The Notion... explained.

[chipcom]

So chipcom... the problem as you see it is the attitude of the motorists. What, if anything, can be done? Certainly this is only going to continue to escalate... people are going to driving 50MPH on 25MPH roads and who knows what on 50MPH roads... It's gonna look like Mad Max's world out there.

I know that speedbumps had just been added to that road I was on just last year... folks were already pushing the 25MPH speed limit in that school zone.

1. Enforce current laws. For example, this 5-15mph 'safe zone' between the speed limit and your actual speed needs to go bye-bye - at least on the non-freeways and especially in residential areas.

2. I'd love to start a PR campaign:

"Slow the F Down, Pay the F Attention, and mind your F'in Manners

[WalterMitty]

Homophobic? Ah, Diane, I think you're reaching there.



I'll have to chime in, some of my closest calls have been with blonde ponytails in Trans Am's (shudder). I got the jump on a bleacher in a ricer one day nearly beating her through an intersection and thought she would would either blow her engine or run me down for the offense.

Soccer Mom's in SUV's and mini vans strike terror across the city, and then the phone rings....

I was riding along with a buddy in his truck one day through a school zone. He was bellyaching about traffic being too slow. I said, this IS a school zone. He looked down at his speedometer and said, "yeah, I am going a little fast." I agreed, "yes, 55 is a little fast for a residential school zone."

I don't think it's personal, it just seems that way. I've watched individuals drive up to a shopping center cussing the pedestrians in the cross walk for being there, then exit their cars, walk blindly into traffic and then cuss the drivers for not yielding right of way.

Sometimes, for fun, I'll get in my Z71 Silverado and drive around town doing the speed limit, just to let all the freaks in their Honda Civics and Toyota Camry's work themselves up into brain aneurisms trying to intimidate me into going faster than the posted limit. I just think about the Class III trailer hitch hanging below my rear bumper and laugh about the guy that totalled his Ford Explorer on it.

Then I get back on my Bicycle. :D

[noisebeam]

The official take in AZ about what speed limits do and don't do and how they are set:
http://www.dot.state.az.us/Highways/Traffic/Speed.asp

Al

[patc]

But this idea of "the Notion" really is an issue... where in the hell do they get it? And why does it come out in a simple, low key place like a 25MPH residential street, while approaching and obvious stop...

Ignorance, plain and simple. Do you think most people have ever read the local traffic code? Remember more than a fraction of the driver's handbook? Heck no. They learned just enough to pass the test, and then retain just enough to avoid getting tickets. This is just my conjecture, but I feel that most drivers out there only know what they observe every day. See bikes, accept bikes. Few bikes, don't accept bikes. Why do you think so many cycling advocates agree that more cyclists on the road = better and safer cycling?

Beyond that, let's not read too much into the incident. The fact that you rode a narrow vehicle not part of bozo's mindset allowed him to do an aggressive boneheaded move, and blame it on you. The same bozo may well make bonehead moves daily, whenever he thinks he can get away with it, and always blame "the other guy." I don't read a specific anti-bike "notion" from this incident without knowing that bozo acts like this with only with bikes.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Maybe you should change your handle form "I like to bike" to "I like to argue" or even "I like to be an arse" or how about "I am an arse"...yeah that's you all over


No argument at all - you take wild stabs at guessing other's motivations, physical appearance and intelligence without a shred of information such as your line of BS on the individual mentioned in the OP and extrapolate/generalize and speculate all kinds of wingy BS fruitcake psycho babble "Notions" based on your own naval/crystal ball gazing.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Beyond that, let's not read too much into the incident.
The bottom line: The OP overreacted to a silly (but inconsequential) driving behavior; a driving behavior so common that I'd have to wonder if he drives/cycles in a special cocoon found in San Diego. Making a BFD case about some anti-cyclist "Notion" from such an incident (and trying to initiate a confrontation with the driver) makes me think there is something in the water in San Diego that warps at least some cyclists sense of reality or ability to determine existance of real problems.

[joejack951]

The bottom line: The OP overreacted to a silly (but inconsequential driving behavior; a driving behavior so common that I'd have to wonder if he drives/cycles in a special cocoon found in San Diego. Making a BFD case about some anti-cyclist "Notion" from such an incident makes me think there is something in the water in San Diego that warps at least some cyclists sense of reality or ability to determine true existance of real problems.

Because it's "so common" we shouldn't care about it, or even more absurd (in your opinion), label it a prevalent Notion?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Because it's "so common" we shouldn't care about it, or even more absurd (in your opinion), label it a prevalent Notion?
Care about what? A cyclist who doesn't like to get passed? Because that is all the OP is beefing about. The other driver should have stayed behind him in the OP's opinion and did not, so now OP is bent out of shape; just like the driver who didn't like to have to be behind the OP. Two hot heads both playing head games over who's first in line. My take: BFD!

[genec]

Care about what? A cyclist who doesn't like to get passed? Because that is all the OP is beefing about. The other driver should have stayed behind him in the OP's opinion and did not, so now OP is bent out of shape; just like the driver who didn't like to have to be behind the OP. Two hot heads both playing head games over who's first in line. My take: BFD!

Again you are wrong... neither one of us were fighting for "first in line." The motorist that swooped around me was making a right turn... thus went from behind me, way over to the left, across in front of me, only to end up on the far right, behind a stopped car.

I stayed right where I was and ended up at the line, at a red light, ready to go straight through.

His move didn't even gain him anything... absolutely nothing! He actually drove far out of his way to end right back where he was going in the first place.

