The Notion... explained.

[noisebeam]

Sort of. Car back moves across the line a foot or two, car up moves a bit to his right. Otherwise the car back needs to wait for a gap, or at least a smallish car up. Passing in the full oncoming lane is only possible with absolute confidence on short sections. Also, by requiring that the car back only merge a few feet into the oncoming lane, they can clear the oncoming lane much more quickly as the car up approaches.

I'm not sure why it works, but keeping to the extreme right makes the whole passing process easier for the car back. Perhaps it is simply confidence; if there turns out to be a car up, the car back can move over knowing they are not going to drift into me. It may be because they don't need to slow as much as they search for an opening since less of an opening is necessary to pass me. Perhaps it is simply that the whole maneuver simply requires less lateral movement, making it less disruptive.
Makes sense. Similar to how it works in dual same direction lanes. A quicker pass due to less lateral movement and cars in adjacent lane can accomidate by slowing briefly (if a same direction lane) or moving right (if opposing lane)
I do find however in my dual same direction experience that some passers will take great risks and squeeze into very small gaps at high >40mph speed (sometimes a gap as short as 1.5 car lengths, leaving only a few feet between them and cars ahead/behind of them, even though they are straddling lane dividing line)

The situation* I like least that occurs on occasion is a driver is fast approaching and plans a gap to squeeze into, expecting the gap to be in the right place just as they reach me (sometimes accelerating toward me trying to reach the gap in time) and then do a last second swerve into gap, but if their estimate is off, they slam on brakes right behind me. (this happens both center biased and right biased)

*If there is any doubt about this situation it is quite similar to one that I am sure everyone who has driven on an interstate highway has experienced. There will be a slower moving vehicle in right lane (often a truck) and a line of cars develop to pass it. Then some jerk who thinks they are more important decides to race up in the right lane and at the last second squeeze left into a gap to pass the slow vehicle. In this situation speed differentials are usually closer to 10-15mph, not the 25mph cyclist/auto where the 'jerk' is even more likely to misjudge the timing of the gap.

Al

[sbhikes]

ding, ding, ding!
I have a route that uses a NOL for ~3mi. I slow down ~3-4 cars by 30sec or so each. The alternate route I have reduces NOL use by ~1.5mi. It takes me 15min longer.
Who am I benefiting by taking the alternate route?
I'll tell you who would benefit: ME! This bike riding ain't doing nothing to keep the weight off and keep me fit. I need more exercise.


Earlier, in #146, I asked billh:

Bill, I haven't seen your answer.

Do I understand you correctly that you are advocating acquiesing to The Notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of faster traffic?

Maybe he doesn't have time to sit here hitting the refresh button every 5 minutes like the rest of us.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I guess that's why the gang of geniuses (you, Beck, and ILTB) are about the only ones who are denying the existence, and widespread prevalance of The Notion. :rolleyes:

And I never said The Notion is valid, for crying out loud!
Shoot, Everything HH says can be considered as only conjured speculation (or silly-goose poop) tossed at the wall to see what sticks. Those who don't care about credibility, facts or evidence can take him and his "premises" as seriously as they like. Doesn't add a lick of credibility to HH, his theories or the individuals who play along with his ideology and sophistry.

Notion? Explained? Only My donkey would takes such "stuff" tossed out in this manner as anything but a sick joke or the poop that it is.

[Brian Ratliff]

Ahhh, that helps me understand a bit better. For some reasons I was under the impression from your description that traffic was heavy, that is a long string of 10-20 cars quickly developed behind you if you didn't let them pass.

Al

No, this happens, but not due to traffic density, rather due to the lack of passing opportunities. Slow cars (the ones only doing 50mph) routinely develop lines of over a dozen cars behind them. The school bus, heaven forbid, gets huge lines behind on stretches where they cannot safely pull over.

The average traffic density is relatively light. But the instantanious traffic density can be quite heavy. Traffic comes in spurts.

[noisebeam]

The average traffic density is relatively light. But the instantanious traffic density can be quite heavy. Traffic comes in spurts.
But I'll bet the scenery is nice, lots of green and trees perhaps?
Al

[chephy]

IMO, a significant part of the problem is that the police continue to self-identify with motorists - i.e. to some extent they believe in the Notion - and therefore fail to put public safety (their true charge) above rote, by-the-book enforcement (i.e. cyclists running stop signs on low traffic volume side streets designated and designed for cycling is not a big safety issue). I agree. They would ticket cyclists for running stop signs but do NOTHING to a buzzing cager who nearly kills a cyclist by passing too close.

Here in Toronto we have a few bike cops: there city had several goals in mind when they proposed them, I wouldn't be surprised if one was to make the police identify with the cyclists more, as well as to demonstrate to cyclists and motorists alike how cyclists should ride. Well, it turned out they are not the riders to emulate... They are awful, really. Whenever I see them, they are either on the sidewalks or in the gutter. Notice they have no trouble delaying motorists in any other situations, be it to direct traffic around a construction site, or to cross the road as a ped, or to pull someone over for a violation, or to close a stretch of a road to the public for whatever reason... Nope, it's only when they get on bikes they feel they should "get outta the way". It's The Notion, baby, there is no way around this fact.

[Brian Ratliff]

But I'll bet the scenery is nice, lots of green and trees perhaps?
Al

Aw yea! Huge numbers of cyclists bike here on the weekends. Only a few during commute time though.

[chessie254]

[QUOTE=Brian Ratliff] cycleable shoulder,QUOTE]

shoulders = flat tires. Unless they are swept with regularity...I tend to avoid riding there unless absolutely necessary.

