Non-VC™ Advocacy & Safety discussion thread

[chipcom]

This thread, perhaps even a sticky if it becomes popular, is to discuss cycling advocacy and safety issues that concern all cyclists, while barring the promotion, defining or debating of the brand called Vehicular Cycling™ (VC™). While a specific viewpoint, tactic, technique or theory that might be considered by some to be VC™ can be discussed, any discussion of the brand itself is strictly prohibited - there are plenty of other threads for those. :D

To begin the discussion: Do you believe that cyclists should obey traffic laws? My own opinion is that we should obey the laws as long as doing so does not put us in danger. I think we are perceived by too many non-cyclists as arrogant law-breakers and if we expect drivers to obey the laws, not to mention respecting our right to the road, we must lead by example and obey the laws ourselves. That said, I also believe that some laws can be bent, if not broken. ;)

Edit: and of course humor is ALWAYS welcome!

[alanbikehouston]

Good luck...the VC are EVERYWHERE...

[chipcom]

Good luck...the VC are EVERYWHERE...

Charlie's in the wire!!!! :eek:

[Treespeed]

Chip,

I think one of the fundamental problems with driver and cyclist interaction is that most motorists are ignorant of the laws as they pertain to cyclists. They have it in their head that we are suppose to live in the gutter and yield to cars in all instances. It is my opinion that much could be gained by making all road users aware of the current laws, rights, and responsibilities. I just had to take online traffic school (apparently there are no u-turns in the business district) and there was not one mention of bicyclists rights, only that motorists should "Watch Out!" for them. Very helpful. A few more, "cyclists allowed Full use of Lane" or "Cyclists Merging" when a bike lane ends would be very helpful in my opinion. The rest seems like common sense to me. Use the bike lane when it's there, stay out of the door zone, and take the lane when it's narrow, let cars pass when there's room. What am I missing? I bend a few laws when I ride and when I drive, but inching forward on the right in heavy traffic or rolling through and empty intersection is not the same risk if I were to perform such actions while driving. Otherwise this whole debate has gotten way out of hand with both sides beating each other up over every little verbal misstep. I really can't imagine that many of the experienced cyclists if going out together would really ride all that differently.

[noisebeam]

Do you believe that cyclists should obey traffic laws? My own opinion is that we should obey the laws as long as doing so does not put us in danger. I think we are perceived by too many non-cyclists as arrogant law-breakers and if we expect drivers to obey the laws, not to mention respecting our right to the road, we must lead by example and obey the laws ourselves. That said, I also believe that some laws can be bent, if not broken. ;)

I encourage other cyclist to obey all traffic laws for the reasons you state. I also encourage motorists to do the same.
Fortunately for me I have no laws I need to break in order to cycle wherever and however I want.

As to bending rules, if you do, accept the consequences whether from law enforcement or a resulting accident and don't try and make excuses for the behavior.

If there is a law that you must bend to be safe, then do so once or twice, but don't do it a third time unless you have initiated or actively supported serious effort to get the law changed for all cyclists benefit.

Al

[noisebeam]

When approaching an intersection I like to (signal and safely) merge to the center of the lane I am traveling in, whether I will be stopping or not.
I find when I am stopped in the center of a right most lane on a multilane road, that the results is that the vast majority of drivers will move one lane over. This makes it far more pleasant on green light as you don't have a line of cars directly behind you and evenually passing you when starting up again.
Stopping on the far left of an outside lane can extend a courtesy to motorists who wish to turn right. I've gotten the most friendly response from driver when doing this.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Do you believe that cyclists should obey traffic laws?
Traffic laws can be separated into those that apply to only cyclists, and those that apply to all other drivers.

I believe cyclists should definitely obey all traffic laws that fall into the latter category, including those that apply only to drivers of slow vehicles.

But laws that apply only to cyclists, and go beyond restrictions put on other drivers of slow vehicles, those are often problematic, and I usually have no problem with cyclists violating that small area of traffic law.