The motorist said I should be out of his way... I was... but he was too stupid to accept that I was going straight and he was turning. If he expected me to be on the right side of the road... that would have put me right in his path.

BTW mr hothead driver crossed a double yellow line to "pass" me. His move was did not make sense, did not gain him anything, and he broke the law to do it.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I stayed right where I was and ended up at the line, at a red light, ready to go straight through.

His move didn't even gain him anything... absolutely nothing! He actually drove far out of his way to end right back where he was going in the first place.
So? I guess he felt he gained something, he was no longer behind you, must have meant something to him. What was his "gain of nothing" to you?

The motorist said I should be out of his way... I was... but he was too stupid to ...
Didn't you initiate this verbal confrontation? If he had told you to go forth and multiply, but not in those exact words, do you think he would have been out of line in his response to what appeared to him as some sort of jerk trying to pick a fight? I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but if you go knocking on car driver's windows to question them/give advice don't be surprised if you get an unfriendly response.

[Treespeed]

No this I disagree with... I honestly feel that if I were in or on any other vehicle, this guy would have stayed behind me. There was no reason for him to rush to the stop... and any other vehicle slowly coasting to a stop at my 12MPH would have been an inconvience to the guy behind me, but would not have caused him to swerve out of his way, all the way into the oncoming lane, just to get around them.

This was directed at bicycles. Period... and so blatent and so perverse that it really surprised me. I was not in any danger, but it was a totally stupid move by that motorist for essentially no gain. Something totally visceral is what drove this guy.

In a certain sense, from my viewpoint, it was almost laughable, except that it happened... HH has a point.

I am not sure I buy all the anti-bike lane stuff as I still feel that on high speed multilaned roads, BL make some sort of sense.... they do eliminate the ambiguity of sharing a lane at high speeds... That I belive.

But this idea of "the Notion" really is an issue... where in the hell do they get it? And why does it come out in a simple, low key place like a 25MPH residential street, while approaching and obvious stop...

I disagree that it was only because you were on a bicycle. It definitely contributed to his rage, but here in Los Angeles I get folks passing needlessly on the right and racing up to a red light. As an experiment go out and drive the speed limit, or better 1 mile below and watch the tempers and middle fingers flare. I'm not saying that the "notion" doesn't exist, but that it's part of a larger entitlement to never be delayed on the roadway.

[sbhikes]

The problem is bigger than all of us. The problem isn't a "Notion" that bikes don't belong on the road. That is just a symptom of a bigger problem. That problem is that we're too crowded, too hurried, too impatient, our lives are too stressful.

The best option that I can see is to try to educate motorists. Then at least they will know that their attitude is wrong. But that won't fix the problem. It'll only help ease the symptom a little bit.

The problem of road-rage will continue until the bigger issue is addressed. I do not have an answer to how to make our lives less stressful and our living space less crowded. I think that is also a symptom of how we've designed our urban landscape, but it's also a sort of ingrained American attitude to be rude and impatient. In a way, a more crowded urban landscape would actually alleviate some of the stress because that would make non-auto-centric transportation easier to use.

I really don't think that HH's arms race of alpha-dog stares and ever more defiant assertion of rights to the center of the lane is the best answer. It may be a good answer to how to survive the current conditions, but it's not sufficient and it isn't sustainable as conditions continue to worsen.

[noisebeam]

The problem is bigger than all of us. The problem isn't a "Notion" that bikes don't belong on the road. That is just a symptom of a bigger problem. That problem is that we're too crowded, too hurried, too impatient, our lives are too stressful.

The best option that I can see is to try to educate motorists. Then at least they will know that their attitude is wrong. But that won't fix the problem. It'll only help ease the symptom a little bit.

The problem of road-rage will continue until the bigger issue is addressed. I do not have an answer to how to make our lives less stressful and our living space less crowded. I think that is also a symptom of how we've designed our urban landscape, but it's also a sort of ingrained American attitude to be rude and impatient. In a way, a more crowded urban landscape would actually alleviate some of the stress because that would make non-auto-centric transportation easier to use.

I really don't think that HH's arms race of alpha-dog stares and ever more defiant assertion of rights to the center of the lane is the best answer. It may be a good answer to how to survive the current conditions, but it's not sufficient and it isn't sustainable as conditions continue to worsen.
All very well said.

I dropped out of the cager road race well before I became a utility cyclist. I made a concious effort to stop speeding, stop being in a hurry, stop racing to the next light and drove with my windows down year round when at speeds below 45mph or so. I became far more relaxed overall and started to enjoy driving more (even in bumper to bumper traffic, when I would just chill to good tunes in the slow lane, keeping 50-100ft gap in front of me), but dispised the aggressive idiots even more and became more saddened by the current state of affairs. Then a few years later I became a utility cyclist.

I sense the aggressive behavior self purpetuates and escalates as drivers feed off each other. Even nice non agressive people feel like they have to drive even more aggresssively just to keep up. And the effect spirals into a worsening one as time goes on.

Al

[chipcom]

There is only one solution - reefer for everyone. Makes the day go just a little bit slower. :D

[genec]

So? I guess he felt he gained something, he was no longer behind you, must have meant something to him. What was his "gain of nothing" to you?


Didn't you initiate this verbal confrontation? If he had told you to go forth and multiply, but not in those exact words, do you think he would have been out of line in his response to what appeared to him as some sort of jerk trying to pick a fight? I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but if you go knocking on car driver's windows to question them/give advice don't be surprised if you get an unfriendly response.

