I agree with this and would like to suggest that there is a sociological component that goes along with the educational. Let me explain.

I suspect that many of the folks on this board, who are my age (37) or older, have very fond memories of riding bicycles far and wide as children. For me, a bicycle meant independence and the ability to transcend the boundaries of my neighborhood. My friends and I walked a lot, too.

However, I would suggest that many new motorists have not had similar experiences. When they were too young to drive, they were driven everywhere. And now that they are old enough, well, they drive themselves everywhere. They have graduated from the back seat to the passenger seat to the driver's seat. Their entire perspective on the built environment has been viewed through a lens called a windshield. And I think this limits these new drivers' capacity to identify with and respond appropriately to pedestrians and cyclists they encounter while motoring about.

I was involved with a pedestrian advocacy group and one of the messages it used was "You are a pedestrian, too." The purpose was to underscore to drivers that they too would ocassionally need to cross the street on foot and would like some courtesy from other motorists. However, I'm not sure such a message has the same resonance with younger people, whose main pedestrian experience is walking from the parking lot into the store. Even fewer have spent time with their hands on the handlebars of bicycles.

More and more people truly do not know what it's like to walk or ride a bicycle in an urban or suburban environment. And that means they really don't understand the people who do. And that often makes them suspicious of us. And suspicion breeds fear. And fear breeds...


Good points. Sadly many areas are now being built which only minimally support cyclists or pedestrians and fully support only autos. I can think of some very noisy intersections in my area that are uncomfortable to simply walk around due to the noise and traffic flow.

But the bottom line is what you stated... anything that makes us different makes it "them verses us."

Well today only two cagers messed with me.

First incident happened about 5 blocks from the house. Two lane residential street, speed limit 25, I'm going at the same speed as a car about 7-10 car legnths ahead of me. I approach an intersection and the intersecting traffic has a stop sign, I don't. A woman on my left at a stop looks me straight in the eye, I shake my head "dont do it" and she just pulls out infront of me causing me to brake and have to swerve to go behind her.

Incident two. I'm riding on a two lane divided road where the breakdown lane ends and I merge over and take the right lane. A woman in an SUV, on the phone, of course, stays back about 3 car legnths and lays on the horn for a good while, when all she had to do was go in the left hand lane, which was completely clear, and go past.

Lets see, two long rides in 3 days, 3 incidents.

SBHIKES touched on the reality...
And your comments totally missed the reality of what has been suggested - that those whose cadence, appearance, etc don't mimic the LCI poster's profile for an acceptable cyclist are asking for the abuse that may come from clueless cretins. And I don't recall specifying any particular cycling outfit as correct for any locale; that is your construct. But it is most definitely out-of-line for so-called bicycle advocates to make bogus excuses for jerks who harass and verbally abuse cyclists.

Beautiful Miami, Florida. I guess I have to put up with the idiots since I get to ride year round. Fair trade, but nevertheless a little upsetting. I get over it fairly quickly, though.

I ride year round in London, Ontario, Canada. Today we had a snow storm. Let me tell you, snow is a grand equalizer! On a fairly busy single lane people try to over take, leaving the "train tracks", getting stuck in snow, falling in behind. Repeat. On a double lane people have great visual queues on how to pass: i.e. the "train tracks". They know where to put their wheels ;). In fact, I think I enjoyed today's ride much better than when the roads are dry. No one honked either :).

Cute joke. There is irony to it. One reason the Vietcong were so successful against the Americans was they used bicycles to transport supplies. I read this in the Bike Cult (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785764372/sr=8-1/qid=1141323887/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6810040-1591347?%5Fencoding=UTF8) book. These were less visible than trucks to the American airmen. I'm sure if Helmet Head was back there then, he would have lectured the VC about riding VC on the Ho Chi Minh trail.

Thats a great book. I just started reading it again after years of having it on the shelf.

And your comments totally missed the reality of what has been suggested - that those whose cadence, appearance, etc don't mimic the LCI poster's profile for an acceptable cyclist are asking for the abuse that may come from clueless cretins. And I don't recall specifying any particular cycling outfit as correct for any locale; that is your construct. But it is most definitely out-of-line for so-called bicycle advocates to make bogus excuses for jerks who harass and verbally abuse cyclists.

You didn't have to suggest any particular outfit... but in the past you have mentioned more "normal" clothing might help get more people on a bike.

But consider that clothes do serve a function and they do make a difference in the perception of those who view the clothing... hence books have been written such as Dress for Success there is that old saying "clothes make the man."

If you feel that clothing or attitude has nothing to do with other's perceptions... try wearing an Hawaiian shirt and plaid pants to your work and see what the response is... if clothes don't matter, no one should say a thing.

Many states have laws against motorist harassment of cyclists. For example, I know that it's illegal to throw any object at a cyclist in at least one state (can't remember which state, though).

You mean to tell me that it's ok to throw objects in all states but one?

What truly amazes me is how drivers treat human life on a bike as that not unlike a squirrel running across the road. You know if I hit the squirrel driving I feel bad about it but it was the squirrels fault for being in the road.

Two days ago I went through the normal routine. A few cars, and big trucks tried to "make it close", and a few almost struck me down at high speed. That's par for the course, and I expect that sort of treatment. However, one lady (on an empty 2 lane road) buzzed me, then slowed dramatically right in front of me, forcing me to either stop, or pull up around to her right side. Her passenger window was down, and as I rolled up on the right side of the car, she shouted "I've already called the cops on you!" I wasn't quite ready for that statement, and I tried to ask for her reasoning for calling the cops, but as I began to inquire she jumped on the gas, and sped off.

It's just another case of "motorist" ignorance. In her mind, bikes are not legally allowed on the road. I really don’t know how to combat this level of ignorance, but it certainly is pervasive where I live. :(

Sometimes the silent ones are the potential killers. In the US, motorist seem to threaten cyclists at least once a week. Latest attack. Here in Fallbrook. Watch out where two lanes narrow into one. Some old creep decides to use the bike lane to pass and merge. I was pretty much in the way. Could almost feel the bumpers' steel and exhaust as I had to merge right. Scariest part. No confrontration because doubt the dufus knew I was there. I think?

If you feel that clothing or attitude has nothing to do with other's perceptions... try wearing an Hawaiian shirt and plaid pants to your work and see what the response is... if clothes don't matter, no one should say a thing.
How dense are you? Nobody (except you) is talking about dressing for work, church, funeral, going into a restaraunt, visting the school principal/dean, or meeting a prospective in-law, employer or customer client! The thread is about cycling and harrassment of cyclists by strangers. Period.
My point is my contempt and disgust with so-called bicycling advocates who make excuses for (and tacitly encourage) harrassment and verbal abuse of cylists who don't dress and ride with the "style" of the self-blessed experts. Get it?

Sometimes the silent ones are the potential killers. In the US, motorist seem to threaten cyclists at least once a week.
And you can read at least once a week on A & S where some so-called bicycling advocates will make excuses for the threateners by casting aspersions/blame on the cycling victims for not fitting the "approved" profile.

I think there is a little to much obsession with appearance and generalizing on its impact on how one gets treated while on the road as a cyclist.

If one knows their environment, one knows if how they look is making them stick out for better or worse.

Al

In regards to the OP. When I'm in the city and feelin' frisky, when a driver pulls that ****ing in my blind spot routine...if I were to go down for some reason they could not stop in time at all thus insuring death or injury to me. So I sometimes pull over to the left completely cutting off the lane to this maniac. If they keep it up I start to sloooooooow down while turned in my seat pointing to the safe lane to pass me in. More often than not they get the point and in a couple seconds they have passed me safely and gotten on with their miserable lives. If you show fear, the dog will bite.

I can be very accommodating, and often am. You come on like an ******* you get treated like one.

The only real harassment I get on a regular basis (at least 1 in every 3 rides) are cars with two or three young adults in them. The passenger is bored and will scream something as they pass me. It doesn't sound like a normal road noise, so your psyche treats it like a threat. It just makes you nervous. You get that quick shot of 'fight or flight' adrenaline and tense up, taking you out of our groove.

Makes me really wish I'd have the guts to ride with noise-cancelling headphones or ear plugs.

The funniest one was this guy hanging out of his window, sticking his arms up, yelling, "YEAHHH!!! GO LANCE!! WOOOHOOOO!!!" Obviously, he was saying that to be a jerk, but when I caught up to him at the light I said, "That was pretty funny!" and he and the driver just laughed like it was a hoot.

Like to bike. Don't know what you mean for sure. I considering anyone on two wheels being self propelled as a bicyclist. End of definition. Just some more dedicated than others . If you are on the road either as a cager or a cyclist- that person enjoys certain rights to the road, including life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Clothing optional. as long as one is decent.

