Cager Logic (http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6999)

I guess I had trouble understanding the fourth paragraph:

[snip]In the course of debate he says that bikers are stupid to think that drivers will see them. I say that I ride on the double yellow, take up an entire lane if I'm going fast, go the wrong way against traffic, and still assume that I'm invisible. He says that's what you have to do in this dog-eat-dog world. I point out that he has now completely contradicted himself, but he can't even see it.[snip]

If she rides like that, I'm having trouble figuring out how she can take the high ground.

I guess I had trouble understanding the fourth paragraph:

[snip]In the course of debate he says that bikers are stupid to think that drivers will see them. I say that I ride on the double yellow, take up an entire lane if I'm going fast, go the wrong way against traffic, and still assume that I'm invisible. He says that's what you have to do in this dog-eat-dog world. I point out that he has now completely contradicted himself, but he can't even see it.[snip]

If she rides like that, I'm having trouble figuring out how she can take the high ground.


I think it was rhetorical. To trip up his argument.

If she rides like that, I'm having trouble figuring out how she can take the high ground.My thought when I read that: That just supports his argument that bikes don't belong on the road.

My thought when I read that: That just supports his argument that bikes don't belong on the road.


Why, because some motorists don't obey the law when driving, (most if you consider speeding), does not give anyone an argument that cars don't belong on the road. Pot Kettle Black.

Want a fun conversation this holiday... go to a party where you are not known as a cyclist... then mention that you happened to see a cyclist riding in the middle of a lane and ask if that is legal.

Then sit back and watch the opinions fly... it is quite enlightening to hear the rhetoric formed from misinformed notions of what is and isn't legal in the minds of motorists.

Try it.

We'll talk about it later. :D

I guess I had trouble understanding the fourth paragraph:

[snip]In the course of debate he says that bikers are stupid to think that drivers will see them. I say that I ride on the double yellow, take up an entire lane if I'm going fast, go the wrong way against traffic, and still assume that I'm invisible. He says that's what you have to do in this dog-eat-dog world. I point out that he has now completely contradicted himself, but he can't even see it.[snip]

If she rides like that, I'm having trouble figuring out how she can take the high ground.


Not sure if this addresses the problem.... but....

The contradiction in the argument appears to be this: the buddy in the car seems to think that bikes shouldn't be on the road because they don't follow the venerable rules of the road. On the other hand, he also maintains that in order for a biker to be safe on the road s/he needs to break the law, i.e. take up the entire lane, go too fast, bike against traffic, etc. So which is it, no bikes cause they break the law, or safe bikers that break the law?

That said, I'm not convinced that being reckless is the best approach.

go to a party where you are not known as a cyclist... then mention that you happened to see a cyclist riding in the middle of a lane and ask if that is legal.

Then sit back and watch the opinions fly... it is quite enlightening to hear the rhetoric formed from misinformed notions of what is and isn't legal in the minds of motorists.


It'll be just like the debates on bikeforums! :)

It'll be just like the debates on bikeforums! :)
No. Worse, cause everyone at the party will find you annoying, not just half the members of a forum.

Al

I guess I don't think 80+ decibel stereo systems belong on the road, nor loud mufflers for that matter. Judging by the maintenance status of some roads, the government wants nothing on the roads. Isn't it also true that old people and tourists not familiar with the area often irritate? What about folks who stop and chat, occupying all the available lanes? What of the inconvenience of school busses with their flashing red lights and fold-out stop signs, or garbage trucks? I don't think busses should stop and block the right lane either. Litterers should be banned from the road ways too! What of emergency vehicles which override the controls on traffic lights. Aren't they a PITA worthy of removal from the roads? Oh, let's not forget anyone who violates the law, is discourteous or has an accident record. They should be off the road also no matter what type vehicle they are riding, including bicycles. Ever get stuck behind slow moving construction or farm equipment? Ban 'em! Pedestrians, wild animals and pets - off the roadways! Roads also are not meant for large trucks and RV's which can't negotiate an incline as fast as I can in the big ring. Uninsured and underinsured - stay on the trails and sidewalks!

How about vehicles where passengers distract the driver with conversation?!

I think the above list, while perhaps not all inclusive, is sufficiently detailed to result in banning me from the road, even if I'm not on my bicycle.

I don't think busses should stop and block the right lane either.
I have slightly mixed feelings about this. On one hand busses in right lane stopped are a great hazard, especially to cyclists as we must pass them on their left or stay stuck behind them for every stop. But passing a bus on arterials can be tricky to jump on a gap before the car behind you does. I do it just about every day and it is the most 'exciting' part of my commute.

