Brad M

So why did you post it?

Brian Ratliff

There is no need for the "probably," you could read the letters. Most are actually from the driving public, though there are a significant number from the cycling public as well. Remember though, that letters in forums, blogs, and the editorial page are not necessarily representative of the entire public. The volume and subject of these posts simply point out that this subject is one which raises emotions on both sides.

Like I said in the OP, you can sing your song, but bring something new to the table. What personal experiences have you had where bike lanes were reinforcing the notion of a obligation to stay out of the way, and why do you think this behavior was caused by bike lanes specifically? You have spoken very little about your 30+ years of experience, surely in that time and in your cycling in other states and countries you have some tales to tell which allowed Forester's (and other's) words to ring so true. I want a discussion on these topics, but one grounded in personal experiences and not on theory and semantics.

genec

Actually unfortunately I can testify that the reactions of some motorists are quite along the line that HH mentions... and I do support BL for fast busy roads. I do not support BL for roads under 35MPH.

I have heard motorists yelling at me to "get in the BL" when said BL did not even exist... it was only the fog line along a particular road that in a short distance turned into several right turn lanes. The motorist did not care, they saw a wide striped area and determined that I should be "over there" vice in "their" lane... never mind that there were two lanes and the traffic at the moment was quite light and I was not impeding their progress.

But along the same line, on a different road, at a different time... no BL involved, I have been "commanded" to "get on the sidewalk."

So my personal experience is that some motorists just want cyclists out of the way... period... they don't care... anything that makes them take their foot of the gas pedal is just too much for some folks. And this too can be illustrated... try driving down a multilaned road a just a few MPH below the speed LIMIT and watch the reactions of motorists behind you... Yup, the same rage and frustration... in spite of a lane or two to which they could move...

These folks will not be satisfied until they do own the road... period. There is no solution for them... That I know of.

chipcom 

Gene hit it on the head...perhaps without knowing it. Bike lanes are not the problem, because if there was no bike lane drivers would still think we need to be on the sidewalk or on the shoulder. This proves that there is greater benefit towards educating the public concerning the right of bicycles to use the roadways, than could be accomplished by opposing bike lanes - which after all are genies already out of the bottle, putting the top back on isn't going to cause them to go away.

Besides, the vast majority of cyclists want bike lanes, bike paths, MUPs and other facilities, so it's pointless and counter productive to oppose them when our efforts could be better spent gaining guarantees to our right to use the roadways as well and educating the public concerning those rights.

sbhikes

Impressions during the video (which I watched before reading the article or this thread): Why is he touching the bus? Is he trying to grab on for a ride? Later, is the bus going to turn right into the cyclist? Then, is the cyclist trying to catch up to the bus and put his bike on the rack? Then, is that guy helping him because he is hurt or is he beating him up? Oh, they're fighting. I've seen these hyper-angry cyclists before. That must be what happened.

The cyclist was a jerk. I didn't see the bus do anything wrong. Around here the buses must negotiate frightfully limited space. You have to step back from the curb sometimes. But these guys are masters at moving those enormous things in tiny spaces. I've come to learn that just because a bus comes close doesn't mean anything is wrong. Just hold your line.

I'm sorry to disagree with everybody but the cyclist was in the wrong. (That doesn't make what the driver and passenger did after the fact right--that was wrong, too.) He's obviously one of those militant guys who has forgotten how to have fun while cycling. He's swallowed the bitter pill of self-righteousness and now feels he must bludgeon everybody else over the head with it.

And he's got it all wrong. Rather than fight with the bus he should take his complaint to the city. If the bike lane is as bad as he said (the video was extremely pixelated but the pavement looked smooth to me), he needs to make the government understand that an unmaintained bike lane does not a bike lane make. That if they're going to provide a facility it must be provided for, otherwise it doesn't exist.

I-Like-To-Bike

Because he never gets tired of singing the same ol' song.