[noisebeam]

I agree. They would ticket cyclists for running stop signs but do NOTHING to a buzzing cager who nearly kills a cyclist by passing too close.
It is easy to wait at a corner and catch cyclist who runs stop signs.
It is near impossible to follow a cyclist to watch for agressive close passes as just being there following will eliminate them.
Then what about putting officers on bikes and them catching agressive close passers? I can imagine numerous excuses why this can't/won't be done and errors made in implementation that would result in very few close passes.

Getting buzzing offenders requires the civilian cyclist who was buzzed to file report and push hard for something to be done.

Al

[chephy]

Do you think racially segregated facilities (water fountains, back of the bus) were the cause of racism? Of course not. But don't you see that a government effort to address racism is moot when the same government sanctions racially segregated facilities? This has nothing to do with cycling or bike lanes, but it's important that you be able to understand this relationship in order to understand what I'm trying to explain. If you can't understand the futility of fighting racist notions while at the same time sanctioning segregated racial facilities, even though those facilities are not the cause of racism, you will be unable to understand the futility of fighting The Notion while at the same time sanctioning segregated cycle facilities, even though those facilities are not the cause of The Notion. I understand what you're saying here HH, and I almost agree, except there is one fundamental difference.

We despise racism because we believe that differences in appearance shouldn't matter, that people are equal and should be treated equally. However, bikes and cars are not equal and imho should not be treated equally. I believe the use of bikes should be encouraged, while excessive car use should be discouraged.

The governments in many places have the same view. They feel that certain forms of transportation are better than others (create less pollution and noise, are safer, keep people who use them healthier) ,therefore they try to encourage those forms of transportation. For instance, the city of Toronto wants to encourage car-pooling, so we have lanes that can only be occupied by cars with three or more people in them (as well as buses, taxis and bicycles). But the drivers of these cars do not get harassed when they are trying to make a left-turn... The assumption is not that cars with three+ occupants only belong in their "segregated facilites"; it's that they belong on the road AND have some extra facilites closed to other traffic as a reward for being environmentally friendlier. This, ideally, is how bikes should be thought of.

My point isn't that bike lanes never reinforce the notion that bikes shouldn't be on the road; they do in some motorists' puny minds. My point is that it doesn't have to be this way, and that the existence of these extra facilities doesn't inherently imply bikes' inferiority. On the contrary, it should imply that they are rewarded with EXTRA facilities because they are environmentally superior and hence the government wants to encourage their use.

So the thing to do is to educate the motorists, not get rid of all bike lanes, in my humble...

[chephy]

It is easy to wait at a corner and catch cyclist who runs stop signs.
It is near impossible to follow a cyclist to watch for agressive close passes as just being there following will eliminate them. You wish! I remember a couple of posts on BF about cyclists' get buzzed while the police watched and did not react in any way. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a police car buzzed me one day...


Then what about putting officers on bikes and them catching agressive close passers? I regularly see Toronto police officers on bikes being passed too closely (while they are wearing full uniform and all!!!) Not aggressively, of course, just too closely. And they just seem to take it and feel that it's all right... In fact, they encourage it by hugging the curb.


Getting buzzing offenders requires the civilian cyclist who was buzzed to file report and push hard for something to be done. Namely what? They can't prove anything bad happened. Perhaps they'll send a note to a guy after ten cyclists complain (which will never happen anyway)...

[randya]

Then what about putting officers on bikes and them catching agressive close passers? I can imagine numerous excuses why this can't/won't be done and errors made in implementation that would result in very few close passes.
The idea was to put plain-clothes officers on a bike and have a vehicular backup make the stop. I agree, it's not so easy, because the officer on the bike has to be pretty well trained in VC techniques; but it's not impossible, either. It's already been done in SLC, Utah; below is my email exchange with the City's former traffic commander regarding this idea. My personal opinion is that it may have briefly been tested but didn't yield enough tickets for the time and effort invested, compared to sitting around at a stop sign dozens of cyclists ride through on their commute.

As a little further background, the Portland Police had an active bike squad about 5 to 10 years back, now most of their bikes are gathering dust in the precinct garages, unused.

Thanks Randy
This is a good idea. I'll get some officers working on a plan and we'll try it out. Once we get a plan that works for us we'll coordinate with PDOT and do something with the media.
Bill Sinnott

>>> Randy 06/22/05 14:16 PM >>>
Bill - the first link is to the official web site of the Utah Dept of Public Safety, where the program is described and the five participating local police departments are identified. The other links are to news stories or public announcements of the program.

-Randy

http://highwaysafety.utah.gov/
http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/news/6842.html
http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=39&sid=211433
http://radio.ksl.com/index.php?nid=19&sid=205392
http://www2.tooeletranscript.com/index2.php?option=content&do_pdf=1&id=3634

[randya]

The governments in many places have the same view. They feel that certain forms of transportation are better than others (create less pollution and noise, are safer, keep people who use them healthier) ,therefore they try to encourage those forms of transportation...
IMO, this may be very PC in certain government circles, but the Transportation Departments of most major cities in North America are still run by traffic engineers whose main objective is still to move as many motor vehicles as the roads will accomodate as fast as they can be moved.

[noisebeam]

... because the officer on the bike has to be pretty well trained in VC techniques;
Round here I have only ever seen bicycle police officers ride on the sidewalk. I am not complaining as their focus is on pedestrian law enforcement, not vehicular and for this purpose they need to be where pedestrians are.

