
The cyclist behind an anti-cyclist Facebook group - lamby
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/08/finding-mr-x/
======
seren
Compelling reading.

There should be a name for the phenomenon of a satirical, ironic or trolling
community turning into the real deal, by aggregating people taking the issue
seriously.

This seems to be a repeating pattern.

In this case, it seems to be slightly more complex but still it begs the
question if by keeping posting fake news or stories, you start believing them,
consciously or unconsciously.

~~~
Jonnax
A user on hacker news years ago put it well like this:

"Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually
be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good
company"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1011498](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1011498)

~~~
js2
That's a variation of Poe's law:

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly
impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake
for the genuine article."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)

~~~
seren
It is a corollary but it is an application to people in large numbers.

Since, in the long term, there is always less people in on the joke than new
followers, you are guaranteed that the community is going to be taken over in
the end.

------
pjc50
"In a nutshell, that’s why this story matters: because the hate preached on
anti-cycling Facebook pages isn’t confined to the digital realm. It’s a poison
that bleeds from the screen into the real world, where aggression towards
cyclists is very real, and very deadly"

Goes for a lot of other things too.

Cycling seems to be a really inflammatory subject for online discussion, and
I've never really been sure why; it seems like a kind of identity politics.

~~~
Freak_NL
It seems like a regional thing though. In many European and Asian countries
there may be animosity between some cyclists and some drivers of cars, but not
the extreme polarisation seen in American (perhaps Australian and a few other
countries too?) communities.

~~~
michaelcampbell
There's a few things going on that I see (in the US), and probably many I
don't.

* Most US roads are not bicycle ready. They weren't designed to have mixed vehicles, they weren't built for it, and they don't do it well.

* Cyclists have been given a right to be on these roads, which can't safely handle them, by legislation.

* Having them there does impede traffic that the road WAS designed for.

* The US culture has devolved lately into a "my rights" based one.

* Both the car drivers who have historical precedent with "rights to be there" and the cyclists with the newfound legislative "right to be there" willfully fail to recognize the rights of the other.

* Both sets of drivers blame the other for the lack of adherence to safety and traffic laws. Both are correct.

~~~
frockington
As a US citizen I am the biggest hypocrite when it comes to
cyclists/pedestrians in the road. When in a car I think "They'll get out of my
way, I'll win in a fight" while riding a bicycle I think "What are they going
to do? Hit me".

~~~
bunderbunder
That's such a normal way of thinking in the US's transportation culture.
What's chronically absent from it is any sense of common courtesy.

So, inevitably, we end up in an inherently acrimonious situation: Everyone
smaller than you is treated as nothing but an obstacle to be avoided, and
everyone bigger than you is understood as a threat to your safety, and
everyone about your same size is regarded as that asshole who just cut you
off, or that asshole who needs to speed up and quit holding up traffic, etc.

We've become such misanthropists when it comes to transportation that it's
even common for people to aver that they don't like using public
transportation because they don't like how it brings them into regular social
contact with people they don't know, and nobody thinks that attitude the least
bit strange.

It's really quite odd, when you step back and look at it. Sad, too.

------
rwcarlsen
A (car) motorist crashed into my 5-year old son while he was riding his
bicycle through a cross-walk (legal here). She had a stop-sign and failed to
look right to see him before plowing forward. She ran over his bike, but he
was knocked back and escaped with only bruises and scrapes. He had clear
right-of-way.

Cyclists (the less considerate ones) can be unpredictable and frustrating for
cars - I appreciate that. But "Get off the roads!" is only a very small part
of the issue. Respect, training, and consequences commensurate with the level
of damage inflictable by cars is something very absent from US driving culture
(especially where I live in the relatively rural northwest). Cyclists whether
on the road, bike paths, sidewalks, etc. kill and seriously injure people with
negligible frequency compared to cars per mile.

------
jacknews
Compelling reading indeed; Even less work was done at this terminal than a
normal friday afternoon...

Is there not an equivalent "compulsory single file for motor vehicles"
petition?

I can envisage that first triptych that shows the bicycles spilling into the
car lanes, in reverse ... ie the roughly equally-capable fast-moving cars
should be in the single lane, with bikes, pedestrians and other road users
free to maneuver and accommodate one-another across multiple lanes.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>compulsory single file for motor vehicles" petition?

Yes. In suburbs and rural areas "think of the children" types routinely get
all their friends (usually stay at home parents and retirees) to complain to
the town that a particular instance of dotted yellow line is inappropriate.
Probably about half the time it backfires (e.g. they get a bunch of 4-way
stops or speed bumps to slow down traffic through their snowflake neighborhood
which results in them listening to every motorcycle accelerate off of every
one of those stops or every landscaping trailer make a racket going over the
bumps).

------
acomjean
Reminds me of VI hart and her anti pi agenda. She made a video explaining how
to get your followers passionate about your ideas (in this case pi< tau). Its
sort of tongue in cheek but it makes some points about social media and the
ability of it to influence people.

[http://vihart.com/tau-day-2018-suspend-your-
disbelief/](http://vihart.com/tau-day-2018-suspend-your-disbelief/)