His "gain of nothing" to me was a stupid show of power that just wasted gas. And an illustration of the lack of respect toward cyclists and lack of forward planning that some motorists have. I.E. he saw me 10 feet in front of him, but failed to think about the red light or the result of his "swift" move.

I did not knock on his window... I did yell... to be heard through the closed window. My comment was "What, a pint of gas to go that 20 feet." (I thought it was quite clever). His comment was of rage and hate. “Bikes are supposed to get outta the way.” I yelled back... "Better check the law, I have every right to be right here."

After that it was along the lines of "No you don't." and "Yes I do." Then the light turned green.

I probably should have simply given him the "roll down the window" sign and then asked him why he did what he did and what it gained him. But I was a bit breathless from riding hard and the "pint of gas" thought just happened to be right on my mind... after watching his actions. (it is amazing the way things slow down and the thoughts that can go through one's mind sometimes)

I might have made a far better impression using sarcasm... but then again, he was already yelling at me behind his rolled up window.

But directly to you... Yes, it was a minor altercation. But it highlighted the type of confrontations I do get from time to time. The kind that make me wonder what exactly are these (what is your term...) "Jack Donkeys" thinking.

Yesterday, there was no real danger in the event (he did give me plenty of room... he went fully over the double yellow), but the slow motion excution of it, and the total futility of it, for no gain what so ever... simply cast a light on something that has bothered me for a long long time.

And certainly if he was inclined to do that to anyone... why didn't he simply drive around the vehicle he stopped behind. He could have quite easily not pulled up behind that stopped car, he could have continued right down the center of the lane and run the red light in all his "hurried" rage. But he wasn't in a hurry...

He was focused on bicycles... period. And that Mr ILTB, is the crux of the problem.

[genec]

I disagree that it was only because you were on a bicycle. It definitely contributed to his rage, but here in Los Angeles I get folks passing needlessly on the right and racing up to a red light. As an experiment go out and drive the speed limit, or better 1 mile below and watch the tempers and middle fingers flare. I'm not saying that the "notion" doesn't exist, but that it's part of a larger entitlement to never be delayed on the roadway.

I drive that way all the time... at worst I get the guy behind me that does the side to side wag and eventually figures out that they should use the other lane. I have never had someone pass me like this guy did on a narrow road, when I was driving a car.

It was ALL about bikes.

[genec]

The problem is bigger than all of us. The problem isn't a "Notion" that bikes don't belong on the road. That is just a symptom of a bigger problem. That problem is that we're too crowded, too hurried, too impatient, our lives are too stressful.

The best option that I can see is to try to educate motorists. Then at least they will know that their attitude is wrong. But that won't fix the problem. It'll only help ease the symptom a little bit.

The problem of road-rage will continue until the bigger issue is addressed. I do not have an answer to how to make our lives less stressful and our living space less crowded. I think that is also a symptom of how we've designed our urban landscape, but it's also a sort of ingrained American attitude to be rude and impatient. In a way, a more crowded urban landscape would actually alleviate some of the stress because that would make non-auto-centric transportation easier to use.

I really don't think that HH's arms race of alpha-dog stares and ever more defiant assertion of rights to the center of the lane is the best answer. It may be a good answer to how to survive the current conditions, but it's not sufficient and it isn't sustainable as conditions continue to worsen.


Tend to agree on all counts... especially your first paragraph.

[Blue Order]

Right, just like a racist can hold his point of view independent of whether race segregated facilities exist where he lives. The official sanction of the relevant thinking has nothing to do with how justified these racists and morons feel in teaching others lessons about their way of thinking. So the whole MLK civil rights thing - that was a big waste of time. After all, it didn't solve anything. We'd be no worse off if The South still had segregated water fountains, back of the bus rules, and all the other Jim Crowe laws and customs. :rolleyes: And for those of you at a 6th grade reading level, no, I'm not comparing bike lanes to racism or racial segregation.

Yes, of course a motorist can hold this POV independent of whether BLs exist or not. But that does not mean bike lanes have NO EFFECT on how many people hold the view, or how deeply they believe it.

You are absolutely right this mostly comes from a visceral reaction. But what makes this feeling so deep? Why do they feel so justified in feeling this way? That's where bike lanes play an important role, I believe. It's one thing to just think it, or just feel it. It's another to see an official sanction of what you're feeling. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that it's a powerful thing to see your thoughts and feelings officially sanctioned. Do we really want to be supporting anything that amounts to an official sanction of what these morons are thinking? No, getting rid of bike lanes won't solve the problem, just like repealing Jim Crowe laws did not solve racism. But it's an important first step. How can you argue that blacks and whites should be treated equally when there are signs that say blacks must get on at the back of the bus? How can you argue that cyclists have the same right to the roads and traffic lanes when there are signs and laws that say cyclists must stay in there segregated areas unless they have a very good reason to venture outside of them?

Consider how smokers are treated now that no-smoking is officially sanctioned (no smoking areas, etc.) Why is the visceral reaction to smoking so much stronger today than it was 20 years ago (we've known about smoking causing cancer for twice as long, so it's not just that)? Think about that.

Now think about the guy who thinks bike don't belong in the traffic lanes, and sees that his thoughts and feelings on the issue are officially sanctioned by the existence of bike lanes. After all, if bike lanes aren't there to get bikes out of the traffic lanes, because they outta be outta the traffic lanes, what are they for? How can you not understand that the moron will feel stronger about his beliefs, and more justified in teaching you a lesson about them, and thus more likely to do so, when he sees that they are officially sanctioned as bike lanes? Are you just ignoring everything I say about bike lanes because of how you feel about me (talk about visceral reaction)? Or do you really not see it?