[Fred Smedley]

This thread, perhaps even a sticky if it becomes popular, is to discuss cycling advocacy and safety issues that concern all cyclists, while barring the promotion, defining or debating of the brand called Vehicular Cycling™ (VC™). While a specific viewpoint, tactic, technique or theory that might be considered by some to be VC™ can be discussed, any discussion of the brand itself is strictly prohibited - there are plenty of other threads for those. :D

To begin the discussion: Do you believe that cyclists should obey traffic laws? My own opinion is that we should obey the laws as long as doing so does not put us in danger. I think we are perceived by too many non-cyclists as arrogant law-breakers and if we expect drivers to obey the laws, not to mention respecting our right to the road, we must lead by example and obey the laws ourselves. That said, I also believe that some laws can be bent, if not broken. ;)

Edit: and of course humor is ALWAYS welcome!

Chipcom , what laws would you deem as worthy of bending, breaking or ignoring? In this state it is legal to roll a stop sign if the intersection is not occupied, but not a stoplight. I often roll these also if no traffic is present.

[joeprim]

If I can see both ways for a long distance I don't actually stop for a stop sign either in my truck or on my bike. This morning driving to work I "stopped" for a large truck and then went, but my wheels never actually stopped turning. I bike the same way is that what you mean. Some times I come up to a red light stop the bike unclip aand all seeing no traffic go ahead and cross - it keeps you away from the guys turning right.

You tell me how far off I am.

Joe

[Helmet Head]

If I can see both ways for a long distance I don't actually stop for a stop sign either in my truck or on my bike. This morning driving to work I "stopped" for a large truck and then went, but my wheels never actually stopped turning. I bike the same way is that what you mean. Some times I come up to a red light stop the bike unclip aand all seeing no traffic go ahead and cross - it keeps you away from the guys turning right.

You tell me how far off I am.

Joe
I think this accurately describes what most car drivers and cyclists do.

What's problematic is when stop signs are run when it's not clear in both directions, particularly if there is someone waiting at the cross street at 4 way stop intersection. I see this all the time. It's exacerbated when many drivers seem to assume that the cyclist will run the stop sign.

[John Wilke]

If I can see both ways for a long distance I don't actually stop for a stop sign either in my truck or on my bike. This morning driving to work I "stopped" for a large truck and then went, but my wheels never actually stopped turning. I bike the same way is that what you mean. Some times I come up to a red light stop the bike unclip aand all seeing no traffic go ahead and cross - it keeps you away from the guys turning right.

You tell me how far off I am.

Joe

This one really pisses me off. The problem with this is that 'not quite stopping' progresses into just slowing down for **STOP** signs. It also leads to the 'but officer ... I didn't see him !'.

Stop means **STOP**, not yield.

jw

[Brad M]

There's no way I'm coming to a complete lock/foot down stop at every bloody sign.

[Cromulent]

There's no way I'm coming to a complete lock/foot down stop at every bloody sign.
I use the rolling track stand.

[genec]

Chip,

I think one of the fundamental problems with driver and cyclist interaction is that most motorists are ignorant of the laws as they pertain to cyclists. They have it in their head that we are suppose to live in the gutter and yield to cars in all instances. It is my opinion that much could be gained by making all road users aware of the current laws, rights, and responsibilities. I just had to take online traffic school (apparently there are no u-turns in the business district) and there was not one mention of bicyclists rights, only that motorists should "Watch Out!" for them. Very helpful. A few more, "cyclists allowed Full use of Lane" or "Cyclists Merging" when a bike lane ends would be very helpful in my opinion. The rest seems like common sense to me. Use the bike lane when it's there, stay out of the door zone, and take the lane when it's narrow, let cars pass when there's room. What am I missing? I bend a few laws when I ride and when I drive, but inching forward on the right in heavy traffic or rolling through and empty intersection is not the same risk if I were to perform such actions while driving. Otherwise this whole debate has gotten way out of hand with both sides beating each other up over every little verbal misstep. I really can't imagine that many of the experienced cyclists if going out together would really ride all that differently.


