Cyclosaurus

Who said anything about feeding an ego? We're talking about people who put others repeatedly in life-threatening situations out of ignorance, malice, and apathy. Standing up for yourself is not a matter of personal pride, it's about making roads safer for everyone. It seems pretty clear from your posts and your job as a semi-driver that your view is skewed by occupying a privileged position on the road. It means that you are going to have the same biases as most of the pro-car, anti-bike population at large. I spend a large part of my time traveling by bicycle, so I am very well acquainted with the myriad of defensive techniques needed to keep myself safe. I have a healthy sense of fear about being hit and if I was put in an unsafe position, I would do everything, including evasive maneuvers, to protect myself. At some point, I am still at the mercy of every driver on the road. But in your world, I'm still mostly at fault if I get hit, because I didn't pull off the side of the road the instant someone decided they wanted the space I am cycling in, and if they act aggressively enough, then I deserve anything they might do to me. The law already does virtually nothing when cyclists are killed. But perhaps in your view, they should reward those drivers who kill cyclists because they are teaching them an important lesson about how vulnerable they are and why they should just get out of the way.

As far as "trash talking your kids", I don't think so. I was saying that I hope that your retrograde opinions about cyclists being second-class citizens, subject to summary execution if they dare not swerve off the road the moment a driver comes near them, and about rewarding bullying behavior generally, leaves this world with you.

kickstart

My only desire is that we all work together to make using the road safe and enjoyable for everyone and not set our personal standards to the lowest common denominator. If you choose to see that as anti cyclists or a demand for you to be a doormat, that's all on you.

CB HI

And somehow, you think that can be accomplished by always running away from the bad actors. PS - ego has nothing to do with standing up for yourself. On the other hand, ego has a great deal to do with how bullies act.

kickstart

There's several problems with this when doing it on a public road,

First and foremost you're entering a gunfight with a fly swatter, if they're truely a bully acting with malice they will win if they choose to.
Your focus is directed at each other not your surroundings, therefor you're not only endangering yourself, but all other pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.
There is no guaranty of positive results, and could possibly have the opposite effect.
Its illegal, and can be construed as road rage, if something goes wrong you can be held liable.
And lastly, think of how it will look to bystanders, it will reinforce the the prejudices of any who are already biased against cyclists.

And besides, How often does this actually happen? Minor annoyances may be too common, but truely hostile encounters as shown are extremely rare, where's your line in the sand, are you ready to fight over every perceived slight?
If your cornered, or have no other option, then go for it and play for keeps. There's a time for everything, but most of what I've seen in my lifetime isn't worth staking your life on.

Six jours

In the "When do you take the lane?" thread, the majority of respondents "default" to riding in the middle of the road.

Now it's your turn to prove that "There are no such cyclists with this position."

CB HI

This entire rant is so off base. But feel free to keep running if you wish, I will stand up for my rights.

CB HI

Which is very different from you previous claims and thus the link still does not help you cases. The ball is still in your court to prove your claim Six jours, rather than giving such weak deflections.

Six jours

Actually, no, it isn't.

Unless, of course, you want to play the kind of word games for which A&S is infamous.

CB HI

You mean the word game you are now playing.

The following is your claim that you are tasked with proving or looking foolish for making such false claims.

Six jours

And then I linked to a thread where the majority of participants admit to riding around in the middle of the street regardless of conditions and with disregard to other road users.

But you are right about me being a fool. I went in to it knowing that even if I could prove that every single poster here has written "I ride in the middle of the street regardless of conditions and the hell with everyone else" there'd be people to point out that the comma is missing, thus proving that I am wrong, dishonest, and hate cyclists. That I continue to post here despite that knowledge doesn't say anything good about my intellect.

CB HI

Please do show the individual post that prove that.

B. Carfree

You do understand the difference between defaulting to the center of the lane and being there regardless of conditions, don't you?

Here, let me help you. I default to approximately the center of the lane. However, if I encounter a lane that is wide enough to share, I gladly ride towards the right side. If I encounter a rideable shoulder, I happily ride on it. If I encounter a bike lane that is free of hazards like door-zones, I happily ride in it. My default position is not the position that I occupy under all conditions. In some locales, it's not even the most common place to find me.

hotbike

I stopped watching after the one-minute mark, and I have two comments:
1) The Kerb between the road and the side-path prevented the cyclist from being able to move over to the bike lane.
2) There were a pair of Emergency Vehicles overtaking, and Emergency Vehicles have the Right-of-Way when their sirens and lights are on on.

Cyclosaurus

No, you clearly are in the "motorists no matter how aggressive should be allowed to behave any way that they want and cyclists should just get out of the way or off the road if they don't like it"

First, we're not talking about "personal standards". We're talking about demanding that drivers behave safely and legally and recognize cyclists legal right to use the road. And as for the lowest common denominator, you repeatedly hold the position that cyclists should accept that the lowest common denominator of behavior from drivers is acceptable and that a cyclist is in the wrong if a bad driver crashes into the cyclist. ***MASSIVE HYPOCRISY ALERT*** So cyclists must be held to the highest standards but drivers are allowed to be reckless, inconsiderate, and dangerous without repercussions.

It's not about perception. It is about facts. The FACT is, that your position is anti-cyclist because it flies in the face of facts that the only way to make the road safer for everyone is to hold drivers to a higher standard than they are now. You keep saying, "just deal with it, and if you get hit, it's your fault". Your viewpoint leads to more crashes. Your viewpoint lets drivers off the hook in all circumstances. Holding drivers accountable works. In Amsterdam drivers are automatically assumed at fault in any crash involving a bicycle. This a major part of the reason that Amsterdam has one of the safest environments for bicycles in the world. If drivers were alert and considerate enough to keep cyclists safe, then I submit that they would also be safer in general regarding all vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. If drivers were 25% safer in general, there would be over 10,000 fewer car fatalities. This isn't just about cyclists, you know. Bad driving is an epidemic.

kickstart

No, You are 100% wrong, I know my own mind, you don't. You are simply projecting your biases and prejudices .

I can't control others, I can only control myself, I choose to treat others with respect and consideration whether I'm riding a bicycle, motorcycle, or driving a semi.
If desiring others to return the favor without prejudice for my choice of vehicle is too much to hope for, if not vilifying, or turning a blind eye based solely on someones choice of vehicle makes me "anti cycling" then no rational person can be pro cycling.

Two wrongs don't make a right. they only feed each other.


Its not about one group, all can, and should aspire to do better than status quo. All should be held to a higher standard then we have now.

Six jours

The key, of course, is the militant VCers definitions of things like "rideable" and "wide enough to share". By those definitions, almost nothing is "rideable" or "wide enough to share".

The end result is that the militant VCers end up in the middle of the road regardless of conditions, and the hell with everyone else.

achoo

Where did THAT come from?

First, that's a straw man. You're setting up a false hypothetical just so you can argue against it.

Second, even IF true, so what? Most states allow taking the lane when there's not enough room to pass safely, and they pretty much leave the determination of safely to the cyclist.

So if someone wants to take the lane, get over it.

You wouldn't advocate ramming a farm vehicle going 8 mph, would you?

Do you rail about school buses daring to come to a COMPLETE STOP and even HOLD UP TRAFFIC IN ALL DIRECTIONS, and TO HELL WITH EVERYONE ELSE?

How about garbage trucks? Should it be open season on garbage men for drivers to run them over as they jump off slow trucks?

kickstart

Outside of the rhetoric and bravado pandered here in A&S, how often do you actually see "militant VCers" riding down the middle of the road without regard to others when they have legitimate options to do otherwise?

B. Carfree

In over 500,000 miles of riding, I have never met one of these seemingly mythical "militant VCers". However, I have encountered a substantial number of motorists who cannot accurately judge the space they need to effect a safe pass of a cyclist. Cyclists who hug the gutter in unshareable lanes invite those motorists to pass them unsafely and far too many motorists oblige them. All too often, those unsafe passes are both too close to the gutter-huggers and encroach on oncoming traffic by crossing the center line.

That's not just hypothetical. I had it happen to me just a few days ago and I wasn't a happy camper. I've had about enough of motorists who cycle a tiny bit encouraging people to ride in ways that endanger us all just to lessen the minor inconveniences that sometimes befall motorists in the presence of other road users.

CB HI

I'm sorry, I missed the link you put up of the individual post that proves your claim.

Oh wait, your claim is false and that is why you have not provided a link, I got it now.

I-Like-To-Bike

Presumably you were not hugging the curb and not "encouraging" any motorist to endanger you, yet it did happen.

My question is how did all those gutter hugging cyclists "encourage" this motorist to make an unsafe pass, endanger you and make you an unhappy camper?

kickstart

I agree that there are many legitimate conditions that warrant taking a lane to discourage dangerous passes, but I would like to play devils advocate and show how that statement can go both ways.

For example, some may say,
"I've had about enough of cyclists who drive a tiny bit encouraging people to ride in ways that endanger us all just to lessen the minor inconveniences that sometimes befall cyclists in the presence of other road users."

There are some cyclists who claim that they habitually break laws such as running lights to not waste momentum or because "everyone does it", refuse to use good bike facilities or keep right when safe and productive only because its "discriminatory". A cyclist poor decisions rarely causes harm directly to others, but can create dangerous situations that can cause harm indirectly.

Constantly making it "if you're not for me, you're against me" only encourages perpetuation of negative stereotypes, instead of understanding. Most cyclists and motorists do just fine, I see no wisdom in treating all drivers/cyclists/pedestrians like jerks because a few are, or that any of them are above criticism when criticism is due.

B. Carfree

Twenty feet of asphalt for two lanes and a double yellow center stripe meant that the road had nine and one-half foot wide lanes. I was descending at about thirty-five mph with another cyclist in front of me. the right tire track was broken asphalt, so we were in the left tire track. Two cyclists coming up the incline (opposing traffic) were hugging the gutter (well, actually the ditch; no curbs in this suburb). Their behavior is well known to encourage motorists to try to pass even when there isn't room to do so safely. A motorist who was overtaking them did just that. The cyclist in front of me and I both had to quickly find a route through the broken asphalt since the oncoming motorist was over the center line. If we didn't give way we may well have been struck.

Possibly the scofflaw motorist would have attempted his dangerous passing maneuver even if the other cyclists had properly taken the unshareable lane, but even if that was the case we would have had more warning since the motorist would have had to change his line sooner and more severely. However, it is my experience (and that of many others) that many motorists interpret gutter hugging by cyclists as an invitation to pass and the fact that they don't fit doesn't seem to occur to them until they are well into their maneuver.

All that nonsense and the motorist "saved" himself all of three seconds relative to waiting for the oncoming lane to be clear before passing. It's nice to know the true value of our lives, at least in the scales of some people.

I-Like-To-Bike

On long steep uphill inclines on a narrow road with a double yellow line where would you recommend that cyclists ride when traffic is approaching from behind?

achoo

For me, that's an, "It depends" situation. There's a lot worse that can happen to you on a bike than going uphill 7 mph and getting bumped into the ditch by a car that passes too close - by the time you've grabbed your brakes as you go off the road you'll almost be stopped anyway. So on a climb like that I'm less likely to take the lane, especially if it's straight and there's no need to prevent passing.

If there's no way to pass safely, I'll more than likely be in the lane.