But you're not listening, so why do I even bother to try to convince you? Maybe someone else is listening. Is there anybody out there? Does this make sense to anyone? Or am I all alone here?Let's try an alternate theory. People are stressed, due to a number of factors.

One of those factors is crowding-- there are more people now than there were before. More people crowding onto the roads, more people crowding into any area of life you can imagine. Psychologists have studied the effects of stress on rats by overcrowding them. The result is an increase in aggressive behavior.

Now factor in other stresses, like increased economic insecurity. Then put all these stressed people on the roads at the same time, and the resultant traffic jams raise the stress level even higher. Any chance to get around another vehicle is taken. People get aggressive. People get rude.

Now factor in modern automobile design: Most automobiles are capable of acceleration and sustained speeds that were astonishing just a few decades ago. It's easy to travel at a high rate of speed. Anything that slows that speed down is in the way. I've driven the speed limit, and been aggressively tailgated for it, even when there are open lanes to the left. Drivers do not want anything or anyone in front of them to slow them down.

And what's the slowest vehicle on the road? The bicycle. Drivers don't yell at cyclists to get back in the bike lane. They yell at them to get off the road. If anything, the bike lane is tolerated as the one place where a bicyclist isn't blocking the motorist's progress. Take away the bike lane and put the cyclist in the path of a speeding vehicle, and the driver is going to resent having to slow down-- even if the cyclist is traveling at or above the speed limit. The thing is, a driver can aggressively tailgate a motorist, but if the motorist stands his ground, there's nothing the aggressive driver can do short of ramming the other car or pulling a gun. But an aggressive driver can easily intimidate a cyclist, despite all your alpha dog nonsense. Tailgating, a tap of the rear wheel, an aggressive pass, intentionally causing a collision-- an aggressive driver has the upper hand with a cyclist, and the driver knows it.

The solution to road rage isn't to place the slowest-moving vehicles in the path of the fastest-moving vehicles. The solution is to:

1) Strictly enforce the speed limits. This one should be a no-brainer for cash-strapped local governments.

2) Lower the speed limit on certain routes designated as bike routes, such that the average cyclist is capable of riding at the speed limit.

3) Don't be a road-rage cyclist.

4) Start extending common courtesy to each other out there. Hope it pays forward. This means that even though you may legally be in the right, extend some common courtesy to motorists. Offer the right of way as a courtesy if it will make a difference. Let faster vehicles by-- or better yet, choose a different route-- if you're not capable of riding at the speed limit. Treat other users of the road with the respect and courtesy you would like to receive.

[Roody]

I think sbhikes is correct about the big picture. Ther are almost twice as many cars on the road as there were 30 years ago. The actual number of miles of roads has gone up almost not at all. Therefore there are almost twice as many cars per linear mile of roadway as there were when I learned how to drive. One "solution" to this problem is to move the traffic along more quickly. That's the basic reason speed limits have gone up and law enforcement has turned a blind eye to speeding. The only long term solution is to reduce the number of cars on the road.

Psychologically, many of these obnoxious and risky traffic maneuvers are related to a narcissistic view that it is an affront when somebody interferes with the individual's movement. The thought that precedes the rage might be something like: "How dare he! He is slowing ME down and that is a personal attack on ME. I must show him that he cannot get away with this!" The same feelings and thoughts would be there if he was walking or riding a bike, but he would not then possess his "weapon," the automobile. Again, the only longterm solution i see is to get more of these individuals out of cars and into busses and bikes.

[derath]

The problem is bigger than all of us. The problem isn't a "Notion" that bikes don't belong on the road. That is just a symptom of a bigger problem. That problem is that we're too crowded, too hurried, too impatient, our lives are too stressful.

The best option that I can see is to try to educate motorists. Then at least they will know that their attitude is wrong. But that won't fix the problem. It'll only help ease the symptom a little bit.

The problem of road-rage will continue until the bigger issue is addressed. I do not have an answer to how to make our lives less stressful and our living space less crowded. I think that is also a symptom of how we've designed our urban landscape, but it's also a sort of ingrained American attitude to be rude and impatient. In a way, a more crowded urban landscape would actually alleviate some of the stress because that would make non-auto-centric transportation easier to use.

I really don't think that HH's arms race of alpha-dog stares and ever more defiant assertion of rights to the center of the lane is the best answer. It may be a good answer to how to survive the current conditions, but it's not sufficient and it isn't sustainable as conditions continue to worsen.

+1

[Laika]

My comment was "What, a pint of gas to go that 20 feet." (I thought it was quite clever).

It is clever. When this happens to me, as it often does, and it makes me feel like talking, which it doesn't often do, I usually just say, "Big rush to get to a red light, huh?" and then glide away, into position for the light change.

[derath]

I was just thinking about this thread, and some recent experiences. It kind of flows into Shbikes post. I think it is just rude/tired/stressed people.

On my ride last week (I have mentioned it in several posts) I spent some time on the roads and some on a Rails to trails trail. Even on the trail I encountered runners, walkers and rollerbladers who seemed to feel that my "road" bike should be off the trail and on the road.

I ran into numerous walker and runners running 2 and sometimes 3 abreast. In addition they felt no need to move over to let me pass, forcing me into the grass, as well as slowing down to almost walking speed.

I am not using this as an anti BL reply. But if I can expect rude treatment from people walking and running on a path, where I presume they are not in a rush to get anywhere and are trying to exercise, enjoy the day etc, how can I expect any better from drivers on the road?

Just a thought.