+1. Especially regarding the education of motorists to the rights of ALL users of the road!!!

[chipcom]

Chipcom , what laws would you deem as worthy of bending, breaking or ignoring? In this state it is legal to roll a stop sign if the intersection is not occupied, but not a stoplight. I often roll these also if no traffic is present.

I don't advocate breaking or ignoring any laws, unless for some reason doing so would put you at risk. Bending the law is another thing. Stop lights are a good example. If I cannot trigger a light to change, I'm going to treat it as a 4-way stop, even if the letter of the law does not state that it is legal to do so. Rolling stops are another good example.

[chipcom]

This one really pisses me off. The problem with this is that 'not quite stopping' progresses into just slowing down for **STOP** signs. It also leads to the 'but officer ... I didn't see him !'.

Stop means **STOP**, not yield.

jw

Good point - if other traffic is present in the opposite or cross directions and have the right of way - STOP. I tend to stop even if the other direction traffic doesn't have the right of way, at least until I am sure they see me, because you never know if THEY might blow that stop!

[LCI_Brian]

I think one of the fundamental problems with driver and cyclist interaction is that most motorists are ignorant of the laws as they pertain to cyclists. They have it in their head that we are suppose to live in the gutter and yield to cars in all instances. It is my opinion that much could be gained by making all road users aware of the current laws, rights, and responsibilities.
+1 ... and I would add police to the list also.

[Helmet Head]

I think one of the fundamental problems with driver and cyclist interaction is that most motorists are ignorant of the laws as they pertain to cyclists. They have it in their head that we are suppose to live in the gutter and yield to cars in all instances. It is my opinion that much could be gained by making all road users aware of the current laws, rights, and responsibilities.
I don't find it problematic that many or even most (who knows?) motorists are ignorant of cyclist rights and many of whom even believe "that we are supposed to live in the gutter and yield to cars in all instances". I assert my right and 99.999% accept, apparently regardless of the ignorance. And those who don't accept it? I ignore them. So what's the problem?

Now, law enforcement officers that fall into this category are problematic, to be sure. Not sure what to do about this one.

[mac]

If I can see both ways for a long distance I don't actually stop for a stop sign either in my truck or on my bike. This morning driving to work I "stopped" for a large truck and then went, but my wheels never actually stopped turning. I bike the same way is that what you mean. Some times I come up to a red light stop the bike unclip aand all seeing no traffic go ahead and cross - it keeps you away from the guys turning right.

You tell me how far off I am.

JoeThis one really pisses me off. The problem with this is that 'not quite stopping' progresses into just slowing down for **STOP** signs. It also leads to the 'but officer ... I didn't see him !'.

Stop means **STOP**, not yield.

jw

+1 for John. You're in a car. It takes no effort other than pressing on the brake and clutch and shifting to 1st. STOP at stop signs. The little kids or guys on BMX or rollerbladers or joggers that you don't see have absolutely no chance against a car.

If there's one traffic offense that really, really bugs me, it's the stop-sign rollers. When you don't stop at intersections when you are supposed to, chaos ensues.

[noisebeam]

I don't find it problematic that many or even most (who knows?) motorists are ignorant of cyclist rights and many of whom even believe "that we are supposed to live in the gutter and yield to cars in all instances". I assert my right and 99.999% accept, apparently regardless of the ignorance. And those who don't accept it? I ignore them. So what's the problem?

Because most of us are human and don't have as thick a skin as you. Most of us don't enjoy the abuse confusion over laws cause even if it doesn't result in an immediate safety risk. However I do think it does in some cases, such as agressive tailgaiting used to intimidate cyclists from using the full narrow lane or intentional close passing to 'teach' cyclists to move further right or back in the bike lane.

This is food for thought too: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060118/ap_on_sc/schadenfreude_study;_ylt=Au.JVVEmnToYyGJjFGGI_i8DW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl Could some men interpret riding in the center of a narrow lane as 'bad' or 'cheating' the law and not feel any emotion about potentially harming the cyclist?