~~~
KnightOfWords
Thanks, I hadn't seen that one.

------
SmellyGeekBoy
What a great opportunity to ignore a very interesting article on social
media's role in "fake news" and instead have a debate about cyclists vs.
motorists again. Well done everyone!

------
mtw
With deep learning and techniques such as text and image generation, as well
as the existence of motivated and well-funded state or corporate
organizations, I fear the age of social media as social manipulation is just
the beginning.

~~~
upofadown
Which I suspect is actually a good thing. People will eventually become
resistant to such manipulation. It happened in the world of computer BBSes
back in the day. It also happened in the world of USENET after that.
Compuserve, AOL, ... it's always the same thing. You end up with a group of
people with extreme troll resistance which I am pretty sure carries over into
day to day life and politics.

Facebook, and the like have exposed more people than ever before to online
trolling. It is very possible that the result might be a world where people
tend to think for themselves.

~~~
titzer
> It is very possible that the result might be a world where people tend to
> think for themselves.

Would be nice, but I don't think that's realistic. Look at the past few
millenia of religion in human civilization and it becomes increasingly clear
that humans are not just vulnerable to, but seem to be actively courting,
brainwashing. It's the default state. And religion and brainwashing have
plenty of expressions in the tech world, and science, too. Most people just
aren't critical thinkers.

~~~
fucking_tragedy
Brainwashing fills needs intellectual honesty cannot, which is why it has
historically won and will continue to win.

The closest we've come to filling those needs with intellectualism has both
manifested itself as pseudo-intellectualism and an almost religious take on
Enlightenment era philosophy.

------
kelukelugames
What the heck is a gun cyclist?

~~~
tesin
"Gun" is just a way of describing someone who's good at something. Australian
slang.

------
RandomInteger4
To all those commenting about "Whoa is me, the dastardly cyclists are running
red lights and stop signs", please look up the concept of an Idaho Stop.

Stop pretending that you're seeing these cyclists performing an Idaho stop
during busy traffic. You know full well they're paying attention a whole hell
of a lot more than you considering their life is on the line. You may not see
us looking both ways, because it only takes about 15 degrees of head movement
to allow our eyes to capture the full peripheral to check for oncoming traffic
and it's a hell of a lot more convenient for the drivers behind us to have
some distance between us.

The only reason this is a big deal is because humans are barely different from
monkeys on an emotional level and can't rational handle the concept of there
being a different legal context for a bike vs. a motor vehicle.

~~~
mynegation
I know about Idaho stop, but unless Idaho stop makes its way to the official
Rules of the Road of the respective state, province, or country, and its
knowledge gets verified at driver's test, it is irrelevant.

In the province I live in, there is no "Idaho stop". Rules are unambiguous: if
you are on the road, whatever you are driving, you STOP at the stop sign. No
guessing "do I/they do Idaho stop or not".

~~~
Fricken
The whole notion of treating bicycles as vehicular traffic was wayward and has
been debunked. It's really obvious that bicycles are not cars, you can tell
just by looking at them.

There are differing levels of enforcement in different places, but I've made
thousands, possibly tens of thousands of infractions on my bike in 35 years of
commuting, sometimes right in front of the police, and I've never had a
ticket. Is a rule really a rule if it isn't enforced?

If I say everyone needs to wear clown shoes to work on Wednesdays, is that a
rule? It doesn't mean jack-shit because I can't enforce it.