-D

[Helmet Head]

Honestly, I do not experience a "get out of the way" mentality very much at all. However, on the same exact route my boyfriend does.
Based on your posts, I would bet that's because you tend to be "out of the way" almost all of the time. If you "mind your place" (out of their way), the yahoos will leave you alone.




But teaching that cyclists have the same rights to the road in an environment with bike lanes in which everyone knows that cyclists are supposed to ride in is ludicrous, and meaningless.

I beg to differ. HOV lanes are an example of a parallel accomodation which accomplish their intended purpose ...

The sad thing is, you're probably serious. Try to think about this a little bit deeper... just a bit. HOV lanes are understood in our culture to be preferred lanes. Their intent is to give people who "sacrifice" through carpooling an advantage over those that are stuck in congestion. While bike lanes also happen to give that advantage to cyclists once in a while, that is hardly their generally understood purpose. The generally understood purpose of bike lanes is much more like that of truck lanes: The purpose of truck lanes is to get trucks out of the way; similarly, the generally understood purpose of bike lanes is to get bikes out of the way. A big difference between truck lanes and bike lanes however, is that truck lanes are very limited, placed on only a few particular mountain grades on high-speed intersectionless multi-lane roads. I only know of a few examples of truck lanes in all of California. Bike lanes, however, are prolific. And cycling advocates keep asking for more and more.

But comparing bike lanes to HOV lanes is silly, and completely missing the point. The result is that the attitude displayed by the moron in the OP and in the following example from Al and in countless examples every day is reinforced by official sanctioning (via bike lanes) of the attitude.



He then goes on that he is allowed to go 35mph and that I have no right to ride on the road and block his way and should get on the sidewalk.



Drivers don't care what you are riding or driving, what the speed limit is or what anyone else's rights are, they just plain hate anything 'in their way'.

But when a motorist pulls up in line at a red light and there is a car or motorcycle in front of him, or even a cement truck, he does not honk or gun his engine. But if someone on a bicycle is there, who is not holding up that driver any more than would a cement truck driver, the driver is much more likely to get all agitated. I'm not discounting what you're saying. Yes, in general, drivers are impatient with just about anything that his holding them up. However, what you continue to ignore is the factor of how reasonable they believe the cause of the delay to be. If you are not aware of the significant difference in treatment of bicyclists over other drivers in various situations, then you're simply not paying attention.


When you first start riding your bike to work is when people come straight out with what they really think about how "...bikes don't belong on the road with cars," "...it's too dangerous," "...you'll get run over," etc. It's only after they realize you're actually not going to listen to reason and quit this crazy notion of bicycle transportation that they adjust their tone, but they still believe you're crazy.

That's exactly right. And for every one hundred who think you're crazy for "being out there" on a bike, and there are hundreds and hundreds of them, there are going to be a couple of morons among them who will feel morally compelled to teach you, the crazy guy, a lesson. It's for your own good to realize how crazy you are for being out there; they're doing you a favor when they do something to let you know.


I recently posted the bike laws of California outside of my cube at work... it has prompted some interesting conversations.

GREAT IDEA. I'm going to do that too.


So yeah, I know it happens to other slower moving vehicles, not just bicycles.
And it doesn't mean that bicyclists are hit with it particularly hard, and not just because they are inherently slower and so more likely to impede (which of course is a factor too), but also often JUST BECAUSE WE'RE ON A BICYCLE, which is the point of the OP. It's the notion that cyclists should not be in traffic lanes, period, that we're trying to address here. The fact that we're never going to solve the problem of some drivers being impatient with anything that is slowing them down is irrelevant to this discussion. I don't understand why Laika and Chipcom keep trying to derail us from addressing the significant part of the problem that is specific to cyclists.


As for the bike lane issues raised on this thread, I can certainly see HH's view. I think the presence of bike lanes can and does tend to "ghetto-ize" cyclists.
At least someone else doesn't have his head buried in the sand around here. Thank goodness for you, BB1.


I wish I knew a solution to all this. The only thing I can think of is more rigorous traffic enforcement

Societal attitudes do change. I truly believe there is less racism and sexism today than there was 50 years ago in our culture, though we still have a long way to go. The changes in attitudes about smoking are truly dramatic. Now look at drunk driving. I remember as a kid in the 60s hearing the adults joke about a friend who was so drunk, when the cops pulled him over he fell out of the car. Ha ha ha. The cops drove him home. That would never happen today.

What we need to change similarly is societal attitudes about cyclists on the roads in the traffic lanes (to make it much more acceptable). I don't have a solution either, but I do know we're never going to get anywhere on this issue with all these bike lanes all over the place. Each bike lane demarcates the officially sanctioned place for cyclists to travel to be outside of the regular traffic lanes. That cannot be helping our cause.

[noisebeam]

There is only one solution - reefer for everyone. Makes the day go just a little bit slower. :D
You would think. However I recently had an multiple pre-honk, then intentional close pass from a red pickup and just after they passed the air reeked of reefer. No other vehicles were around and it was obvious where it was coming from. Now I could give benefit of the doubt and assume it was just the passenger flyin high, but...

Al

[I-Like-To-Bike]

He was focused on bicycles... period. And that Mr ILTB, is the crux of the problem.
The real problem might arrive when you uncover the thinking patterns of Jack Donkeys by confronting one too many with your probing questions by yelling at them on the street. Consider yourself fortunate for at least two reasons; the fine weather in your area, and the apparant mellow mood of the Jack Donkeys you choose to confront on the street.