Al

[Treespeed]

+1 ... and I would add police to the list also.

I definitely agree with that sentiment and have had run-ins with the LAPD, but to some extent these are cancelled by other positive experiences I've had too. But I don't see how anyone could be against an expansion of education of current laws.

And on the topic of ignoring laws one issue I find incredibly offensive is the request for riders to walk a bicycle. Usually though these are rules set forth on private property and not so much a legal requirement. But I'm infinitely more coordinated riding than I am walking and I resent the idea that I need someone else looking out for my safety, or that I can't be trusted to not run down pedestrians.

[mac]

And on the topic of ignoring laws one issue I find incredibly offensive is the request for riders to walk a bicycle. Usually though these are rules set forth on private property and not so much a legal requirement. But I'm infinitely more coordinated riding than I am walking and I resent the idea that I need someone else looking out for my safety, or that I can't be trusted to not run down pedestrians.
#1 - it's not your property. Respect the wishes of the owner or get off of his property
#2 - liability. We live in the lawsuit capital of the US. If you get hurt on his property doing that dangerous bicycle-riding thing, you can sue him for all he's got because he didn't warn you to not ride. That sign protects him for those lawsuits. Sadly, that's the world we live in.

[Treespeed]

#1 - it's not your property. Respect the wishes of the owner or get off of his property
#2 - liability. We live in the lawsuit capital of the US. If you get hurt on his property doing that dangerous bicycle-riding thing, you can sue him for all he's got because he didn't warn you to not ride. That sign protects him for those lawsuits. Sadly, that's the world we live in.

Mac,

You're right about the private property issue and correct about why these rules would be put in place. And my reaction to such a rule would be to avoid such a retailer and inform them about why they won't be receiving my business. This probably won't change a thing, but in this day and age voting with one's pocketbook is more productive than visiting the voting booth.

[Helmet Head]

Because most of us are human and don't have as thick a skin as you.
Now I'm inhuman. Great.


Most of us don't enjoy the abuse confusion over laws cause even if it doesn't result in an immediate safety risk.
I never said I enjoyed it. I just choose to not let it bother me. You are free to choose otherwise.


However I do think it does in some cases, such as agressive tailgaiting used to intimidate cyclists from using the full narrow lane or intentional close passing to 'teach' cyclists to move further right or back in the bike lane.
I would never challenge a truly aggressive driver. I think what passes as an aggressive driver is often actually more tame. For example, I've never been unsuccessful in getting a tailgater to back off with a simple issuing of a slow/stop arm signal. But if someone didn't back off, i would pull over at the curb or in the shoulder, let him pass, and then continue. Unless that happens more than once a month - and I can't recall ever having to do it - I wouldn't call that problematic either.


This is food for thought too: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060118/ap_on_sc/schadenfreude_study;_ylt=Au.JVVEmnToYyGJjFGGI_i8DW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl Could some men interpret riding in the center of a narrow lane as 'bad' or 'cheating' the law and not feel any emotion about potentially harming the cyclist?

Just about anything is possible, but I think such interpretations are extremely unlikely. I think what's missing is how natural it looks for a cyclist to be riding in the center of a (truly) narrow lane, and how unnatural it looks for a cyclist to be squeezing up against the side of such a lane. If you are ever in a car with someone else driving who encounters a cyclist hugging the edge of a narrow lane, check out the driver. They often are unsure of what to do. What most cyclists don't realize is the motorist is looking for a cue from the cyclist. In this case, the edge-hugger is saying "go ahead, squeeze on by", yet there doesn't seem to be enough room for that. A centerish position makes much more sense... "he's riding there because there is insufficient room to pass". And drivers don't need any special training to figure this out...

[Helmet Head]

Chipcom - I gotta say, I'm really enjoying this thread.

[noisebeam]

Now I'm inhuman. Great.

I never said I enjoyed it. I just choose to not let it bother me. You are free to choose otherwise.

