From: JForester@cup.portal.com (John - Forester)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Politics of Cycling Speed
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 17:53:22 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

   Many questions are being asked in this thread, some about the
nature and effect of fear of traffic.

   There are two kinds of fear. Acute fear is an emotional response
to the recognition of imminent danger that prompts mind and body to
perform beyond the normal level, traditionally phrased as "fight or
flee." There is also a lower level of fear that considers the
prospect of danger and prompts the person to avoid it. In order to
achieve either response, we must feel (more than know) which items
are dangerous. Fear also suspends judgment about the feared item.
Fear tells the person, "This is dangerous. Do something quickly.
Don't waste time by wondering whether it really is dangerous." This
is the normal response to danger.

   However, some people suffer from chronic fear, phobia. This is a
mental condition that assigns danger to items or conditions that are
not, in fact, nearly as dangerous as the fear labels them. The
suspension of judgment makes this condition hard to cure, because the
sufferer finds great difficulty in accepting information that shows
that the danger is much less than his fear says it is. The person who
suffers from agoraphobia is frightened of being among people, even
when it can be shown that nobody in that group intends him harm.

   I maintain that cycling in traffic has so low a level of danger
that there is no point in fearing it. Sure, some drivers are drunk,
etc. However, the person who says that he will not cycle to work
because the traffic is too dangerous deserves very little more
respect for his judgment than the person who telephones his
supervisor and says, "I couldn't drive my car to work today; I've got
too frightened of the traffic." Sure, cycling to work is somewhat
(twice, three times?) more dangerous than driving to work, but we
don't consider that driving to work involves more than the slightest
danger, and the pleasures of cycling more than compensate for its
slight added danger. 

   Several writers maintain that they have a healthy fear of traffic
that has kept them safe. There are two questions: Is the emotion
fear, and has the behavior it engenders kept them safe? For example,
I know from accident statistics and analysis that cycling on the
wrong side of the road is extremely dangerous, but I don't fear
cycling on the wrong side of the road because I know that I will not
do it. (Sure, I have done it, rarely and for short distances, but
since I know what the dangers are I am careful to avoid those
dangers. This makes me act like a pedestrian rather than a cyclist; I
go very slowly with many delays to observe and avoid the known
dangers.) Those few people who still advocate cycling on the wrong
side of the road (and presumably do it, if they ever cycle
themselves) fear cycling on the proper side and say that their
behavior has preserved their lives, even though statistics and
analysis prove that their behavior is much more dangerous than
cycling on the proper side. The fear that compelled their behavior
increased their danger rather than decreased it, because they were
responding to the inaccurate picture of reality that their fear
produced. 

   Consider Neil J. Cherry's description of his behavior because of
his healthy fear of traffic: "I keep checking my mirror to see where
the cars are behind me, etc." That is his entire description of his
safety practices. Ninety-nine percent of the things that will involve
him in an accident are up front where he can see them and take the
proper action, yet Neil spends his time looking in his rear-view
mirror for an event that is both very rare and which he can't detect
in time to do anything about it. That's what he writes that he does,
anyway, and it is instructive to take him at his word. The behavior
he describes is precisely that taught by bike-safety programs that
instill the fear of traffic in young cyclists and is the official, so
to speak, attitude about cycling. I don't know what bad cycling
habits Cherry has, but many people who express bicycle safety in the
terms that he does are both incompetent cyclists and bikeway
advocates. The excessive fear of being hit from behind causes people
to avoid proper cycling technique, such as moving to the center of
the road before turning left, and to advocate facilities that
minimize the already small danger from behind at the cost of greatly
magnifying the already major dangers from ahead and both sides.
Consider Joe Sweeney's words: "My measure of fear is what keeps me
alive .... If I had to get into left turn lanes, or lots of turns, I
don't know if I would like to ride to work ..." 

   The above discussion points out that fear of traffic is not
justified, that it is not necessary as an incentive to cycle
properly, and that it often produces dangerous behavior. 

   Now to consider the correlation between speed and competence.
Michael Sullivan believes that I have written that slow cyclists must
be incompetent. I have not. I wrote that cyclists who ride fast in
traffic accumulate so many near collisions that they either learn
proper cycling technique, which eliminates many of those near
collisions, or they slow down, because slow speed makes those near
collisions easier to avoid. There's nothing there that says that a
competent cyclist can't ride slowly, or that competent cyclists
don't, at least at some times. However, I maintain that slow cyclists
less frequently encounter the situations that, in the absence of any
training in proper cycling technique, encourage self-discovery of
that technique, and therefore they learn proper cycling technique at
a much lower rate than fast cyclists. 

   For confirmation that fear is not necessary for safe cycling in
traffic consider John Reid's statement. Reid has cycled in many major
urban centers for many years (as I have), without significant
accident. His statement shows no more of fear than if he had been
describing a life spent driving a car in the same traffic. His
statement also shows that he is a competent cyclist, because he acts
like the driver of a vehicle. That is what competent traffic-cycling
is all about. 

   However, in many parts of the U.S. there is a definite antagonism
toward proper cycling, as evidenced by Howard Gerber's statement.
Gerber reports being stopped and threatened by a police officer for
obeying the law and cycling properly. That's not unusual; it has
happened to me many times and to many cyclists I know. The standard
official attitude is that the officer is protecting the cyclist from
death by automobile by enforcing the laws that were enacted for the
safety of cyclists (or what he mistakenly thinks are the laws). That
is, don't ride where a motorist can hit you from behind. The police
officer is the official embodiment of the errors, created by
misguided fear, that Sullivan and Cherry have written in this thread
from the viewpoint of cyclists. 

   For an outspoken statement of this type, consider the logic of Ed
Ravin's statement. He says that every competent cyclist that he knows
fears being "run down" (a phrase with the connotation of being hit
from behind) by inconsiderate or incompetent motorists. He says that
as he "was swerving around some potholes" a motorist attacked him.
Well, if Ravin had swerved in front of me, endangering my life
instead of just a motorist's paint, I would have been extremely nasty
to him. The cyclist who swerves around in traffic deserves anything
he gets. In another paragraph he describes cycling as being up
against psychopathic maniacs armed with automobiles. Ravin defines
defensive driving as "assum[ing] that everyone out there on the road
is going to do the wrong thing and cause you grievous bodily injury."
That is certainly a phobic statement that reflects the type of phobia
that I discussed above, because it cannot possibly be true in either
possible sense. Most traffic movements proceed properly; the
proportion of accidents among traffic movements is very small. Of all
the cars that have approached me from the opposite direction, and I
suppose these number at least a million, only one has turned left and
hit me. And this is the most frequent motorist-caused car-bike
collision; all others are significantly less frequent. It is also a
very frequent car-car collision, so motorists have to fear it also.
To take the other possible interpretation of Ravin's statement, he
says that I should have assumed that each of these motorists was
going to turn toward me and I should have taken the appropriate
action. That is totally impractical. You cannot take the precautions
necessary under the assumption that every motorist will turn toward
you and still retain mobility, or in all probability remain sane.
That assumes that the roads are a battlefield in which the cyclist
cannot even fight back, and even soldiers crack in less than a
lifetime of battlefield experience. The driver of any vehicle has to
assume that most traffic movements will be done properly and not
worry until he sees a mistake occurring. The only other alternative
is to stay home and starve to death. 

JForester@cup.portal.com               John Forester
                                       726 Madrone Ave
408-734-9426                           Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc