I disagree. I think every road is safe to ride a bicycle on.

That's it. You got me HH. I'm out- this kind of thinking defies logic. That's as insane as saying every bike lane is safe to ride in or every bike path is safe. Some roads are just really poorly designed and incredibly dangerous for a cyclist even if it's legal for us to ride on them.

How does one advocate for a cyclist who wants to blow through red lights on busy intersections?

Well, I actually see it as a form of advocacy, if you will. Often I would run a red light because I feel that it makes me safer. Staying at the red, sandwiched in between two semis, or getting a nice 15 second headway? I choose the latter thanks.

I also do NOT encourage just everyone to even ride a bike, as some advocates here do. As it stands, I don't see biking as a very safe or pleasant activity for everyone. I could not honestly recommend to my mom to ride a bike in the city. I would be worried for her safety. Because I know that she would NOT run the red and stay behind between the two semis. She would bike on the bike lane, until... the bike lane would simply cease to exist and suddenly she would find herself among cars again. You know what I mean. The traffic laws, and all infrastructure is made for cars, bike laws and infrastructure are an afterthought at best, and a joke at worst. This is a major gripe of me, and I'm ready to sign petitions, make calls, pay SFBC membership etc. But when out there, I reserve the right to override these currently laughable laws and systems as I see fit. To me it is about survival while getting from A to B first, and everything else is secondary. I don't want to be the guy whose death prompts the city to paint another bike lane where I was squished by an SUV driver on the cellphone. I'm the guy who will avoid riding close to the SUV, even if it means to ride in the oncoming traffic's (empty) lane.

I disagree. I think every road is safe to ride a bicycle on.From the picture, Storrow Drive looks like a great place to bicycle for me.
The same "expert" also thought that the Lake Shore Drive (approx. 150,000 cars/per day no wide lanes, no shoulder) in Chicago would make for swell bicycling from looking at a picture and couldn't contemplate any reason for a different viewpoint. Unbelievably amazing isn't it?

Gene, I support many bike paths, including those between MB and OB, precisely for the benefit of folks like your wife.

Little Big Man, regardless of the reason why some cyclists might want bike lanes, the EFFECT of the very existence of the bike lane on a "shared" roadway for the vast majority is an official sanction of the notion that bicyclists should stay out of the way of cagers.

But why not "stay out of the way of "cagers?" "

Just the speed and mass of cars means to me that any imperfection in my riding technique (or my bike, or the road) that results in a "mistake" while I am smack in the middle of a pack of "cagers" means that I am probably going to suffer a great deal.

That is not to say that I must avoid all situations where I and a motorist might "cross paths," but that I do actively try to avoid those situations, because the neither the letter or the spirit of the law actually protect me.

So given a choice of path or lane, I will take a path; lane or mixed with traffic, I will take the lane; slower road or faster boulevard, I will take the slower road.

In many cases, just avoiding motorists is for simplfied survival reasons.

Now would I prefer to ride unimpeded down a wide fast boulevard knowing that no one is going to make an unexpected right turn on red right into me... Sure... I would love that feeling. I don't trust motorists enough to do that.

The same "expert" also thought that the Lake Shore Drive (approx. 150,000 cars/per day no wide lanes, no shoulder) in Chicago would make for swell bicycling from looking at a picture and couldn't contemplate any reason for a different viewpoint. Unbelievably amazing isn't it?

I can't ride again until I can lift my lower jaw off my knees- it has dropped so far.

Some roads are just really poorly designed and incredibly dangerous for a cyclist even if it's legal for us to ride on them.
Says you.

What makes a given road poorly designed and incredibly dangerous for a cyclist?

Sure, some conditions (ice, fog etc.) can make it dangerous, but assuming good lighting with no adverse weather conditions, what makes a road "poorly designed and incredibly dangerous for a cyclist"?

This is cool, you can actually see the point where this thread started to degenerate. It seems to have started with HH's first post.

Little Big Man, regardless of the reason why some cyclists might want bike lanes, the EFFECT of the very existence of the bike lane on a "shared" roadway for the vast majority is an official sanction of the notion that bicyclists should stay out of the way of cagers.
But why not "stay out of the way of "cagers?""
Because the lane is too narrow, there are obstacles at the side of the road, I'm preparing for a left turn, I'm approaching a place where a right turn is authorize, etc. etc.

But that's not the issue. The issue is why should cyclists have to be put on the defensive to prove why it's okay for us to not be out of the way of cagers?

I'm not saying you shouldn't get out of the way of cagers. I'm saying there shouldn't be an expectation that cyclists SHOULD get and stay out of the way of cagers. But that's the very expectation that is created and officially sanctioned by the mere existence of a bike lane.

This is cool, you can actually see the point where this thread started to degenerate. It seems to have started with HH's first post.
Got to disagree Brad.

The thread started to degenerate when the first two of the VC boogymen started posting (initials: R and DC).

But I agree, nobody beats HH as the WMD for any reasoned discussion about bicycling issues

This is cool, you can actually see the point where this thread started to degenerate. It seems to have started with HH's first post.


The thread started to degenerate when the first two of the VC boogymen started posting (initials: R and DC).

But I agree, nobody beats HH as the WMD for any reasoned discussion about bicycling issues

Please do not waste everyone's time with baseless and/or frivolous expressions of disagreement. Reason and logic, expressed politely and respectfully, are the currency of productive debate.

If you have an issue with something I wrote, then please explain what that is, and why you disagree.

Thanks.

This is cool, you can actually see the point where this thread started to degenerate. It seems to have started with HH's first post.

These forums were so much better during the holidays! Hmmmm, which resolution for 2006... leave the A&S forums, kill-file a few posters, or keep hoping for more vigorous moderation?

Just because you have a right to the road doesn't make every road safe enough to ride a bicycle on.

Car drivers have a right to the road too... and yet certain roads and highways are considered risky for them too! What a concept.

What makes a given road poorly designed and incredibly dangerous for a cyclist?

Sure, some conditions (ice, fog etc.) can make it dangerous, but assuming good lighting with no adverse weather conditions, what makes a road "poorly designed and incredibly dangerous for a cyclist"?
How about traffic circle (roundabout) where each feeder street feeds in two lanes side-by-side, and some of the exit lanes also feed out two lanes side-by-side, while others are onramps to the freeway, and the roundabout is large enough in diameter that traffic is capable of going over 25?

How about traffic circle (roundabout) where each feeder street feeds in two lanes side-by-side, and some of the exit lanes also feed out two lanes side-by-side, while others are onramps to the freeway, and the roundabout is large enough in diameter that traffic is capable of going over 25?
That's an intersection. Many intersections are (relatively) dangerous even for motor vehicle drivers, much less for cyclists. No arguments there.

My position is about entire roads.

Car drivers have a right to the road too... and yet certain roads and highways are considered risky for them too! What a concept.
No roads and highways are absent of risk, for anyone.
But the term dangerous implies a high likelihood of harm, injury or fatality, which I deny is an appropriate description of any road for cycling.

That's an intersection. Many intersections are (relatively) dangerous even for motor vehicle drivers, much less for cyclists. No arguments there.

My position is about entire roads.
I know of no roads that'll take me where I want to go without intersections. Your separation of the two is silly.

These forums were so much better during the holidays! Hmmmm, which resolution for 2006... leave the A&S forums, kill-file a few posters, or keep hoping for more vigorous moderation?
Looking back, this place was pretty cool for a few weeks there. I think the mods are as scared of this place as we are.

ad·vo·ca·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dv-k-s)
n.
The act of pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, idea, or policy; active support.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Is it advocacy to argue and plead only amongst ourselves? Or, do we need to take action and advocate and speak with those who set the rules, make the policy or interpret public opinion? The latter is a lot of work!

I ride with the proper equipment in as safe and friendly a manner as possible. I hope that folks who see me on my bike, or dressed in cycling clothes, also see a friendly, humble, helpful and courteous person who is willing to chat about cycling when asked.

I'm far too lazy to be an actual advocate as the dictionary describes it. City council calls to the public letters to the editor, etc., that's work! How many of us are actually advocates?

--> ex-advocate. During my time in office I advocated more than just cycling...but what really makes it 'work' is when you build a broad-based consensus, only to have a few extremists torpedo the whole thing in public because they are not getting 100% of what they want. Had it happen to me on a highway reconstruction project. Took me months of working with a lot of different cycling groups to get an agreement on a bike lane design. A bike lane at all was opposed by a slim majority of the rest of the commission, they wanted trees, but I managed to swing the one vote necessary, only to have one woman who didn't bother to get involved in any of the earlier discussions, destroy any consensus by spouting off about 'segregating' cyclists in the final public hearing. There was nothing on the table to suggest that cyclists would be limited to the bike lane only, but her argument was that some future body could possibly enact some laws...the exact argument that HH, Forrester and others like to make, citing some organized conspiracy to someday remove cyclists from the road. The result, the bike lane became trees that died within a year of being planted. So this one woman got her wish and can ride the 35-55mph roadway all she wants, while cyclists who are not comfortable doing so are riding on the sidewalk. Hooray for our side...rah rah.

Edit: and in case nobody ever noticed, I am one of them cyclists that prefer to ride the road.

--> ex-advocate. During my time in office I advocated more than just cycling...but what really makes it 'work' is when you build a broad-based consensus, only to have a few extremists torpedo the whole thing in public because they are not getting 100% of what they want. Had it happen to me on a highway reconstruction project. Took me months of working with a lot of different cycling groups to get an agreement on a bike lane design. A bike lane at all was opposed by a slim majority of the rest of the commission, they wanted trees, but I managed to swing the one vote necessary, only to have one woman who didn't bother to get involved in any of the earlier discussions, destroy any consensus by spouting off about 'segregating' cyclists in the final public hearing. There was nothing on the table to suggest that cyclists would be limited to the bike lane only, but her argument was that some future body could possibly enact some laws...the exact argument that HH, Forrester and others like to make, citing some organized conspiracy to someday remove cyclists from the road. The result, the bike lane became trees that died within a year of being planted. So this one woman got her wish and can ride the 35-55mph roadway all she wants, while cyclists who are not comfortable doing so are riding on the sidewalk. Hooray for our side...rah rah.
So you have actual experience with the VC quagmire. Incredible.

Hmm... Consider this account of a recent episode in Los Angeles (it was forwarded to our coalition's mailing list):

Just wtf does this relate to the concept of advocating for all cyclists? News flash: there is not some organized conspiracy to get cyclists off the road. Even if there was, you have a much better chance of foiling their evil intentions if you have the vast numbers of cyclists supporting you, rather than writing you off as an obstructionist wacko. Another news flash: many cyclists prefer bike lanes and bike paths, but they are more than happy to let you and I stay on the road as long as we don't piss em off.

I think you're being a little unrealistic here. I've been involved with many political groups, which are really advocacy groups of a different color. In the civil rights movement there were disputes about voter enfranchisement vs. economic equality. In the anti-Vietnam war movement it was about peaceful protest vs. violent tactics. In gay rights it was political contributions vs. outrageous street protest. These differences were hashed out in loud and LONG (days, even weeks) meetings and caucuses. In the end all of these diverse groups reached concensus, presented a united front and were at least partially successful. The biggest challenge isn't reaching agreement, it's keeping everybody on topic.

This forum looks pretty tame in comparison. :)

OF COURSE we're going to have different ideas and disagree about the emphasis we should place on them. That's what politics is! You can bow out now if you want, but don't come whining about the results later if you do.

Yes, and indeed this is a good place for us to disagree and debate...but once we get in front of the public we have to present a united front and at least give the perception that we represent all cyclists. That is the point I am trying to make, and the fact that we can't even agree on such a basic lobbying concept is depressing. :(

No roads and highways are absent of risk, for anyone.
But the term dangerous implies a high likelihood of harm, injury or fatality, which I deny is an appropriate description of any road for cycling.

Come on out here, I'll introduce you to some. We got some roads here that make ILTBs commuting route look like a picnic. I think Bek has a bridge up his way he'd like to introduce you to as well. I know a couple of roads in Newark that would make you pee your pants!

Yes, and indeed this is a good place for us to disagree and debate...but once we get in front of the public we have to present a united front and at least give the perception that we represent all cyclists. That is the point I am trying to make, and the fact that we can't even agree on such a basic lobbying concept is depressing. :(

I can lobby for breast cancer research funding even though I am male. I spent much of 2005 lobbying for same-sex marriage in Canada, even though marriage isn't an institution I care for much and I had other priorities. It is possible for people to come together as a community and work together for a cause, even if that cause only benefits some members of the community. All it takes is some maturity and a willingness to go beyond self-interest. (Mind you, I am quite capable of saying, "My cause's turn now!)

When extremists grow up they can become productive members of their respective communities... until then they should be seated at the children's table.

--> ex-advocate..... So this one woman got her wish and can ride the 35-55mph roadway all she wants, while cyclists who are not comfortable doing so are riding on the sidewalk. Hooray for our side...rah rah.

The sad thing here isn't how common that is, or that it derailed your work. The truly sad thing is how many people drop out of advocacy (or community groups in general) because of experiences like this.

The sad thing here isn't how common that is, or that it derailed your work. The truly sad thing is how many people drop out of advocacy (or community groups in general) because of experiences like this.

Dropping out is caused by much worse things than losing a few issues. I still get involved, but I prefer to be a behind-the-scenes guy and pick the battles I choose to fight in public very carefully. The thing you learn is that, when it comes to nut-cuttin time, you can't depend upon all those people who cheerlead you on to do the fighting for them and that you can't help people who don't want to be helped.

If I were God, I would make sure ILTB, Chipcom and Helmet Head got to share a motel room for eternity in the afterlife. But I'm not God, just to be clear...

If I were God, I would make sure ILTB, Chipcom and Helmet Head got to share a motel room for eternity in the afterlife. But I'm not God, just to be clear...

Why be God when you can be Burger King?

I would say it is not completely unreasonable to ride on Storrow at a fast pace. It has some advantages as there are three lanes, decent pavement, option to escape as last resort, no or little right hook or left hook worries.
Insane is off the mark, but it would require constant monitoring of conditions behind, so it would not be relaxing. But I would always take an alternate if there was one and it was safe, and its great to know there is an alternate.
Keep in mind roads like this look much worse from the perspective of being in a car or observing from the side. (I've driven on Storrow and know how bad it can get)

Anyway, the way things go round here I bet will still be talking about this next year (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=262031&page=2) ;)

Al

Dropping out is caused by much worse things than losing a few issues. I still get involved, but I prefer to be a behind-the-scenes guy and pick the battles I choose to fight in public very carefully. The thing you learn is that, when it comes to nut-cuttin time, you can't depend upon all those people who cheerlead you on to do the fighting for them and that you can't help people who don't want to be helped.

I didn't mean you (or others) would have dropped out due to "losing" on some issues. What I mean is that I know many people who have left advocacy and/or community groups not because they lost on an issue, but because the work, time, and effort they put in was lost thanks to some zealot derailing long-range plans.

Little Big Man, regardless of the reason why some cyclists might want bike lanes, the EFFECT of the very existence of the bike lane on a "shared" roadway for the vast majority is an official sanction of the notion that bicyclists should stay out of the way of cagers.
No serious amount of transportational cycling in my city can be done only on bike facilities, since these facilities do not serve enough destinations. I suspect that for the most part, U.S. transportational cyclists rely most heavily on normal roads, even if there are some nearby facilities.

One of the most convincing arguments for learning to use the roads on a bike, instead of depending on bike facilities to do the job, was one by John Forester. He reasoned that the transportation system in the U.S. is firmly in place and not likely to change, so we should adapt to it and use it to our advantage.

This is the same reasoning I apply to bicycle facilities: that they are already in place, and not likely to go away soon, so it is to our advantage to adapt to a hybrid system of roads and bike facilities. This does not mean, of course, that all bicycle facilities are acceptable or desireable, but simply that when bike facilities do not pose a hazard or serious imposition to cyclists, and if they please cyclists who want them,
why not just accept them (or bypass them?)

As long as the use of bicycle facilities remains optional and that's understood by all road users, they don't pose a real threat. If there is a problem with the perception that bike lanes are the only place where bikes belong, it lies in ignorance of the public and they need to be made aware of the fact that cyclists aren't required to use the facilities. But the mere existence of such facilities alone is does not amount to an official sanction of that fallacy, unless the fallacy is officially promoted through signage, laws, literature, etc.

Just place a sign that says, "Cyclists Allowed Outside Bike Lanes."

No serious amount of transportational cycling in my city can be done only on bike facilities, since these facilities do not serve enough destinations. I suspect that for the most part, U.S. transportational cyclists rely most heavily on normal roads, even if there are some nearby facilities.

One of the most convincing arguments for learning to use the roads on a bike, instead of depending on bike facilities to do the job, was one by John Forester. He reasoned that the transportation system in the U.S. is firmly in place and not likely to change, so we should adapt to it and use it to our advantage.

This is the same reasoning I apply to bicycle facilities: that they are already in place, and not likely to go away soon, so it is to our advantage to adapt to a hybrid system of roads and bike facilities. This does not mean, of course, that all bicycle facilities are acceptable or desireable, but simply that when bike facilities do not pose a hazard or serious imposition to cyclists, and if they please cyclists who want them,
why not just accept them (or bypass them?)

As long as the use of bicycle facilities remains optional and that's understood by all road users, they don't pose a real threat. If there is a problem with the perception that bike lanes are the only place where bikes belong, it lies in ignorance of the public and they need to be made aware of the fact that cyclists aren't required to use the facilities. But the mere existence of such facilities alone is does not amount to an official sanction of that fallacy, unless the fallacy is officially promoted through signage, laws, literature, etc.

Just place a sign that says, "Cyclists Allowed Outside Bike Lanes."


+1...

Exactly... facilities where they work and where they are designed well... roads where they work and can be negotiated, and otherwise, informing the driving public that cyclists have the same rights to the road as the motoring public.

Just place a sign that says, "Cyclists Allowed Outside Bike Lanes."
I understand your argument, and I agree with much of it. From a utilitarian perspective, it is right on. That's exactly how I personally view facilities, and use them.

The problem with your argument is exemplified by your last sentence, quoted above. Easier said than done. What you're missing is the political impossibility of posting such a sign, and, more importantly, the cultural clime that makes it, and so much more, impossible. Not recognizing these cultural/political issues makes it impossible to appreciate the feedback effect that bike lanes play in creating and maintaining this anti-cycling climate in our culture.

The problem is the widely held notion that cyclists have a legal/practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars, period. This notion is held deeply, often unconsciously, by the vast majority of our population, including most cyclists. Dislodging this mistaken notion from the deep crevices of our minds must be cycling advocacy's primary goal.

The notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars acts like a mental albatross on the backs of cyclists trying to negotiate safely through traffic, and keeps most people from wanting to even try it. And every time they see or use a bike lane, that albatross just gets that much heavier, for every bike lane, by its very existence, supports the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars.

You, who are not only free of the albatross, but might be part of the tiny minority that has never been saddled with it, may have a hard time understanding what it is all about.

By the way, a quick test to find out if you're saddled with the albatross is to self-monitor your own anxiety level as you're cycling in traffic. If you experience a sense of relief while in a bike lane that you generally do not experience outside of a bike lane (while cycling in traffic), then you are carrying the albatross.

Uh, that "albatross" might have something to do with cycling in a narrow lane while being tailgated by an SUV, whereas the BL allows cycling outside of where the motor vehicles are, thus not being tailgated by an SUV...