I would never challenge a truly aggressive driver. I think what passes as an aggressive driver is often actually more tame. For example, I've never been unsuccessful in getting a tailgater to back off with a simple issuing of a slow/stop arm signal. But if someone didn't back off, i would pull over a the curb or in the shoulder, let him pass, and then continue. Unless that happens more than once a month - and I can't recall ever having to do it - I wouldn't call that problematic either.

Just about anything is possible, but I think such interpretations are extremely unlikely. I think what's missing is how natural it looks for a cyclist to be riding in the center of a (truly) narrow lane, and how unnatural it looks for a cyclist to be squeezing up against the side of such a lane. If you are ever in a car with someone else driving who encounters a cyclist hugging the edge of a narrow lane, check out the driver. They often are unsure of what to do. What most cyclists don't realize is the motorist is looking for a cue for the cyclist. I this case, the edge-hugger is saying "go ahead, squeeze on by", yet there doesn't seem to be enough room for that. A centerish position makes much more sense... "he's riding there because there is insufficient room to pass". And drivers don't need any special training to figure this out...
Hey no insult beyond the jest-sult intended. Poking fun as I know you have a thick enough skin to take it.

I'm for the most part with you on the 'don't let it bother me,' but I recognize that it bother somes folks.

We've discussed agressive tailgaiting/close passing before and it does happen to me about 1/wk and it is truly agressive tailgaiting (i.e less than half car length, sometimes as close as 3ft at 25mph) and I don't always get response to the 'back off' gesture and I don't always have the confidence to take even one hand off the bars while being followed so close and trying to keep stable over bumps, etc.

It may look natural to ride in the center of the lane to a cyclist, but where I live I have never once in 14 years seen a cyclist ride in the center of a lane and when I do see them when riding in narrow lanes they are hugging the curb to the extent that pedals striking curb seems to be likely. So seeing a cyclist in the middle of a narrow lane here is extremely rare and looks completely out of place and probably wrong to most drivers. Drivers will squeeze by cyclist whethre they are in center, right center or curb hugging and I know from driver reaction they approve of as far to the right as possible so they have to put as little of their car over the lane dividing line as possible.

Al

[Helmet Head]

#1 - it's not your property. Respect the wishes of the owner or get off of his property
#2 - liability. We live in the lawsuit capital of the US. If you get hurt on his property doing that dangerous bicycle-riding thing, you can sue him for all he's got because he didn't warn you to not ride. That sign protects him for those lawsuits. Sadly, that's the world we live in.
#3 - Difficulty of banning kids from using bikes as toys on the property without banning bikes altogether.

[linux_author]

- my friend and i break the law every day... the speed limit on one of our rides is 10 mph! of course, depending on wind direction (we're 4 km from the Gulf), we're going anywhere from 16 to 25 mph...

- our biggest problems are:

1. necessity of verbal/audio warnings to the under- and over-medicated octogenerians out for a walk

2. snowbirds in groups on the path, inevitably with one who will do the 'squirrel dance' when you announce your impending pass

3. dog walkers who let their beloved Fifis take a big 'ol crap in the middle of the path

4. dog walkers who let their beloved Fifis run "Free! Free! Free off the leash!" right as you pass

5. dog walkers who use those retractible leashes and walk on one side of the path while the dog is on the other

6. in-line skaters (invariably women, due to a dearth of male skaters) with ipods and earphones in both ears hogging the center of the path

- and don't get me started on stop signs... we have to dodge motorcyclists doing 50mph in a 15mph zone!

- our best weapons?

a. a loud conversation

b. good 'ping' bells

c. helmet or bar mirrors

d. situational awareness

[Helmet Head]

It may look natural to ride in the center of the lane to a cyclist, but where I live I have never once in 14 years seen a cyclist ride in the center of a lane and when I do see them when riding in narrow lanes they are hugging the curb to the extent that pedals striking curb seems to be likely. So seeing a cyclist in the middle of a narrow lane here is extremely rare and looks completely out of place and probably wrong.