How dense are you? Nobody (except you) is talking about dressing for work, church, funeral, going into a restaraunt, visting the school principal/dean, or meeting a prospective in-law, employer or customer client! The thread is about cycling and harrassment of cyclists by strangers. Period.
My point is my contempt and disgust with so-called bicycling advocates who make excuses for (and tacitly encourage) harrassment and verbal abuse of cylists who don't dress and ride with the "style" of the self-blessed experts. Get it?

Excuse me... how "dense" are you?

First and foremost I don't recall any "so-called bicycling advocates" making any claims about dress for cyclists. The first mention of any kind of "dress" was in post 35 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2244324&postcount=35) where kf5nd mentioned wearing a kit to look "...like an upper-middle-class adult person" vice looking "juvenile or from a lower social class." So now are you going to pile kf5nd into your list of "self-blessed experts" when kf5nd only suggested that the attitude of motorists may be affected by what they see on the road in front of them?

Meanwhile motorists themselves are obviously part of the "fashion parade" lest "we" would all be driving gray boxes instead of multi-colored fancy shaped vehicles that Detroit has determined we want. (and which people readily snap up)

Further, are you going to deny that people (anybody) make snap judgement decisions based on the appearance of those they meet on the street (whether walking, cycling or otherwise)... if so then you are perhaps the only person alive that never "sizes up" someone based on appearance. Congradulations... however I doubt that description fits you. You seem awful happy to make snap decisons based on the slightest use of certain words... much less appearance.

Now your contempt of "so called bicycling advocates" has been well documented in this forum, so no need for further demonstations.

But the fact of the matter is that what you wear (and this can be clearly demonstrated by attending any of the institutions you mentioned in the "wrong clothing") does make an impression on people.

The real question is will the appearance of cyclists make a difference to "strange" motorists...

Since this issue may affect more than me and ILTB, it is worthy of discussion...

Sorry if disgusts you... you can of course move on to another thread... or chime in with some real response, such as your experience... vice simply venting your contempt for "so called bicycling advocates."

Have a nice day.

Dressing?..... only if I wear a bicycle police officers uniform.

First incident happened about 5 blocks from the house. Two lane residential street, speed limit 25, I'm going at the same speed as a car about 7-10 car legnths ahead of me. I approach an intersection and the intersecting traffic has a stop sign, I don't. A woman on my left at a stop looks me straight in the eye, I shake my head "dont do it" and she just pulls out infront of me causing me to brake and have to swerve to go behind her.


I don't consider that harassment, I think of that as more of a "cognition issue." Most people drive on autopilot, with very little concious thought. The filtering mechanism of many drivers won't even process a cyclist as a moving object, let alone something to yield to. They would no more stop for a cyclist than a piece of cardboard in the road.

What is an interesting testament to human nature is that if something happens to force the driver's conciousness to take over and reassess the object ahead -- like a near collision, or the cyclist yelling -- very often the driver's reaction is angry. I don't ascribe this to any particular hostility to cyclists, I think it's a human response to surprise.

I think there is a little to much obsession with appearance and generalizing on its impact on how one gets treated while on the road as a cyclist.
I think there is way too much obsession with generalizing about cyclists' appearance and its impact on how they should get treated while on the road as a cyclist. And don't forget that cadence counts too at least according to one LCI "expert" posting his opinion on this thread.

I didn't say that singling people out because of their appearance was RIGHT... I am only suggesting that it may be HAPPENING, and it may help people to play the game that is appropriate for their locale, if they want to play that game.

I am not making excuses for anyone who endangers or harms cyclists! You're dreaming that one. Anymore than wearing a helmet "excuses" the person who hit me and put me on the pavement.




And your comments totally missed the reality of what has been suggested - that those whose cadence, appearance, etc don't mimic the LCI poster's profile for an acceptable cyclist are asking for the abuse that may come from clueless cretins. And I don't recall specifying any particular cycling outfit as correct for any locale; that is your construct. But it is most definitely out-of-line for so-called bicycle advocates to make bogus excuses for jerks who harass and verbally abuse cyclists.

You are dreaming.


And you can read at least once a week on A & S where some so-called bicycling advocates will make excuses for the threateners by casting aspersions/blame on the cycling victims for not fitting the "approved" profile.

Sure, cadence counts... because if you stop or significantly slow your pedaling as you come up to an intersection, everyone will think you're gonna stop!!!

Or didn't you know that one?

Do I have to teach you EVERYTHING?



I think there is way too much obsession with generalizing about cyclists' appearance and its impact on how they should get treated while on the road as a cyclist. And don't forget that cadence counts too at least according to one LCI "expert" posting his opinion on this thread.