So much for your "test."

Uh, that "albatross" might have something to do with cycling in a narrow lane while being tailgated by an SUV, whereas the BL allows cycling outside of where the motor vehicles are, thus not being tailgated by an SUV...

So much for your "test."
Think WOL.

For the type of roads (all 45mph posted, straight, multilane) I commute on stress level (SL) rating 1(zoned out)-10(bad):
NOL=SL8-9 - constantly watching the rear for drivers coming too close or coming at me too fast.
BL=SL5-7 - constantly watching the rear to be prepared for a sudden swerve right for drivers that get too close to the white line. Most don't adjust lane position so I must stay ultra alert.
WOL=SL3-5 - monitor rear and watch driver merge a bit left to pass me well in advance of passing me

Al

Think WOL.

For the type of roads (all 45mph posted, straight, multilane) I commute on stress level (SL) rating 1(zoned out)-10(bad):
NOL=SL8-9 - constantly watching the rear for drivers coming too close or coming at me too fast.
BL=SL5-7 - constantly watching the rear to be prepared for a sudden swerve right for drivers that get too close to the white line. Most don't adjust lane position so I must stay ultra alert.
WOL=SL3-5 - monitor rear and watch driver merge a bit left to pass me well in advance of passing me

Al


Would love to... but most of the roads I use are either no bike lane and about 35 MPH with parked cars, or are well over 45 with BL... and no parked cars, so I don't often get that WOL "only" feeling...

...cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars.
I just want them to stay out of the way of me.

Uh, that "albatross" might have something to do with cycling in a narrow lane while being tailgated by an SUV, whereas the BL allows cycling outside of where the motor vehicles are, thus not being tailgated by an SUV...

So much for your "test."
The albatross is what causes the anxiety, not the SUV.

That's why those of us who have shed the albatross do not experience the anxiety of those who do carry the albatross when followed by the same SUV in the same narrow lane.

It might seem reasonable to "fear" a "tailgating" SUV, but when you really believe, deep down, that you have no obligation to get out of its way in a narrow lane where it is unreasonable to do so, there is no fear.

Lose the fear....
Lose the sense of obligation to get out of the way of cars....
Lose the albatross...
Lose the desire for bike lanes.

The albatross is what causes the anxiety, not the SUV.

That's why those of us who have shed the albatross do not experience the anxiety of those who do carry the albatross when followed by the same SUV in the same narrow lane.

It might seem reasonable to "fear" a "tailgating" SUV, but when you really believe, deep down, that you have no obligation to get out of its way in a narrow lane where it is unreasonable to do so, there is no fear.

Lose the fear....
Lose the sense of obligation to get out of the way of cars....
Lose the albatross...
Lose the desire for bike lanes.
What happens when I fear an SUV tailgating me while I'm driving a smaller car? It sure isn't the albatross of bike lanes causing that.

What happens when I fear an SUV tailgating me while I'm driving a smaller car? It sure isn't the albatross of bike lanes causing that.

+1

Exactly.

If an SUV is really tailgating (no quotes), a flash on the brake lights (in a car), or issuing the slow/stop signal with your left arm (while cycling), should take care of it. What is there to fear, in either case?

The albatross causes anxiety when being followed by an SUV in a narrow lane, even with a reasonable distance, and causes a unique sense of relief when the cyclist enters the "protection" of a bike lane.

The albatross is what causes the anxiety, not the SUV.

That's why those of us who have shed the albatross do not experience the anxiety of those who do carry the albatross when followed by the same SUV in the same narrow lane.

It might seem reasonable to "fear" a "tailgating" SUV, but when you really believe, deep down, that you have no obligation to get out of its way in a narrow lane where it is unreasonable to do so, there is no fear.