I believe they are however well trained in cycling in urban environment and in traffic, but with primary focus on bike handling needed for riding on the ever changing sidewalk/crowd environment.

(I once observed a bike police officer training class in a parking lot for ~45min)

Overview of Bicycle Police Training (http://www.ipmba.org/instructors.htm) Note that VC is included - scroll down far to see course descriptions.

As an aside this is a curious item: http://www.ipmba.org/newsletter-0410-makingacase.htm

Al

[genec]

I understand what you're saying here HH, and I almost agree, except there is one fundamental difference.

We despise racism because we believe that differences in appearance shouldn't matter, that people are equal and should be treated equally. However, bikes and cars are not equal and imho should not be treated equally. I believe the use of bikes should be encouraged, while excessive car use should be discouraged.

The governments in many places have the same view. They feel that certain forms of transportation are better than others (create less pollution and noise, are safer, keep people who use them healthier) ,therefore they try to encourage those forms of transportation. For instance, the city of Toronto wants to encourage car-pooling, so we have lanes that can only be occupied by cars with three or more people in them (as well as buses, taxis and bicycles). But the drivers of these cars do not get harassed when they are trying to make a left-turn... The assumption is not that cars with three+ occupants only belong in their "segregated facilites"; it's that they belong on the road AND have some extra facilites closed to other traffic as a reward for being environmentally friendlier. This, ideally, is how bikes should be thought of.

My point isn't that bike lanes never reinforce the notion that bikes shouldn't be on the road; they do in some motorists' puny minds. My point is that it doesn't have to be this way, and that the existence of these extra facilities doesn't inherently imply bikes' inferiority. On the contrary, it should imply that they are rewarded with EXTRA facilities because they are environmentally superior and hence the government wants to encourage their use.

So the thing to do is to educate the motorists, not get rid of all bike lanes, in my humble...


Well said and worth repeating. +1

[billh]

How do you think we should respond to The Notion? Acquiesce? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? Is that your position? (if not, I've misunderstood - please help me).

I already said it about a hundred times . . . common sense and common courtesy. Can't you read, HH! :)

[Blue Order]

common sense and common courtesy.+1

[noisebeam]

I already said it about a hundred times . . . common sense and common courtesy. Can't you read, HH! :)
But I get harrassed (honking, intentional close passing, yelling) by motorist near daily (every day on average) with the clear message to get out of the way when riding with common sense and courtesy.

I see dozens of cyclist riding daily on sidewalk even when adjacent bike lane is present. Always more on the sidewalk than on the street. (except on weekends when rec. riders out out in force)

Al

[billh]

That's right, and I was convinced by a little well-written book called Cyclecraft by John Franklin.



I think you're confusing "as right as practicable (safe, reasonable) when faster traffic is present" with "out of their way, period". In other words, you've swallowed The Notion, hook, line and sinker.


Read what I wrote: "I stay out of gutters, islands and even bike lanes as much as possible. ".



I actually have to get on the road, don't have time to read all these . . .

genec defined The Notion as . . . "Cyclists must get outta my way." My point is that the Missouri law regarding SMV has this definition of The Notion (dun, dun, duuuuuunh) built into it. When cyclists ride as far to the right as is safe, on most roads around here, they ARE out of the way. On the roads that are the exception, The Notion (d, d, daaaah) comes into play, and I agree with you it is a BIG problem. When it's NOT safe to ride to the right, for any number of reasons, then there are problems with motorists who hold The Notion. I'd say one of the root causes of The Notion is not understanding the exceptions to riding to the right. Maybe I'm missing something here, I'm sure you will correct me. Have a good ride home!

[chephy]

IMO, this may be very PC in certain government circles, but the Transportation Departments of most major cities in North America are still run by traffic engineers whose main objective is still to move as many motor vehicles as the roads will accomodate as fast as they can be moved. Yes, I know, so they don't try all that hard to encourage cycling. That wasn't my point though. The point is, having segregated cycling facilities doesn't mean cyclists don't belong outside of those facilities.

One can quote many more example. Women travelling alone on a Toronto bus at night can request the driver to let them out in between of regular stops (so that they can walk home faster and so that if they are been creeped out by a fellow passenger, they can prevent him from following them). This doesn't mean they aren't allowed to leave the bus at the regular stops. Many more examples can be given, but I think the idea is clear.

[chephy]

But I get harrassed (honking, intentional close passing, yelling) by motorist near daily (every day on average) with the clear message to get out of the way when riding with common sense and courtesy. Exactly.

[sbhikes]

But I get harrassed (honking, intentional close passing, yelling) by motorist near daily (every day on average) with the clear message to get out of the way when riding with common sense and courtesy.

If this happens to anyone every day but almost never happens to me, and I live in a place with lots of bike lanes, how are bike lanes to blame?

I agree with billh. But if riding with common sense and courtesy doesn't work, what can you possibly do?

I suppose you could put a big sign on the back of your bike that says "Uncle Al" with a picture of all your nieces, nephews and children if you have them. After a while the motorists would recognize you. "There goes Uncle Al!" Then if anybody mistreats you their first thought would be, "What an ass treating Uncle Al like that." And then maybe vigilante street justice would be on your side for a change.

Just a thought.

[Helmet Head]

the sight lines are very short, much shorter than you are probably used to; a couple hundred feet possibly, shorter in many areas.
60 mph is 88 feet/second. 200 feet would be covered in less than 3 seconds at that speed. I've seen 60 mph traffic. I've seen sight lines of 200 feet. But I've not seen 60 mph traffic where sight lines are only 200 feet!

