I came to a realization today. Alot of the hostility towards cyclists comes from people that generally just have no idea that bikes are considered vehicles and can be driven in the road just like cars. I was going to lunch with some coworkers and a cyclist was biking down the right lane. As we pass the passenger in the front seat (whom isnt the brightest star in the galaxy) rolls his window down and screams GET OFF THE ROAD. As soon as he did i asked him why he would do that and he said "because that bike should be on the sidewalk, and the road isnt a bikelane" i informed him that legally bikes are considered vehicles and have nearly all the rights that cars do, that alot of places its actually illigal to ride on sidewalks and that what he was being wrong and not the cyclist. After a bit of an argument he finally gave in and basically said he had no idea bikes were allowed on roads. I wondered why he would think that and then i realized two things. A) 90% of cyclists in my area ride on the sidewalk so getting the idea that bikes belonged on the sidewalks isnt much of a strech to an uninformed person. B) There is nothing anywhere (commercials, radio spots, flyers, billboards) that says cyclists DO belong on the road. So unless someone looks up the laws or is told. They will probably conclude based on observation that cycling on the road is illigal.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
That's a good point. I didn't really know those rules until I began cycling on a regular basis. I really think that most of these encounters stem from ignorance.
genec
Perhaps we should start telling the motorists... really letting them know that in fact we DO belong.
I carry business cards that cite the laws of this state with regard to cyclists rights, but in order to give out the card, the motorist has to be willing to stop and listen, not just rant and chicken drive off.
I have actually considered standing at the local License office (DMV) and handing out flyers with friendly bold statements on cyclists rights. Of course I will only "touch" a few motorists, and no doubt some will quickly throw away the flyers. And most likely some cop is going to ask me to move along...
But this lack of knowledge is a key part of the problem... of course cyclists that can't seem to follow traffic rules don't help the big picture either.
Helmet Head
"because that bike should be on the sidewalk, and the road isnt a bikelane"
Once again, the notion that bikes don't belong on the road is associated with bike lanes. I don't make this stuff up. Folks keep providing examples, and I just point it out.
I say again, the most effective method to teach motorists that cyclists belong on the road is for them to see cyclists riding properly in the road.
So, get out there and just do it. Be clear about whether you're riding in accordance to vehicular or pedestrian rules. Be assertive and conspicuous with lateral positioning, but be courteous too: don't take the lane if it's safe and reasonable to ride in the bike lane and you're impeding faster traffic if you don't (but otherwise, stay out of the bike lane).
Yes, you will still run into clueless motorists on occasion. That's okay. Let 'em honk and yell. There is some number of cyclists like you that they have to see before they'll get it, and by seeing you, that's getting them one closer to whatever that number is for them.
Nothing sends the message that cyclists should be in the road better than a cyclist (I mean you) acting like a cyclist who should be in the road. So, get out there and keep doing it.
genec
Once again, the notion that bikes don't belong on the road is associated with bike lanes. I don't make this stuff up. Folks keep providing examples, and I just point it out.
I say again, the most effective method to teach motorists that cyclists belong on the road is for them to see cyclists riding properly in the road.
So, get out there and just do it. Be clear about whether you're riding in accordance to vehicular or pedestrian rules. Be assertive and conspicuous with lateral positioning, but be courteous too: don't take the lane if it's safe and reasonable to ride in the bike lane and you're impeding faster traffic if you don't (but otherwise, stay out of the bike lane).
Yes, you will still run into clueless motorists on occasion. That's okay. Let 'em honk and yell. There is some number of cyclists like you that they have to see before they'll get it, and by seeing you, that's getting them one closer to whatever that number is for them.
Nothing sends the message that cyclists should be in the road better than a cyclist (I mean you) acting like a cyclist who should be in the road. So, get out there and keep doing it.
So how can you blame bike lanes where they don't even exist... and motorists are insisting that the cyclist get on the SIDEWALK?
Cyclists have cited that exact thing happening to them... they weren't told to get in a BL, they were told to get outta the road.
I think the problem is far far bigger than the those stripes that seem to scare you so much.
Helmet Head
So how can you blame bike lanes where they don't even exist... and motorists are insisting that the cyclist get on the SIDEWALK?
