45
The Cyclist-Inferiority Phobia

The Cyclist-Inferiority Superstition and Phobia

After two generations, the bike-safety programs produced a population that knows nothing about traffic-safe cycling technique but whose members firmly believe that they know everything important about bike safety. Furthermore, many of them are profoundly psychologically damaged about cycling.

All erroneous instruction has bad results, which may range from a few wrong facts to psychological damage. The least effect of bike-safety instruction is to inculcate a self-consistent but erroneous picture of traffic from the cyclist’s point of view. That view is that cyclists’ greatest danger is motor traffic from behind, that the roads are intended for motor traffic, and that most accidents to cyclists are collisions from behind caused by simply riding on the road or by too little room on the road. Given these assumptions, the precepts of bike-safety instruction appear to be rational. Such a self-consistent view is called a cognitive system, and once learned, it serves as the filter through which we view all aspects of the world that pertain to it. When people try to understand facts or principles, they first view them through their own cognitive systems. Those facts or principles that agree with their cognitive system appear to be rational and are quickly learned and become part of a larger cognitive system. Thus a motorist who dislikes being slowed by cyclists and believes that the roads are meant for motor vehicles readily believes that the greatest danger for cyclists is being hit from behind. Contrariwise, those facts or principles that disagree with the person’s cognitive system are frequently dismissed as obviously erroneous and not worth further consideration. When a fact or principle absolutely contradicts a person’s cognitive system, that person readily ignores it as impossible. Even if that new fact or principle is correct, a person with a cognitive system that excludes such a fact or principle will not discard his present cognitive system in favor of one that agrees with the new fact or principle without very serious motivation.

When instruction in an erroneous system is motivated with emotionally powerful concepts like the fear of death, the intellectual result of an erroneous cognitive system is amplified into a damaging psychological condition. People who suffer from this condition believe that what they have been taught preserves their lives. Therefore, their minds refuse to accept knowledge that challenges their belief. For example, even though they are shown the accepted statistics that motorist-overtaking-cyclist car-bike collisions cause only a very small portion of accidents to cyclists, they continue to fear most the traffic from behind. Even though no traffic accident statistics support the concept, they continue to act as if they believed that most accidents to cyclists are collisions from behind caused by merely being on the road or by insufficient room on the road.

Phobia Definitions

This type of psychological condition is called a phobia.

Here is the description of phobias published in Medline by the National Institutes of Health:

Phobias

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder. It is a strong, irrational fear of something that poses little or no actual danger. There are many specific phobias. Acrophobia is a fear of heights. You may be able to ski the world’s tallest mountains but be unable to go above the 5th floor of an office building. Agoraphobia is a fear of public places, and claustrophobia is a fear of closed-in places. If you become anxious and extremely self-conscious in everyday social situations, you could have a social phobia. Other common phobias involve tunnels, highway driving, water, flying, animals and blood. (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/phobias.html)

Here are the diagnostic criteria for phobias from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association:

Diagnostic criteria for 300.29 Specific Phobia

A. Marked and persistent fear that is excessive or unreasonable, cued by the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation (e.g., flying, heights, animals, receiving an injection, seeing blood).

B. Exposure to the phobic stimulus almost invariably provokes an immediate anxiety response . . .

C. The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or unreasonable.

D. The phobic situation(s) is avoided or else is endured with intense anxiety or distress.

E. The avoidance, anxious anticipation, or distress in the feared situation(s) interferes significantly with the person’s normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or social activities or relationships, or there is marked distress about having the phobia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia#Diagnosis, The diagnostic criteria for 300.29 Specific Phobias as outlined by the DSM-IV-TR)

Cyclist-Inferiority Phobia

The cyclist-inferiority phobia has two aspects: the physical fear of same-direction motor traffic and the social fear of trespassing on roads owned by cars. The phobic fear of same-direction motor traffic is not related to actual car-bike collisions as shown by the accident statistics, but is a greatly exaggerated fear of one type of car-bike collision that is quite rare. The social fear of acting illegitimately has some basis in social prejudice, but traffic law says that cyclists are legitimate roadway users.

It is impossible to doubt the existence of these fears and their efficacy. The motorists’ program to control bicycle traffic, the governmental program for bicycle transportation, and the advocacy of the bicycle advocates are all based on it. Furthermore, the bicycle advocates, certainly, and the government, probably, proclaim that these fears are the strongest deterrent to bicycle transportation. They all agree about the fears and their efficacy.