Next time you drive this road, pick a section with typically short sight lines, and, at 60 mph, pick a point as far ahead of you as you can see, and measure the number of seconds it takes to get there. Multiply by 88. That , in feet, is the length of your short sight line. That number would be interesting to know. This is a value which is typically greatly underestimated by most people (sight lines are usually longer than one thinks they are).




The benefit of taking the lane, and, yet, moving aside before they reach you, is that you are more conspicuous to them as they are approaching you. What's the downside?

Why the heck would it even be necessary to ride down the center pulling over for people approaching from behind[?]

What part of to be more conspicuous do you not understand?

Main Entry: con·spic·u·ous
1 : obvious to the eye or mind
2 : attracting attention : STRIKING



That's an awful lot of unnecessary lateral movement for no possible gain.
How is it "an awful lot of unnecessary lateral movement"? It's not very much. In fact, with just a bit of practice, it quickly becomes automatic and habitual, practically effortless. And I don't know if it's "necessary", but if I can gain conspicuity for practically no cost, (I ask again) what's the downside?

And how is increasing your conspicuity "no possible gain"?


If you're going to have to move over you may as well just stay there.
And stay relatively inconspicuous? Why?

Main Entry: in·con·spic·u·ous
: not readily noticeable



On a road like that a motorist can't miss a cyclist in their path even if he's off to the side as far as possible. He's still in their path either way. At least, like Brian said, it's less disruptive. Less disruptive is also safer.
Less disruptive to whom? The cyclist? I've already dealt with that (with a bit of practice it's practically effortless). The motorist? I contend that the "disruption" is very minor, but that little disruption is what makes the cyclist more conspicuous. In this case, the "disruption" is a good thing.

Put yourself in the seat of the driver. You're driving down a narrow highway, and there is a cyclist up ahead. If he's off to the side, he's much easier to ignore, even if you do have to adjust left to pass him. You are likely to instinctively adjust left and go around, just like any other obstacle, without really thinking about it. In other words, you're not fully aware of him. Now consider the same cyclist up ahead, but in a more centerish position. Now he requires your full attention. Maybe that's disruptive, but, from the cyclist's point of view, I believe that's better. That's what I mean by being more conspicuous. Now, after getting the approaching motorist's full attention, but before he reaches the cyclist, the cyclist moves to the right (say to the same position you're saying he should be in all along). So the only difference between the two cases is whether the motorist is "disrupted" sufficiently to be made fully aware of the cyclist's presence. I contend that with full awareness established, if nothing else, motorists pass with more passing room. That's my experience anyway. Further, I want him to be fully aware of me as he is passing me. That way, he is less likely to forget I'm there if something suddenly causes him to want to suddenly swerve right.

Also, how many intersections with driveways and minor roads are there on this road, Brian? (how about giving us the name of the road and the cross streets that demarcate your commute?) The more centerish position has the added benefit of making the cyclist more conspicuous to everyone pulling in and out of these minor side roads.

[Helmet Head]

If this happens to anyone every day but almost never happens to me, and I live in a place with lots of bike lanes, how are bike lanes to blame?
The significant difference isn't the bike lanes, it's the extra width that your roads have (which happens to be used to demarcate bike lanes), and which Al's road doesn't have. By the way, he has bike lanes too, just not on the arterial which happens to be efficient for him to use on his commute.

[genec]

Put yourself in the seat of the driver. You're driving down a narrow highway, and there is a cyclist up ahead. If he's off to the side, he's much easier to ignore, even if you do have to adjust left to pass him. You are likely to instinctively adjust left and go around, just like any other obstacle, without really thinking about it. In other words, you're not fully aware of him. Now consider the same cyclist up ahead, but in a more centerish position. Now he requires your full attention. Maybe that's disruptive, but, from the cyclist's point of view, I believe that's better. That's what I mean by being more conspicuous. Now, after getting the approaching motorist's full attention, but before he reaches the cyclist, the cyclist moves to the right (say to the same position you're saying he should be in all along). So the only difference between the two cases is whether the motorist is "disrupted" sufficiently to be made fully aware of the cyclist's presence. I contend that with full awareness established, if nothing else, motorists pass with more passing room. That's my experience anyway. Further, I want him to be fully aware of me as he is passing me. That way, he is less likely to forget I'm there if something suddenly causes him to want to suddenly swerve right.


I don't think you have thought about this... but your centerish/moving to the side method also reinforces "the Notion." By moving out of the way like this, you are clearly showing motorists that "bikes are supposed to get outta the way."

You are reinforcing the Notion as much as you believe bike lanes do.

Something to consider.

[randya]

I suppose you could put a big sign on the back of your bike that says "Uncle Al" with a picture of all your nieces, nephews and children if you have them. After a while the motorists would recognize you. "There goes Uncle Al!" Then if anybody mistreats you their first thought would be, "What an ass treating Uncle Al like that." And then maybe vigilante street justice would be on your side for a change.

Just a thought.
I hear that a sign saying "ex-wife got car" works better. :p

[Helmet Head]

I don't think you have thought about this...
You've got to be kidding.


but your centerish/moving to the side method also reinforces "the Notion." By moving out of the way like this, you are clearly showing motorists that "bikes are supposed to get outta the way."

You are reinforcing the Notion as much as you believe bike lanes do.