[chipcom]

You would think. However I recently had an multiple pre-honk, then intentional close pass from a red pickup and just after they passed the air reeked of reefer. No other vehicles were around and it was obvious where it was coming from. Now I could give benefit of the doubt and assume it was just the passenger flyin high, but...

Al

He probably thought you were bogarting the munchies. :eek:

[chipcom]

But when a motorist pulls up in line at a red light and there is a car or motorcycle in front of him, or even a cement truck, he does not honk or gun his engine. But if someone on a bicycle is there, who is not holding up that driver any more than would a cement truck driver, the driver is much more likely to get all agitated.

In my entire life, I have never had anyone so much as peep at me when I am stopped in front of them at a light. It's when the light is green that ANYTHING in front of them not moving fast enough becomes the enemy.

[Helmet Head]

Let's try an alternate theory. People are stressed, due to a number of factors.

One of those factors is crowding-- there are more people now than there were before. More people crowding onto the roads, more people crowding into any area of life you can imagine. Psychologists have studied the effects of stress on rats by overcrowding them. The result is an increase in aggressive behavior.

Now factor in other stresses, like increased economic insecurity. Then put all these stressed people on the roads at the same time, and the resultant traffic jams raise the stress level even higher. Any chance to get around another vehicle is taken. People get aggressive. People get rude.

Now factor in modern automobile design: Most automobiles are capable of acceleration and sustained speeds that were astonishing just a few decades ago. It's easy to travel at a high rate of speed. Anything that slows that speed down is in the way. I've driven the speed limit, and been aggressively tailgated for it, even when there are open lanes to the left. Drivers do not want anything or anyone in front of them to slow them down.

So far so good.


If anything, the bike lane is tolerated as the one place where a bicyclist isn't blocking the motorist's progress.

Oops. I am discounting the rest of your post because it is all based on this false premise. The bike lane is not the only place where bicyclists are tolerated. On lanes with outside lanes wide enough to accomodate a bike lane, but don't actually have a bike lane stripe painted, cyclists are no less tolerated. It's not the bike lane that facilitiates the tolerance, it's the extra width.

BUT, I do believe that while the tolerance of cyclists is equal on roads with WOLs, regardless of whether they sport a BL stripe or not, there is a psychological residual effect of BL stripes that WOLs without BL stripes do not produce. The psychological residual effect of BL stripes stems from the fact that a BL stripe (and the associated signs) serves as an official sanction of the idea that cyclists should not be in the regular traffic lanes. An anonymous WOL has no such effect, since there is no visible official sign that the extra width is there specifically for cyclists (and often it is not specifically for cyclists). It's just a road that happens to have a wide lane. After all, on such a road the cyclist is technically IN the regular traffic lane, even when he is riding far enough to the right to allow safe within-lane passing by faster traffic.

[Helmet Head]

In my entire life, I have never had anyone so much as peep at me when I am stopped in front of them at a light. It's when the light is green that ANYTHING in front of them not moving fast enough becomes the enemy.
Did you read the OP?

[Helmet Head]

Well, Gene, I think you started one of the most prolific threads ever. This topic obviously strikes a chord with everyone.

[noisebeam]

In my entire life, I have never had anyone so much as peep at me when I am stopped in front of them at a light.
I would have said the same a week ago, but last Friday some numbnut drove his car into me after being stopped behind me at a red light. Just pushed me and jarred me forward about 2' for no reason other (now this is where I speculate) than I was on a bike in the center of the lane enjoying a chat with some guys in the adjacent car waiting for the light to turn green.

Al

[Helmet Head]

In my entire life, I have never had anyone so much as peep at me when I am stopped in front of them at a light.
Any bets on whether chipcom tends to stop in the center or off to the side?

[Brian Ratliff]

...

Societal attitudes do change. I truly believe there is less racism and sexism today than there was 50 years ago in our culture, though we still have a long way to go. The changes in attitudes about smoking are truly dramatic. Now look at drunk driving. I remember as a kid in the 60s hearing the adults joke about a friend who was so drunk, when the cops pulled him over he fell out of the car. Ha ha ha. The cops drove him home. That would never happen today.

What we need to change similarly is societal attitudes about cyclists on the roads in the traffic lanes (to make it much more acceptable). I don't have a solution either, but I do know we're never going to get anywhere on this issue with all these bike lanes all over the place. Each bike lane demarcates the officially sanctioned place for cyclists to travel to be outside of the regular traffic lanes. That cannot be helping our cause.

Amazing. Perhaps the places where this is still common are going in the wrong direction. I haven't gotten this type of treatment in Portland (ya know... where all the bike lanes are) for quite a while (like, years). If this is a trend in Portland (ya know... where all the bike lanes are), perhaps the places where people are fighting bike lanes are going the wrong direction. Or, perhaps, it has nothing at all to do with bike lanes and all about the attitude of the cycling advocates and the drivers.

I don't know about the frequency of any insults I get, but I've been riding at least 3 times a week for a month and... not a word, not a horn, no craziness from any motorist. Oh, and there are bike lanes along the entire route, and I still take the lane in places. Very different from riding here 5 years ago. Riding all last summer and I can count in number of incidents on one hand. And this where all the bike lanes are too. I wouldn't be surprised if we actually have conferences on bike lanes here.

Serge, I don't know any other way of responding to such a direct affront to, even, the ideal of bike lanes other to say: you are wrong.

If your analysis stems from these ideas you have about the sociological effects of bike lanes on cycling on the street; well, that is wrong as well.

Why do I know you are wrong? I have the absolute argument when arguing about theoreticals and absolutes: I have a counter-example.

If you are still holding on to your absolutes in the face of a counter-example; well, you shouldn't be listened to. If you are to convince others that your sociological analysis is correct; you need to answer my counter-example and do so in an honest way.

[Laika]

The sad thing is, you're probably serious.

Funny, this is what I thought both when I read your "alpha-dogging" diatribe, and your impassioned comparison of your version of bicycle rights to the civil rights struggle (which, after qualifying with "I'm not comparing the two...," you went on at great length, comparing the two.)

[Blue Order]

Oops. I am discounting the rest of your post because it is all based on this false premise.It's OK, the discounting is mutual. :)

[bluebottle1]

BUT, I do believe that while the tolerance of cyclists is equal on roads with WOLs, regardless of whether they sport a BL stripe or not, there is a psychological residual effect of BL stripes that WOLs without BL stripes do not produce. The psychological residual effect of BL stripes stems from the fact that a BL stripe (and the associated signs) serves as an official sanction of the idea that cyclists should not be in the regular traffic lanes.


Just to elaborate on your point a little, in places where motorists have learned to expect cyclists to be in a striped bike lane, I think the absence of a bike lane stripe also sends a message to motorists that bicycles absolutely should not be on that particular roadway at all.

[noisebeam]

Just to elaborate on your point a little, I think the absence of a bike lane stripe also sends a message to motorists that bicycles absolutely should not be on that particular roadway at all.
I don't sense this at all. The only place I have never been honked/yelled at is on streets with WOLs, however these all do have "Share the Road" signs on them too.

I do think some motorist think that cyclist should not be on streets with NOLs, which don't have StR sigsn. (which is good as the local StR signs shows a cyclist in the gutter)

While BLs may or may not fuel the Notion (one can only speculate) I do think that if there are no BLs that Bicycle Awareness signs should be installed. But not ones that suggest cyclists should be on the far right.

Al

[patc]

The problem of road-rage will continue until the bigger issue is addressed. I do not have an answer to how to make our lives less stressful and our living space less crowded. I think that is also a symptom of how we've designed our urban landscape, but it's also a sort of ingrained American attitude to be rude and impatient. In a way, a more crowded urban landscape would actually alleviate some of the stress because that would make non-auto-centric transportation easier to use.

I think you do have the answers there, Dianne. Read over what you wrote again.

overcrowding and over-population -> reduce pop. density, reduce overall population
stress -> change attitudes toward jobs, drop out of the 9-to-5, work closer to home
auto-centric transportation -> fund transit, fund cycling programs, ban cars, become car-free
inhuman urban cores -> rebuild cities, reduce traffic, make roads more people-friendly
unhealthy, unhappy people -> become active, eat better, become happier and less stressed

The problems and solutions are obvious. What is generally lacking is the will to do anything about it.

[CommuterRun]

Once in a while I'll get passed like this, approaching a stop sign.

If he/she can make it, I let it go, but I don't cut them any slack by slowing early while they're passing. If they get stuck in the wrong lane at an intersection, it's not my problem and I most likely will cut them off if my intention is to turn left.

[Helmet Head]

Amazing. Perhaps the places where this is still common are going in the wrong direction. I haven't gotten this type of treatment in Portland (ya know... where all the bike lanes are) for quite a while (like, years). If this is a trend in Portland (ya know... where all the bike lanes are), perhaps the places where people are fighting bike lanes are going the wrong direction. Or, perhaps, it has nothing at all to do with bike lanes and all about the attitude of the cycling advocates and the drivers.

I don't know about the frequency of any insults I get, but I've been riding at least 3 times a week for a month and... not a word, not a horn, no craziness from any motorist. Oh, and there are bike lanes along the entire route, and I still take the lane in places. Very different from riding here 5 years ago. Riding all last summer and I can count in number of incidents on one hand. And this where all the bike lanes are too. I wouldn't be surprised if we actually have conferences on bike lanes here.

Serge, I don't know any other way of responding to such a direct affront to, even, the ideal of bike lanes other to say: you are wrong.

If your analysis stems from these ideas you have about the sociological effects of bike lanes on cycling on the street; well, that is wrong as well.

Why do I know you are wrong? I have the absolute argument when arguing about theoreticals and absolutes: I have a counter-example.

If you are still holding on to your absolutes in the face of a counter-example; well, you shouldn't be listened to. If you are to convince others that your sociological analysis is correct; you need to answer my counter-example and do so in an honest way.
Brian,

I'm sorry, what's the counter-example? That you've never encountered a motorist acting aggressively towards you while you are impeding them riding in a regular traffic lane? How often are you impeding traffic while riding in a regular traffic lane?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

In my entire life, I have never had anyone so much as peep at me when I am stopped in front of them at a light. It's when the light is green that ANYTHING in front of them not moving fast enough becomes the enemy.
My experience in Philadelphia city traffic was that when stopped at a light with a bicycle or a car, if there was room to pull up along side, left or right, legal or not; guareented some one will, and will make a jack rabbit getaway on the green to get in front before the next light. Horns were not part of the scene just the gas pedal. (Horns are only used as a substitute for braking in Phila).

And for those addled with the HH syndrome, standing in any part of the straight through lane doesn't mean a dang thing if there is a space to either side including right turn only, parking lane, bus lane or any other dang 6-7 foot wide piece of real estate and it is immaterial if no straight through traffic is permitted. Guaranteed someone will try to use the lane to go straight and pass if there is any possibility of getting in front of whoever/whatever is in the correct lane.