DCCommuter

I disagree strongly with the notion that the frustration exists because some cyclists selectively break traffic laws. Surveys show that 90% of motor vehicles don't stop completely at stop signs; where is the outrage? Most people have no notion of the laws of that apply to cyclists, and believe that even being in the road is vaguely illegal, and impeding a motor vehicle certainly is. So even if every cyclist stopped for every stop sign there would still be anti-cyclist sentiment. It's just bigotry, pure and simple.

I-Like-To-Bike

I agree 100% with DC Commuter's observation about cyclist law breaking behavior being a significant factor affecting motorist frustration or rage.

Two factors that IMO are far more significant are:
1. Does the cyclist's position/behavior have an affect on the specific driver's speed for ANY amount of any time or require the motorist to alter his position at all on the road. The legality of the cyclist's behavior is immaterial in this situation as far as the frustrated/irked motorist is concerned.
2. What is the color of the cyclist's skin or does he appear to be from a different social class than the motorist. Legality is also immaterial in this bad attitude situation.

some_guy282

I saw this story linked from Fark.com yesterday. I watched the video, and found it interesting. Even more interesting though (or sad rather) was the forum topic for link on Fark. It's full of posters who support the driver and the assailant, to put it mildly. More than one poster says they would have done the same thing, or that the assailant was their hero. There were many other typical comments about wanting to run over cyclists.

You can read the Fark thread here.

Dogbait

There is THIS from the Bicycle Transportation Alliance blog. The poster, Evan, is the executive director.

And there is THIS from BikePortland.org

Dogbait

Daily Commute

It would have been nice to see a stronger defense of the cyclist's right to be in the traffic lane from organizations that are supposed to represent the interests of cyclists.

shbikes, what prevented the bus driver from changing lanes to pass the cyclist? With a full lane to the bus driver's left, I don't see how anyone could say the driver had "frightfully limited space." Passing with only a foot of space is dangerous, regardless of the driver's skill. A strong wind gust could easily move a cyclist that far in an instant.

I also question the driver's need to pass the cyclist. Given the ebb and flow of traffic, it's clear that the bus wasn't going much faster than the cyclist. After all, the cyclist did catch up. That means the bus driver violated another basic rule of road courtesy--don't pass unless you can stay ahead. Maybe the bus driver should have just stayed a respectable distance behind the cyclist.

My experience with busses is that you generally must take the lane in front of them on roads with passing lanes. A lane that may be big enough for a car to pass safely is rarely big enough for a bus and a bike to share safely side-by-side. And if the bus is going to have to go into the left lane to get by us, it will block that lane anyway, so it might as well go into the entire left lane and leave us with the entire right lane.

P.S. I deleted the question that Dogbait answered because my question was quoted entirely in his answer. Brian, the 100-post limit is a very good experiment.

Bekologist

Antibike hostility in America is something that definetly needs addressing.

More needs to be done to get drivers to understand the rights of bicyclists on the roads.

Also, bicyclists in urban environments and everywhere, need to realize give and take is necessary for effective traffic flow, and close passing is an unfortunate reality of urban bicycling.

I'd estimate 3-5% of drivers pass too closely because THEY CAN, and want to play their part with a little 'educate the bicyclist.' You see this from commercial fleet drivers as well.

I believe an antibike culture pervades the bus barns and drivers' pools in this country.

Daily Commute

I think part of the problem is that two sets of cyclists do different things that annoy motorists, but motorists think it's the same people. Some cyclists prefer to ride like traffic--in the lane and stopping at red lights (HH's rolling stops aside). Others ride more like pedestrians--hugging the curb and treating traffic signals as advisory. Putting the two together, motorists say, "cyclists want to take the lane and break the rules."

Another problem is that motorist don't realize how often they break traffic rules. Car drivers often treat speed limits speed minimums (if that). They also frequently don't fully stop at stop signs or yield to pedestrians in cross walks.

sbhikes

That's not the point. The point is the way the cyclist responded was wrong. He was a hot-head. He had a bike lane. If he'd used it he wouldn't have had the problem. And if the bike lane is unusable he should take his anger out on the city and get them to make it useable or remove it or whatever it takes to solve the situation. Taking it out on the bus driver was only taking it out on the nearest target and wasn't going to solve anything.

genec

All cyclists appear to be in a different social class than motorists... we are after all riding bikes, not driving cars. To a motorist, that means "different."

genec

The problem is that motorists that violate the law rationalize that it is OK for them at the moment... but if they see another motorist doing it, or a cyclist... well then there is hell to pay.