I can't, of course. But that doesn't absolve bike lanes, or rather, those of you who support them in ordinary circumstances, from being significant contributory factors to reinforcing the notion that cyclists should never impede traffic.
I think the problem is far far bigger than the those stripes that seem to scare you so much.
Of course it's bigger. But whether bike lanes cause 10% or 90% of the problem, addressing that aspect of the problem is at least something. But, again, my main point is that the most effective method to address the problem is getting more cyclists out there riding properly in the roadway. And riding in the bike lane when it's not appropriate to be in there (no faster traffic present, or cyclist is going straight at the next intersection, etc.), is not modeling the proper behavior we want them to see, but, rather, quite the opposite: the improper kind that reinforces the notion that cyclists should get and stay out of the way of motor traffic.
genec
Of course it's bigger. But whether bike lanes cause 10% or 90% of the problem, addressing that aspect of the problem is at least something. But, again, my main point is that the most effective method to address the problem is getting more cyclists out there riding properly in the roadway. And riding in the bike lane when it's not appropriate to be in there (no faster traffic present, or cyclist is going straight at the next intersection, etc.), is not modeling the proper behavior we want them to see, but, rather, quite the opposite: the improper kind that reinforces the notion that cyclists should get and stay out of the way of motor traffic.
I will agree that more cyclists riding in proper manner is a good thing. Whether motorists will see it as the right thing is another issue all together...
Just as bike lanes are an attempt to deal with the "symptoms" of road sharing problems and are perhaps not the utimate solution. But to blame a "bandaid" for the injury is also rather backwards thinking for a much larger problem.
Until motorists know and understand that cycists have rights (and are not simply treating us as obstacles to be avoided) then a much larger issue still remains... lack of understanding by motorists.
"They just don't know" Just like the OP said.
badhat
i have post-it notes printed with local bike code and i keep them in my bag.
when i get cut off or honked at or yelled at or otherwise harrassed i just slap one in a window or windshield.
rando
I came to a realization today. Alot of the hostility towards cyclists comes from people that generally just have no idea that bikes are considered vehicles and can be driven in the road just like cars. I was going to lunch with some coworkers and a cyclist was biking down the right lane. As we pass the passenger in the front seat (whom isnt the brightest star in the galaxy) rolls his window down and screams GET OFF THE ROAD. As soon as he did i asked him why he would do that and he said "because that bike should be on the sidewalk, and the road isnt a bikelane" i informed him that legally bikes are considered vehicles and have nearly all the rights that cars do, that alot of places its actually illigal to ride on sidewalks and that what he was being wrong and not the cyclist. After a bit of an argument he finally gave in and basically said he had no idea bikes were allowed on roads. I wondered why he would think that and then i realized two things. A) 90% of cyclists in my area ride on the sidewalk so getting the idea that bikes belonged on the sidewalks isnt much of a strech to an uninformed person. B) There is nothing anywhere (commercials, radio spots, flyers, billboards) that says cyclists DO belong on the road. So unless someone looks up the laws or is told. They will probably conclude based on observation that cycling on the road is illigal.
I think you are right in your realization. Most people are not aware of the law. I was not. when I would see a cyclist in the road I would think they were just nuts and a danger (mostly) to themselves but also to the other cars. I looked at them (us ) as a hazard. I never yelled at one, but I said plenty of stuff to them in my car.
my personal opinion is that there should be separate lanes for bikes. this makes sense to me. but until there are, there is always going to be conflict because the motorists don't know and don't care.
Helmet Head
I will agree that more cyclists riding in proper manner is a good thing.
Good.
Whether motorists will see it as the right thing is another issue all together...
I don't know whether it's another issue altogether. It's definitely related. I can tell you this, I have been complimented by motorists enough times to know that there are at least some who recognize and appreciate the difference. The thing about vehicular cycling is that it should be valued not only because it makes cycling safer and more effective for the cyclist, but because it helps the drivers around the cyclist know what he's doing, and how to deal with him (just like any other vehicle). Seeing cyclists riding properly is the best way to get motorists to accept cyclists riding properly. It's like anything else. When parents first saw men with long hair and heard rock 'n roll in the 60s, it was unacceptable. But, with time, they got used to it. Cigarette smoking was once very acceptable, now it is much less so. Social change can happen, one step at a time.