Something to consider.
Well, sometimes, cyclists, like all drivers of slow moving vehicles, are supposed to get outta the way. Specifically, when safe and reasonable to do so.

But The Notion is that "bikes are ALWAYS supposed to get outta the way". Or, an alternate version is, "bikes are NEVER supposed to be in the traffic lane".

By riding in the center of the lane, I'm showing, that at least sometimes, at least I believe it's appropriate and best for me to be in the center of the road. By yielding to faster traffic by moving to the side to facilitate their passing, I'm simply acting like any other driver of a slow moving vehicle.

I understand what you're saying, and I've thought about it a lot. I believe we've even talked about it here. All I can tell you is that for an assertive cyclist like me, it doesn't feel like acquiescing or capitulating. It feels assertive, and, I think it appears assertive. It's much more akin to opening the door for someone than, say, being subservient to them. Or, to address Bill's concern, it's simply being courteous. I don't think it reinforces The Notion at all.

[Helmet Head]

I hear that a sign saying "ex-wife got car" works better. :p
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once:

Ex-wife available. Take over payments.

[Keith99]

Well, sometimes, cyclists, like all drivers of slow moving vehicles, are supposed to get outta the way. Specifically, when safe and reasonable to do so.

But The Notion is that "bikes are ALWAYS supposed to get outta the way". Or, an alternate version is, "bikes are NEVER supposed to be in the traffic lane".



I have been working on what I consider hte reasonable version of 'The Notion'. It goes like this:


Slow moving vehicles should try to avoid unreasonably obstructing faster moving vehicles.

The problem is some drivers consider any delay unreasonable (when it happens to them). Of course the same drivers usually consider any effort on their part to avoid obstructing others unneeded.

And of course Mercedes drivers consider any delay unreasonable so EVERYONE is required to get out of their way. At least they don't treat cyclists differently than cars.

[genec]

I don't think it reinforces The Notion at all.

No really... seriously. I remember when you and, I believe, chipcom discussed this; and he mentioned how grateful motorists seemed to be when he moved from the center to the side...

Thus showing, that "bikes are supposed to get outta the way;" you are acting in exactly the manner that the motorist expects, thus you are indeed reinforcing the Notion.

As much as you deny it, that is the result of what you are doing, just as plain and clear as what you believe BL do.

It's all part of the big picture... you move out of the way, bike lanes "keep" us out of the way, adults teach their children to ride out of the way... it all works together to reinforce the message that cyclists should "never be in the way."

Everytime we try to ride to the center turn lanes (which really amounts to very little of our total riding) motorists see us a violating "their rule" of us staying out of the way. Hazard avoidance, better sight lines, and destination positioning, while all valid reasons to not be riding "outta the way" are a rather rare part of the total cycling milage that a rider might cover in a single ride... so motorists are constantly getting the message that we should be "outta the way." And you do reinforce that message by doing just that... getting "outta the way."

I know your reasons... but the motorists don't... they just see you doing exactly what you are supposed to do.

The message we need to send to motorists is that we will share the roads with them... but they need to understand that sometimes it is quite alright for us to be right there in front of them... and they just have to live with that.

[Helmet Head]

I have been working on what I consider hte reasonable version of 'The Notion'. It goes like this:


Slow moving vehicles should try to avoid unreasonably obstructing faster moving vehicles.
That's pretty good.


The problem is some drivers consider any delay unreasonable (when it happens to them).
Here's where we disagree. I don't believe that is a problem at all. Why? Because I have found what they believe has almost nothing to do with how I'm treated, while what I believe has almost everything to do with how I'm treated. And the "almost" is so much in both cases that the exceptions are so rare that they're not worth worrying about.

The reason for this is that how I'm treated has much more to do with how I behave then with what they believe, and how I behave is directly related to what I believe.

So why do I care about the widespread prevalance of The Notion at all? Because, as a cycling advocate, I'm concerned about how many people cycle unsafely, or don't cycle at all, because they believe The Notion is true.

[genec]

they[/i] believe has almost nothing to do with how I'm treated, while what I believe has almost everything to do with how I'm treated. And the "almost" is so much in both cases that the exceptions are so rare that they're not worth worrying about.

Is it possible that you are filtering everything with your "I believe" rose colored glasses?

I find it quite difficult to fathom how your personal beliefs are going to change the the way you are treated by others. Your beliefs however may "temper" your perception of the way others treat you... in other words you see what you want to see, feel what you want to feel.

I could run around believing I am an axe murderer... but are others going to sense this... and act accordingly? Not hardly. Now if I feel good about myself, I show that in a smile and the way I treat others... they respond in kind... not having the slightest idea of why I might be feeling good about myself. My internal beliefs mean nothing to them... only my actions.

[Helmet Head]

Despite the widespread prevalence of The Notion, the number of people who are actually willing to intentionally run us down to teach us the lesson of The Notion is miniscule.

I agree, but the number who are willing to teach us a lesson - and miscalculate things in process and kill us accidentally is considerably higher. Even higher is the number of people who will not miscalculate but do exactly what they wanted to do: squeeze me off the road, make me slow down unnecessarily and abruptly, perhaps even cause me to crash (w/o fatal consequences). This will not kill me but it will make my ride very unpleasant and slow/inefficient.

