When it comes to cycling, online comment sections are full of vitriol. Few topics generate the type of hard feelings and passion as cycling, especially when that cycling is occurring on roads.
According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate® Dictionary, the word “road” is defined as:
“an open way for vehicles, persons, and animals especially : one lying outside of an urban district”
Nothing in this definition leads one to believe that a road exists solely for motor vehicles. Yet, that is the primary source of driver angst over and disgust with cyclists.
Drivers have resorted to numerous tactics to keep bicycles off of the roads, which they believe exist for them and their convenience. Some of them try to act sympathetic to cyclists by pointing to the dangers of riding a bicycle on a road. Their comments are filled with concern for the welfare of cyclists.
Most of this concern is not genuine. You can tell by the negative picture they paint of cycling and their explanation of the problems caused by allowing bicycles on the roads. Rather than admitting that they don’t want bicycles on the roads, they focus on the human aspect of cycling to make themselves appear reasonable.
Other drivers resort to personal attacks to express their displeasure over having to share the road with bicycles. They repeat the same old stereotypical descriptions of cyclists as scofflaws, entitlement minded elitists or Tour de France competitor wannabes.
By making riders of bicycles look bad, they are trying to prove that cyclists are not worthy of the privilege of riding on the roads. And, they are trying to blame cyclists for all of the problems between cars and bicycles and pedestrians.
Attacking another person as a member of a group to which you don’t belong is not only a way to justify discrimination, but it is also a way to build a following for your own biased opinions. An online version of this phenomenon can often be seen in cycling article comment sections.
Another type of driver comes to the discussion armed with facts and figures about road construction. These drivers throw around all sorts of terms about lane width requirements, vehicle weight requirements and any other scientific sounding information which makes it seem as if roads weren’t designed for bicycles and can’t be modified to accommodate them.
Subtypes of the above-mentioned groups exist. But, for the most part, their comments fall in line with the general themes already mentioned.
Amid all of this thinly veiled anti-cyclist sentiment is a stealthy type of commenter who generally operates below the radar. This commenter is what one could call the “cyclist admonishing cyclist.”
Cyclist admonishing cyclists can be identified by self-identification and related disclaimers. They usually start off by identifying themselves as a cyclist, often with the words “I am a cyclist…” This, perhaps, is done to lend more credence to the weight of their words.
After all, if this person is a cyclist, then he or she should know all about cyclists and cycling. Any comments made by such a person are coming from first-hand experience.
Most people would expect a cyclist to be sympathetic to other cyclists and to be in favor of allowing bicycles on the roads. This is exactly what the cyclist admonishing cyclist is banking on.
Critical words coming from him will be more damaging. He is seen as a turncoat, one who is ratting out his own kind.
Having read countless comments of this kind, I have begun to wonder whether commenters who begin their comments by identifying themselves as cyclists — and then go on to make solely negative comments about other cyclists — are really cyclists. I don’t doubt that some cyclists are highly critical of the behavior of other cyclists. But, what is suspicious is their use of stereotypes and their conclusion that bicycles don’t belong on the roads.
Take this comment for instance.
This self-proclaimed cyclist starts out by calling for more regulation for all road users and then goes on to criticize cyclists, without mentioning the bad behavior of drivers or pedestrians.
“I have seen many times cyclists jumping red lights going across the path of oncoming traffic as they ‘nip through’ I’ve also been a pedestrian when cyclists have ignored the pedestrian right of way lights to weave through people, often scaring them and I’ve also witnessed a near collision between a car and cyclist in a car park, the cyclist waved his fist at cars as he raced through going far too fast for a car park where pedestrians and cars are manovering.”
Note the 182 up votes on this comment. Although I didn’t read all 800 comments on this article, 182 votes of approval was the highest number I saw for any comment.
If there were only occasional comments written in this vein, I would see them as indicative of dissenting cyclist opinions. No one would expect all cyclists to see things the same way.
Yet, after reading comment section after comment section where multiple comments of this type appeared, I have begun to suspect that the writers of such comments are drivers with anti-bicycle views. Consequently, I take everything they say with a grain of salt.
It’s never easy to determine the character or motives of anyone you encounter online. Still, when patterns emerge, you must ask yourself whether this is a sincere opinion coming from someone who happens to agree with drivers about cyclists, or a ploy to lend credence to anti-cyclist arguments.
This is yet another reason why cyclists must advocate for themselves. As unpleasant as online comment sections are, they should not be dominated by anti-cyclists.
Cyclists must grit their teeth and write calm, rational comments refuting the stereotypes. When they neglect to do this, it appears as if pro-cyclist citizens are a very small minority.