Just as bike lanes are an attempt to deal with the "symptoms" of road sharing problems and are perhaps not the utimate solution. But to blame a "bandaid" for the injury is also rather backwards thinking for a much larger problem.
I am blaming them not because they are a Bandaid, but because they encourage improper behavior that is exactly opposite of what we need to be doing to make progress on this issue: modeling proper traffic cycling to motorists and to other cyclists.
Until motorists know and understand that cycists have rights (and are not simply treating us as obstacles to be avoided) then a much larger issue still remains... lack of understanding by motorists.
That's not going to happen first. First we have to model it, then they have to complain, then they have to get accustomed to it, then accept, then, finally, they will begin to know and understand that cyclists have the rights we are asserting.
Rights written down in manuals or on billboards are toothless.
Rights must be asserted in order to be realized.
They just don't know Just like the OP said.
The funny thing is "they" do know now, if you're talking about the motorists who regularly encounter me and the one other vehicular cyclist on my commute. We even trained the bus drivers.
Speaking of my commute, in 6 years I was never honked for riding vehicularly on LJVD until they put in that bike lane from TP Rd to the Gilman offramp. Then I got honked at by a driver gesturing for me to move my ***** into the bike lane while we were all stopped for a red light. Coincidence? I don't think so.
So where we disagree is on how to get more of them to know. And I am convinced that drawing six inch wide solid segregation stripes on the pavement is most certainly NOT how we let them know we have SAME right to be in the road as they do.
How we do let them know is by modeling proper traffic cycling. And the more of us doing it more and more often is the only way it's going to happen. You can print "SAME RIGHTS. SAME ROADS. SAME RULES" on their driver's licenses if you want, and it is not going to make any difference to someone who believes cyclists should not have the right to be there (whether they actually do or not), simply because they believe that cars and bikes "obviously" do not mix. The only way to reach these folks is by modeling behavior that is contrary to their fundamental beliefs: show them that cyclists and motorists do mix, and can get along just fine. Show them this by modeling proper traffic cycling. Obey the rules, use conspicuous and assertive lane positioning. Yield the right-of-way when it is safe and reasonable to do so. Use a mirror. Communicate with those behind you. Let them know you know they're there with a brief slow arm signal, reassuring them that you're in control and you will let them go at your first opportunity. Etc. etc. These are the positive experiences of advanced vehicular cyclists educating motorists every mile every day, and there are more of us every month...
The VC revolution is just beginning. The only question is whether you want to be in on the ground floor, or whether you're going to wait until ILTB finally concedes.
sbhikes
Motorist ignorance is why I hate doing the recumbent rides in Oxnard that are led by this one guy who prefers to ride on the sidewalk. I think it reinforces ignorance in a region where there is a great deal of it. In Oxnard, if you ride in the street you get honked and yelled at.
In Santa Barbara, since we have a lot of cyclists and a lot of bike lanes motorists never tell you to get on the sidewalk. In fact, in general conversations with people, when they complain about other people's driving, one of the things they often start a story out with is how some idiot driver is driving in the bike lane. Everybody knows that on the road, there's a place where cars don't belong, and that's in the bike lane. And the converse is NEVER true. I NEVER hear that there is a place on the road where bikes don't belong. Ever. Bike lanes do not reinforce any notions that cyclists don't belong. They say that bikes do belong and you better let them.
Everybody knows that the bike lane is for bikes and not for cars. Nobody has ever told me to get out of the road, to get on the sidewalk. Bike lanes smooth the way.
rando
I'm not interested in fighting for our rights as cyclists on the streets with the cars. I don't WANT to be on the streets with the cars, I'm interested in fighting for more well-designed bike lanes on every major street. that makes sense to me. I said as much to our Governor recently. may be it planted a seed.
genec
The VC revolution is just beginning. The only question is whether you want to be in on the ground floor, or whether you're going to wait until ILTB finally concedes? :rolleyes:
Actually didn't John Forester just exclaim how surprised he was by the lack of progress over the last 25 years... primarily due to the attitudes of American motorists? The issues must be dealt with on both sides of the equation.