I also wrote about psychological differences before, I think. I am introverted, shy, hate conflict and do feel vulnerable on the bike. So, silly as it might be, I would prefer a slightly more dangerous ride w/o confrontations to a slightly safer ride with lots of harrassing. Just because this harrassing and hatred and conflict destroy the pleasure of biking for me - and why would I do something I don't enjoy?
Chephy,

First, posts like this one show you are a clear thinker and a very good writer. When you challenge a point, you show that you have read it, understood it, and you address what was actually intended by the person to whom you're responding. This is a radically different approach from the strawman blather usually spewed by any one of the Three Stooges who make up the Gang of Geniuses on this forum. We can all learn from you. I, for one, very much appreciate your thoughtful contributions.

I can only respond to your points above as follows.


All I can tell you is that eye contact, waving, smiling, and nodding are a big part of what I do when riding in traffic. I rarely impede anyone who has not explicitly yielded to me. Therefore, I don't give anyone intent on teaching me a lesson about The Notion much of an opportunity to do so, since I naturally do not impede them. I cannot emphasize enough what a big part mirror usage plays in enabling me to do so. Hurst really nails it by calling it the art of urban cycling; an art indeed.
Riding in traffic requires a certain amount of assertiveness; there is no way around that. You cannot ride in traffic as if you're on a quiet country road with no one else around, as pleasant as that might be to think about (and many dangerously appear to expect out of bike lane riding). You have to pay attention to everyone around you, know what they are doing and where they are going, and let them know as best as you can what you are doing and where you are going. That requires a certain amount of assertiveness. However, in the end, it's not all that much. I think it comes naturally once you feel comfortable with the idea that you have the same right to be out there as everyone else. They say to get over stage fright you should imagine everyone in the audience to be naked. I'm not sure what the equivalent is in the psychology of traffic cycling, but I suspect similar "tricks" might be helpful.
I don't find it to be true that there is a tradeoff between safety and number of confrontations. I think there is a fairly widely held belief, at least on this forum, that riding more assertively might be somewhat safer, but leads to more confrontations. I can't explain why (I can only guess as to the reason), but I find that getting more assertive about my rights reduces the confrontations. I suspect that being more visible and predictable gives motorists more of an opportunity to see me in advance and plan for me accordingly, but, again, that's only guessing. It also may be true that riding more visibly and predictably promotes greater respect from others. Whatever the reason, unless you're going to turn into a sidewalk/crosswalk cyclist, I think the "peak" confrontation happens to the cyclist who tries to capitulate, but stays on the road, perhaps (again, just guessing) because he acts like a second-class user and thus invites being treated as a second-class user, especially in sections where trying to capitulate does not get you out of the way.

[Helmet Head]

Because I have found what they believe has almost nothing to do with how I'm treated, while what I believe has almost everything to do with how I'm treated. And the "almost" is so much in both cases that the exceptions are so rare that they're not worth worrying about.

Is it possible that you are filtering everything with your "I believe" rose colored glasses?

Just about anything is possible, but I have no reason to believe this particular possiblity to be the explanation.


I find it quite difficult to fathom how your personal beliefs are going to change the the way you are treated by others.
I thought I explained it. My beliefs don't directly affect how others treat me, it's indirect. What my beliefs affect directly is my behavior. And how others treat me is affected by how I behave.

My Beliefs->My Behavior->How I'm Treated


Your beliefs however may "temper" your perception of the way others treat you... in other words you see what you want to see, feel what you want to feel.
Okay, that may be a factor. And, of course, if it is, I wouldn't be aware of it, by definition. In any case, the result is pleasant traffic cycling... works for me. :) Seriusly, I don't think I'm blind to anyone actually endangering me. I have a wife and 6 year old daughter, I have a lot to live for; I take my safety very seriously.


I could run around believing I am an axe murderer... but are others going to sense this... and act accordingly? Not hardly. Now if I feel good about myself, I show that in a smile and the way I treat others... they respond in kind... not having the slightest idea of why I might be feeling good about myself. My internal beliefs mean nothing to them... only my actions.
Right.

Internal beliefs->your actions->their response to you

In other words, there is only one degree of separation between your beliefs and how you are treated (this applies in all aspects of life, not just traffic cycling!)

[Helmet Head]

This is one of the more interesting threads we've had in a long time, if I may say so myself. 233 posts, 10 pages, in less than 48 hours. Yikes. I wonder if that's some kind of record?

[Helmet Head]

Do you think racially segregated facilities (water fountains, back of the bus) were the cause of racism? Of course not. But don't you see that a government effort to address racism is moot when the same government sanctions racially segregated facilities? This has nothing to do with cycling or bike lanes, but it's important that you be able to understand this relationship in order to understand what I'm trying to explain. If you can't understand the futility of fighting racist notions while at the same time sanctioning segregated racial facilities, even though those facilities are not the cause of racism, you will be unable to understand the futility of fighting The Notion while at the same time sanctioning segregated cycle facilities, even though those facilities are not the cause of The Notion.

I understand what you're saying here HH, and I almost agree, except there is one fundamental difference.

We despise racism because we believe that differences in appearance shouldn't matter, that people are equal and should be treated equally. However, bikes and cars are not equal and imho should not be treated equally. I believe the use of bikes should be encouraged, while excessive car use should be discouraged.

The governments in many places have the same view. They feel that certain forms of transportation are better than others (create less pollution and noise, are safer, keep people who use them healthier) ,therefore they try to encourage those forms of transportation. For instance, the city of Toronto wants to encourage car-pooling, so we have lanes that can only be occupied by cars with three or more people in them (as well as buses, taxis and bicycles). But the drivers of these cars do not get harassed when they are trying to make a left-turn... The assumption is not that cars with three+ occupants only belong in their "segregated facilites"; it's that they belong on the road AND have some extra facilites closed to other traffic as a reward for being environmentally friendlier. This, ideally, is how bikes should be thought of.

