blakespear, in white, at the signing of an unconstitutional law in defiance of SCOTUS rulings | Office of the Governor of California

Also here’s his wife, the mayor in April 2020, shortly after several people were either had close calls or were injured. City bureaucrats initially claimed many excuses for the rash of crashes, such as that the project wasn’t officially completed yet and that there would be a “learning curve.” They also insisted the project was not yet completed but people were using it when they were not supposed to. Needless to say in a newsletter and on her blog, Mayor Blakespear rode the project, still fresh with traffic cones, and bragged about her achievement.

“Don't get excited! I took my mask down for just a few seconds while this photo was being taken.

I’m thrilled with the emergence of the physical barrier on Coast Highway 101 connecting the Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail with the Cardiff Coastal Rail Trail. These barriers unquestionably create a greater sense of safety for bike riders traveling next to speeding traffic. The outcome will be more people feeling comfortable riding their bikes to the beach and enjoying our coastline. A gentle reminder for pedestrians – please stay to the right and don’t congest the bike lane. 
 
It’s great timing for our professional staff to get these infrastructure projects done during a time when there is substantially less traffic on the roads. There is reduced risk to the workers and fewer conflict points with the traveling public.”

Something else he left out in that short two minutes was that, he, Mr. Blakespear, at the time of his testimony was also running for a seat on the board of the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition, formerly the region’s largest and most influential bicycling organization.

It was only a few weeks later that the election for said board seats took place. He lost in the election, apparently the only candidate to do so in that election.

So what did he do?

He played Victim - a total role reversal. (Shocker³!)

In other words he switched from Rescuer/Savior role to that of the Noble Victim.

The “Vehicular Cyclists” and/or “Vehicular Cycling Special Interest Group” remained the demonized Oppressors.

With his connections as bottom of one of the region’s most prominant politicians, Mr. Blakespear got the attention of two local media outlets, the San Diego Reader, and The Coast News Group.

Normal people in places such as Coastal Elite dominated Coastal California have no such push with the local press but Jeremy Blakespear was treated a bit differently. In the San Diego Reader, he whined that the Bicycle Coalition actually victimized him because he didn’t win a seat on the Board of Directors. That decision was decided by the way by the members of the Bicycle Coalition! Of his losing, he said, “I felt attacked for advocating good protected bike lanes. I immediately left the meeting and resigned the next day.”

The San Diego Reader’s copy blabbered, “The Bicycle Coalition seems have become the most powerful lobbying group for vehicular cycling in San Diego, with politicians latching on the group’s big voice and presence.”

To their credit, the San Diego Reader published a short rebuttal entitled “Losing a Quitter” by Richard Opper, who at the time was the Chair of the SD County Bicycle Coalition. There, Opper debunked Blakespear’s bullshit victim narrative.

It was the Coast Newsgroup, however who gave Mr. Blakespear an entire column, “Retribution on Bike Coalition Board.”

That piece in its entirety is quoted below.

It is truly alarming to realize that one of the largest obstacles to better bicycling infrastructure in San Diego County comes from organized cycling clubs who effectively dominate local bicycle advocacy groups like the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition.

If we want more people to bike, this needs to change.

Recently, I publicly advocated for protected bike lanes, which are lanes that physically protect bicyclists from speeding cars. Within a few short weeks I was rejected for a board position on the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition because of it.

The gist of my speech before the Encinitas City Council was that the perspective of the “vehicular cyclist” (the notion that bikes are vehicles and should use the roads just like a car) is ineffective at attracting a substantial number of users other than the “bold and fearless” riders. Physically protected bike lanes are shown to both increase ridership and reduce serious injury.  That’s not just my opinion; it’s supported by numerous traffic engineering studies.

But for a small, vocal contingent of road cyclists, mixing cars and bikes together works for them. These “roadies” don’t want to slow down for beach cruisers, kids, nearby pedestrians, dog walkers, strollers, or anyone else who may be inside of a protected bike lane. This is also the group of riders who like and support “sharrows” (painted symbols on the roadway indicating that “bikes may use full lane”).

I am (or rather, was) a member of the advocacy committee of the Bicycle Coalition. My ideas about the benefits of protected bike lanes did not sit well with several influential members of the group. When the vote came in for six new candidates to the board last Wednesday, I was the only one rejected.  I’m generally a well-spoken and committed advocate for cycling with as good or better credentials than the other candidates. I was rejected because I advocated for protected bike lanes and the vehicular cyclists in the group were out to punish me for it.  It was retribution for my public advocacy, pure and simple.

It saddens me that the Bike Coalition is so heavily influenced by a contingent of people with such a narrow, self-interested and shortsighted view of cycling infrastructure.  Unless the forward-thinking members of the Coalition can somehow sideline the hard-core vehicular cyclists among them, they are at risk of becoming irrelevant in the emerging political and social landscape of San Diego.  Groups like Circulate San Diego and the Climate Action Campaign are taking the lead by advocating for infrastructure that will actually increase the number of people biking and walking. It’s time for the Bike Coalition and road cyclists in general to embrace changes that increase the inclusivity and desirability of cycling for all types of riders, not just those in lycra.

It’s hard to not unsee the proliferation of the Drama Triangle with Blakespear playing both roles in addition to his extreme narcissism.

This the the default operating position of both the Platitude-Driven bicyclists and especially their radical subset, the Cluster B(ike) Activists.

Unfortunately the real victims are the people who take what they say for granted.

1. “Vehicular Cyclist“ is a term developed by John Forester as a bicyclist who “obeys the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles” but has been grossly and intentionally misinterpreted (despite numerous corrections from Principled-Driven bicyclists) by Platitude-driven bicyclists and especially Cluster B(ike) Activists as “acting like a car.”

2. Definition: Argument involving children to prop up a rationalization and make the opponent look like an asshole, as people are defenseless and suspend all skepticism in front of suffering children: nobody has the heart to question the authenticity or source of the reporting. Often done with the aid of pictures.

3. H/T

Jed