On the other hand more bus stops are being built and coverted to have pull outs. This is great as it prevents the above situation. But the downside is that now cyclists are the slowest vehicle on the road and drivers get even more used to not having to look for reasons to slow or stop on the road.

In the end I am fully for bus pull outs by a wide margin.

Al

That's the beauty of this country, folks can dislike bikes on the road as much as they want, they can spout all day long about how bikes SHOULD be illegal. But they know they aren't and they know it will never change. So bike hating blowhards complain and moan all you want, I'll be the one taking the lane and ignoring your horn.

-Marcus

That's the beauty of this country, folks can dislike bikes on the road as much as they want, they can spout all day long about how bikes SHOULD be illegal. But they know they aren't and they know it will never change. So bike hating blowhards complain and moan all you want, I'll be the one taking the lane and ignoring your horn.

-Marcus

Yea, but it really starts to suck when they think it SHOULD be illegal and then decide to take the "law that should be" into their own hands.

It'll be just like the debates on bikeforums! :)


No no, don't debate... just open up the conversation and then listen and nod... you will get an amazing number of responses of which few if any will be correct.

It will give you some real insight into the mindset of motorists out there.

Just try it.

I don't have to go to a holiday party to get that kind of insight, the letters to the editors columns of all the local Portland papers have been full of letters from motorists spreading this kind of disinformation about cyclists' rights for the last several months now.

I don't have to go to a holiday party to get that kind of insight, the letters to the editors columns of all the local Portland papers have been full of letters from motorists spreading this kind of disinformation about cyclists' rights for the last several months now.


:D

Do you think that motorists would share the road any better if they were informed of the rights of cyclists to use the road much like motorists?

Or to put this in better words... do you feel that lack of knowledge about the rights of cyclists forms some of the negative opinions that motorists have about bikes on the road?

I don't have to go to a holiday party to get that kind of insight, the letters to the editors columns of all the local Portland papers have been full of letters from motorists spreading this kind of disinformation about cyclists' rights for the last several months now.I don't even waste my time with The Oregonian anymore, so I didn't realize they were doing it too, but the Portland Tribune seems to be on an anti-bicycle, pro-automobile crusade lately, with all the letters they've been egging on. I think the Portland business community is behind this-- Tribune owner Bob Pamplin Jr. is an extremely conservative, extremely wealthy Portland businessman, after all-- because the Tribune also just started their "Rethinking Portland" series, implying that there's a problem with Portland's planning direction, and just ran a pro-suburbs article (suburbs are endangered and massive government subsidies are needed to get more suburbs built).

Do you think that motorists would share the road any better if they were informed of the rights of cyclists to use the road much like motorists?

Or to put this in better words... do you feel that lack of knowledge about the rights of cyclists forms some of the negative opinions that motorists have about bikes on the road?
Absolutely, yes and yes. The thing is, motorist education is definitely important but rarely undertaken. As an example, the Oregon DMV ran a 'share the road' campaign a few years back aimed at improving motorcyclist safety. They could easily have added bicycles to thiis campaign, but didn't. And how lame are most DMV driver's test questions when it comes to testing motorists' abilities to drive safely when interacting with bicyclists? So far, all I've seen locally about motorist education is a lot of sincere talk but very little real action.

Absolutely, yes and yes. The thing is, motorist education is definitely important but rarely undertaken. As an example, the Oregon DMV ran a 'share the road' campaign a few years back aimed at improving motorcyclist safety. They could easily have added bicycles to thiis campaign, but didn't. And how lame are most DMV driver's test questions when it comes to testing motorists' abilities to drive safely when interacting with bicyclists? So far, all I've seen locally about motorist education is a lot of sincere talk but very little real action.


I have seen some local boater campaigns here... but like your area, nothing aimed at the motorist regarding the legal rights of cyclists to use the road.

The motorists I have had conversations with seem to believe that bikes don't belong and have no right to the road.

I believe that with the right ad campaigns, motorists could become a bit more friendlier to cyclists.

I was just told this morning by a motorist at light (said as it was turning green so as not to actually have to engage in a conversation, as usual), "You have a pretty pushy way of riding your bike." Huh? Since when is a 190 lb. mass moving at 15-20mph pushy when facing 4000 lb. masses at 30-50mph (on a 25mph road)? God forbid I keep you from getting to the red light a little sooner. I love insecure drivers.

I think that there is going to be more anti-bike, pro car rhetoric on the horizon. More bikes than cars where sold this year. That is unsettling in a petroleum-based economy. Soon the average car folks will be drawn into the debate.

There was the recent pro-car Wall Street Journal Article.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=155041