Genec's tale of despair at this "Display of the Notion" fails to impress. Only his oblivious of its insignificance to his own cycling well being is surprising

[Helmet Head]

This morning on a road with a left only next to a left-or-straight-or-right lane a cyclist pulled up alongside the stopped car traffic at the light. The light turned green before he got all the way to the front, and he ended up approaching from behind and to the right of a car that was turning right. Luckily, the right-turning driver noticed the cyclist, and stopped. The cyclist proceeded to pass the right-turning car on the right, go all the way across the intersection along the edge of the crosswalk, briefly signal left, and then cut across the through traffic to complete his LEFT TURN!!!

[chipcom]

Did you read the OP?

Yes, I did...did you? The OP was not stopped at a light waiting, he was approaching the light and the bozos behind him thought they had enough room to go around and beat him to the light. Show me where he got hollered at or honked at because he was sitting at a red light?

[chipcom]

Any bets on whether chipcom tends to stop in the center or off to the side?

You got a bet...so come on and tell us all where I stop so I can make an ass out of you...again.

Hint: I enjoy giving steely-eyed gazes into the mirror of the car in front of me.

[Helmet Head]

Oops. I am discounting the rest of your post because it is all based on this false premise.

It's OK, the discounting is mutual.

I don't think it's mutual at all.
I didn't discount you, nor your entire post.

I simply discounted the part of your post that was based on a premise that I showed was false. You did not address, much less rebut, the argument I presented showing why that premise was false, but you discounted it anyway.

That's hardly mutual.

[chipcom]

This morning on a road with a left only next to a left-or-straight-or-right lane a cyclist pulled up alongside the stopped car traffic at the light. The light turned green before he got all the way to the front, and he ended up approaching from behind and to the right of a car that was turning right. Luckily, the right-turning driver noticed the cyclist, and stopped. The cyclist proceeded to pass the right-turning car on the right, go all the way across the intersection along the edge of the crosswalk, briefly signal left, and then cut across the through traffic to complete his LEFT TURN!!!

How does HH know this? Because he was the right-turning driver. Perhaps if HH had put his right turn signal on, rather than using the Serge Mind-meld technique of signaling his intentions, the cyclist would not have come up on the right.

[chipcom]

I don't think it's mutual at all.
I didn't discount you, nor your entire post.

I simply discounted the part of your post that was based on a premise that I showed was false. You did not address, much less rebut, the argument I presented showing why that premise was false, but you discounted it anyway.

That's hardly mutual.

Most of us who have been here awhile have learned to 'pre-discount' pretty much everything you say. Combine that with the fact that you pre-discount what anyone who disagrees with you has to say...I have to agree that the discounting is mutual.

[billh]

Funny, this is what I thought both when I read your "alpha-dogging" diatribe, and your impassioned comparison of your version of bicycle rights to the civil rights struggle (which, after qualifying with "I'm not comparing the two...," you went on at great length, comparing the two.)

I laughed at that as well. The fundamental problem with using the Civil Rights movt as an analogy to the so-called cyclists' Universal Struggle Against The Notion is that white and black people are equal in the eyes of the law, but motor vehicles and bicycles are NOT. Bicycles are defined as slow-moving vehicles. HH acknowledges this out of one side of his mouth but then goes on to argue as if bicycles deserve complete equality with motor vehicles. If bicycles are a separate class of vehicle, it makes complete sense to have a separate but equal accomodation. I have no problem with that. Conversely, if BL are so intricately related to . . . The Notion (dun, dun, daaaaaaah), then why is there so much of . . . The Notion (dun, dun, daaaaaaah) in St Louis and yet a paucity of BL???

[noisebeam]

This morning on a road with a left only next to a left-or-straight-or-right lane a cyclist pulled up alongside the stopped car traffic at the light. The light turned green before he got all the way to the front, and he ended up approaching from behind and to the right of a car that was turning right. Luckily, the right-turning driver noticed the cyclist, and stopped. The cyclist proceeded to pass the right-turning car on the right, go all the way across the intersection along the edge of the crosswalk, briefly signal left, and then cut across the through traffic to complete his LEFT TURN!!!
Yeah, stupid cyclist moves are easy to find. I know the point you are trying to make.

I was driving on a 3 lane road with NOL that I cycle daily. It was along a section that is always busy and I get some hassle from drivers. I have also never seen another cyclist on this stretch. Anyway I noticed a cyclist ahead who was riding not quite as far into lane as I would have, but still far enough in that made it clear it couldn't be shared by a casual observer. I thought that was great and pointed it out to my wife. I stayed in outside lane and held back several car lengths so as not to give any impression to cyclist I was tailgating or pushy, but stayed in lane as I was shortly making a right up head to get on the freeway. So the light was red and when we got to the RTOL for freeway access the cyclist turned into it (very left biased). Anyway there I was stuck behind this guy with a RTO green light. Then a bit later the straight light turned green and the cyclist was stuck. He now couldn't get into straight NOL as it was clogged with cars. I was stuck too as he was waiting for cars to pass. Then light turned red and I has missed a full green cycle and the cyclist procceded on red. But of course I didn't as I really didn't mind being delayed, I was after heading out for a relaxing day hiking, it just was so unneccessary and confusing what the cyclist did. Clearly he knew how to ride safety in a NOL, but then befuddled the whole thing by getting into the RTOL.

Al

[billh]

Most of us who have been here awhile have learned to 'pre-discount' pretty much everything you say. Combine that with the fact that you pre-discount what anyone who disagrees with you has to say...I have to agree that the discounting is mutual.

Did somebody say "double discount" . . . is Target having a sale? . . . I'm THERE!!! :)