Sure, cadence counts... because if you stop or significantly slow your pedaling as you come up to an intersection, everyone will think you're gonna stop!!!

Or didn't you know that one?

Do I have to teach you EVERYTHING?
I don't know if you were being serious or not, but I'll assume serious.
The counter to this is that very few if any motorists pay attention to cyclist cadence and even if they do notice it don't have a good reference to know if it is fast or not. Even I as a cyclist don't watch it when I am driving, I usually watch the cyclists head/face (or arms if they are signalling) when they are near intersections to help me undertand their intent.

Al

Well ILTB, it appears I do owe you a bit of an apology... kf5nd is a "bicycling advocate," as indicated by his LCI signature (which is not visible in the "reply mode" BTW).

However, if you continue to believe that appearance doesn't make a difference, I challange you to wear a clown costume on your commute and see what reactions you get.

That certainly takes this discusssion out of the office, church, whatever, and puts it right back on the bicycle where it belongs.

And that suggestion is as "scientific" as I care to get... on this subject.

...she shouted "I've already called the cops on you!"...

It's just another case of "motorist" ignorance. In her mind, bikes are not legally allowed on the road. I really don’t know how to combat this level of ignorance, but it certainly is pervasive where I live. :(
It's pervasive even in 'bike-friendly' Portland. The local police are currently conducting highly publicized 'safety stings' against bicyclists riding on established, city-designated low-traffic bike routes if they don't come to a complete, foot down / trackstand stop at stop signs, even as they admit to not ticketing speeding motorists unless they are 12-17 mph over the limit. Why are they doing this? Apparently, the police bureau is 'complaint driven', and they are responding to the sort of uninformed complaints from motorists that Bac describes.

Not one person will honk if you strap a crossbow to your back.

Two days ago I went through the normal routine. A few cars, and big trucks tried to "make it close", and a few almost struck me down at high speed. That's par for the course, and I expect that sort of treatment. However, one lady (on an empty 2 lane road) buzzed me, then slowed dramatically right in front of me, forcing me to either stop, or pull up around to her right side. Her passenger window was down, and as I rolled up on the right side of the car, she shouted "I've already called the cops on you!" I wasn't quite ready for that statement, and I tried to ask for her reasoning for calling the cops, but as I began to inquire she jumped on the gas, and sped off.

It's just another case of "motorist" ignorance. In her mind, bikes are not legally allowed on the road. I really don’t know how to combat this level of ignorance, but it certainly is pervasive where I live. :(Imagine her surprise if you had replied "And I've just callefd the cops on you, license number ...." And I'm serious-- she should have been reported for that stunt. I think your story is the perfect "poster story" for illustrating the urgent need for a public education campaign in every state. To the extent that cyclists are not pressing their legislatures for funding for a public education campaign, they're failing at cycling advocacy. Motorists aren't going to bother to educate themselves; it's up to us to make sure our respective states are doing the job.

Her comment makes me wonder, though, where this nitwit ever picked up the notion that you were violating the law...

It's pervasive even in 'bike-friendly' Portland. The local police are currently conducting highly publicized 'safety stings' against bicyclists riding on established, city-designated low-traffic bike routes if they don't come to a complete, foot down / trackstand stop at stop signs, even as they admit to not ticketing speeding motorists unless they are 12-17 mph over the limit. Why are they doing this? Apparently, the police bureau is 'complaint driven', and they are responding to the sort of uninformed complaints from motorists that Bac describes.If the argument is that cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists, who cares if law-breaking cyclists are being cited? I sure don't; they should be cited, because they're placing themselves above the law.

If the argument is that cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists, who cares if law-breaking cyclists are being cited? I sure don't; they should be cited, because they're placing themselves above the law.

The issues are at least four fold:

1. Police allegiance is with the motorists - most cops spend all day in their cars and live in the suburbs to boot. I doubt many of them ride bicycles ever.

2. The police have a double standard for enforcement. Motorists are 'allowed' to speed by the police, as long as they don't speed too fast, and motorists are 'allowed' to roll stop signs by the police, as long as they don't roll through too fast, whereas bicyclists are required to obey the letter of the law.

3. I see motorists breaking the law all day long, (speeding, running lights, failing to signal, failing to yield to pedestrians, the list goes on) and there's never any visible, publicized or concerted effort by the police to do anything about it.

4. A bicyclist who approaches a stop sign at at 15 mph and rolls through at 1 mph pays the same $242 fine as a motorist who approaches a stop sign at 40 mph and rolls through at 15 mph. Is this fair? Is the risk the same?