Drivers are held more carefully to the rules of the road, but given that
they're ensconced in a protective metal shell, they have a lot more leeway
with the law of the jungle. With cyclists it's the other way around.

~~~
mynegation
> The whole notion of treating bicycles as vehicular traffic was wayward and
> has been debunked. It's really obvious that bicycles are not cars, you can
> tell just by looking at them.

The same as with Idaho stop, it does not matter. Looking at something that
approaches the intersection, do I have to think what that is? What if it is a
bicycle with electric assist? Moped? Scooter? Is it electric? Is it with ICE?
Something in between the moped and the bike? Where do I draw the line? That is
way more thinking than just following the rules of all-way stop/or main
road/yield.

> There are differing levels of enforcement in different places, but I've made
> thousands, possibly tens of thousands of infractions on my bike in 35 years
> of commuting, sometimes right in front of the police, and I've never had a
> ticket. Is a rule really a rule if it isn't enforced?

Rules are there for your benefit, not police's.

> Drivers have to obey the rules of the road. Cyclists only have to obey the
> law of the jungle.

This quote right there pretty much explains why there is so much anger towards
cyclists

~~~
Fricken
The rules are definitely not there for my benefit, the bearing they have on my
safety is incidental. I've got more important things to look out for than the
traffic signs. The roads were designed for cars and any attention given to
cyclists, the rules they shod obey, or design features to accomodate them is
largely an afterthought.

It really doesn't matter how cyclists behave, the anger will still be there,
because cyclists are part of the wrong tribe, their presence on the roads in
any capacity is viewed as a violation of the natural moral order.

When I'm cycling, whether or not I'm obeying the rules has little material
effect on a driver's ability to get from A to B, I'm courteous, but their
blood pressure still goes up. My advice to them is to see a doctor and get it
fixed.

------
ggm
Rob Pike and net.suicide?

------
st26
As a driver and a cyclist, it seems to me simply that many drivers have a
tremendous sense of entitlement. Everything else stems from that, otherwise
poor behavior would just be an annoyance instead of triggering actual
murderous rage.

~~~
daxorid
_many drivers have a tremendous sense of entitlement_

It seems to me to be precisely the opposite. It is _extremely common_ to see
cyclists have a full 4-5 foot shoulder to ride on, but they _always_ choose to
ride as close to vehicular traffic as possible. Sometimes even _on_ the white
line. By doing so, they endanger everybody, and the only explanation for this
behavior is entitlement.

So, cyclists, please change my mind: when you have a wide shoulder to occupy,
and you choose to ride so close to the left of it that your handlebars are in
serious danger of being clipped by vehicular traffic, why? Why not the middle
of the shoulder, or, god forbid, the right side of it?

edit: thanks for the enlightening replies.

~~~
titanomachy
Often, there is more gravel or sand or other crap as you get closer to right
edge of the shoulder. Also, potholes are more common at the edge of the road
in some places. The leftmost part of the shoulder is usually the clearest and
smoothest. And if there are cars parked on the right, it's good to have some
clearance in case someone throws open their door without looking.

I'll try to ride as far right as possible, especially on a busy street. But
those other dangers are quite real, especially once you've picked up a bit of
speed. In the areas I ride, cars can't really go much faster than bikes anyway
(except they accelerate faster). So the relative speed of a car in motion is
less than all the stationary stuff on the right that can hurt me. My city has
a lot of cyclists and bike-friendly roads, so drivers are relatively alert and
used to slowing down for cyclists. As a driver, the only time I find cyclists
annoying is when they ride on the roads without shoulders or bike lanes and
take a whole lane.

------
jvannistelrooy
As someone from Amsterdam who owns a car, commutes by bike, and rides a road
bike for sports, my opinion is that it's mostly the road cyclists who create
unsafe situations. Sure, car drivers are not free of any blame, but they tend
to stick better to the rules than cyclists.

If you're an avid road cyclist like me, there's a big changes you've done all
these things more than once: \- Crossed a red light. \- Ride on the road while
there's a cycling lane next to it. \- Cut corners. \- Ride a bit to fast in
busy area's (maybe to keep your Strava average high) \- Pass an normal cyclist
a bit to close.

~~~
dexterpe
This is a lie. Cyclists and Motorists break the rules at the same rate.
[https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-
bicyclis...](https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclists-
and-motorists-ignore-traffic-laws-similar-rates)

------
chrisseaton
I think the hypocrisy and self righteousness of some movements like fanatical
cycling particularly gets people worked up online.

(Complaining about car drivers being unsafe but then constantly running red
lights themselves.)