Look, we cyclists do the same thing... "no one is around, so I'll run this... " But if you did that and had a close call with another cyclist that you had failed to notice... then "they" would be the dickheads... right?

The problem is that many cyclists do this right in front of motorists... therefore we are all to blame.

The other factor that has not even been mentioned is that a cyclist can often stop and start again in less time than a motorist can even stop... mass, or lack of it, in this case, is what allows one to change momentum so quickly. This is not to say that a car cannot stop in less distance... but usually the cyclist is going slower and can regain that speed quicker.

sbhikes

Oh and another thing. Now that the video has been plastered all over the Internet and who knows where else, look at what he has done for the image of cyclists. Zealouts, whackos, all of us.

On the otherhand, now that he's got video proof of the dangerous conditions the city has created for cyclists he might have more power to change things.

CommuterRun

What the cyclist did was probably not the way I would have dealt with this.

What the driver of the bus did just proves he's one of the drivers I would consider to be Moron Cager.

What the passenger did was inexcusable and definately opens up the bus company to being sued and I sincerely hope they lose badly, financially. I also hope the passenger is identified and winds up sharing accommodations with Big Bubba, or at least he tangles with somebody badder than him and gets severely beaten.

Daily Commute

I agree that stopping the bus was hot headed and wrong.

But before that, with the bike lane unusable, what should the cyclist have done? Complaining to the city is not an option in a middle of a commute. I stand by my contention that he should have been in the traffic lane, farther to the left.

Also, you didn't say why you thought the bus driver could not have changed lanes and passed in the left lane. Or, better yet, why the driver should have passed at all if the bus couldn't stay ahead of the cyclist.


Your post reminds me of what I call the two Golden Myths of Cycling:

I-Like-To-Bike

My point is: only cyclists that upset motorists' equilibrium are thought about at all; cyclists that are "not in their way" are irrelevant to most motorists.

In this situation, as described in the news article (I have not seen the video) it appears that the cyclist made numerous efforts to disturb the equillibrium of the bus driver, if not deliberate attempts to provoke a confrontation.


To head off a nutty rant by one of the three ignoring monkeys, who may be peeking, deliberatly taking action to be "noticed" does not have any known benefit of protecting cyclists from hyped up risks of "dangerous drifting."

sbhikes

He could have a) taken another route, b) moved over so as to avoid being hit by the bus, c) taken more of the lane, d) did one of HH's slow/stop signals, e) anything else. What he chose to do didn't help much.

I don't know what the bus driver could have done. The 4-quadrant video was a little hard to make out exactly the circumstances. It kinda appeared like the cyclist was reaching for the bus, not that the bus was reaching for the cyclist. If it would have been me I would have moved over out of an instinct for self-preservation.

The thing is it's like 4 mintues of pixelated video. None of us really knows the whole story. If the guy is a BF member maybe he could tell his side of the story.

Oh, and by the way there's a bunch of stuff in my morning paper today about rolling through stops and how annoying it is the way people drive around here. Drivers do complain about other drivers just as much as we complain about them. But genec is right. It's always everybody else who is wrong and when I roll through I stop it's because I've got a good excuse.

Dogbait

On this bridge, busses and trucks are prohibited in the left lanes. In the center spans, the lanes are too narrow and have impaired overhead and side clearance. We can't really see from the video what traffic is on the left of the bus. Although there seems to be room in the left lane, it is not a practical option. If the bus moves into the left lane and cars behind it fill in the right lane, as they are certain to do, the bus is stuck out there in a lane from which it is prohibited. I say this from the experience of hundreds of crossings of that bridge in a large truck. That does not let the bus driver off the hook. The proper course of action would have been to slow down and follow behind the cyclist since there was not enough room to pass safely. This would have added very little (if any, since the bus had to stop on the bridge because of traffic anyway) time to the crossing for the bus. In any event, the cyclist has to leave the roadway and get on the sidewalk in 30 to 40 yards because of the steel grating on the lift span. Slowing to bicycle speed for this short distance is not a huge inconvienence for a bus or any other large, slow vehicle.