I support changing the law to match the Idaho laws - there bicyclists are allowed treat a stop sign as a yield sign.

Good point. I do know a couple of big shot attorneys that also ride, a couple even commute.

I think getting laws passed in Florida so that cyclists can treat a stop sign as a yield and a red light as a "stop then proceed if clear" would also be great. Other states have this law and apparently it works well. Then cyclists like me and many others on the board can ride as we do, running red lights and stop signs when its safe to do so but never interfering with traffic, and therefore not break the law and not suffer the wrath of the almighty VC.

If that law ever got passed, cyclists could also lobby for an education campaign to introduce the law that would tell drivers about the new law and also send a "share the road" message to drivers.I think the education campaign is a great idea for companion legislation to an anti-harassment law. It seems that there's a LOT of misinformation out here, and the ONLY way to correct that is by a public education campaign from the state-- the entity that licenses these nitwits in the first place, and that has the power to mess with their licenses in the second place. All the reasoning in the world from a cyclist isn't going to go anywhere, but a statement of what the law is from the state, repeated over and over and over, will have some impact.

I think introducing the stop sign legislation together with anti-harassment legislation would muddy the waters. The anti-harassment legislation is designed to say "We have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists (and therefore, motorists who violate our rights should be punished)." The stop sign legislation says "we have rights that motorists don't have." The two messages together won't make sense to legislators. One is designed to protect law-abiding cyclists from being endangered by vigilantes; the other is designed to legalize an illegal cycling practice. In my opinion. the anti-harassment statute is essential for all cyclists; the other is desirable for law-breaking cyclists, but is not essential. Therefore, they shouldn't be introduced together, because the stop sign legislation has the potential to sink the safety legislation.

My 2 cents.

The issues are at least four fold:

1. Police allegiance is with the motorists - most cops spend all day in their cars and live in the suburbs to boot. I doubt many of them ride bicycles ever.Yes, most cops etc... My understanding of the campaign, however, is that it's the flip side of being cycling friendly-- that, as a concession to motorists for making the city cycling friendly, the city is enforcing the law. Not a big deal in my opinion. Cyclists want to be treated as vehicles, and that means that blowing stop signs is illegal.


2. The police have a double standard for enforcement. Motorists are 'allowed' to speed by the police, as long as they don't speed too fast, and motorists are 'allowed' to roll stop signs by the police, as long as they don't roll through too fast, whereas bicyclists are required to obey the letter of the law.I'm all for stricter enforcemnt of the vehicle code. Motorists should be cited for speeding. I see some ridiculous stunts by motorists, and wonder where the cops are. For what it's worth, the worst offenders in PDX are suburbanites who simply have NO IDEA how to function in a city. Now, as far as motorists being allowed to toll stp signs, not in the stings. The cops are citing EVREYBODY, motorist and cyclist alike. Cyclists who don't even bother to slow down a a stop sign are being cited. Boo hoo hoo. Oh the injustice of it all. Motorists who roll thrpoug a stop sign like it's a suggestion are bing cited. Boo hoo hoo. I have no problem with the law being enforced. Now if the cops were only citing cyclists at these stings, and giving motorists a pass at these stings, I'd be outraged. But outrage that the law is being enforced equally? Not a chance.


3. I see motorists breaking the law all day long, (speeding, running lights, failing to signal, failing to yield to pedestrians, the list goes on) and there's never any visible, publicized or concerted effort by the police to do anything about it.I see that too. It would seem to me to be a more supportable argument to request the City to make a concerted effort enforce the law city-wide, rather than targetting ONLY cycling routes. Pick a few problem areas, bring a truckload of citation books, and start writing.


4. A bicyclist who approaches a stop sign at at 15 mph and rolls through at 1 mph pays the same $242 fine as a motorist who approaches a stop sign at 40 mph and rolls through at 15 mph. Is this fair? Is the risk the same?The risk is not the same. But your example is also an exaggeration. Some of the cyclists who were cited never even slowed as they blew the stop signs.They're not all the safety-conscious angels you depict. Cite 'em and cite 'em and cite 'em until they learn that they're not above the law.


I support changing the law to match the Idaho laws - there bicyclists are allowed treat a stop sign as a yield sign.I don't understand the argument that bicyclists should have more rights than motorists.

I don't understand the argument that bicyclists should have more rights than motorists.
It's not about more rights for cyclists. It's about balancing a cultural and social bias that favors motor vehicles over bicycles in many respects. I also think it's about matching enforcement activities to the public safety risk of the activities in question. Bicyclist violations are much, much lower on this list than motorist violations.

