Even if the terms in the conflict have changed in a little over a century, it seems to me that the structure of the conflict and supposed threat remains strangely persistent.

In the early auto age, autoists were also sometimes demonized. So at least part of this is numbers: Where and when bicycling is common, bicyclists aren’t available to be demonized; where and when they are few, they become an Other, and attract disproportionate rage and fear.

Finally, with @18, bicyclists do in fact enjoy a freedom and connection denied to autoists, so it’s not surprising autoists might be a little jealous!

I’ve observed that a lot of “anti-bike” people (and it’s staggering to think they exist, but they do) call bikes “dangerous,” meaning that they are dangerous to the cyclist. Just do a google news search of “bike” and “accident” and look at the reader comments, even on articles about fatal accidents, where you’d suppose there would be an outpouring of sympathy. You’ll see a lot of comments about how bikes should be banned from roadways because they (the bikes) are dangerous… presumably to their riders. The cars, of course, are merely there, like bad weather, or inevitable resident beasts of prey whose lairs have been incautiously invaded by idiot bikers who have no sense of self-preservation.

I’m not sure where the ire comes from, exactly. I’d like to think it’s that drivers don’t want to have to add another hazard to attend to, and want to be good & not run down a cyclist.

But it really just seems like another instance in which the convenience of drivers is weighed against the safety of bikers, and convenience wins, even though the loss to convenience is, say, a matter of seconds lost in a trip, and the fractional effort it takes to turn a steering wheel and push on a brake pedal.

So why would someone get so angry about making such a small sacrifice for someone’s safety?

Maybe driving is deeply alienating. Most drivers are alone. Their only way to communicate with other drivers is through obstructed eye contact, a horn, and lights to flash. Hence, the angry monologue inside the confines of the car… something like commenting on a blog, but with no hope of response.

“but they are required to yield to motorists.” - what!! Abosuletly insane priorities.

At the same time, we have no speed limits on cycle paths here. Plenty of “hardcore” cyclists ride at extremely high speeds on cycle paths on busy commuting routes and between towns. That’s what they are for. It is what they are engineered for. No-one has to “find a road”.

There should be no confusion between places that children play and busy routes.

Why must it be less traveled and have a decent shoulder? How about “find a road”?