Lose the fear....
Lose the sense of obligation to get out of the way of cars....
Lose the albatross...
Lose the desire for bike lanes.
Whatever, my stress (wouldn't call it fear) when riding in NOLs comes from
1. When drivers position their front bumper of their vehicle closer than 10ft from my back while we are both traveling at 25mph. Happens quite often and I don't have courage to take my hands off the bars and shrug while bouncing over manhole covers and uneven pavement.
1a. When above drivers also add in frequent honks and do a little rev. engine swerve side to side dance.
2. When drivers approach at 50mph and I am not sure if they plan to slow or merge. I most often have no escape route (right side of lane is a 8" vertical curb)

WOL and even properly designed BLs allieviate the stress these two cause.

Al

I suppose it's just an albatross if you see one of these behind you.

If an SUV is really tailgating (no quotes), a flash on the brake lights (in a car), or issuing the slow/stop signal with your left arm (while cycling), should take care of it. What is there to fear, in either case?



You apparenly do not live in a real world... the world where safe following distances are a joke on the freeways and where motorists choose to ignore stop lights (documented on film even) and the feeble gestures of cyclists.

I'm not saying there are no other sources for fear/anxiety/stress while riding in traffic besides the imagined albatross caused by a sense of obligation to get out of the way of cars.

But, if you feel a level of stress even in the absence of specific arguably threatening situations like those cited by Gene (tailgating SUV) and Al, and, in particular, experience a sense of relief from that stress when you enter the "protective" bike lane, then I believe you are saddled with the albatross.

The albatross causes anxiety when being followed by an SUV in a narrow lane, even with a reasonable distance, and causes a unique sense of relief when the cyclist enters the "protection" of a bike lane.
Actually the safest I feel is when I am being followed at a resonable distance while riding in a NOL. That driver is providing me protection from other less resonable drivers.

Not too long ago I was followed over 1.5mi at 25mph on a 45mph NOL by a small white pickup who held back with plenty of distance. The older driver had many opportunities to pass and didn't. I quickly realized they were being extra kind. At the intersection we pulled up next to each other and I waved and they gave me some encouraging words (something like 'nice riding') I said thanks for your help, he gave a thumbs up, and we went on. The driver was following me because they understood cycling on roads like this. Maybe/probably a fellow cyclist.

Al

I'm not saying there are no other sources for fear/anxiety/stress while riding in traffic besides the imagined albatross caused by a sense of obligation to get out of the way of cars.

But, if you feel a level of stress even in the absence of specific arguably threatening situations like those cited by Gene (tailgating SUV) and Al, and, in particular, experience a sense of relief from that stress when you enter the "protective" bike lane, then I believe you are saddled with the albatross.

Oh... well that's different... no heavy traffic... heck, I ride where I want.* Why didn't you say that in the beginning?

* oddly enough, even in the absence of heavy traffic (or virtually any traffic)... the "one motorist, in the one car" on the road with me has gone out of their way to honk. Go figure.

Actually the safest I feel is when I am being followed at a resonable distance while riding in a NOL. That driver is providing me protection from other less resonable drivers.
This is an example of a statement made only by someone who most probably has shed the albatross of which I'm speaking.




But, if you feel a level of stress even in the absence of specific arguably threatening situations like those cited by Gene (tailgating SUV) and Al, and, in particular, experience a sense of relief from that stress when you enter the "protective" bike lane, then I believe you are saddled with the albatross.

Oh... well that's different... no heavy traffic... heck, I ride where I want.* Why didn't you say that in the beginning?

I did not say, "no heavy traffic". I said, "in the absence of specific arguably threatening situations". Do you believe that "absence of specific arguably threatening situations" and "heavy traffic" are mutually exclusive? If so, that would be an example of albatross-ladden thinking...

This is an example of a statement made only by someone who most probably has shed the albatross of which I'm speaking.

Maybe, but even so my greatest cycling stress comes from riding a NOL in dense fast traffic where I would gladly have a WOL or even a BL. Why? Because most drivers are not reasonable when dealing with cyclists in this situation. And we've already decided we can't educate them right? ;)

Al

Well, maybe you're still carrying a pigeon, Al.

Well, maybe you're still carrying a pigeon, Al.
Yeah, I do give unreasonable drivers a bird once in a while.

Al