I don't understand the argument that bicyclists should have more rights than motorists.


Because if I get all wierd and inattentive on my cell phone and run into the vehicle beside me I'm pretty sure I won't kill the driver, or bounce across the intersection and end up in Mrs. Jones's living room. :p

We're the ones being killed out there, if we get bonus rights then we can hopefully be out of harms way when the light turns green and the two lanes to one lane drag race starts.

It's not about more rights for cyclists. It's about balancing a cultural and social bias that favors motor vehicles over bicycles in many respects. I also think it's about matching enforcement activities to the public safety risk of the activities in question. Bicyclist violations are much, much lower on this list than motorist violations.OK, I'm totally supportive of a cultural and social bias that fvors bicycles over automobiles. I think fareless square-- and the downtown of every city-- should be an auto-free zone. I think there should be bicycle freeways and bicycle boulevards linking the downtown to the rest of the city.

I don't think making a stop sign a "yield sign" does a lot to equalize anything. I think it creates a weird situation in which cyclists are simultaneously saying "we should have equal rights" and "we don't have to obey some of the traffic laws."

When I was young-- say about 20 years old-- I had a motto-- "The rules are for everybody else." I thought, and behaved, as if the rules didn't apply to me. But what would happen if evrybody thought and behaved that way? What we'd see is what we're seeing. Motorists who think the speed limit is the lower limit. Motorists who think they can buzz cyclists. Motorists who have appointed themselves vigilantes to enforce whatever they've hallucinated the law to be. Motorists who roll through stop signs because they're just suggestions (like the motorist who almost hit me downtown two days ago). When everybody thinks "the rules are for everybody else" there are no rules.

Now, admittedly, a bicycle blowing a stop sign is less dangerous than an SUV blowing a stop sign. But it's still not safe. A cyclist can still injure a pedestrian. Two cyslists both blowing a stop sign can still injure each other. And a cyclist who blows a stop sign can still ruin somebody else's day--and perhaps the rest of that other person's life-- if he/she collides with a vehicle.

Because if I get all wierd and inattentive on my cell phone and run into the vehicle beside me I'm pretty sure I won't kill the driver, or bounce across the intersection and end up in Mrs. Jones's living room. :p

We're the ones being killed out there, if we get bonus rights then we can hopefully be out of harms way when the light turns green and the two lanes to one lane drag race starts.A bicycle is perfectly capable of killing a pedestrian, or even another cyclist. A bicyle is only capable of damaging an automobile. So let's say I'm driving, and some halfwit on a bicycle blows the stop sign and hits my car. Why should I bear the burden of seeing someone injured or killed by my vehicle? Why should I bear the burden of the damage to my vehicle?

fair enough ^^^+1^^^
Well put Blue.

Even if I blow a light however it is because it's "safe" for me to do so. No peds are affected.
As we are all aware my perceptions of the environment around me are far superior to that of any driver.

I have never EVER hit a ped that didn't appear from in between parked cars. And even then managed to avoid a full strike by endangering my life to save their sorry asses by carving up beside downtown traffic.

If we were all treated equally, we'd never have this issue.

I think you guys are spot on with the "look." Maybe Tx is a bit different. I don't ever get harrased

Her comment makes me wonder, though, where this nitwit ever picked up the notion that you were violating the law...

Where would she ever pick up the notion that we cyclists were NOT violating the law?

I know in CA the laws giving cyclists "rights to the road" were only enacted in the '70s. So that means that any driver that is around 55 years old may never have been taught that cyclists have rights to the road.

Going further... it has only been in the last 8 years or so that anything of significance was put into the driver training handbook.... and at that, it is only 2 pages out of some 60 or so pages. So even a driver as young as 24 might say that they had no idea of cyclists rights to the road.

Even then the motorist has to read and interpret what the handbook is saying and as yet, there are no questions on the test refering to cyclists... what incentive do motorists have to know whether we belong on "their" roads.

Personally I believe that motorists should get a second level of education... just like we teach reading in elementary school and later, literature. Seems to me that motorists should get some secondary training at around 18, after they have had two years to practice with the basic skills.

I know in my case, I did get several classes of secondary training due to riding a motorcycle and also being in the Navy... in both cases I was required to take safety and defensive driving classes... but does the general public go through that?

I don't understand the argument that bicyclists should have more rights than motorists.

Consider it a "Prius" privilege... the fact that bicycles are zero emission, low road wear vehicles... should allow us to use car pool lanes and have any other advantage that hybrids and car pools also enjoy.