As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, the bus driver, the passenger and the cyclist all have a share of the blame for this incident. Any one of them could have prevented the assault by backing off...... but that's not what happens when everyone wants to be the top dog.

Dogbait

Bekologist

This isn't a comment about fault or guilt about this incident, but if a bike commuter is riding a bike that can't handle some gravel in a bike lane, maybe it's time for the bicyclist to be looking at a different bicycle, one more well suited to urban commuting.

The bicyclist had a bike lane and he refused to ride in it. Sounds to me like he should have been ready for some close passes. Like other cyclists have commented in A&S, it doesn't matter how much room you take in the lane, some drivers will always pass you too closely, because they can. There's jerks on the road everyday.

This bicyclist was ostensibly prepared for this, he had a clearance flag protruding from his left axle. Sounds like a pretty defensive commuter accessory. But he didn't have another valuable commuting accesssory, tires burly enough to handle street debris in a bike lane.

Maybe he WAS just lane grabbing because he wanted to show the bus that "bikes have rights to drive in the lanes" too! (I've seen that somewhere on Bike Forums before, funny...)

I take the lane plenty, but I also yield the lane when possible to make traffic flow more smoothly. I'll slow down, and take to a narrow position, to let a bus pass me by, sometimes even pulling in behind a parked car and doing a trackstand, to let the bus/big truck pass me by, if I'm not riding like a jerk. I'll definetly ride a little road debris if it means the difference between a driver passing too closely or passing with adequate clearance, and i'm not moving so fast the debris becomes a major safety issue.

However, the bicyclist chose to get bent out of shape, then blocked a bus full of other commuters, because he got passed in a narrow outside lane, when there was still a usable bike lane to his right.

I think once it got that far and a commuter was assaulting him, the biker should have been ready to go for broke. He should have been packing some pepper spray, hosed down his assaulter with it, throw the asshat down in front of the bus, and continued on his way.

FastFreddy

The postings on BikePortland.org are a good read – if a little long. One detail I got from there: there is a high curb separating the bike lane from the regular traffic lane on that bridge. There are also a couple of photos.

Personal Experience: If I have the option to ride with a physical barrier between me and motorized traffic, I take it – rare exception -- if the path is in really bad shape. Gravel wouldn’t stop me – I use 700x35 kevlar-belted tires which also handle glass 99% of the time. I’m not saying that a cyclist who finds the path unsuitable doesn’t have the right to use the street -- only that I’d prefer the gravel to the busses and cars.

I agree that all three parties are at fault – but that the behavior of the passenger on the bus is the most outrageous, the bus driver second worst, and the cyclist wrong but not quite as contemptible as the other two.

Daily Commute

Some cyclists prefer the gravel over the cars. Some prefer the cars over the gravel. That should be the cyclists' choice. Otherwise, the striping of the bike lane takes away space from cyclists instead of adding it.

Although I prefer wider tires, but you should be allowed to ride a road bike on the road. If the city can't keep the bike lanes in good enough condition for a road bike with 700x23 tires, no one should complain that some cyclists choose to ride with traffic. I thought y'all (I'm not including you in this FastFreddy) believed in bike facilities for all cyclists.

I also find it interesting that the quotes from Evan Manvelof, BTA's executive director, about Portland busses seem to be contradicted by what everyone else (including Brian) says. ("TriMet has had an open door to hear the needs of the cycling community, and I think they are making a good faith effort to be good partners.") Evan talks about how pro-cyclist the bus company is. Why is his opinion so different than everyone else's? Evan seems more interested in staying on the bus company's good side than helping cyclists.