Al
You're assuming what looks natural for a cyclist to do in a given situation is determined by what one is accustomed to seeing cyclists do in that type of situation. I don't believe that.

If you're operating a car, motorcycle, horse, camel, bulldozer, tractor, or are an alien on an out-of-this-world flotation vehicle, or a bike, and you're traveling in the middle of a narrow lane, your purpose and intent is clear, regardless of what people are used to seeing with regard to others operating the same device in that situation. That's what I mean by "look natural". People are used to other people operating there, and that's the context they interpret them in when they see them there. That they happen to be on a bicycle is irrelevant.

[Helmet Head]

- our biggest problems are:

1. necessity of verbal/audio warnings to the under- and over-medicated octogenerians out for a walk

2. snowbirds in groups on the path, inevitably with one who will do the 'squirrel dance' when you announce your impending pass

3. dog walkers who let their beloved Fifis take a big 'ol crap in the middle of the path

4. dog walkers who let their beloved Fifis run "Free! Free! Free off the leash!" right as you pass

5. dog walkers who use those retractible leashes and walk on one side of the path while the dog is on the other

6. in-line skaters (invariably women, due to a dearth of male skaters) with ipods and earphones in both ears hogging the center of the path

Wouldn't taking the road instead of the path solve all 6 of your biggest problems?

[genec]

I don't find it problematic that many or even most (who knows?) motorists are ignorant of cyclist rights and many of whom even believe "that we are supposed to live in the gutter and yield to cars in all instances". I assert my right and 99.999% accept, apparently regardless of the ignorance. And those who don't accept it? I ignore them. So what's the problem?

Now, law enforcement officers that fall into this category are problematic, to be sure. Not sure what to do about this one.

Educate the law officers and the motorists both. Especially the law officers!

Now granted you may not have problems with ignorant motorists, but then every cyclist is not Helmet Head are they... Some of us are bothered by ignorant motorists.

In fact, the very fact that you ignore them, just gives them subtle permission to do the same thing or bolder on the next cyclist, so in fact you are exacerbating the problem.

[mac]

linux_author: before I knew any better, I would always go for a fitness ride on the many miles of beach bike paths from Santa Monica to Venice and beyond. As it turns out, those bike paths are for tourists and casual people on rented cruisers. Besides all of the aforementioned things you encounter, you can also throw in very sandy, hence slippery, turns. Bells don't work since no one can hear you over the ocean. Saying "on your left" doesn't work because the people don't speak English. Those that do understand the words coming out of my mouth don't process them and just stop and stare off into space.

As this is a safety thread, the best safety advice I could give is to not use the bike path and ride on the street. Or get an electric scooter (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=166741). :D

[Helmet Head]

By ignoring a motorist who, say, honks at me while I'm legitimately merging left into a left turn lane, I'm giving him subtle permission to do it again? So instead of ignoring him I should be what, moving aside, flipping him off, yelling at him? That would be more effective? I don't think so.

Now, if there is an opportunity to talk to him about it (because that's always so fruitful :rolleyes: ), I might take it. But I'm thinking about situations where there is no opportunity to do that.

[linux_author]

Wouldn't taking the road instead of the path solve all 6 of your biggest problems?

- to go where? (the rides are for workouts)...

- besides, local roads are one lane each way, treacherous sand up to the white line, and many drunk drivers!

:-(

[Helmet Head]

- to go where? (the rides are for workouts)...
To go for your workout! You ride on a path with pedestrians for your workouts? Yikes!


besides, local roads are one lane each way, treacherous sand up to the white line, and many drunk drivers!

You mean there is sand to the right of the white stripe at the edge of the road? So ride LEFT of the stripe!

What's the speed limit on these roads, how fast do you typically ride (do you have a speedo?), and how wide are the lanes?

[mac]

- to go where? (the rides are for workouts)...
If you ride for fitness and the path is crowded where you can't get up to a speed to workout, then you are wasting your time. Ditch the bike and take up jogging. Use the bike path. :)

[Bekologist]

I break as many laws as I can get away with, but often stop at red lights. On the very rare occasions I do actually drive a car, I pull thru reds like I was riding a bicycle sometimes. Only when they're clear!!!

Also speed, take both lanes, drive fast, and drink coffee while digging for scooby snacks, and fiddling with the radio while grabbing a thermos from the passenger side floor...

I think an assertive lane position is valuable, but so is the ability to ride next to parked cars without assuming it's radioactive alley...and using a considerable bike lane is something no method of bicycling should deny...

[genec]

By ignoring a motorist who, say, honks at me while I'm legitimately merging left into a left turn lane, I'm giving him subtle permission to do it again? So instead of ignoring him I should be what, moving aside, flipping him off, yelling at him? That would be more effective? I don't think so.

Now, if there is an opportunity to talk to him about it (because that's always so fruitful :rolleyes: ), I might take it. But I'm thinking about situations where there is no opportunity to do that.

You offered your one and only solution... "you ignore the motorist." You have stated this time and time again.

You know my reaction... I will educate that motorist or at least try. No point in them driving about with a "you shoulda seen what some stupid bicycle fag did today" attitude. Give them a piece of your mind and then they really have something to chew on.

But beyond that, the very fact that every motorist I have ever spoken to has shown me that they do not know the laws, tells me that there is a huge gap in their education.

Hey, all motorists are not going to learn overnight, but some effort should be made to make them aware that WE CYCLISTS are allowed to use the road just like them.

[Mars]

I break the law when I feel it was not made with a cyclist in mind. For example, a number of traffic lights on my route are sensor activiated, but not for a bike. So, I have to sit through light cycles and never get a green. Screw that, I'm going when it's clear. Another instance is a red light in super slippery winter conditions. I'm told that rear end accidents in these conditions are the most common type of fender bender. But, put a bike in between the cars of that "fneder bender" and you will have a fatality. Once again, once the traffic is clear, I'm going.

[Treespeed]

I don't find it problematic that many or even most (who knows?) motorists are ignorant of cyclist rights and many of whom even believe "that we are supposed to live in the gutter and yield to cars in all instances". I assert my right and 99.999% accept, apparently regardless of the ignorance. And those who don't accept it? I ignore them. So what's the problem?

Now, law enforcement officers that fall into this category are problematic, to be sure. Not sure what to do about this one.

The obvious problem is that at least every other day I have a motorist who passes to closely because they feel I shouldn't be in the lane. I attribute these common occurrences to motorist ignorance and the resulting 'problem' is that every close pass increases the likelihood of being clipped or worse rear-ended. You are always quick to point out that these are the rarest accidents, but they are also, when the occur the most likely to be fatal. So obviously the closer a motorist passes the more likely it is that there will be a collision. It is all well and good to ignore the behavior, how noble of you. But it doesn't do anything in the long run to change the behavior. You say you don't know what to do about law enforcement ignorance, but I would argue that it is symptomatic of the lack of education of all motorists to cyclists rights and responsibilities. When the folks that are charged with enforcing the laws are ignorant of the laws what do you think that says about the level of education across the board of all roadway users. You are so set on educating cyclists, as these are the ones we can all reach and change, but in the end this ignores the vast majority of roadway users.

I recently took a traffic school course, don't ask, and there was almost nothing about cyclists, except to watch out because we are unpredictable. On the other hand there was an exhaustive section on alcohol and narcotics. It is my opinion that a few more pages in the drivers manuals and an increase in signage would go a long way in getting the word out about our rights to the roadway. And I don't mean the share the road baloney, but a few "Cyclists allowed full use of lane" at some of the more contentious intersections and some sharrows that have been shown to increase passing clearance in studies in San Francisco. HH, you make the argument that bad drivers will just ignore such signage anyways, but this is a cop out argument, because if law enforcement and motorists are aware of the laws they are breaking it is more likely that scofflaws will be ticketed, instead of just having to ignore it.