A bicycle is perfectly capable of killing a pedestrian, or even another cyclist. A bicyle is only capable of damaging an automobile. So let's say I'm driving, and some halfwit on a bicycle blows the stop sign and hits my car. Why should I bear the burden of seeing someone injured or killed by my vehicle? Why should I bear the burden of the damage to my vehicle?


Well according to the law as it was written for other states... the stop becomes a yield and the cyclist is still responsible for yielding right of way when required... so this is not a free pass to blow stop signs, it simply means that you must look and yield... but a complete stop may not be needed. It's pretty realist when you consider that one can easily assess a traffic situation at about 6MPH... basically jogging speed, and determine if there are hazards for which one should stop.

...a cyclist who blows a stop sign can still ruin somebody else's day--and perhaps the rest of that other person's life-- if he/she collides with a vehicle.
I guess how long they fret over it depends on how much the person you hit cares about a scratch in their paint job. :rolleyes:

The fact is that bicycles travel slower and have much shorter stopping distances than a motor vehicle. Bicyclists generally also have much better visual and auditory awareness of their surroundings than motorists, for a variety of reasons. If I am approaching a stop sign, I slow down and check for vehicles. If there are vehicles on the cross street I am prepared to stop, but if there aren't, I keep rolling.

I don't consider that harassment, I think of that as more of a "cognition issue." Most people drive on autopilot, with very little concious thought. The filtering mechanism of many drivers won't even process a cyclist as a moving object, let alone something to yield to. They would no more stop for a cyclist than a piece of cardboard in the road.

What is an interesting testament to human nature is that if something happens to force the driver's conciousness to take over and reassess the object ahead -- like a near collision, or the cyclist yelling -- very often the driver's reaction is angry. I don't ascribe this to any particular hostility to cyclists, I think it's a human response to surprise.

I disagree. If she looks me straight in the eye while I shake my head "no" and she pulls out in front of me, she was very cognizant of my presence. She was F****** with me because she knows nothing will happen to her in a crash.

If I had seen that she didn't even look in my direction and didn't see me, then thats a cognition problem, and if that had been the case, I would have shrugged it off and not even posted about it. Carelessness doesn't piss me off. I always try to prepare myself for negligent drivers and have an escape strategy.

What this woman did is completely different. Its intentional conduct.

I guess how long they fret over it depends on how much the person you hit cares about a scratch in their paint job. :rolleyes:

The fact is that bicycles travel slower and have much shorter stopping distances than a motor vehicle. Bicyclists generally also have much better visual and auditory awareness of their surroundings than motorists, for a variety of reasons. If I am approaching a stop sign, I slow down and check for vehicles. If there are vehicles on the cross street I am prepared to stop, but if there aren't, I keep rolling.

Actually bicycles have longer stopping distances... but the relative speed difference makes it appear that we can stop in less distance.

Try it yourself... get both a car and bike moving at 20MPH and panic stop both.

Actually bicycles have longer stopping distances... but the relative speed difference makes it appear that we can stop in less distance.

Try it yourself... get both a car and bike moving at 20MPH and panic stop both.
Stopping distance has a lot to do with the weight of the vehicle. Do you have any references to support your claim?

I disagree. If she looks me straight in the eye while I shake my head "no" and she pulls out in front of me, she was very cognizant of my presence. She was F****** with me because she knows nothing will happen to her in a crash.

If I had seen that she didn't even look in my direction and didn't see me, then thats a cognition problem, and if that had been the case, I would have shrugged it off and not even posted about it. Carelessness doesn't piss me off. I always try to prepare myself for negligent drivers and have an escape strategy.

What this woman did is completely different. Its intentional conduct.I had the same experience in a crosswalk. I had the light, I was in the crosswalk walking, and a woman in an SUV was attemtping to make a left turn. I looked her in the eye so I would be sure she saw me. And she did see me, and she floored it anyway. Drove straight at me full speed, cold as steel.

Here's an interesting thread I'm noticing. Many of these incidents are being perpetrated by women, often driving SUVs. The women in these incidents-- aggressive driving, flipping the bird, fighting words-- are engaging in "traditionally male behavior," yet the difference between these women and men is that every man knows that you don't write a check with your mouth that you can't back up with your fists. I seriously doubt that these women have any intention of backing up there aggression with their fists, so it seems like they're adopting traditional male aggression while hiding behind the traditional feminine "off-limits" to avoid the consequences of that aggression. Interesting social phenomenon, to say the least.