Minority or not, cyclists must make their voices heard or the deafening anti-cyclist comment section chants will continue indefinitely, unchallenged.
Identifying Oneself As A Cyclist In Order To Criticize Cyclists
When it comes to cycling, online comment sections are full of vitriol. Few topics generate the type of hard feelings and passion as cycling, especially when that cycling is occurring on roads.
According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate® Dictionary, the word “road” is defined as:
Nothing in this definition leads one to believe that a road exists solely for motor vehicles. Yet, that is the primary source of driver angst over and disgust with cyclists.
Drivers have resorted to numerous tactics to keep bicycles off of the roads, which they believe exist for them and their convenience. Some of them try to act sympathetic to cyclists by pointing to the dangers of riding a bicycle on a road. Their comments are filled with concern for the welfare of cyclists.
Most of this concern is not genuine. You can tell by the negative picture they paint of cycling and their explanation of the problems caused by allowing bicycles on the roads. Rather than admitting that they don’t want bicycles on the roads, they focus on the human aspect of cycling to make themselves appear reasonable.
Other drivers resort to personal attacks to express their displeasure over having to share the road with bicycles. They repeat the same old stereotypical descriptions of cyclists as scofflaws, entitlement minded elitists or Tour de France competitor wannabes.
By making riders of bicycles look bad, they are trying to prove that cyclists are not worthy of the privilege of riding on the roads. And, they are trying to blame cyclists for all of the problems between cars and bicycles and pedestrians.
Attacking another person as a member of a group to which you don’t belong is not only a way to justify discrimination, but it is also a way to build a following for your own biased opinions. An online version of this phenomenon can often be seen in cycling article comment sections.
Another type of driver comes to the discussion armed with facts and figures about road construction. These drivers throw around all sorts of terms about lane width requirements, vehicle weight requirements and any other scientific sounding information which makes it seem as if roads weren’t designed for bicycles and can’t be modified to accommodate them.
Subtypes of the above-mentioned groups exist. But, for the most part, their comments fall in line with the general themes already mentioned.
Amid all of this thinly veiled anti-cyclist sentiment is a stealthy type of commenter who generally operates below the radar. This commenter is what one could call the “cyclist admonishing cyclist.”
Cyclist admonishing cyclists can be identified by self-identification and related disclaimers. They usually start off by identifying themselves as a cyclist, often with the words “I am a cyclist…” This, perhaps, is done to lend more credence to the weight of their words.
After all, if this person is a cyclist, then he or she should know all about cyclists and cycling. Any comments made by such a person are coming from first-hand experience.
Most people would expect a cyclist to be sympathetic to other cyclists and to be in favor of allowing bicycles on the roads. This is exactly what the cyclist admonishing cyclist is banking on.
Critical words coming from him will be more damaging. He is seen as a turncoat, one who is ratting out his own kind.
Having read countless comments of this kind, I have begun to wonder whether commenters who begin their comments by identifying themselves as cyclists — and then go on to make solely negative comments about other cyclists — are really cyclists. I don’t doubt that some cyclists are highly critical of the behavior of other cyclists. But, what is suspicious is their use of stereotypes and their conclusion that bicycles don’t belong on the roads.
Take this comment for instance.
This self-proclaimed cyclist starts out by calling for more regulation for all road users and then goes on to criticize cyclists, without mentioning the bad behavior of drivers or pedestrians.
Note the 182 up votes on this comment. Although I didn’t read all 800 comments on this article, 182 votes of approval was the highest number I saw for any comment.
If there were only occasional comments written in this vein, I would see them as indicative of dissenting cyclist opinions. No one would expect all cyclists to see things the same way.
Yet, after reading comment section after comment section where multiple comments of this type appeared, I have begun to suspect that the writers of such comments are drivers with anti-bicycle views. Consequently, I take everything they say with a grain of salt.
It’s never easy to determine the character or motives of anyone you encounter online. Still, when patterns emerge, you must ask yourself whether this is a sincere opinion coming from someone who happens to agree with drivers about cyclists, or a ploy to lend credence to anti-cyclist arguments.
This is yet another reason why cyclists must advocate for themselves. As unpleasant as online comment sections are, they should not be dominated by anti-cyclists.
Cyclists must grit their teeth and write calm, rational comments refuting the stereotypes. When they neglect to do this, it appears as if pro-cyclist citizens are a very small minority.
Minority or not, cyclists must make their voices heard or the deafening anti-cyclist comment section chants will continue indefinitely, unchallenged.