[Brad M]

Thanks for torpedoing a cool thread, Serge.

[Helmet Head]

Thanks for torpedoing a cool thread, Serge.
Thanks for explaining what exactly you think I did that "torpedoed" this thread and what was wrong with it. Not.

Congratulations, you're #3 on my ignore list.

[Brad M]

Thanks for explaining what exactly you think I did that "torpedoed" this thread and what was wrong with it. Not.

Congratulations, you're #3 on my ignore list.
You posted in it.

[sbhikes]

I'm one of the side huggers on narrow roads if I cannot go fast enough. It seems to work well enough. When I can go fast enough I don't hug the side.

I know everybody says my way is wrong, but it works for me. It's a conscious choice. I tried the alternatives and like it better this way. When I want more visibility, like if I can hear someone coming around a blind corner behind me, I'll stick out my arm into the lane. Let them hit my arm first instead my whole body.

[Helmet Head]

Diane, how fast is "fast enough"?

I wouldn't call your way "wrong", by the way, I just found that being more assertive about lane position caused motorists to treat me with more respect, or at least with more space. I sure don't miss those close calls where they're not sure whether they can squeeze in or not, and some try to squeeze in anyway.

Hugging the edge is inviting them to squeeze into the lane next to me. But as far as I'm concerned, they're not welcome there, so why invite them?

[mac]

how fast is "fast enough"?
I think a better question is how slow relative to the flow of traffic. On canyon road ascents, I stay as far right as possible, especially when there is no gutter. My speed of 3-5mph compared to the trucks flying up at 60+ mph is far, far too great to try to take the lane, especially around the bends.

[chipcom]

Chipcom - I gotta say, I'm really enjoying this thread.

I just wanted to prove out a theory that one does not need to apply labels to cycling to discuss it and that by removing those labels that may be controversial, the discussion may even be productive and attract some people who might otherwise avoid it. :)

[chipcom]

- my friend and i break the law every day... the speed limit on one of our rides is 10 mph! of course, depending on wind direction (we're 4 km from the Gulf), we're going anywhere from 16 to 25 mph...


OK, so that begs the question, why do you ignore the (I assume) posted speed limit, what are your reasons? To follow up on that question, if you are riding 25mph on a road posted at 25mph, no shoulder, in the lane, would it bother you if the cars were doing 45, honking their horns and hollering at you?

[chipcom]

I'm one of the side huggers on narrow roads if I cannot go fast enough. It seems to work well enough. When I can go fast enough I don't hug the side.

I know everybody says my way is wrong, but it works for me. It's a conscious choice. I tried the alternatives and like it better this way. When I want more visibility, like if I can hear someone coming around a blind corner behind me, I'll stick out my arm into the lane. Let them hit my arm first instead my whole body.

I don't buy any 'right way' or 'wrong way', if it works for you and you are not endangering others, then it's obviously right for you, which is all that counts. That's why I used to have that quote from George Patton in my sig, because I believe that it is acceptable to suggest to people what to do, ride a bike, for example, but we should not tell them how to do it, letting them use their own innovation, creativity, skill and experience to ride in a manner that works best for them. Unless of course they ask 'how would you do this?'

[sbhikes]

Diane, how fast is "fast enough"?

I wouldn't call your way "wrong", by the way, I just found that being more assertive about lane position caused motorists to treat me with more respect, or at least with more space. I sure don't miss those close calls where they're not sure whether they can squeeze in or not, and some try to squeeze in anyway.

Hugging the edge is inviting them to squeeze into the lane next to me. But as far as I'm concerned, they're not welcome there, so why invite them?
How fast is fast enough? When I go down the road in question I can get up to 34 mph. That's fast enough. When I go up I go about 5. That's not fast enough. Cars can go 25-35 either way.

Why invite them to pass? Because they want to be on their way and I want them to be on their way, too. If I'm going to plod up a hill at 5 mph I'd rather do it alone. Most of them are a whole lot nicer about passing me when I give them ample space and opportunity to do so.