And as for your last statement... I don't expect to live that long. :D
Of course waiting for you to see the usefulness of more than your minimal (tunnels, bridges, freeways) bike lanes may also take an eternity.
Helmet Head
I think you are right in your realization. Most people are not aware of the law. I was not. when I would see a cyclist in the road I would think they were just nuts and a danger (mostly) to themselves but also to the other cars. I looked at them (us ) as a hazard. I never yelled at one, but I said plenty of stuff to them in my car.
my personal opinion is that there should be separate lanes for bikes. this makes sense to me. but until there are, there is always going to be conflict because the motorists don't know and don't care.
Q.E.D.
Look at this!!!! Just look at this!!!
The underlying belief here is that cyclists and motorists do not mix, that cars and bikes do not mix. That "THERE SHOULD BE SEPARATE LANES FOR BIKES".
There is no way to penetrate this thinking, in a cyclist or a motorist, except to model behavior that is contrary to their beliefs. See my previous post.
If we could get Rando into a Road 1 class with a really good LCI, that would be great. But the other way is to get Road 1 graduates advance in their habits and skills to the point where they could repeatedly model proper behavior in traffic for Rando, until he would finally get it.
Helmet Head
Actually didn't John Forester just exclaim how surprised he was by the lack of progress over the last 25 years... primarily due to the attitudes of American motorists?
Yes, and he smirks at those of us who have not given up yet. But there are more of us than him, and I can certainly understand why he feels the way he does. He has been trying to do this practically single-handedly for almost 30 years. Let's just say his fundamental ideas are much better than his ability to work effectively with others in organizations.
The issues must be dealt with on both sides of the equation.
I don't have a problem with trying to reach motorists directly with some way other than modeling proper cycling and asserting our rights, except that I believe it's mostly a waste of time and resources. What I do have a problem with is using limited time and resources that are contrary to modeling proper cycling behavior in traffic, including building more and more bike lanes that encourage cyclists to ride improperly in traffic.
And as for your last statement... I don't expect to live that long. :D
You'll see. You'll see. Stuffs a-brewing. I can feel it. Here's one example:
Of course waiting for you to see the usefulness of more than your minimal (tunnels, bridges, freeways) bike lanes may also take an eternity.
You are correct on that, since bike lanes are useless for modeling proper cycling behavior in ordinary circumstances (though the space they happen to demarcate may be useful for such modeling).
Bekologist
velotransit provides many various advantages to bicycles in the presense of congested traffic and safe lines of travel in the absence of motor vehicles.
rando
HH said,
"I don't have a problem with trying to reach motorists directly with some way other than modeling proper cycling and asserting our rights, except that I believe it's mostly a waste of time and resources. What I do have a problem with is using limited time and resources that are contrary to modeling proper cycling behavior in traffic, including building more and more bike lanes that encourage cyclists to ride improperly in traffic."
HH, if they are riding in the bike lane where one is provided, aren't they riding properly and legally? the problem is they are just not in traffic like VC wants them to be.
UmneyDurak
I think a root cause (or at least the major cause) is that drivers education in this country is a joke.
Roody
How does it help to tell the cagers that we belong on the road, when everything they see tells them otherwise? People tend to believe their own eyes before they believe what somebody says to them. This idea was well illustrated by posts from 2 people--Diane and nme:
Motorist ignorance is why I hate doing the recumbent rides in Oxnard that are led by this one guy who prefers to ride on the sidewalk. I think it reinforces ignorance in a region where there is a great deal of it. In Oxnard, if you ride in the street you get honked and yelled at.
90% of cyclists in my area ride on the sidewalk so getting the idea that bikes belonged on the sidewalks isnt much of a strech to an uninformed person.
Actually, in my area also, more than 90 % of the cyclists ride on the sidewalk. So of course some cagers are going to believe that the sidewalk is where we belong, since that is where most of us are.
So, instead of "educating motorists," doesn't it make more sense to get those cyclists on the road, where they really belong? I am seeing a LOT more cyclists than I ever have before. If most of them rode in the street, motorists would know that this is proper placement for cyclists. I have resolved never again to get mad at the cagers about this issue, but to put the blame on lack of education for cyclists, especially all the new cyclists who are riding now because of the high gas prices.
Roody
I think a root cause (or at least the major cause) is that drivers education in this country is a joke.
What is your evaluation of cyclist education in this country?
nme
One thing i didnt mention. While i was sort of arguing / explainging to him the facts. He said "WELL THEN WHY ARE THERE BIKE LANES?"
Helmet head i think youre correct in that regard. While i enjoy the ease of riding in a bike lane. The fact that it makes people think that bikes belong in bike lanes only is a large negative.
UmneyDurak
What is your evaluation of cyclist education in this country?
None, existant.
77Univega
...There is nothing anywhere (commercials, radio spots, flyers, billboards) that says cyclists DO belong on the road...
--- Doesn't every state have their drivers' license examination based upon a "Drivers Handbook"? California's drivers handbook includes text and illustrations that show bicyclists have rights and responsibilities on the road. Seems to me that everybody who studies to pass their written driving examination would learn that cyclists belong on the road.
genec
--- Doesn't every state have their drivers' license examination based upon a "Drivers Handbook"? California's drivers handbook includes text and illustrations that show bicyclists have rights and responsibilities on the road. Seems to me that everybody who studies to pass their written driving examination would learn that cyclists belong on the road.
Uh, 1 page out of about 68. I am sure every motorist reads it carefully and memorizes every page... :rolleyes: especially since there has never been a question about cycling on any drivers license test given. :mad:
genec
How does it help to tell the cagers that we belong on the road, when everything they see tells them otherwise? People tend to believe their own eyes before they believe what somebody says to them. This idea was well illustrated by posts from 2 people--Diane and nme:
Actually, in my area also, more than 90 % of the cyclists ride on the sidewalk. So of course some cagers are going to believe that the sidewalk is where we belong, since that is where most of us are.
So, instead of "educating motorists," doesn't it make more sense to get those cyclists on the road, where they really belong? I am seeing a LOT more cyclists than I ever have before. If most of them rode in the street, motorists would know that this is proper placement for cyclists. I have resolved never again to get mad at the cagers about this issue, but to put the blame on lack of education for cyclists, especially all the new cyclists who are riding now because of the high gas prices.
It's a two part problem... and the motorists are just a much a part of it as the cyclists.
This is a copy of what I just posted on another thread about having to reach both motorists and cyclists at the same time:
I think both groups must learn together. I don't think this is a case of A leading B, I think this only works if we all work to reach the same goal together.
I think that there are too many motorists out there for a few, even 2X or 3X as many cyclists to get the message across, and I believe that trying to train cyclists individually with LCIs from group to group is a very ineffective method... again, compared to the sheer number of motorists and especially when there is no effective way to contact and school cyclists. (those very sidewalk riders)
Since each state has a record of each licensed driver, we know how to contact the motorists, to inform them and let them know of training or law updates or any other issue that a state wishes to do with their licensees.
So while a grassroots system of networking may take some time reaching some, and perhaps many cyclists; motorists can be trained en masse, with the result being a simultaneous change... much in the way MADD has changed DWI laws and reactions.
This is the way to get every one on the same program together... in reaching out to motorists, you are also quite likely to reach many cyclists too... thereby more effectively engaging everyone toward the same goals.
So, you go on and teach a hand full of people every chance you get, meanwhile, I'll push to take on a state at a time.
khuon
I personally think that the belief that bikes do not belong on the road is sourced from early childhood when kids were told to remain on the sidewalk and not ride in the streets. As they grow up, they never bother to learn the laws as it pertains to bikes on public roads mainly because by that time, they've given up cycling. Many people view bikes as toys. This is why they wonder why quality bikes cost as much as they do when bike-shaped-objects from Walmart can be had for $100. This is why they're confused about people riding in the street since they're under the assumption that it's generally bad to play in the middle of the street. Cycling acceptance actually has to start at a more fundamental level of society than the vehicular and traffic code.
nme
I think you make a wonderful point there khuon. When i see families riding and a car comes. They usualy get on the sidewalk or on the wrong side of the road. Kind of like "getting out of the way" of the car. Also I read the whole driving test hand book a few years ago when i got my drivers license. I dont remember ONE sentence about bikes being legal vehicles.
Helmet Head
HH, if they are riding in the bike lane where one is provided, aren't they riding properly and legally? the problem is they are just not in traffic like VC wants them to be.
Legally alone, yes. Whether it's "proper" depends on how you define "proper".
If you define "proper" simply as "anything that is legal is proper", then yeah, it's proper too.
But for cycling in traffic, I define "proper" as not only what is legal, but what makes the cyclist visible and predictable and less prone to collision, and, in particular, does not include behavior that makes him less visible and less predictable.
Not always, but all too often, according to my understanding of bike-car collisions and their causes, a position in a bike lane makes the cyclist less visible and less predictable, and, thus, more prone to collision, than a more assertive "proper" position outside of the bike lane would be. My personal experience, which includes thousands of miles of cycling both in an assertive VC style as well as the more common more submissive style, supports this.
So riding in a bike lane, I believe, is often riding improperly. However, riding outside of a bike lane often appears to be "improper" to the ignorant ("that idiot should be in the bike lane where he belongs... I'm a gunna teach him a lessun!").
LittleBigMan
I was going to lunch with some coworkers and a cyclist was biking down the right lane. As we pass the passenger in the front seat (whom isnt the brightest star in the galaxy) rolls his window down and screams GET OFF THE ROAD.
This would have been a great opportunity to use your diplomatic skills and thump him in the head with your knuckles.
chromedome
Does Fl put that in the driver's manual? That bikes are vehicles too? I remeember seeing it in manuals in west coast states. and its taught in drivers ed classes here.
But would most drivers remember or even care? Most people seem to have a hard time with something as basic at right of way laws.
Helmet Head
Let's see, we could spend millions of tax dollars trying to reach all motorists in order to actually get to 1%, maybe... or, we could get to 99.9% of those we encounter while riding (i.e., the ones that matter) simply by riding properly. Hmm. Is that a tough call for anyone besides Gene?
rando
most people seem to absorb only the basics that they need to drive every day. that probably doesn't include Cyclist's rights. heck, most people seem to have trouble remembering the rules at four way stops! :D
DCCommuter
Legally alone, yes. Whether it's "proper" depends on how you define "proper".
If you define "proper" simply as "anything that is legal is proper", then yeah, it's proper too.
But for cycling in traffic, I define "proper" as not only what is legal, but what makes the cyclist visible and predictable and less prone to collision, and, in particular, does not include behavior that makes him less visible and less predictable.
Not always, but all too often, according to my understanding of bike-car collisions and their causes, a position in a bike lane makes the cyclist less visible and less predictable, and, thus, more prone to collision, than a more assertive "proper" position outside of the bike lane would be. My personal experience, which includes thousands of miles of cycling both in an assertive VC style as well as the more common more submissive style, supports this.
So riding in a bike lane, I believe, is often riding improperly. However, riding outside of a bike lane often appears to be "improper" to the ignorant ("that idiot should be in the bike lane where he belongs... I'm a gunna teach him a lessun!").
Nonsense. You're assuming that all bike lanes are poorly designed, which is far from the case. There do exist well-designed lanes, that put you exactly where you would be if the lane striping were not there and it was just a wide outside lane. Are you saying that adding some paint to the road suddenly makes part of the road unsafe?
WalterMitty
So just license and tag "Legal Road Bikes" like cars, trucks, trailers, motorcycles, Amish horse-drawn buggies and any other "non-motor vehicle" and be done with it. If you want to require a bicycle endorsement on a drivers license (like my motorcycle endorsement) you could take it a step further to preserve the species and make sure the applicant knows the rules of the road and can demonstrate some level of proficiency.
That would remove all doubt or argument and the funds raised could be wasted like all other taxes or even be used to develop bicycle specific infrastructure. (or monthly sweeping of the broken beer bottle lane?) Of course, the shallow end of the gene pool will never get it, but at a minimum about 95% of the Cops would get a clue anyway.
Kids and less-than-serious bicyclists would have to stay on residential streets or bike paths; same as baby strollers, sk8ers, and dog walkers.
Helmet Head
Nonsense. You're assuming that all bike lanes are poorly designed, which is far from the case. There do exist well-designed lanes, that put you exactly where you would be if the lane striping were not there and it was just a wide outside lane. Are you saying that adding some paint to the road suddenly makes part of the road unsafe?
I'm saying that since proper positioning depends on dynamically changing factors and conditions, and bike lanes are static, no bike lane can ever always designate the proper position, because the correct answer varies in the same place on the same road from moment to moment.
The best any bike lane can to is designate the position that is proper some of the time. But some or even most of the time, the space it is designating for cycling is not the proper place in terms of the cyclist being visible, predictable and, thus, safest.
I-Like-To-Bike
Of course, the shallow end of the gene pool will never get it, but at a minimum about 95% of the Cops would get a clue anyway.
Kids and less-than-serious bicyclists would have to stay on residential streets or bike paths; same as baby strollers, sk8ers, and dog walkers.
"They" don't get it? I think YOU don't get it, Mr. Pompous "Serious" and Arrogant Cyclist.
Less than serious bicyclists? What's that mean to an oh-so-smart "advocate" like yourself?
Shallow End of gene pool? Who's at the deep end? Smart Donkey "advocates" like yourself?
noisebeam
I'm not interested in fighting for our rights as cyclists on the streets with the cars. I don't WANT to be on the streets with the cars, I'm interested in fighting for more well-designed bike lanes on every major street. that makes sense to me. I said as much to our Governor recently. may be it planted a seed.
Hey, we already have 'separate lanes' on most major streets - and with them you are on the street with the cars. That doesn't help ya. Its the intersections where you need to interact with drivers.
We have a farily ideal riding conditions here. Most roads are excellent to ride on, and the vast majority of drivers are very courteous to cyclists.
Main issue I see especially as one gets closer to ASU area is more and more cyclists riding everywhich way and breaking most laws. (stops, direction, yield)
Tempe doesn't need more money to spend on cycling infrastructure. What do you want the governor to do? Allocate more money or review to be installed bike infractrure plans and fix all the problems. She can influence the former, but the later is what is needed and that is not what a governor does. That is where me and you get to meetings to review proposed plans, designs.
Take a look at some http://www.tempe.gov/bikeprogram/CurrentBicycleProjects.htmand past (http://www.tempe.gov/bikeprogram/Completedprojects.htm)projects. Plenty of money being spent, but nothing being done to make the roads more ridable.
Part of driving for most folks is being ready to gripe about some wrong doing that someone else is doing. Drives are very altert to pick up the slightest misdoing or idiocy. Drivers constantly complain and moan about this or that other driver or situation they encounter. Ever listed to morning chit chat about the commute into work? Many drivers vent to themselves while driving, about the blue car that was too fast, the red car that turned in front of them, etc. Its a driving passtime.
Then there is us cyclists who are not sheilded by a 'cage' and are slower. This exposes us to getting yelled or honked at, not because folks 'hate' cyclists, but because we are easier to communicate too.
Al
rando
So just license and tag "Legal Road Bikes" like cars, trucks, trailers, motorcycles, Amish horse-drawn buggies and any other "non-motor vehicle" and be done with it. If you want to require a bicycle endorsement on a drivers license (like my motorcycle endorsement) you could take it a step further to preserve the species and make sure the applicant knows the rules of the road and can demonstrate some level of proficiency.
this might work. a little license plate like motorcycles and cars have might show motorists that bicycles are vehicles. But I still think in many cases there would be resentment because of the speed differential... bike doing 20, car wanting to do 50 in a 45 zone. there's no getting around that.
rando
Hey, Al, it's a beautiful morning to ride, eh? it's like 70 degrees out!
noisebeam
Hey, Al, it's a beautiful morning to ride, eh? it's like 70 degrees out!
Fantastic. Was 66.5 when I left home this AM. (It was 82 when I left home yesterday AM)
Check out this graph of the past 5 days of temps. (it will auto update, so it will remain current, but not match temps we are writing about today)
Tempe doesn't need more money to spend on cycling infrastructure. What do you want the governor to do? Allocate more money or review to be installed bike infractrure plans and fix all the problems. She can influence the former, but the later is what is needed and that is not what a governor does. That is where me and you get to meetings to review proposed plans, designs.
Take a look at some http://www.tempe.gov/bikeprogram/CurrentBicycleProjects.htmand past (http://www.tempe.gov/bikeprogram/Completedprojects.htm)projects. Plenty of money being spent, but nothing being done to make the roads more ridable. Al
yeah, I know. the guv just comes into my workplace regularly so I thought I'd give it a shot.
flipped4bikes
i have post-it notes printed with local bike code and i keep them in my bag.
when i get cut off or honked at or yelled at or otherwise harrassed i just slap one in a window or windshield.
Cool! :)
Az B
Statistically, it's been shown that driver education (I mean real education, not just handing out pamphlets) is the most effective way to reduce the number of crashes. However, people being what they are, it's also the hardest. Changing people's behaviour is not cost effective.
Az
WalterMitty
this might work. a little license plate like motorcycles and cars have might show motorists that bicycles are vehicles. But I still think in many cases there would be resentment because of the speed differential... bike doing 20, car wanting to do 50 in a 45 zone. there's no getting around that.
You're absolutely right about the speed differential, and bikes would still be restricted from using roads with minimum speeds, but I think a properly displayed State tag would help many, many folks understand the situation better.
nme
People confuse "speed limit" and "speed in which EVERYONE should travel or GET OFF THE ROAD"
rando
a little symbolism (in the form of an "official" lisence plate) could go a long way. I don't think just behaving like a vehicle is necessarily going to make motorists accept you on the road. Also, on most roads I know of the "minimum speed" IS the speed limit, at least in the motorist's minds. :rolleyes:
noisebeam
I really believe that if more cyclists used the streets and drove according to the rules of the rules of the road that this will have a bigger impact on accepting bicycles on the road vs. one time drivers ed or a license plate. I know that it is only the rare motorist that doesn't accept me as a road user.
Al
genec
Let's see, we could spend millions of tax dollars trying to reach all motorists in order to actually get to 1%, maybe... or, we could get to 99.9% of those we encounter while riding (i.e., the ones that matter) simply by riding properly. Hmm. Is that a tough call for anyone besides Gene?
Too bad you are not looking at the big picture.
What I want to spent millions of tax dollars on is not just to train motorists to watch for cyclists, but to be better drivers overall... to reduce the overall death count that is higher in the US than in other similar countries that DO train their drivers better.
Your "show by example" is so far off the mark it isn't even funny... most motorists are not going to be aware of what you are doing, don't care, and many have no idea that cyclists even have rights to the road.
Just to give you an example of how fruitless your method is... I could stand in front of the DMV, pass out 100 flyers; 1/2 of those people might read it, 1/2 of those people might understand it. In the space of one day I can reach more motorists with that simple method than the number of cyclists you can reach and train. And that is only with regard to cyclists rights.
Train motorists how to drive better and drive friendlier and the whole nation benefits.
As far as the funding... shoot, we speed billions on rebuilding foreign countries, what's a few hundred million to save lives right here at home.
And as far as training cyclists... you never have told me how you plan on reaching all these cyclists...
Helmet Head
Many people do not take cyclists seriously, for good reason. Most cyclists don't take themselves seriously. It's no wonder many people feel cyclists don't belong in the streets, and the only way to change this perception, is to remove the reason they feel this way: cyclists need to stop acting like idiots out there. As long as we're acting like idiots out there, that perception is not going to change; they are not going to start taking us seriously simply because they see a ten million dollar ad during the Super Bowl that informs them we have the same right to the road as other drivers.
noisebeam
While i enjoy the ease of riding in a bike lane.
This one puzzles me. What is easier about a BL vs. a WOL? What is meant by ease? Comfort? Feeling secure? No need to pedal as hard?
To me it is fairly 'easy' to ride down any street with a wide outer lane, stripe or not. Stay right 3' from curb and go. From there one can choose to interact more with same direction traffic if one chooses, to perhaps make it less easy, but with with added benefit of reassuring communication with other drivers.
At least relative to the difficulty any cyclist will encounter when they want to turn left or fit into the flow of traffic at an intersection, riding down any street with wide lane (striped or not) is easy.