My point isn't that bike lanes never reinforce the notion that bikes shouldn't be on the road; they do in some motorists' puny minds. My point is that it doesn't have to be this way, and that the existence of these extra facilities doesn't inherently imply bikes' inferiority. On the contrary, it should imply that they are rewarded with EXTRA facilities because they are environmentally superior and hence the government wants to encourage their use.

So the thing to do is to educate the motorists, not get rid of all bike lanes, in my humble...
For anyone who wonders what "Reason and logic, expressed politely and respectfully" looks like, look no further than Chephy's posts. Thank you for adding some much needed class to this forum, Chephy. Chipcom, are you paying attention? Beck? I-Like... never mind.

Yes, you are right, the analogy with racism only goes so far. In particular, the differences between the races, which is actually scientifically non-existent, is of course much less than the differences between a bike and a car. At that point the analogy breaks down. But it still serves a useful purpose (to those whose minds can understand and appreciate analogies). In that sense, the analogy with sexism is better, because, well, vive la difference!.

But more importantly, there are substantial differences among other vehicles types. From horse and buggies, to Vespas, RVs, Greyhound buses, cable cars, cement trucks, moving vans, mini-vans, and golf carts, and, yes bicycles, as well as "standard" passenger cars,, our vehicular roadway system is designed and intended and legally obligated to accomodate a very broad range of vehicle types. I think what I call "freeway mentality creeping onto our public roadways" has blinded many of us to this fact (and contributes to nurturing The Notion).

If you could figure out a way to have bike lanes to be viewed in our culture as a "REWARD with EXTRA facilites" (like Beck, Diane and Patc seem to see them), you would succeed in addressing a big part of my problem with them. However, I personally believe that short of technology developed so that Big Brother can download attitudes directly into the brains of people, you're up against an impossible goal. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that bike lanes are naturally striped in the gutter "out of the way" area, that bicyclists are so easy to discern from others (thus more susceptible to prejudice, than, say, car poolers which are much harder to identify - "how many people in that car? 3! Oh, that's a car-pooler!"), that bicyclists are generally slower and look vulnerable, and bike lanes are identifed as BIKE lanes (which, like TRUCK lanes, implies that bikes/trucks are supposed to be in "their" lanes), etc.

[joejack951]

Everytime we try to ride to the center turn lanes (which really amounts to very little of our total riding) motorists see us a violating "their rule" of us staying out of the way. Hazard avoidance, better sight lines, and destination positioning, while all valid reasons to not be riding "outta the way" are a rather rare part of the total cycling milage that a rider might cover in a single ride... so motorists are constantly getting the message that we should be "outta the way." And you do reinforce that message by doing just that... getting "outta the way."

Actually, for those of us who cycle on narrow two lane roads almost exclusively, being in the way all the time is a fact of life. Sure, if I rode like a cyclist I saw on the way home from lunch today I could possibly be out of the way, but I don't trust my cycling skills enough to balance on a 4" wide section of pavement. Nor do I trust that a wider than average vehicle won't try to pass me. So, I ride in the middle of the road almost exclusively and do not move. No reinforcing of the Notion although there are many examples of the Notion existing when I do this. Actually, going to the LBS yesterday was one of the best. I'm turning left off a two lane each way road onto a three lane each way road (no shoulder, 45 mph speed limit, worst cycling road in the area but it gets me to the bike store ironically). I make my left turn in the right lane and move into the right lane on the new road and stop behind the line of cars at the next light. Driver of BMW SUV passes on my right in the right turning lane and tells me to get on the sidewalk (which doesn't exist).

[rando]

But I get harrassed (honking, intentional close passing, yelling) by motorist near daily (every day on average) with the clear message to get out of the way when riding with common sense and courtesy.

I see dozens of cyclist riding daily on sidewalk even when adjacent bike lane is present. Always more on the sidewalk than on the street. (except on weekends when rec. riders out out in force)

Al

Al, I believe this (your harrassement) is because of where you ride. you want to take the most direct route ( for that I don't blame you). BUT you don't want to take an extra 15 minutes for a back route. and then you complain because motorists don't do what they should. guess what? if you asked me 6 months ago if I as a driver thought cyclists belonged on the street, I would have said, "no way, they are too slow and a traffic hazard". doesn't make sense to me. why beat your head against a brick wall on principle? yeah, I understand we (cyclists) are a vehicle. doesn't make me want to get on the 4-6 lane and get all steely-eyed and alpha dog to prove some point. screw it. I'll ride where it is fun and safe for me to ride. a lot of you guys seem to be torturing yourselves for no good reason. Some people have no option when riding, but Al does. Shoot, I'm not trying to attack Al, he's a good guy, but I guess I'm attacking the inflexible attitude. I believe in the Zen kind of thinking, like, "accept what IS." (and work with the reality, no matter how screwed it is)... I personally am not willing to subject myself to the abuse and harassment that Al encounters daily. and I if I did encounter that, I would change my route pronto. guess I'm just not Forester material.

[DCCommuter]

I actually have to get on the road, don't have time to read all these . . .

genec defined The Notion as . . . "Cyclists must get outta my way." My point is that the Missouri law regarding SMV has this definition of The Notion (dun, dun, duuuuuunh) built into it. When cyclists ride as far to the right as is safe, on most roads around here, they ARE out of the way. On the roads that are the exception, The Notion (d, d, daaaah) comes into play, and I agree with you it is a BIG problem. When it's NOT safe to ride to the right, for any number of reasons, then there are problems with motorists who hold The Notion. I'd say one of the root causes of The Notion is not understanding the exceptions to riding to the right. Maybe I'm missing something here, I'm sure you will correct me. Have a good ride home!