I guess how long they fret over it depends on how much the person you hit cares about a scratch in their paint job. :rolleyes: I'd be pissed whether it was the paint on my bike or the paint on my car. Sorry, but cyclists don't have the right to damage my property and then roll their eyes. And I'd be pretty unhappy to have somebody die under my wheels, even if it was entirely their fault. And anybody in the vicinity who rolled their eyes while I was grieving over the idiot cyclist who was dying under my wheels would get the sh!t kicked out of them.

A bicycle is perfectly capable of killing a pedestrian, or even another cyclist.A statistician might argue with your first point since it (a) happens so rarely and (b) when it does, as happened recently here in Oregon, it was a burly man colliding with a rather elderly person, who also did not die immediately. The vast majority of pedestrians involved in collisions with bicycles, we are talking more than 99%, do not die as a consequence. Your first point is an outrageous exaggeration.A bicyle is only capable of damaging an automobile.Agreed. Unless the rider is in Iraq, but even then it's not the bike it would be the luggage!So let's say I'm driving, and some halfwit on a bicycle blows the stop sign and hits my car. Why should I bear the burden of the damage to my vehicle?Agreed, you shouldn’t. I think we cyclists should be obliged to have, at minimum, liability insurance. But don’t get me started on insurance; it is an unbridled and outrageous conspired theft. The technology exists to reduce car theft to near zero and to make driving whilst uninsured or unlicensed a thing of the past – both the car manufacturers and the insurers have a vested interest in more accidents and more stolen cars.Why should I bear the burden of seeing someone injured or killed by my vehicle?Presumably your vehicle is also capable of feeling happy and sad. Vehicles do not do anything other than exist temporarily – the operator does it all. If you happen to be in your vehicle and witness a body fall from the sky and land on your vehicle, then death is not caused by the vehicle any more than it would have been caused by landing on nearby ground, it was caused by something that happened earlier and had nothing to do with you.

With irate, convulsing, cagers who are on the verge of a stroke because they have to slow down to the speed limit, it's far more effective to smile and wave than to give them "the finger." The former sends their blood pressure skyrocketing, and may even induce tears or suicidal thoughts, while the latter just validates their own obnoxiousness.

It's not about more rights for cyclists. It's about balancing a cultural and social bias that favors motor vehicles over bicycles in many respects. I also think it's about matching enforcement activities to the public safety risk of the activities in question. Bicyclist violations are much, much lower on this list than motorist violations.

Consider it a "Prius" privilege... the fact that bicycles are zero emission, low road wear vehicles... should allow us to use car pool lanes and have any other advantage that hybrids and car pools also enjoy.

I think these are intriguing arguments, actually. If we want to create a privileged status for bicycles, I’m all in favor of that. But then we need to state that bicycles have a privileged status—not that they have the same status. Bicycles as privileged vehicles, cars as second-class vehicles—bring it on.

However, I don’t think we should be trying to sell that idea at the same time that we’re trying to pass an anti-harassment statute. I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive ideas, but one is an easier sell than the other, and the easier sell is also the more urgent issue affecting cyclist safety and promotion of cycling.

A statistician might argue with your first point since it (a) happens so rarely and (b) when it does, as happened recently here in Oregon, it was a burly man colliding with a rather elderly person, who also did not die immediately. The vast majority of pedestrians involved in collisions with bicycles, we are talking more than 99%, do not die as a consequence. Your first point is an outrageous exaggeration.Whether they die or not, it shouldn't be permitted. Whether the pedestrian died immediately or later is irrelevant. Talk about outrageous arguments...

Presumably your vehicle is also capable of feeling happy and sad. Vehicles do not do anything other than exist temporarily – the operator does it all. If you happen to be in your vehicle and witness a body fall from the sky and land on your vehicle, then death is not caused by the vehicle any more than it would have been caused by landing on nearby ground, it was caused by something that happened earlier and had nothing to do with you.If I happen to be in my vehicle and somebody dies under my wheels due to their own negligence, it's going to be traumatic. If I happen to be in my vehicle and a body lands on my hood, it's going to be traumatic. Even the body landing on my hood didn't "just happen." It came from somewhere, and is either the result of an intentional or negligent act (I'm discounting tornadoes and hurricanes from this scenario). So can the statisticians tell me why it's acceptable that I should be traumatized by somebody else's negligence?

But really, which would the statisticians tell you is far more likely to happen-- a body falling from the sky and landing on my hood, or a negligent cyclist/pedestrian dying under my wheels?