~~~
7952
We apply very draconian rules to motorists, and then people get upset when
those same kind of rules are not applied to other users. It is very
inconsistent and that makes people angry. But this ignores the fact that motor
vehicles are exceptional in terms of the harm they can cause simply due to
weight and speed. That is why we need draconian and annoying laws, but only
for motor vehicles. The risk posed by bikes and pedestrians is so small that
strictly enforced rules would be authoritarian and restrict freedom to an
unacceptable degree.

I do agree that cyclists should follow rules. But the magnitutde of danger
caused by rule breaking is massively lower and that should be acknowledged. A
dangerous driver is committing a worse crime than a careless cyclist.

Also, cyclists are not some homogeneous group. The person complaining about
dangerous drivers is not neccessarily the person going through a red light.

~~~
chrisseaton
> The risk posed by bikes and pedestrians is so small

I don't know... cars stay on the road where I live. Cyclists will happily ride
on the pavement and justify it with 'the road's too dangerous to cycle on'.
They seem to consciously be happy with endangering people more vulnerable than
themselves in order to keep themselves safe... which is what they criticise
car drivers with.

I'm more concerned in practice about my three-year old daughter being hit by a
cyclist on the pavement, than by a car on the road.

~~~
belorn
As a daily cyclist I commonly see parents with strollers on the bike road. For
my bike road to work there is a down slope followed by a sharp turn, and there
the city planners have made a temporary combined bike road and pavement for
the last couple of years during construction. It is very common to see
strollers during there, people in wheelchairs or groups of small children.

The city seems happy with endangering people. Parents seems happy with
endangering babies there. No one has ever been charged with endangering of
children, and I have never seen anyone stopping a parent with a stroller and
telling them that they are endangering their child by walking on a bike road.
If anything I also see an increase of strollers during the time when the road
is full of ice. The order in which the city clear out snow and ice is roads >
bike roads > pavement, and parents with strollers do not want to walk in snow.
Given the alternative most seems to pick the bike road.

Other fun participants I have seen on exclusive bike roads is 4-5 year olds
learning to bike with training wheels. Just like with strollers I always give
them a bit extra distance when passing them, which might explain why there has
been zero deaths or injuries from bike hitting strollers or young children
even through those are common sights on bike roads. If one wonder the cause of
that I think one just need to check the average speed of bikes in a city and
the reaction and braking speed.

I am sure if a parent would take a stroller and walk on the road against car
traffic then social service would have a very strong opinion about it. That
would actually be unsafe behavior and traffic records support in every way
that bikes are safe and cars are not. Being more concerned about a three-year
old being hit by a cyclist on the pavement than by a car on the road is flying
against statistics, and I would say actual behavior. Would you honestly say
that your reaction to a parent walking with a stroller on a bike road would be
identical to a parent walking with a stroller against car traffic on the road?

~~~
7952
I think it is great that the parent feels safe enough to do that. Cyclists
should yield to pedestrians if need be and not get upset about it.

~~~
belorn
This might sound odd but I agree. It is good that it is safe for bike and
pedestrians to be on the same road, and a common rule of thumb for cooperation
is that whoever is faster should yield to those who are slower. That is true
for boats and planes, often true for cars and trucks.

A lot of tensions and unnecessary fear would be resolved if we just applied
common sense and speed limits to roads. Have pavement and most bike roads like
today but put a speed limit to that of a running person (around 15km/h
(9mph)). At those speed and lower there is no safety concerns and tolerance
between cyclists and pedestrians should be encourage. Then we have fast bike
lanes with a max speed of 30km/h (18mph) and city car roads with the more
common 40km/h (24mph) and 50km/h (31mph), both which pedestrian use should be
discouraged because of the danger from increased reaction, braking and
stopping time. If two roads of different speed cross then the lower speed
limit should be used and who ever is faster should yield, and if accidents
still happens then traffic lights, speed bumps, cameras and other methods to
reduce speed should be applied.

By focusing on reaction, braking and stopping time you get a fairly decent
prediction model of accident rates. This is what our assessment about what is
dangerous should be based on.