What they hate is having these fears categorized as a phobia. Their only defense is that this physical fear and feeling of illegitimacy are normal, that everybody normally has these fears. This is clearly false. Cyclists, such as myself, who were raised without the cyclist-inferiority phobia don’t have it; furthermore, when they observe it in others, they recognize that it is an unreasonable fear. Once they know the car-bike collision statistics, they recognize it as a greatly exaggerated fear of what is not very dangerous, and hence is, by definition, a phobic fear. There are many other cyclists who were raised in the presence of the phobia (the magnitude of its individual effect not determined) and who have overcome it through successful experience of cycling in traffic.

The victim of a phobia feels a fear. Therefore, the victim believes that whatever he or she fears is dangerous. Therefore, the victim will not willingly expose himself or herself to the feared object. Therefore, the victim believes, without consciously willing it, that his fear has protected his life. Therefore, the victim’s mind rejects any thoughts that might weaken that fear, lest a reduced fear would allow the person to expose himself or herself to that danger and thereby be killed by it. This is usually a normal and life-preserving mechanism, but when it is based on incorrect facts, it becomes a dangerous phobia.

The fact that most Americans feel these fears, and that American policy for bicycle transportation is based on them, does not demonstrate that the condition is not a phobia. The test of a phobia is not whether it is confined to a small minority but whether its fears distort reality and whether its victims insist on retaining their fears after being informed of the truth. The cyclist-inferiority phobia matches both criteria.

There is no definite distinction between the cyclist-inferiority cognitive system and the cyclist-inferiority phobia. The difference is merely one of the degree of fear that is involved. If a person’s cognitive system regarding cycling were merely an intellectual appreciation, without emotional involvement, of lies that had been told him, and if that person had concern for cyclists or cycling, then once that person learned the truth, that person would quickly discard the cyclist-inferiority cognitive system and start to believe in the vehicular-cycling principle instead. The facts and reason are overwhelmingly in favor of that change. The fact that very few Americans without cycling experience who have been presented with the truth have made that change says that for very few Americans this is a purely intellectual issue. The corresponding fact that many Americans who are concerned with cycling affairs have been presented with the truth but still argue vociferously for the cyclist-inferiority superstition says that for a great many Americans, this issue possesses great emotional power and is therefore properly described as a phobia. Furthermore, those with the phobia are the most politically potent persons who thereby control American cycling policy and programs.

The accuracy of the categorization as a phobia is demonstrated by the effective treatment. The effective treatment for phobias is successful, repeated exposure to the feared object with gradually increasing intensity. By this means, the victim’s subconscious mind learns that the feared object is not dangerous. The victim can then undertake rational thought about the object and can cure himself. The only known cure for the cyclist-inferiority phobia is repeated, successful exposure to traffic of gradually increasing intensity. Successful exposure is not merely riding in traffic without getting killed. People can ride in traffic according to the bad methods that bike-safety training teaches, principally curb-hugging. When they do so they get into troubles, but their minds interpret those troubles as evidence of the danger that they fear, an interpretation that reinforces their fear. Only when they have had so many troubles and so much experience that they start to think for themselves and discover that when they rode like other drivers, deliberately or more likely inadvertently, they started to have success. Obviously, very few cyclists make this change for themselves, and it takes about ten years to learn that riding as the driver of a vehicle is the safest and most efficient way of cycling. Education provides the learning of experience without bumbling through the actual experiences in a random manner. Effective Cycling training succeeds by guiding the cyclist through the experiences of successful traffic cycling in a few weeks.

Effects of the Cyclist-Inferiority Phobia

The most obvious effect of the cyclist-inferiority phobia is the insistent demand for bikeways, facilities whose only consistent function is to provide the illusion of being protected from same-direction motor traffic. That’s the product of the fear aspect of the phobia. The social aspect of the phobia manifests itself in insistent demands for signs and other items that proclaim the legitimacy of bicycle traffic—nay, even the possibility that bicycle traffic might be present on this road, lest society lapse into ignoring such an important part of the world’s traffic.

As discussed elsewhere, the phobia thoroughly disagrees with standard traffic-engineering knowledge. Indeed, the phobia has no scientific support; it is based entirely on faith that has no rational explanation beyond the popularity of the faith. Therefore, when a believer’s assumptions are questioned, he cannot give a rational answer because none is possible within the boundaries of his faith. The believer’s attempts to produce rational explanations frequently produce logical inconsistencies. The result of attempting discussion is all too frequently nothing more than an emotional wrangle.

One might say that the bicycle advocate has some scientific support when he introduces air pollution or global warming. Whatever may be the accuracy of his claims on these subjects, that accuracy is irrelevant to determining the best method of accommodating bicycle traffic.