I think you misunderstand the law. Here is what it actually says:

307.190. Riding to right, required for bicycles and motorized bicycles.
Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn, when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles.


It explicitly says that if the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle, you don't have to ride right. Or conversely, the only time you have to keep right is when the lane is wide enough to share. Like almost all keep-right laws, it is written in a manner to make it sound like is supports 'then Notion' on a quick read but upon closer reading the opposite is true.

[randya]

Most motorists and in fact many cops probably have no idea this section of the law exists and, if they do, they do not interpret it correctly. The key is that the cyclist chooses / makes the decision whether it is safe to ride AFTTRAP (As Far to the Right as Practicable) or not, based on road conditions, and not the motorist behind him or her.

[Helmet Head]

I believe in the Zen kind of thinking, like, "accept what IS." (and work with the reality, no matter how screwed it is)... I personally am not willing to subject myself to the abuse and harassment that Al encounters daily. and I if I did encounter that, I would change my route pronto. guess I'm just not Forester material.
Actually, I find the Forester methodology to be the most Zen-like approach to traffic cycling imaginable. The essence of Effective Cycling can be described as accepting vehicular traffic for what it is, and blending in.

[Roughstuff]

This is one of the more interesting threads we've had in a long time, if I may say so myself. 233 posts, 10 pages, in less than 48 hours. Yikes. I wonder if that's some kind of record?


Helmet head...years ago, in the dark ages when email was state of the art (1983) we had a university on-line discussion board like this. The name of the board was 'graffiti' and ANYTHING could be said, there were no deletions, and of course the constant topic of discussion was abortion. :) Often on this board there were 250 letters sent per DAY! It was remarkable. Of course no one took it TOO seriously...but still..they took sending letters seriously. My friend, who's nickname was Salamir, said it was the most bizarre thing he'd ever done.


roughstuff

[Helmet Head]

roughstuff, you are probably thinking of a usenet news group like talk.abortion or alt.abortion, or perhaps an abortion newsgroup local to your university, that you read through a net news reader on an Ascii terminal connected to a VAX 11/780 running BSD 4.3 or something. Those were the good ol' days, eh?

[Bekologist]

Slower vehicles keep right. A NOTION, codified in state vehicle code.


More "Notions": Velotransit accomodations facilitate traffic flow, and provide preferred travel lanes for bicyclists along congested roadways.

Properly engineered velotransit lanes are safe to ride in both the presence or absense of auto traffic.

New Urbanism is The predominant 21st century school of civic planning for livable communities; seeking to make communities more walkable and bikeable. Velotransit is a part of new urbanism.

The above statements are all "Notions."

[Helmet Head]

Slower vehicles keep right. A NOTION, codified in state vehicle code.


More "Notions": Velotransit accomodations facilitate traffic flow, and provide preferred travel lanes for bicyclists along congested roadways.

Properly engineered velotransit lanes are safe to ride in both the presence or absense of auto traffic.

New Urbanism is The predominant 21st century school of civic planning for livable communities; seeking to make communities more walkable and bikeable. Velotransit is a part of new urbanism.

The above statements are all "Notions."
Demonstrating your genius with non sequiturs again, Beck? :rolleyes:

[Bekologist]

whats your problem, Mr. HEAD? You need to resort to insults?

Have you heard of "New Urbanism?" Can you explain its basic tenents to the forum?

[Helmet Head]

I just PMed you on the New Urbanism non sequitur. G'night!

[Bekologist]

I brought it up four pages ago, thanks for being coy, Mr. HEAD. Are you sleeping in your RV tonight, or will you be driving to work tomorrow?

New Urbanism, folks, is a school of design, a whole body collective of architectural and civic planning, that encourages livable communities by creating more bikeable and walkable avenues, minimize the impact of the private automobile, and bring public/private spaces more back into the mix of everday american life....it is a upswelling trend in city planning, and has been advanced as a school of architectural and civic engineering for the last four decades.

HERE'S a "Notion" that is very widely held around America- "Desiring a return to more liveable communities."

[Roughstuff]

roughstuff, you are probably thinking of a usenet news group like talk.abortion or alt.abortion, or perhaps an abortion newsgroup local to your university, that you read through a net news reader on an Ascii terminal connected to a VAX 11/780 running BSD 4.3 or something. Those were the good ol' days, eh?

Nope! It was Umass and UMass only. There was a subculture of nerds, geeks, losers, homeboys, and clueless people (needless to say i fit right in) that would do nothing but sit on the Control Data CYBER terminals all day long. Abortion ended up being the 'topic' simply because there has never been an issue in the history of humanity where people beat up on one another with such reckless abandon. We did have user groups of the sort you mentioned, but this Graffiti board was completely self contained. I managed to meet many of the people who submitted the zillions of letters. They made for some interesting dates.

roughstuff

[flipped4bikes]

roughstuff, you are probably thinking of a usenet news group like talk.abortion or alt.abortion, or perhaps an abortion newsgroup local to your university, that you read through a net news reader on an Ascii terminal connected to a VAX 11/780 running BSD 4.3 or something. Those were the good ol' days, eh?

Can you be any more inflammatory? HH, you need a quite a bit of Preparation H...:rolleyes: